oh so when you're ready all right now
here we go
we're on air good evening and welcome to
the December 14th September 14th meeting
of the Planning Policy Commission we're
going to have a double I like hearing
tonight on two important recommendations
from the city on where our future is
going to be but first we have a since we
have a quorum we need a we need to
approve the minute do I have a like to
make a motion to approve the minutes but
we're gonna do it individually so move
the minutes of August 24th is that what
you're gonna okay do I have a second
second all those in favor say aye
on e I need a motion to approve the
minutes for August 31st so moved that
good second any discussion any any
errors changes okay all those in favor
say aye aye opposed so with that we will
go right into Jen and her presentation
on vertical mix you sub to use vertical
mix use in central Issaquah hi good
evening my name is Jen Davis Hayes and I
work in the economic development
department here at the city is an
Economic Development Manager I just
wanted to make one note this is not the
public hearing tonight we actually will
be back to PPC on the 28th so in two
weeks to hold the public hearing so
tonight's really more of a discussion
point and then we'll come back with the
code language and other and the final
recommendations there is it going to be
public of course questions answers your
comments oh okay okay great
so many some of you may know that the
vertical mixed-use is one of the six
items that was asked by a council to
look at for the development moratorium
but this project has actually started
before the moratorium started in Sept
member back in March or April of 2016
counsel after looking at what's at the
development that was happening in the
central Issaquah area wasn't seeing the
types of projects that that you see in
this that are represented in the central
s call plan vision a lot of times we
were seeing single story developments
and instead of maybe being and they had
a lot of surface parking lot but they
had the building to the front of the the
property which is what we wanted but it
was still not achieving the density or
the or the better land use that we
wanted to see we also saw residential
developments happening but again without
the commercial ground-floor being
available so the council asked us to
look at the why that was not happening
the market and that's kind of started
the journey so we have gone through that
and I tonight will go through quickly
what those findings are and then the
next stage of the looking at what we can
do to ensure that when development
happens that the the form of the
buildings will be built in order to
ensure the vibrancy that we expect to
see in central Sakai so any questions
before I start about that okay so in
general this is where we're at as far as
the recommendations regarding the
moratorium so we were at the full
council for the work session in August
and we presented the recommendations
from Crandall Ram Beulah is a consultant
firm we hired to look at again the
regulation or what types of regulations
need to be in place to ensure we get
what we want we were at Landon store
last week we're here this week we'll be
here in two weeks again with the public
hearing and then back to Landon Shore
and final council and again this is part
of the moratorium so with the this is on
the schedule for what what we had
planned out at least readjust and
planned out so and so tonight we're
gonna talk up again and we're gonna
provide you some information about what
the regular the recommendations are and
get any feedback you have about that the
recommendations are not written in code
yet but we are real close to get in
there so the first slide has a lot of
words but basically as I mentioned the
council first asked us why aren't we
getting what we want in this market and
so we hired the firm called eco
Northwest and they are a data analysis
firm they created a financial model to
look at they've been putting our
information about our current
development regulations they looked at
the market
well what costs were there to build what
rents people were getting in the
commercial and residential markets and
looked at that and this these are the
findings from that and we also I should
also mention we also interviewed other
cities to find out how they proceeded
with getting vertical mixed-use and a
more vibrant community and we also
touched base base with some developers
once we had some that data to see if it
was ringing true to that so in general
basically vertical mixed-use feasibility
is challenging because of there's a
uncertainty so again as I just mentioned
none of this building type has been
built to this point so being the pioneer
the first one is always more risky and
if the market doesn't feel like there's
a market there it's hesitant to do that
the cost the cost to build something
where you have two different basically
users and two different needs it's not
just one straight up apartment off over
apartment you have commercial space that
has some different infrastructure needs
and also leasing environment make it
again something that if you're not in
that if the market is improving already
it's a challenge to move forward but but
the market dynamics are moving in the
right direction and so they estimated
between five and ten years it would
actually come to the point where it the
market is here to build that
automatically without having any
incentives or involvement with the city
and so one of the things they didn't
mention when they did the analysis is
that when we look at it when we wants to
see a vertical mixed-use building with
potentially residential above or office
maybe in the ground floor retail really
it's you're looking at the residential
when you're looking at what the what the
rents and and everything are because the
amount of ground-floor retail that's on
the bottom is is much smaller and so
again a lot of it was relying on what
the current residential market was
getting for market rates and then they
said they you know looked at again what
other cities have done and so property
tax exemption either through multifamily
tax exemption that's okay or fee waivers
or some density bonus calibration with
ARP density bonus they discovered that
actually it was a disincentive because
in order to go up higher it actually
costs more to get those extra floors and
it didn't weigh out and what you would
receive in rental so they had some some
ideas on ways that if the if the city
wanted to influence the market and
encourage that to happen those are some
of the things I could that they could do
I'm going to stop now and and you had
you did have the presentation that the
eco Northwest presented to the City
Council last September lots of data
slides I didn't want to go through all
of those because it is it could take
another and I could take an hour just
itself but just a high levels to help
you understand where we've been but if
you have any questions about the hug and
the high level of weather is that this
is out that led us to where we're going
please let me know I have some questions
I understand that this is where the city
wants to go in the way of high-rise and
very similar to some of the other cities
that have developed some nice
family oriented developments in the city
I know that's what we're going looking
at but when you look at Kirkland they
already have a base they already have
things they have bigger buildings they
have the waterfront they have all of
this going on and so there's there
drawing people in to fill up these
buildings and one of the things that you
said it would be market driven well
we're not going to be market driven
unless we have something that people
want to come here for and so although
the analysis is great but it doesn't
look at that side what what is the city
doing to brand us as a recreation center
or those kinds of things where you're
going to get maybe younger people to
come in fill up those and enjoy the the
retail what is actually going on and
that's it because it's the way I look at
it it's two phases sure so I won't get
too into detail but we are actually
preparing an RFP right now for because
the City Council did provide some money
for branding and for the community this
year and LTAC our lodging tax advisory
council also matched that money and so
that will begin in the fourth quarter as
far as doing I'm getting a consultant on
board and starting the process so that a
broader point of if it's recreational
branding which will you know we all kind
of think that's our strength that is
happening I think there's other things
that they did see that people like
because again the recreation
opportunities also the school district
as we know is a really strong school
district and that was another strength
that people are currently coming here
for and so and we are you know we're
growing in the the ages that people are
that are moving into Issaquah so it's
not just families themselves but you
know what Atlas the new apartment
building we're seeing some younger
residents I hear you five to ten years
from now and I'm concerned that things
are going to be built not to the
specifications that that you are looking
at and we're stuck so don't get that
right
so you that's a very good transition
point because because the council really
was torn with this because they again we
all believe in this community we believe
that we that the vision that the central
square plan that's laid out is a really
great vision but they don't want to lose
the opportunity and I think that again
that's one of the was one of the points
of this study is that when things get
built they're there for 50 years right
and so what what can we do to ensure it
doesn't so that so our next consultant
looked at okay one of the things we need
to do if we want to if we want to ensure
that the building forms get built in the
right way I'm not sure how we're gonna
run this because it sort of is free for
all that's wrong I'm curious about how
the concept of 90% parking okay he's
going to work with retail on the ground
floor and housing above it where is this
parking gonna go I can't go down at
least in Issaquah though of retails on
the ground floor then is parking the
next two or three floors up and then
there's apartments or is it on the roof
or in a separate building a block away
or what what's the concept it seems to
me you're trying to put everything into
something that's not going to happen
okay so Carl do you mind if I go through
the recommendations and then answer that
we'll get to the parking because I don't
we haven't mentioned about parking yet
because week I will definitely I will
definitely address how we got to that
analysis for that number is that okay
just because right now the audience
doesn't know you know people haven't
heard about that yet okay yeah we
stopped send you first started talking
about mix juice so okay all right I'm
looking at mix juice on a ground floor
yeah I guess apartments above it or or
office yes so mix multiple uses yes yes
and the idea with on the ground floor
commercials that have this a vibrant you
know that's yeah okay okay yeah I'm just
trying to figure out how you're gonna
get people there and that goes to the
park in which we're going to talk about
okay okay alright so I will then jump to
so so the council really did struggle
with seeing this data and how do we what
do we do it again to make sure that we
don't lose the opportunity and so the
consulting firm Crandall ran Beulah
who's already working on the
architectural and urban design manuals I
believe you may have seen we hired them
to look at and did do the analysis of
what looking at what our code currently
is and what if we want to ensure that we
get this vibrance density in our urban
center how do we get that and so the the
fourth things here that they recommended
are to require ground floor commercial
frontages in specific areas and we'll
look at that and we'll look at each of
these in more detail changing the base
height and and then increasing the FA
are and decreasing the percentage of
surface parking or increasing surface
our structured parking so one of the
things that they mentioned is that so
the the all the pieces that go into
making a building form that allows for
the vibrancy are not just gonna be
addressed by those four things but there
are things that they've included in an
architectural and urban design manual
that will address also the verben
vertical mixed-use building so don't
feel like well what about you know like
for instance you know building edges and
and setbacks and excetera like what
about those things so those are
important as well especially as you know
you've all been in a
in a vibrant center where you just it
just feels right and you've been in
other places where you just don't feel
like people want to be and so they just
we just want to remind you that a lot of
the things are being addressed that will
help create what we want that's already
in them for in the design manuals so
first our first thing was where because
as you know central is cause a really
large area and we first focused on the
urban core because that's where the
highest density is and that's where we
have a lot of our amenities where we
have services we have Parks and Rec and
we have the ability to to build the most
dense in the central supply area as well
as we know when light rail comes this is
about around where the area will be what
the concept that krendl remember they
looked at is and so Northwest Mall on
the left side of the screen that exists
currently and in our planning documents
for the central Sukhois plan there's an
extension that goes and this may not be
exactly where it goes but it pretty much
goes over and hits into seventh and they
saw that as an opportunity to create and
I think in the central sac well-painted
also mentioned is an opportunity to
create something along that where it's
more pedestrian friendly and you're able
to create a walking retail area and the
the green areas are looking at you know
where the current wetlands are and where
our potential plasmic ago again this is
very high-level kind of thinking what
what were we looking at these these two
areas are in the Gilman and the Tibbets
valley districts of the central squat
area and we see the opportunities for
the redevelopment in these areas as key
to our central Issaquah plan quick
questions so on the intersection of
Newport Way and Maple Street it was in a
conversation I don't remember with who
but the portion that says wetland they
were talking about actually rezoning
that from building so is that wetland
area is that going to be a permanent
wetland or is that possibly going to be
transitioned to
your building site our plan is not to
transition it into a building site ok so
again so then the concept would be that
so the black lines are where we require
ground-floor commercial space to be
built ok so the building's themselves
would be larger in these larger areas
but between so we're looking at three
different property owners so between
Gillman and the end of where the Sports
Authority soon-to-be Hobby Lobby
building is on 12th on the eastern side
the western side has a development
agreement so we can't put any
regulations on there because they
already have an agreement and then on
the north side of what they're looking
at as mall and so the green that goes
along law there's a white which is the
street than the green and the concept is
to do like a promenade to have like a
linear park and have a again a wider
area where people feel like they can
walk and have the ability to to enjoy
the area without cars whizzing by it at
40 to 50 miles per hour and then also
between on Maple Street Northwest
between mall and Gillman one of the
things that a Crandall Aram Beulah did
talk to us about is that vertical
mixed-use is is most successful where
you have between five and fifteen
thousand trips a day trips a day passing
by so for instance Gilman I think it's
closer to twenty-seven s or so because
you really need the ability to put you
know have that in front parking and have
people who are on the sidewalk at a cafe
or wanting to stroll not feel like
they're you know in danger by cars
whizzing by so when we looked at these
streets and the potential streets that's
what that met that that criteria
I think questions about the the general
area we're looking at and and again the
the reason the a couple of the criterias
we looked at is again the the connection
to the amenities that already exists so
we already have again transit center
services jobs we have a quite a few
number of office buildings in here that
have professional jobs that are
available to people
and again the potential for growth so
the rally area has a development
agreement right yes okay so anything
that's over near the park and ride isn't
potentially an option yeah so basically
from 12th to the to the west northwest
maple to Northwest Gilman that those
that block area I would say probably 80%
of that is Raleigh there's some of the
properties not and and then on the other
side of SR 900 they have a big swath and
if you look at zoning maps every you'll
see like the coral color that is the
urban core color of zoning within those
that blocks I just mentioned that you
know would be the property that is
somebody owned by somebody else besides
Raleigh okay there's 12 Street be
removed no it's there maybe it's just
hard to see so it's right here okay yeah
so what in the rally agreement do you
know what they can built in there if
they they could build something very
similar to what we're proposing as far
as vertical mixed-use yes
so they're there you mean their concepts
are various I think similar to what's in
the central of plan as far as
density and types of building types so
do we have a sense that that will happen
either before the market is going to
dictate this type of development or
longer-term the Raleigh or this I'm
sorry alley
you know they have focused on what's
called Hilah neighborhood or district
which is on the other side of SR 900 so
that's where they built the hotels and
office so depending on you know how
quickly but I don't anticipate in the
next five to ten years seeing something
redeveloped here but that could change I
might I don't want to speak for them
yeah so I just wanted to mention this to
the street grid here that's outlined
again it's just for high level planning
to kind of figure out how things could
fit within here
and again we know that there are
wetlands that are within the town and
country and common shopping center areas
and so Ron mentioned you know that big
parcel is actually that is not in green
here on this one but that's actually
part of the Commons shopping center
property so we we want to make sure that
we when this does get redeveloped that
we ensure that take advantage of those
opportunities of those green amenities
and create more of a many versus just a
place over there that's around something
else
so the actual all these green little
parks and everything are not exactly
what you'll see in the redevelopment we
really wanted to for the commons area
for instance right now the central de
quoi plan talks about that they exact
Road actually for both of these the
exact road placement will be determine
when redevelopment occurs and we have
had one meeting with the Commons
ownership about an interest in looking
at that future potential for them where
it would be better defined so we we
basically are recommending to implement
again the vertical mix requirement use
requirements which we're going to be
talking about next along in that area
are there any concerns with that I just
have a clarification question on the
last slide so what what do you propose
as far as or improving or adding
amenities to the wetlands areas so
there's nothing proposed right now but
we want to make sure we call that out to
ensure that when it does get when it
does get into the point of redevelop and
either through a development agreement
or some other way that it's not
forgotten about okay so amenities such
as Nicole walkway or yeah
yeah we haven't gotten to those details
now okay now ours are our focus has
really been more building type right and
so again the street the street grids
aren't part of our recommendation but
again we don't want to lose the
opportunity the ideas that were
developed during this time but there
hasn't been research you know into
exactly do these things make sense so so
we talked about where
and then now what so when you think
about vertical we need to go at
commercial on the ground floor again all
you have been into very vibrant areas
what you think about typically or food
and beverage and retail services right
the consultants believe that you know if
we're gonna create a vertical mixed use
area that that's important that we
specify those uses only allowed in these
areas we had again through the analysis
we've had done previously recognized and
our interviews with other cities I
recognize that that may not be we're not
maybe not there yet for the market and
so what we decided to recommend instead
was to allow all the uses that are
allowed in urban core currently - the
outdoor storage and drive-thru type of
things that don't really make sense for
a vertical mixed-use building but
require those types of the food and
service the food and beverage rather and
the retail service to be within 60 feet
of the corner so from the corner to 60
feet of the building to 60 feet in has
to has to have that type of use that
make sense and we got these figures from
currently the in the I think it's like
for the building activity for the street
walls are required to ensure that
there's activity within the first 60
feet of the corner from the building so
we took that from what's already
existing in the central Issaquah plan
and the reasons why we did that is that
we didn't want the other uses so outside
of the retail and service and
restaurants such as art galleries a
drugstore schools that they would not be
allowed then in our in a commercial area
on the ground floor and so we we thought
it was too restrictive of just saying
only food and beverage and retail
services we also looked at what Redmond
Kirkland other cities are doing and none
of them are that strict Kirkland does in
a very small area they're established
downtown as you mentioned required more
specific uses but that's again
in a very small area and then beyond
like one block away they they allow more
office and other art galleries etc and
then you know one of the things that
again this is going to be something we
want we want to see happen and we want
to make sure it's successful we do not
want to see a building built and have
vacant storefront for very long because
they can't find their restaurant or that
retail service to go there and it was
you know as we know retail services are
changing in this world and so to be so
restrictive we thought was not a good
idea yes so so we paid consultants to do
the analysis I'm concerned that we're
over writing without without providing a
justification as to why they recommended
that and and saying you know yeah they
said that so that's I mean we're paying
them to to make recommendations yeah so
you know that's true we also paid eco
Northwest to make recommendations and
they didn't they showed something
different so I think that the the
consultants of the quran' dover
ambulance Alton's we were looking around
the building type and form and the use
was a was not a primary focus they
didn't do any analysis as far as our
market i think they they believed in our
strong market and they believe that
that's a possibility but they didn't
have any when I asked them like where
did you know is our study you're looking
at or is there something that you can
show that actually would justify this
and again they just felt that this was
something that could be possible for an
18 hour day kind of use and I think we
again being in our community talking to
other communities in the area and seeing
how they have grown because not all the
cities you see now that our vibrant
started that way there's a transition
time and so and even currently again in
Redmond they do not restrict it so so
tightly along Cleveland Street where
they do require mixed-use so that was
the reason for us to change the the
recommendation a bit you follow-up
question or comment you know this this
the trend of this conversation really
concerns me because you know we pay we
pay a lot of money to consultants to
give us recommendations
if they're not doing a good job then we
need to replace them or they're not
giving us what we need we need to
replace them we don't pay that pay for
what for for recommendations we're not
using so so I don't understand I don't
understand the override you know there
has to be a justification of why there's
an override and you know just the staff
saying you know we don't think that this
is going to work
it seems really concerning to me so
again the consultants these consultants
were hired to do more of the building
development recommendations and then
they suggested this as far as the uses
that wasn't the use wasn't part of their
original scope and and that you know
again we had another consultant that
provided some additional information and
we used that knowledge to develop our
recommendations so maybe think we think
they're strong consultants and they gave
us really good other recommendations
this one we just thought would we
understand our community if they're a
little better and have some other data
that they didn't take into account
could you please recap again yes just
two different stories the original
vision that you have the intention for
the mixed-use with the retail or
mixed-use and what that picture would
look like which you aspirationally would
like to see and then what is it that you
think would be reality and would the
reality eventually change into your
aspirational villain that is vision or
is are we actually building to what we
think is a reality because if we built a
reality there might be walls obstruction
things that would obstruct they would
not necessarily come out as a may be
appropriate for retail space right might
be walls concrete walls as opposed to
last walls yeah and so that's a great
point run so when we look when we're
looking at these requirements of
recommendations it's a very again it's a
very small you know four things the
central Issaquah plant already accounts
for that where the the transparency
the ground-floor for commercial is
already addressed and I'm not a planner
so I can't tell code at the top of my
head but it's you know 60% or you know
whatever percent so those things that
you need to touch because they're
already in the code and then again the
urban the architectural and urban design
manual are addressing all those same
things so so we don't need for for this
project to looking at a building so
we're really looking at this building
that we're going to build what it's
important to have in this building in
order to make it successful to be
vertical mixed-use and where were the
requirements that will ensure it will be
as opposed to you could build a
one-story building or you can build a
three-story building what you're saying
is we're going to future-proof the
development what actually lands in there
in its beginning stages may not be what
we see in our vision but it will
eventually long term the actual uses yes
yes that would be that's our definitely
go and I think again other cities have
seen that transition where you know the
businesses have come in and as as more
neighbourhood you think about the number
of residents that live in the central
district well area right now especially
urban core I think it's 707 zero yeah
okay that's right so it's 750 units is
it within central is cost so so we're
we're talking about these spaces we're
talking about neighborhoods serving
space it doesn't mean that people won't
come from other areas but there's not a
neighborhood yet there yet so for
somebody to build a restaurant that
needs date you know lunchtime and dinner
and maybe even breakfast it's it's a you
know I think is a little before a time
now does not mean that something could
go there today and not be successful but
we want to make sure that we provide the
the breadth of choices without getting
too far flung of what we want to see
there so but to have again to have that
where an art gallery or drugstore
couldn't come in if we only restricted
it to the two retail and food service
that's that's something we think would
be a missed opportunity and as planners
they would be sitting there saying sorry
it's against our code to do that and
that's I don't think right for a vibrant
community okay
thank you yeah any other comments on
this topic next is fun height and FA are
so when the consultants the consultants
did an analysis howl when you're saying
how did they get to this ninety percent
so they did an analysis of looking at
what we can build currently under the
central plan urban core area and what
they think is necessary and so that's
kind of how we got to these detailed
recommendations and what they discovered
is that we can build developer could
build something very Auto centric right
because because of our minute lower
lower FA RS and our low requirements so
what they were recommending is that we
want to require that the ground floor
that is built for the commercial use is
between 15 and 20 feet so currently it's
15 feet on our pedestrian ways I don't
know that's the exact course streets
okay and so we want to give a little bit
more more height because a lot of times
and if you you may notice and some of
the newer buildings that commercial
space needs that more that higher
ceiling so we wanted to raise that up
but we wanted to look at instead of
saying okay now you can you can go to 48
feet as your base we wanted the analysis
shows that you really need to have six
storeys in order to make this work and
so six storeys turns out to be about 85
feet and then with the bonus density you
can do up to ten store floors which is a
hundred and thirty-five feet and so they
can do their analysis they did you know
running through numbers this is in line
with other developments they've seen in
vertical mixed use areas and areas that
we want to see redeveloped but so it's
the the I guess I should define here so
the base for the height does not mean
the minimum it actually means the hot
the
some that you can do before you go into
bonus density so it's a little so you
but right now in the urban core you can
only build 248 feet before you have to
pay into Benson density bonus and our
first consultants showed us that the
density bonus was actually a
disincentive again because of what it
cost to get those extra floors didn't
make up in revenue so this this changing
this here allows it to a line a bit
better with what we want to see in the
vertical mix you use areas isn't 12
stories being discussed where I'm sorry
in the urban core well so the maximum in
the urban core is 125 currently but
again we're asking like the first story
so so the the height isn't that
different so it 135 versus 125 but we're
we want to make sure that when they do
build the building again the first floor
commercial has that height that's
necessary and then give them the
flexibility to do the height limits they
need within that first floor and that
sixth floor or the tenth floor if
they're going to use bonus density okay
but so what you're saying is 135 10
floors is maximum height yeah yep and
we're not talking about 12 stories I
thought I heard 12 stories and either in
land and Shore or council okay for
reference how tall is Atlas oh well it's
forty eight forty coz fifty fifty three
because they have the unig and the roof
elements that aren't counted and so 53
is what Keith said okay yeah and again
this is already you know in the in the
urban core the 125 is already allowed
timber ridges ten floors is what Keith's
they're already up on a hill they like
even bigger than right yeah so we you
know we agree that that makes a lot of
sense and and again counting on there
their knowledge of looking at doing the
analysis again they did the analysis for
the building type not for the uses
necessary for a successful mixed-use
project so and this is a quick slide
from you do have their presentation as
well it's a hundred slides so I didn't
want to take that much time with those
but this is a the analysis they did a
bit about so this is the corner of 12th
and Gilman so again we're on the corner
there's we're currently Chase Bank is
and so they did some running of numbers
and seeing okay what could you actually
fit here and looking at with parking
what could you actually do and so they
calculated that being able to go under
under the building for one level having
maybe some tuck in having a strip of
parking in the back because you need to
have some that space for deliveries and
some other areas and as well as having
parking on street parking in the front
would meet its needs for the the
percentage parking required we do not we
do not change any of the parking
requirements as far as I peruse but
that's the analysis that they did yes
sir
I'm sorry I I just go back to that slide
yeah yeah where are all the cars that
now go to Hobby Lobby where are they
going to park so this is a all right
this is a plopping down okay and we got
a residential thing there it looks like
four storeys 20,000 square feet per
floor how many apartment buildings is a
how many apartment units and how many
cars so they did the analysis to make to
meet the parking requirements that are
in our code so making sure they have one
you know parking per if it's per unit or
depending on the size so okay so so this
is not to say that this whole will never
happen but go ahead so this is not to
say that this is exactly going to happen
like this it was to look at what could
happen because actually the Chase Bank
which is in the corner is a different
ownership than the Town & Country so the
town the country is not you're right
Chanin country's not going to build in
front of their their current store to
take away the parking
as they built a structure parking garage
on a different part of their property
they have a really large property and
you know if they redevelop in phases but
but you're right this um this is not to
say this is what we think is going to
happen tomorrow or it was a test of
seeing how things could fit and them
doing the analysis of running through
mountain country is only mountain
country could become that what you're
saying
sure yeah yes I don't think anybody
again I don't think anybody's saying
that that this is exactly what will
happen here I guess I guess my problem
is I when you show a picture like this
and it we're all subject saying well
that's what it's going to look like and
that's not true because the first thing
that could happen is they would level
Hobby Lobby and then that disappears and
then there's no parking needed for the
store that's not there right so but but
I guess I guess I bring in a little
reality where they just are saying
they're just bringing in new business
I'm not sure that they would initially
lobby
you know demolish Hobby Lobby but the
the concept of this could be plopped
anywhere along the areas that we're
looking at right so you could build one
of these buildings you can build two of
these buildings you can put three their
buildings the idea for them just to show
you what they were looking at and so
again we're not looking at you know
really skyscraper kind of buildings this
is the type of environment we want to we
want we want to create for this vertical
mixed use area but in saying that it's
actually not
this wouldn't be built out to its
maximum use so if a developer came in
and wanted to build us out to those
maximum use you would be looking at
about how many units per parcel you know
I don't know that so we were focusing on
the elements that were necessary so when
they do build what that could be and I
think this probably analysis in the
centralist call plan already about what
where they could build you know I'm not
sure by parcel but I'm not looking late
for you to have an answer Kristen but
but if that already exists because we
didn't again we didn't pay the
consultants to figure out you know
what's the full extent because that's
already it has already been done as part
of the central let's call planned effort
so we didn't again pursue that path with
we could actually have I think the
numbers are about seven thousand units
or the urban car shaking that would be
about ten stories per unit i mean per
arsal would look anything like that into
Carl's point are keen I would assume
that would probably 7,000 units figure
maybe 1.2 cars per unit you'd be looking
at almost four floors per building of
parking so the seven thousand units
though aren't going to be just on these
parcels and the urban core goes from
basically newport over to over the
highway across the highway into where
costco is and from to west west of sr
900 to the commons so that's it's a much
larger area than you're envisioning
seeing here and these few lots talk us
through because i think what we're
having a hard time understanding is when
you have a dense unit of residential
that requires 90 percent or mixed-use
with residential on top there requires
90 percent parking and the first floor
is retail commercial how many floors
parking in like how do you fit that
issue so i'm gonna walk right into my
firs
and if they needed to they could have
going up to a second level but the idea
is that they in on the ground floor you
would not know that there's a parking
garage behind that if that's how it was
built
okay and so you would go under much like
Atlas did for the idea that you can go
under for a floor or whatever mhm okay
we feel like that one and a half under
plus a little bit of Street plus a
little bit of surface very little
surface Atlas if I'm not mistaken had
half parking underground and a half
surface for their units mmm-hmm so now
you've got to take another 40 percent
and put it on put it on structure based
on this theory so so he's mentioning
that's closer to nevada project we're
working on where they're take they take
the whole site and you actually go under
so well you see surface parking was
actually garage our parking structure
underneath as well so it's the whole
plate of the development opportunity so
it's not just under the building itself
and i think that's one of the challenges
when you start looking at these sites is
how can you how do you meet these
requirements again whether there's vases
or a longer term and one of the other
part property owners in this area talked
about how they are going to build
parking and thinking about that to take
advantage of the future redevelopment of
other sites so so how is parking handled
for vertical mixed-use for other cities
that have done this so parking in
structures because again park the person
several times and you know is it
happening in structures is happening
underground is what we're asking
unreasonable you know those types of
yeah so you have you guys where the
parking structure studies that were just
completed as part of the moratorium i
believe that you might have been in that
discussion right
so so from that analysis and I wasn't
the one leading that before I understand
is that our our ratios are right on what
they should be and we did not 50% a not
a 90% so ratios I'm sorry ratios of how
many parking spaces are required so are
you asking that or you asked or you're
asking both I thought you're asking both
well I'm asking more of the how are
other cities fitting in parking in
vertical mixed use are they going under
the entire site are they building some
underground and some above the retail
are they not requiring 90 percent yeah
they're not requiring 90 percent
structure but they also so one of the
things the reasons that Crandall /
ambulating 90 percent is that if you
don't you're gonna get the surface
parking right and so then you're gonna
get that building form that's for all
there for the next 20 40 50 years that
has a big sea of parking and a nice
pretty building so we may have gotten
that nice pretty building and getting
that commercial storefront but we're not
we're gonna have the sea of parking and
it doesn't create that allow that
pedestrian environment to continue to
grow so that's why they consider that
this would be a higher percentage I
agree with the 90 percent idea I have
with is the reality of making that work
in that area in this area that where
this diagram is labeled partly because
it has a very high water table though if
you go down a story or two stories are
you gonna keep all the water out do what
are you gonna do with all the cars if
there's a flood and then three is with
all that water and then ground how is
that going to support a 10 story
building that's going to be super
saturated in the winter and the soils
are they really stable enough to support
a 10 story building if you structure do
it structurally correct yeah yeah it
cost more some piles UK it costs more
yeah
but mm-hmm so is there a plan for what
to do with 7,000 cars or in this case
let's say 3,500 cards let's say it's
50/50 50% on the other side of 90 50% is
on this side what we're gonna do with
3500 cars if it floods the floods you
mean you're saying that all of them have
structure parking and floods well if we
have 90 percent parking and you're
talking about going maybe two stories
down or maybe one story up we have
thousands of cars they're gonna have to
go somewhere
is there a back-up plan to people so
their cars don't underwater doesn't ant
let's have a plan where they're
downstairs in the parking structure its
marked about the water yes yeah so I
think it happened site by site when it's
developed the developers would address
that as they go the water table on that
friend so there's different issues with
different parcels so so Alice is part of
they're right next to the flood way
right and so that property has
historically flooded that property to my
knowledge hasn't flooded since I've been
here now the issue that you're bringing
up Ron which is okay if you've got a
let's say you've got a piece of property
that's not in a flood zone right and you
want to build subterranean parking which
will intercept the groundwater you as a
developer need to figure out how to keep
that dry and you need to also show that
that impact to the groundwater and what
it's trying to do isn't a problem
hydrologically so I mean you've got both
those things as a developer that you
would have to solve if you're going down
that far which is why most of them
probably won't go down farther than one
story down which means the privy to
stories of parking within the building
to answer Karl's question generally I
think what you're going to see is ground
floor non-residential use the next two
floors or partial floors will be parking
and then the other use whether it's
office or residue
so would be above that okay yeah I don't
anticipate or I don't believe we're
gonna have above-ground flooding in this
area but I could see if water level I
mean we have wet land so I know the
water table is almost a ground level
that's why I bring that up as far as
flooding of parking mm-hmm and again
when that would be built that I think
yeah obviously we'd be very on top of
making sure they make the considerations
that are necessary by code and being in
the that area so so I know things have
been mitigated since the last flood but
there were two feet of water going right
down built Gillman Boulevard for the
whole way so it has flooded sure yes we
can never see never may be sure okay so
we did height and then looking at when
we actually looked at if we wanted to
see this actually happen the
calculations again looking at the what
you could build with the current urban
core fa fa ours did not get as to what
we wanted to see and so these are the
again the calculations that are
necessary in order to align with the
other recommendations so we're
increasing the minimum if they are to
2.5 because currently it's up for
commercial 0.55 so they couldn't even
build a two-story building right unless
you build it really tall and skinny and
then looking as the base so again that's
in a weird word but it's actually the
maximum before you get into the bonus
density at 5.0 and the maximum at 8 pono
and again the height limits you know
make sure that that all kind of takes
account what we need not to get a dead
horse here but I think would be a good
recommendation for the city to have a
plan on how to deal with parking in the
event of a flood bellboys
you could put that onus on the developer
but once things build and they're gone
that's a no-no it's up to the homeowners
association and property management
company and they may not have all the
answers so okay I think would be Roden
that we have a back-up plan to say hey
we take over the transit center the top
floors that's going to be dedicated for
flood parking or we put them on squawk
and trum or from somewhere but I have a
plan okay and so again I mentioned so
this again doesn't allow the auto
dominated building type so again having
that point five five if they are then
you know that was less less building
space are and more more parking surface
parking space and then the ninety
percent so again this was a
recommendation from the consultants
looking at what they felt was necessary
to avoid building a building type that
was going to be a nice building with a
sea of parking around it and that is
what would be allowed with 50 percent
they did they now assess with our you
know new standards because they're aware
of those and it showed that you're able
to have you know a large parking lot
with your building they thought if we're
gonna really in this area where we want
to see that density and that pedestrian
oriented less more people walking on the
sidewalks less parkings drop a spots
seen this is the way to go so with this
recommendation separate from the the
analysis that concluded that there
wasn't the financial incentives but
there would be in the five to ten years
because yeah so this is based on the
structure based on what you want it to
look like but not based on that we want
people to feel financially secure doing
this which is I'm saying financially
feasible is that we have yeah right okay
because but they did do analysis and
they looked at what other other places
they have they've worked in
showed that example so okay but but
there was the one analysis that showed
that there is maybe not the economic yes
opportunity right now but in five years
and then this is separate this is just
to get it to to have the form that we
want correct yes yes then the the
remaining 10% parking do you have a plan
on what kind of parking that would be
well that would be allowed so again you
know 90% would be you know requires they
could do all hundred percent in a
structure but what the idea is that
would probably be along the back edge of
the buildings that would allow for the
deliveries and other things that are
necessary to have that access that would
be controlled to I don't know that I
would say that at this date that level
of detail because there could be you
know customer parking but but the idea
is that the number of spots would be
able to fit in the back of the building
and without again creating a sea of
parking and we would not have surface
parking on the street or we would also
have on street parking yes as part of
the core streets standards and that
would be that would be actually really
important for a the commercial
ground-floor too happy to have some
spaces just like in like in a downtown
to feel like you can pull in right off
the street and looking at these plans
through this packet I don't see anything
about the green necklace or bicycle
paths right so with that wasn't part of
their scope they're part of their scope
was to look at if we were going to put
regulations to create a vertical
mixed-use building area where would that
be and what would those regulations be
so we didn't look at the broader things
again the central escuela plan has that
the parks departments doing a strategy
right now and I think it's probably near
the end or finished that also looks at
partially at the green necklace and so
that those those work items are taking
place in other in other ways okay so
these would be submissive to the CIP
these developments additive I guess so
submissive meaning this is so if you're
on if you're in that map and you're that
area you have to follow these rules and
what's in the CIP Centro so-called ad
development Stander's and design
standards I worry about things like
bicycle paths getting cut out yeah yeah
and pedestrian walkways when we have
that many units being built so those are
very important and those would be there
it just we're not part of this
conversation but they will be there yes
and again unfortunately we're talking
about this really tiny part of what we
have for our vision for the community
for the central Sequoia area but those
things are still there they're not being
removed they're not being changed and so
that's why we did you better important
what's that
tiny but important yeah yeah every piece
is right so so those are our again four
recommendations of I don't know how many
points the central core standards
addresses but broadly millions but we
will again we'll be back here for an
actual public hearing on the 28th and
Landon Shore and then full council adopt
for considering adoption are there any
other comments question oh yeah I'm
gonna come on a Sunday I want to be done
a day early okay we'll go on the 16th
that's been wrong now for two it's like
two meetings so sorry about that
so do not come on a Sunday looking for
this we talked about it council
yeah so I recognize this is a really
complex topic and we've been working on
it for a while and you guys are kind of
coming in at the end chapter is there
any other any information or any other
kind of follow-up you'd like us to do
when we come back for the 28th to
present back to you I would like to see
a more definite view of some of the
other buildings in the other cities that
have the same kind of structures should
say that yeah they do it is one thing
but it would be nice to be able to
actually see what is working not just a
piece of sentence that says yes it is
working it would real pictures not views
phone that's a signer drawing yes yes
and in the small packet pictures those
slides we sent you we have some that but
we'll we'll add that to the slideshow
next time okay yeah if there are really
some really beautiful buildings and
create some really great community so
one of the things that you've talked
about here are basically four code
changes but I know in some of the
earlier conversations we were talking
about potentially incentivizing
developers to do vertical mixed-use and
one of the things discussed there was MF
tees are those off the table or they
part of a different discussion that is
part of a different discussion as part
of our affordable housing strategy and
will be actually going to council in
November and I think that one's the 14th
to talk at the work session to look at
it for the transit oriented development
but the council gave us direction when
we came back from that first analysis
that incentives were not the way to go
they wanted to make sure they believe
the market will eventually come and they
want to make sure that the regulations
are there to ensure we get what we want
it's probably where I was going to okay
I do have a request yes
so Aldi so you have a bunch of
recommendations and they're on different
slides and you had different consultants
and I'm harping on the consultant thing
because I ask what I do for a living
okay and so I would like to see your you
have here's what the consultant that we
we brought in said here's what what the
second one said so you said you had two
and then here's what the staff
recommended and I would like to see it
as a as a comparison okay just to see
what what was changed you know just in a
table form there are three columns
because I'm you know as I said I'm
concerned that it's the answer we're
looking for is the answer we're looking
for and so that that worries me so sure
and so just so you know they're made
between eco Northwest and Crandall Aram
Beulah the Scopes are different so it's
not like it changed so it may not be a
reflective this we didn't ask the same
questions so they're not comparative
like that so we initially asked eco
Northwest
what is the market like and then we
asked Crandall Ram Beulah about more
specific what do we need to put in
regulations for this building per se so
so when you see if you would see that on
table it wouldn't align as well but the
change is that your your seat you're
seeing here we did record we did reflect
what we we as staff felt let's change
which is that one item so I can do that
yeah I just want to see all the things
that have been that there's decisions
made or dis or recommendations made by
staff that are different from what was
recommended by the people we paid in you
don't have to have all three homes
filled up sure just maybe the to the
Crandall room and then staff staff would
be yeah basically on all of them but you
could have sure yeah and the last one
was the so would what John was talking
about John right about the the other
cities and what they're doing now I
don't always always think that all
cities are doing the right thing or you
know doing the the optimal thing but if
we would like to see what that looks
like
and with that recommendation sure and so
and you're talking more again more about
the visual pictures or do you want to
know about what they're just just a word
comparison would be fine
Oh as far as their their code we have
that and that's we definitely have that
already so okay I would I have another
request I would like to know some
information about the so it's in between
the two consultants there's there's this
90% parking recommendation the other one
was taking into account the incentives
versus disincentives and the economic
feasibility so I would I would be
curious to see the economic feasibility
any information about that as far as
taking into account this 90 percent how
much of a disincentive would that be to
people considering our to developers
considering the vertical mixed-use if we
asked that 90 percent does it push the
five to ten years off to 10 to 15 yeah
we don't have we don't have that's that
consult under contract so I think about
how to how we get that done because that
was a really complex financial model
that we don't have access to so you know
our gut feeling could say okay yes this
is going to add more costs and therefore
it changes the financial feasibility and
and I we sent the powerpoints were they
as raw or that was just like the for per
slide because one of the things you can
do and I think I'm not sure if in the
memo it was linked to the different
sessions and we can send to you the
actual PowerPoint so you can actually
see the data from eco Northwest which
looks at how if you change parking
ratios if you change MF to e if you
change this it kind of moved the line as
far as feasibility so it can give you an
idea without maybe giving an exact
answer for the 90% but you know we know
that the direction it goes when you have
more requirements it's becoming less
financially feasible we did you know the
one thing that kind of quote unquote
remove some and disincentive a soda and
set instead of
forty-eight feet you know we said six
you know we're looking at it okay what
we you need to do it in six floors
that's what financially feasible for
that and so that we believe it takes as
I won't call an incentive but it takes
away a disincentive so we're hoping that
you may encounter a bit but it is true
that it will cost more you have a time
range when the city thinks something
like this might come forward as far as a
development to happen we could guess you
know the again the the Commons is
looking at talking to us about a
development agreement to redevelop their
property I do not want to mean it is one
meeting of saying this is what we could
if we are interested this is what we're
really we really love your your
development and our vision of our
community is this and so there's nothing
you know no time there but I don't think
it's going to be next year but we're
trees could change the Commons is we're
a target and not including time but
Safeway and REI and Trader Joe's so
again that's they aren't looking at
tearing down things and rebuilding they
would do it in phases as well so the
property owners of Town & Country have
not shown an interest in redevelopment
at this time but things change as
ownership change you know changes as
over time and chase bank hasn't also
shown any interest in redeveloping what
we're talking about today could move
over to the Commons
it is currently yes so the map itself
it's kind of hard to tell but this is
the commentary so the picture we showed
was just of one space of that so that
that could look like that all along that
case and but REI is not in that group
REI is below target go back to the
height versus floor yes thing that's the
wrong way if anything I would like to
try to see that simplified okay I'm not
sure how you're going to do this because
at one point you're saying we're moving
it from 48 feet to six floors then it's
125 feet to 10 floors but the ground
floor we're talking feet yes we're
talking two feet and floor Thank You
Carl so we actually we are going to
actually have actually feet in the in
the code we wanted to keep it there cuz
again that whole visual thing what is
what is six
what does 85 feet really mean it's about
six storey building so we actually do
plan to have continued to be consistent
with what is already there in feet so
thank you it seems like we're changing
things yeah feet two floors and then
back two floors or fee and I think was
more illustrative but thank you for
reminding it at that so the city has to
have lands I don't expect this
development to happen anywhere in the
near future but when it does and
eventually something will happen you
have to have these basic rules and you
have to have an idea of what you want
the city will look like so what happens
if you don't get there what if somebody
comes in and and wants to build almost
to your specifications but not really is
there processes in place or you're just
going to say no would rather wait so the
opportunity is there and the financial
backing is there are you going to let
something else go
and that kind of but not really
that's the question so I I don't know
which of these items currently have
administrative ability to just a bit but
but the idea is that this is what we
want to see and we these are the
regulations we're gonna be on here but
we would work with the developer to see
how we can get to the intent and get
what we want because otherwise then
we're end up building again something
that not doesn't fit the vision I think
so you should follow your dreams and say
this is what we want to look like and if
you can't build it to what we all agreed
on
then you're gonna wait I want you to
wait instead of having that other okay
so this is how we ended up here so that
after Eko Northwest basically did their
study and said you're not the market
doesn't support vertical makes use now
and if you want it now
you're gonna have to put some incentives
in place to get it and the council said
no we don't want to do that and so then
the question on the table was what
happens in the meantime until the market
catches up to actually do this kind of
project by itself and the council was
worried that they were gonna get single
story surface Park redevelopment or
things that didn't meet their vision and
they said we want to mandate it and if
that pushes it an extra five years out
you know what we'll wait where we'll be
good waiting and so they made that
decision which is why we hired the
second consultant to say okay if we want
it
not if we almost want it but if we want
it what do we have to do to get it and
that's how we got here and and I guess
to answer your question Joan I would say
that we have a very small subset of the
400 acres of the Corps that this is
going to apply to it's going to be an
overlay over an area but if I don't want
to build this or the economics don't
work out for my financing
I've got other properties in town I
could choose from I mean you actually
answered the question earlier and said
council wanted to wait and and that's
kind of what I I want the city to do I
don't want it to be haphazard yeah yeah
yeah compromise again yeah so these are
rule these are regulations these aren't
guidelines okay yep any other question
any interest thank you very much for all
your feedback I know again this is a bit
of long to a process and I appreciate
every question and we'll be back in the
28th okay so if I follow my agenda
there's opportunity if somebody wants to
make a comment on anything that was
discussed it's not a public hearing and
such but we're certainly going to
welcome you to come up and say fencing
ice-t Pereira living in old town for
about ten years now so several thoughts
one was the question of MFT e or other
incentivization came up i know i've
heard the city council kind of give the
idea that they're kind of against the
idea i would like to see you recommend
that put it in writing that we don't
recommend MF te other incentivization
don't just rely on that put it in
writing to provide that guidance next
point was it seems something i've heard
in the highlands is they underestimated
how many families with children would be
living in apartment buildings and
because of that they don't have enough
school sites i have i would like to see
more of a discussion with how this idea
of mixed vertical use Ferhat for housing
would affect the school district and the
number of the school schools that go
them where they build them that part of
the conversation hasn't happened i'd
like to see some recommendations from
you all how that happens i would also
like to see recommendations on how
that's going to impact traffic and the
flow of traffic and where all the
traffic goes as part of that
conversation not just and how these
different pieces all fit and tie
together doesn't seem to be something
that i hear or see enough of the next
point was i have some concerns when we
talked about a height variance between
the number of floors and the number of
the height of the building when people
see let's say hundred twenty five
hundred thirty five feet they expect 125
135 feet or they don't see a variance
they want to know what they can expect
so i'm more concerned with having
variables in there I'm also concerned
when we say things like the the the roof
or the elevators don't count as part of
that height restrictions so I would like
to see this body say more about how that
those things be included in the heights
of restrictions I'd let's see a piece
where we talk about where we talk about
mix rocky use where it can go whether to
see some definitions or restrictions
where it cannot go for me old town is
not such bullish not be susceptible to
make sure overt eclis
I think you give on village properties
where small or houses make up the book
that are not susceptible to where it
should go but I would again not just
wear a kanga beware it should not go
keep up the good work thank you
so there was the map that had the green
outline but you never said exactly what
the green outline meant and I saw that
there was a pedestrian bridge going over
high 90 in the north side of Gilman
Boulevard and so and target is it within
that green line but it doesn't have any
of the black vertical makes juice nor
the purple shading so I didn't I didn't
understand the context of that so an
explanation would be good okay you know
when we have the central Issaquah plan
125 feet was hard-fought and the
community doesn't even like that so now
all of the sudden for the first meeting
ever I'm seeing a hundred and thirty
five feet with really no particularly
good explanation as to why there's an
extra ten feet I understand that you
want a larger sort of lobby first floor
but I don't understand why that can't be
carved out of like an interior floor
like an atrium and the inside right so I
would say keep it at 125 with HVAC you
can get a 15 extra feet so we're still
getting significant buildings and I
didn't hear persuasive argument that
that was all that important so my bigger
thing is interim changes we have these
big huge fat parcels owned by single
land owners and right now the code is
written you shall do the whole thing if
you get above a certain percentage of
improvement and that's a barrier to
change so is it possible to allow these
parcels to be broken into smaller units
so that the land owners can begin
creating the a small portion one at a
time of each building to the proper
standard because
QFC shopping center is a bunch of small
parcels Town & Country is basically a
big parcel and Chase Bank so they have
to do the whole thing has to develop and
if anything changes much at all which i
think is of concern the next thing is
when you're picturing it and we're
picturing how we want our our town to be
do we want them all to be built out at
exactly the same time do we want these
mega blocks at buildings that all look
the same or would we like to have oh
here's one building that was built with
a slightly different architecture and
then there's the next one would say as
zero setbacks that looks a little
different until you have a streetscape
that's more varied instead of sort of
wow that was that nineteen I mean 2022
apartment style on three blocks isn't
that charming so I prefer smaller units
of varied architecture and I don't see
that being able to be done in this sort
of large lot situation I hope that made
any sense whatsoever
then because I know the ground very well
in these areas and I know where the
critical areas and their buffers are the
maps that were created so far are so far
off of the reality of what could be
built as to not even provide an
appropriate template for someone to look
at to understand that the opportunities
so I think you need a little bit more
ground proofing on you know not a huge
amount not actually what is in detail
there but enough to understand that you
will you will really not be able to
build 8 feet from wetland that has a
hundred foot buffer which is how the
maps are being shown right now right so
I think you need a little bit more
ground proofing and then Steve said all
these puzzle pieces if all of these
changes are all up in the air at the
same time and we're all trying to figure
out how they're gonna come down and
somehow form this elegant layered
package that we're going to be able to
perceive as a great
future for Issaquah we need all of that
to come together in our brains to to say
yeah well that one's over there and that
one's over here and this one is over
here and you are supposed to be deciding
and avoid how those are going to fit
together I don't think we're gonna have
success so I would ask that we spend
some time trying to figure out how all
the puzzle pieces are going to fit
together
and if they actually will because they
might not thanks first and then you
Steve Crawford speaking as a Sammamish
resident talked a lot about having nice
pretty buildings I think it would be a
shame to hide them behind on street
parking and that is probably one of the
ugliest things you can do in front of a
building so some surface parking behind
might satisfy the need for retail it's
going to be a bit of a challenge retail
is going to say we'd like to have
parking right in front but if you look
around there's a lot of other retail
that doesn't have parking right in front
if you do have the on street parking
then it shouldn't count as part of the
required parking because it'll be
occupied by residents all the time and
it wouldn't be available for the people
who want to use it for retail
hello my name is Bob Swanson I have no
idea when I'm doing here in the sense of
I'm still learning I know what PPC now
means it's a planning policy Commission
so I'm pretty proud of myself on that
and I figured that one out you can tell
me to sit down I'd be more than happy to
because I I don't know if I'm I'm here
to talk about the school up in the the
zoning I don't know this is the right
time I don't I literally do not know
so is this later is this 8:30 is this it
will be the next next right it's the
next one well thank you and a little bit
more time and I'm sure Steve will be
back to tell us his thoughts on on
additional school problems is there
anybody else that would like to say
anything no I do agree with with Connie
that it all has to come together I'm a
little nervous that every parcel I mean
it build all these these these gorgeous
house these gorgeous buildings and
certainly not the way they look on that
picture because I thought oh gee we
can't have those in Issaquah we have to
have some more creativity and and design
standards but I've never seen a map that
basically says this is the wetlands this
is what we're I can how much I cannot
build to and this realistically is how
much we can put in there and I know that
the the people that you hard to do this
work probably did some of that but I
don't think that every area in the city
has has done that I know that we've
talked about doing that three four years
ago when we're talking
about the central area plan that and I
know the environmental company that you
hired to look at all the environmental
problems where we can put parking how
the traffic is going to go
oh yeah the question yes you can build
all the stuff that you want and the
traffic will be fine and somehow that
does not compute
so I think besides putting all these
buildings in you have to look at where
not where they're parked but how they
get to where they're parked and how many
people are coming into town to work not
just to live there and so before you
come up with this grand plan you have to
look at all those things I mean I like
most of the stuff of what you said
tonight I like the additions in the way
of putting it together to make it clear
but I still think it needs more to be a
real plan that's my thoughts I else I
actually would like to add on to that I
would like to see what this would look
like visually if it was built out to 90%
of land potential so if the land has the
looking for I'm thinking of the phrase
maximum use I'd like to see what a plan
would look like if these were if this
area was built out to ninety percent of
its maximum best use and what the level
of service would be along these
corridors
if these buildings were built out to
ninety percent
not quite sure how you do that but you
have to you have to somehow look at the
traffic that that these this is going to
cause and I know that the people the
rest of people who live in Issaquah
that's their main thing you know you
what you had an hour or so to get here
tonight I had problems coming down Front
Street you're gonna put all these people
in there what do you do with them and
that's pretty far away from any of our
entrances on the freeway so we're gonna
have traffic coming in I mean Bellevue
has a lot of access Kirkland has a lot
of different accesses to get to where
they want to be we don't and I know this
is a grand plan and we want all this all
these people to come in and and
welcoming them and putting in real
retail that that will support them but I
think we just have to step back just a
little bit and trying to put it all
together and and I think that's a big
part that you know you prove these plans
and this is a way it's going to be but
then what about traffic or what about
this and anyway so with that we're gonna
are you gonna present Fish House
Conference land and it's like we flipped
I'm taking notes
oh okay but I will be here for a
resource stand well give an update on
the post comprehensive plan amendments
and then we will open up to a public
hearing okay so for those excuse me one
second for those of you who have not met
my name is Kristen Lisa and I'm with the
development service I can't can you take
my shoes off okay there we go
so I'll do this again for those of you I
have not met my name is Kristen Lisa and
I'm with the development services
department I work with Trish as many of
you know we do annual comprehensive plan
amendments and this year there are
relatively few they are primarily
amendments that are required because of
population changes or housing count
changes things that just need to be
reflected in our comprehensive plan or
acquisition of properties so the we only
cover two elements this year we're only
talking about changes or amendments to
the land use element and the
transportation or that transportation
element and also some reasons which
technically are in the land use code but
they happen simultaneously with some of
our designations the first one we're
going to talk about is the housing chart
this is a chart that counsel requested
that I'm missing something that the
council requested we had here last year
this reflects Olivar so as most of you
know we have state adopted housing
targets for housing units this the year
spans are the horizon spans from 2006
until 2031 so by 2031 we are expected to
accommodate not build accommodate 5750
housing units within that time frame so
this just shows how close we are getting
each year towards meeting or to how many
units have been built towards that
target so as you can see in 2017
we actually built 1116 units which
brought us up to sixteen thousand two
hundred and two housing units that
leaves us with about two that one
thousand two hundred and ninety two
units to be built until we reach that
target any questions the second update
that we have is to the population
projection housing unit and population
chart and we updated it this year the we
submit information to the state office
of financial management in April and in
June or July they get back to us with
our official population is for that year
and the housing target
we now have we've adjusted it so we're
at thirty six thousand and thirty people
and I forgot my sheet of paper at
sixteen thousand two hundred and two
units that's whatever kind of thank you
we also in the past with the villages
have sort of had to guesstimate based on
their allowed development what they were
going to build per year but those
development agreements are about to
close out and we have a really good idea
of what's going to happen when those
close out so those numbers have been
adjusted as well which actually lowered
the projections for the highlands a
little bit
so we are also as you know in the
process of annexing the King County
Island this reflects so this is our
potential annexation map and normally
the King County Island would be right we
are in the process of annexing that and
they're assuming that the annexation
will happen by the time that this goes
through public hearing and then through
City Council so this just reflects that
that would no longer be a potential
annexation area of the city this also
reflects that we have two annexation
history maps one is the history of
annexation since the inception of the
city and the other one is since 1990
this one is from the beginning this also
reflects up reflects the annexation of
the Sammamish utility district which it
was I mean Bellevue
it's the Sammamish reservoir Bellevue
utility district and it was it was a
misunderstanding we thought it was ours
it wasn't and so we're just it's a
correction and then the other one shows
the King County property same here this
is just for the 1990 the annexation
since 1990 this one we every year the
city acquires either through purchase or
designate deed or give different ways we
acquire properties and when they are
acquired we zone we give those land use
designations of community facilities
which shows that it is a publicly owned
property by a public agency whether it
be a fire department at police district
a city state the county and that it's
going to be used for public purpose so
this is what we do so seven out of the
eight first properties are owned by the
city and will be zone community
facilities so the first four these were
acquired from her slur as part of the
62nd Street development they will all
get environmental mitigation
property number five will get wetland
mitigation and one through four will
have riparian and floodplain
improvements at a later date this
property was acquired with fire
mitigation fees and it will be used for
a fire station and other emergency
services and we are proposing that this
one be zoned RB does it they're all
community facilities the language
designations those as well this one is
actually owned by the over Dale
homeowners association so it's privately
owned and they use it as a park they
would like to see it as preserved for
open space for in perpetuity and so what
they did is they applied to the city and
the state approved a deed which will
keep it as open space forever and so we
are just proposing a redesignate and
rezone of this property to component I'm
sorry to comply with that and it would
be Conservancy residential recreation
I'm sorry it would be the zoning I've
got a question for number seven sir so
without what you're saying is that's now
public would be owned by the city this
one is not this one is privately owned
so the designation is actually
Conservancy I apologize that I mentioned
that the designation is Conservancy and
then the zoning would be Conservancy
recreation all right so the city would
really have no jurisdiction over this
except for the fact that it just falls
within the city but it's privately owned
property and maintained by private
correct okay this one was purchased by
the parks department and there are
adjacent properties that were purchased
previous years and eventually this will
be redone into a park so it's community
facilities and then community facilities
recreation as the proposed zone
so 9 through 16 are part of the these
are all properties that are part of the
King County annex Island annexation they
are being proposed proposing any zoning
at this time we are only proposing land
use designations the zoning would
designate how many units can go there
what the density would be this is not
this is an overall general use the first
two properties 9 and 10 are being
proposed as commercial uses and then 11
through 16 are being proposed as
community facilities land use
designations but what's the basis of the
nine and ten being commercial and rest
being there are there are proposed uses
for those sites it's and it's also
topography they can be used there on
there on flat land they're lower to the
freeway or close to the freeway and
they're flatter and can be developed and
number nine is a partial part of a
property that has previously been
annexed into the city long ago and we
the annex er back then missed the tip of
it and the part that's already in the
city is already zoned with commercial
uses the one the other 110 is the site
of the previous King County shop site so
there's already buildings and garages on
that site and so we thought that made
sense to leave that with a commercial
use because there's already something
there okay thank you
and before you go to this one I've got a
quick question for number six the 46
acres is that the location of BMC got
back a couple pages yeah this is north
of BMC so you have BMC and then you have
a Presbyterian Church and then you have
a house next to us
the little tooth is the little house and
then okay and so number six is going to
be property for Fire District right or
for a fire station and then other
emergency uses but it hasn't been
decided what those uses will be thank
you
you ready okay so this is the only
amendment to the transportation element
this is the transportation improvement
plan this is the map for it the entire
document is much much longer you all saw
this back in June I believe and made a
recommendation to City Council and City
Council approve that so all we're doing
is taking what's already been approved
and updating it in the comprehensive
plan to show what the improvements are
proposed for 2018 through 2023 so the
things are please ten through I want to
get some a little bit more information
on that are they definitely the evident
parcels or they assume that they're
going to be those parcels so it's a good
question ten eleven twelve and fourteen
are currently one parcel and those lines
are drawn based on elevations and slopes
and where those are right now so you're
bringing them in as you're not you're
not putting any zoning on them you are
doing what just land use designations
right your purview is the land use
designation and usually councils done
with the annexation when you get it
because you already decided it was
EAA so you did the first step by putting
all the land in a PAA back in 1995 and
then council goes through the process
when it gets annex of doing
pre-annexation zoning through that they
have two public hearings sixty days
apart they notify everybody and they
figure out what the proper zoning is
usually they're all done with that by
the time we do the comp plan amendment
that comes after and so because they're
not done you all get to take a shot at
the land uses instead of doing it as
housekeeping because you've are we've
already gone through that they use the
state process for the pre-annexation
zoning and you use the your level six
review to do the land use designation so
so so to be clear on this one so you
guys are setting the land use vision for
the island what's what you've got in
front of you is the staffs
recommendation but you guys could say
you know what I think all of that should
be commercial you know that could be a
recommendation to the council
you have the ability I think what we can
do is the conversation the question you
asked earlier which is why why and why
there's a lot of background for why the
staff is making the recommendation it is
so it's it's so tense it's on the floor
and then once you start going up the
hill there's a significant ask from
mountains to Sound Greenway that all
that stays forested and so one of the
reasons why we're recommending community
facilities and at the end of the day it
could be open space it could be
community facilities facilities but but
part of it is is the expectation that it
will all be in public ownership right
now 16 15 and 13 are owned by wash dot
and then we own 10 11 12 14 and so part
of why what's in front of you there is a
story here and we need to unpack that
and you guys can decide whether you
think that's we landed in the right spot
or whether you want to make some other
recommendation but it's all about the
land uses and not the zoning the zoning
happens at Council as part of the pre
annexation
discussion this is about setting the
vision for this area and right now what
we're saying is other than 10 which you
can't really see from the freeway and
has been previous you've been used as a
King County roads maintenance yard the
rest of it should be community
facilities so that's that's the
recommendation that's coming from us but
you guys get to basically say whether
you agree with that recommendation or
whether you want to recommend something
else to the City Council I know that
there was a long discussion at the
council on these particular pieces of
property and the process of getting them
in whether they're which point in time
if you're looking at zoning if you're
looking at this I know there was a big
discussion on it and there was some
questions that needed to be answered and
that's I am bringing that up was there a
question in there Joan no okay now I
know what what the council had why the
council had a problem with putting it
into community facilities wasn't it the
question between open space kymmie
community facilities open space and
community facilities facilities right so
the debate wasn't about community
facilities it was about which community
facilities zone to apply to a portion of
potentially 12 okay but we're not
looking at zoning right right not at all
okay we're just doing vision so what so
this this piece of property you know
unfortunately we don't have maybe we
need to put up a land-use map but
basically it's you know Highlands is
immediately to the east of 12 and 14 the
freeway bounds this kind of the south
and to the west and then everything to
the north of 10 is mobile home park city
maintenance yard it's kind of the small
pocket that we have for manufacturing
and industrial uses and so that's that's
why we see it the way we do and 15 and
16 are is really unbuildable because of
the steep slopes
you know nowadays Ron unbuildable is a
tough descriptor because there's a lot
of things being chased by developers
that have for decades been considered
undeveloped able wash dot because they
own it they have expressed to us a kind
of an interest to not sell it for
development so right now our water
utility has been talking about
potentially putting a reservoir on 13
but they would buy 13 15 and 16 so all
of the remnant washed out parcels would
could likely become City parcels in the
near future so the discussion of the
school is potentially 12 so the so the
discussion of a school is not part of
this conversation but will be coming
back to the City Council likely on 10 -
well you're asking us for a
recommendation of what we think on
vision should be for these parcels on
land use not zoning okay so basically
whether we see it as community
facilities or commercial or anything
else so you could say you know that you
might want it to be Conservancy
recreation you might say that you think
this should be residential you know
maybe we want more housing I mean so
that's the that's the conversation we're
having here I think right because the
washed out properties right now are
zoned residential in King County okay so
what is the difference than between
community facilities and Conservancy
recreation so community facilities is a
church correct me if I'm wrong community
facilities is represents a publicly
owned property by public jurisdiction
Conservancy residential and Conservancy
recreation are generally
privately owned right and that isn't
even an option for us they know I mean
else and the other thing with community
facilities is it's for public use it's
publicly owned for public use oh I think
well we're coming down to is everybody
would be an agreement for community
facilities yeah and basically we're
shoving the decision of whether it's
open space or school or anything like
that off to council to make the
suggestion okay or we make an emotion
for this well okay so yes that is the
end of the amendments after you didn't
have any questions about the TI p that
covers the rest of it this goes back to
Linda and Shore on October 2nd
I'm sorry because it does goes to Lena
Shore on October 5th it goes to Council
on October 2nd Lena and Shore on October
5th and then back to City Council on
October 16th for decision so if there's
no questions from you I'm going to open
up the public hearing at 8:20 and if
anybody would like to make any comments
this is just on the view this is not the
zoning as we've been told 12 times
already but if you would like to come in
absolutely
so once again my name is Robert Swanson
you can guide me any way you want I have
no idea what really a planning policy
Commission totally does I'm learning a
lot thank you very much I think you guys
are doing great I'm just gonna give you
my opinion you can stop me tell me to
sit down at any time I live so anyway um
beautiful Hill right there
I know basically they want to put a
school there I heard about this a month
and a half ago I had to do some
searching online they got to be doing a
meeting about this I found out a meeting
they were doing up at cougar Ridge I
think it's called the elementary school
and myself and only one of the person
came from our neighborhood because
nobody else knew about it so we went up
there and they said hey it's great
alright so in everybody's for it and I
go well and so I had my chance and they
let me speak and thank you
they I said well it's very narrow
streets you cannot I'm just lettin no
anything public they're okay school
whatever where a lot of traffic is gonna
be going through you can't have people
come down from above and go through here
one car can go this way but not one car
can go that way it's a bunch of cars
this way or a bunch of cars that way
nothing passing each other you have to
pull over parking is terrible completely
you if if you did put a school you know
how they say no left turn through
between six and ten or whatever it is
you'd have to put there nobody could
come down so the next thing is coming
down this way and there's the hospital
thank you very much appreciate that the
hospital is right there okay well now
you got traffic coming two times a day
five times five times a week where the
traffic is going to have two 300 cars
however many is going to become dropping
off because nobody ever nobody's gonna
let their kindergarten or first grade or
2nd grade walk down to a facility like
that whatever facility that may be so
they're gonna drop the kid off tons of
cars didn't come through their ambulance
we've had one gentleman get up there
Paul's his name he lives right over
there he has its he had three aneurysms
if he had been a doctor doesn't know why
he's alive but if he'd been there a
minute later he probably
a vegetable so minutes are life-saving
with ambulance the IED one time too we
had the bill passed the bond passed 100
million dollars so once again I don't
understand how all the money spent how
we gather it what we do with it but from
my very rookie understanding is we have
a hundred million dollars to spend
well if day one we would have gone hey
up at ninth and High Street there's a
perfect place it's in between there and
up the hill with the movie theater and
every bunch of the homes live up there
it's in between the two places
people can technically walk probably not
a kindergarten to first grade but they
could walk up there people can walk down
the apartments can walk over there it's
a great location if from day one they
would have gone hey eminent domain let's
go for it
it may not been done right about now
from what I understand I didn't know
everything about eminent domain I know
what it means but the process it does
take a lot of time there's lawsuits
there's multiple people to own land but
it would have probably been getting
close to being done right about now but
now for different reasons I've been
doing a lot of Investigation a lot of
talking to people I'm going to try
getting with people that owned that land
up there at ninth and tenth I'm taking
time off work next week and I know
they've done a great day I've already
met with them but they had an
opportunity I don't want to go into
great detail about things I've learned
about it but they had an opportunity at
that point in time different reasons
they decided to go with this one down
here it really is a much much they got a
three lane road you can drop kids off
you can go right down the road I know
this isn't about school but basically it
is about a school when you get down to
it so it's three lane road all the way
done they don't have to recreate do
anything to the roads they don't have to
worry about a hospital there's no bad
driving right there
there's you're not gonna cut down the
tree there's just so many pluses the big
the big minus is money I got that if
it's they want to do five acres on this
here put five acres up at ninth and high
ninth in High Street okay
let's say cost you four million dollars
an acre that's 20 million dollars to buy
that land I don't know how much I'm just
throwing the number out
yeah it's gonna cost money but you know
what it's gonna be a better deal all
around up there at ninth and high than
it is down here
congestion travel dropping people off
walking tons more kids are gonna be able
to walk to that place than this place
down here this is like the farthest away
place you can get into the Issaquah
Highlands in that area to get a kid to
walk down to our neighborhood obviously
people can walk down almost any other
neighborhood no kid is gonna walk to
that just not gonna happen
once again I appreciate you guys
listening I don't know if I'm this is
the right time the whole thing but it
I'm just like if I was gonna have my
choice and we're gonna I don't know if
this is zoning what you're gonna
recommend I know it's a quad I just
found out is required to have more parks
yeah I don't know if you guys work with
that I really don't know but great place
to put a park all mine all the people in
the neighborhood up there by the way
it's 92 percent of the people are
totally against it not not a little bit
they are like what cutting down a hill
traffic coming through our neighborhood
nobody can build this way everybody's
got to pull over go through a driveway
to let the other person go through
everybody's like that doesn't make any
sense at all
put a park right there put try and put
trails people will love it it's a great
place now you can check off your Park
thing boom done
go put it up at ninth and high he's
gonna cost money I understand I'm hoping
for a miracle I'm a person that I like I
like believing than the positive it
works for me works in my family so I'm
really working on on that I'm doing my
due diligence I'm trying to learn about
everything going on here this is my
fifth meeting in four weeks I have a ton
more to learn Saturday I'm trying to get
with some people that are members of
City Council just to find out what they
do I don't want to tell them things
because I hear I'm not supposed to
influence people so but if I'm gonna
make a recommendation I don't know who I
make it at recommendation to I think the
City Council and the board of directors
need to I mean the the Board of
Education need to get together and go
hey what do we need laying let's do it
let's work together I don't think
they're really working together that's
my
opinion so there you go do I need it
anything else or am i done here no I
appreciate some anybody who gets
involved in the community gets involved
in looking at maybe other options for
for the school you know we don't even
know if the schools going to go in there
we don't know what's going to go in
there and if it does they would have to
do a huge trade study on on just exactly
what your what you're saying so I think
that the city and the school district
would be cognizant of the the problems
that it would cause to children walking
in that area so thank you
well one thing that somebody mentioned
to me last night he goes why I would get
people involved once we start the
planning stages and I go well that would
be too late because at that point you've
got everything going now you're just
planning the thing that's why I'm
getting involved here because yes I
understand it's only pre stages but if
you get to if I don't get involved early
enough I appreciate that and there's to
at least two people back there that you
should talk to the president is awesome
so those are the people that you need to
talk to to to find out that the city and
the school dinners are indeed talking to
one another and working together and
have the last couple schools that were
built so it doesn't please get in touch
with them and and and and see what what
can have happen is there anybody else
that wants to make a comment so you can
leave this map up here but that fire
station land we talked a lot about prior
zoning for this one but I didn't know
what the prior zoning for the fire
station land was and
while we talked about the future process
for this we didn't talk about what the
future process is for the planning of a
fire station there because most of that
land is critical area there's only a
small part of that land that is not and
so well this has been cut into theoretic
chunks the other one is just one big
parcel and and so I sort of want to know
what the next steps are for that but we
can take it offline I just wanted to
show the difference now one I don't know
what footnote one and two are or what
they mean because there's no footnote
thing here that I can see am i missing
it one of them is that the that there's
not actual property lines there and the
acreage is approximate because we don't
actually know where the property lines
are going to be between 10 11 and 12 and
14 uh-huh that's that's footnote 1 oh I
know that's what's and footnote 1 is
that that's only partly part of a
Burgess property that's already the
other part is already in the city we
don't know what the in it we don't know
and there's only 0.07 of it is in the
King County Island so and this is this
is actually where City Council got wound
around an axle and I'm I'm gonna wind up
around the same axle because if it's
only approximate how can we put it into
official parcels if we don't really know
what the parcels are right so my problem
as much as I really actually would like
to put 10 use at 10 which is when I went
10 as commercial I don't know what 10 is
so I would say
you would have to put the the use the
same as all of the rest of the parcel
numbers that are in that group because
it's all one parcel we actually don't
have more than one parcel to designate a
use on right and just to answer your
question we've done that in several
places in the past where there's a slope
or both on the Grand Ridge where the
spire Road is and also on the Spock
property where we've zoned knowing that
the top would be one thing the bottom
would be one thing but not knowing where
that middle line is yet until a property
site plan comes in and then we decide
how to put the buffer on do you put it
at the top of the slope or at the toe so
we've had we've done that before where
the there's been an asterisk on the
zoning map that says this line well this
is on a land land use right it's not a
zone right but to me why would you why I
this is just my Connie you don't have to
write I just let you know that I was
doing this in the past and that could be
but it doesn't seem right
no matter how many times we've done it
in the past it seems like if you're
designating an official thing on a
parcel you should actually be able to
describe the parcel that it's on
officially and and or you could
potentially show the contract by which
you are deciding exactly how you are
going to decide you're going to resolve
that parcel because right here it's more
of a trust us situation we have it in
hand but we don't know and they're
trying to make a decision for the
community that is responsible and so
that would be my my comment there I
think that's it oh yeah we got it thank
you and actually that's a very that that
point is valid because it's also got the
same personal number and I was wondering
about that but so this is now commercial
and considering the concerns with the
school you know if if this goes to
commercial so 10 goes to commercial then
does it eliminate the option
to make it to school and that's a
different place right you know - right
ten is the the previous King County
shopsite is where what ten is right now
okay so we're going to finish the of the
comments so so I guess a couple thoughts
one was maybe CF to me seems a little
overly used in Issaquah can we come up
with some additional uses for for things
like a school zone specifically or can
we look at a zoning was not I know we're
not doing Zoning Conservancy could apply
to public land as well as privately
owned land and maybe that would be a
better use for some or all these
properties to me when I've seen things
come another thought was when I've seen
things come to Development Commission
its what does the code allow them to do
what does its own and allow them to do
so you might change and move things
around a little bit basically if the
code allows that you can build to
whatever that code says so I tend to
think more of having zoning that allows
that to happen so that you make that
happen or don't allow that to happen
based on the code because you can't say
we don't want to build in the steep
sloped area if the court allows it to
happen it's going to happen so more
towards concern for how may be a top
spot of the an area affects the bottom
slope or steep slope areas needs to be
confronted can determine to in
conjunction with each other not as
separate pieces that kind of alludes to
the point that Connie made earlier thank
you
anybody else want to make a public
comment
Steve craford director capital projects
for this one School District I think as
we look at land use designation the King
County Road shops area at the bottom of
the hill has been commercial use for a
long long period of time it makes sense
for that to continue in that sort of
designation and while 11 12 13 14 15 and
16 have different lines in between them
11 12 13 12 and 14 are all part of this
king county parcel and as proposed
that's all just CF so you're really only
looking really at the industrial
commercial area at the bottom and the
rest of it is all CF to be further
designated in a zoning decision by
Council at a future time anybody else
hello I'm Lisa Callen with across School
District School Board and so I just
wanted to say on behalf of the school
district the school board that we are in
favor of the land use of cf community
facilities for the King carrying Island
parcels 11 12 14 or specifically we're
interested we have a high interest due
to our bond that we passed in 2016 part
of that bond was to build two Elementary
School's one middle school and one high
school so we've done extensive land
searches for suitable land that would be
on the initial the initial checkbox list
of what would be suitable for the
district to try to do a deeper dive for
these four sites of schools and we have
a high interest in the upper portion of
this khinkali Island area and of course
that would fall under a community
facility because there would be for
public use and so that's that's our
perspective on it and we wanted to share
that in terms of why we're here tonight
thank you anybody else want to make
comment seeing nobody else that is
wanting to make a comment I'm going to
close the public hearing at
8:36 orb out and open it up to you guys
for your questions and on any of these
parcels so I've got one Trish you
mentioned that the washed-out parcels
are currently is designated you said
zoned for residential mm-hmm
so did they have any opinion on changing
the designation to community facilities
they're aware that we're down zoning and
down designating them and as Keith said
it's partly due to because they know
that we're thinking about the water
reservoir being there and we're thinking
about trying to purchase but that
doesn't change anything that they're
currently doing on the site or any plans
that correct yeah they're all vacant now
okay so in regards to the boundary
between and and eleven and twelve
because it's not technically a boundary
yet you're asking us to approve this in
the spirit of the map as pictured
correct
so you are putting in the boundary
between 10 11 whatever that is because
of the way the land is geography
that's why you have created those does
it make a difference if if we would sort
of put it all into community except the
commercial into community facilities and
then when you get to a point where well
you might change the line no indication
yet it's for this purpose for this
discussion we should have taken out the
lines between eleven twelve and fourteen
because you're right the proposal the
vision for those is that they will all
be community facilities and the vision
for ten makes sense that it would be
commercial that's what it's been it's
next to the road it's next to commercial
and intensive uses now and that would be
the vision so yes you would look at
eleven twelve and fourteen as one piece
and then at a later date could look at
those as separate parcels it wouldn't
make any difference
well it wouldn't make sense to make to
grow ten as a commercial piece and
exorbitant because you have such a steep
slope there right exactly okay and so
that's why it's kind of a zigzag but we
just haven't got to the point of
actually making physical boundaries
correct correct
we use it okay I understand you go out
there and draw a line how many think are
you actually going to draw that line so
it's been surveyed so we we've already
had a surveyor go out and survey the
property so what's happened is that pad
that King County created at the bottom
for their road maintenance they actually
cut the toe of the slope and used
Ecology blocks to create bins for them
to store like sand and gravel and stuff
and so that line generally follows the
back of their property that they cut so
we know where it is
we've got a surveyor that's doing a
short plat to actually create that
parcel as a legal parcel separate from
the balance of the property that we own
because our intent is to potentially get
rid of that property we talk about ten
getting a correct yes and once once that
plat is recorded then that goes in here
and we we know exactly where the line is
and so ten being commercial what would
be if someone was to come in and
actually buy ten and build it out some
maximum use what would that look like so
so did we do a transit-oriented
development presentation to you guys we
should then you'll know what we're doing
with ten so if you guys have an open
agenda slot and one a presentation on a
transit-oriented development project
that economic development is working on
right now it includes that parcel so
it's part of a story that is much more
complicated than we might want to get
into tonight generally though commercial
includes intensive intensive commercial
which would and retail I believe but
included includes low intensive
manufacturing uses light industrial
that's that's what I'm looking for light
industrial uses warehouse kind of uses
that goes in there generally okay so I
know that there was some questions at
the council because the lines are not
parcels are not created you know it
surveyed and actually made those are
just your estimations of where they're
going to be right and with that I don't
know if it's easier just to zoom the
whole area and
put it into parcels that you've created
and it's there a problem with doing that
and then later on when you're actually
looking at when the council goes in and
looks at zoning to actually say yes
these are the parcels at this point in
time so the idea here that's coming
forward what this looks like
okay so you're not you're not looking it
okay that it's not it's not deeper than
that it's work and the reason is so
here's our vision is ten is flat and
historically been used as a commercial
property and the rest of its forested
and it's publicly owned so for us
because it's publicly owned and it's
forested it would be community
facilities facilities I think you know
that's a fine designation I just don't
want to see any problems with the actual
lines if it were just going no because
because you actually have divided it in
the way you have put it up there so if
you get rid of that and just say
commercial facilities then I'm fine with
that does anybody have any other as far
as 10 goes shouldn't we actually
understand what that would look like as
commercial before we vote on it being
commercial because right now they're
asking us to take basically a version
piece of land and add it's a high-level
coat garage and building and garage and
office right now
that's what 10 is it's already been
cleared it's already has been used in
the past for King County roads
maintenance site with the bins for
gravel sand all that kind of stuff it's
it's an industrial place right now
I I'm not mistaken what I just heard was
we like some zoning as commercial and
then solid naming it so so the council
gets to make decisions on the sale of
land so right now
city staff are working on a project that
includes that parcel and right now all
we're doing is making a designation for
what the land use should be there and if
there's reasons why you don't think
commercial is the right designation then
you should propose an alternative
designation the rest of that tale and
story it's really not part of this
conversation it's up its later date you
know well I don't know what that
commercial I don't know all the land use
head so you're asking us to make a
decision on something that we haven't
been filled in with so all the land use
that's adjacent to ten you know on the
on the comp on the comp plan map and
maybe we need to put the comp plan map
on so you guys can see the context it's
all commercial so everything that's kind
of north of there
that's our that's commercial and if we
need to put the comp plan map up we can
because I think so the zoning map behind
you is is a different it's got a finer
grain of detail but the comprehensive
plan map which is where this will this
right now it shows up as white on the
comp plan what we're talking about is
putting colors in to the comp plan for
the island that's all we're talking
about here so let me ask you this key so
that isn't a that is not those are not
separate parcels right they all have the
same parcel number they're not separate
parcels so right now that's an
approximate it's some piece of that that
total land right it's five acres out
there so what's so it I'm playing
devil's advocate here what's to stop
anybody to say from saying now five
acres is now ten acres we're gonna we're
gonna take down all of that wooded area
and make it all commercial because
originally it was approximately five and
we decided we're gonna make it larger it
so we're having trouble with with
something that is not defined so 1010 is
defined the the story that the
conversation that happened at the City
Council because I was there
was not about 10 because 10 we know the
dimensions of 10 it was about whether or
not there was a cff parcel at the top of
the hill and what the dimensions of that
were and because some of the other
variables have not landed on that yet we
didn't have the exact dimensions for
what a potential school site would look
like and so that's what happened at the
City Council it wasn't about 10 it was
about what showing up is 12 on this map
the dimensions of that parcel are not
said as of today we have pictures of
what that area looks like and you can
pull up pictures if that would be
helpful it's on high map the picture of
the shop site is on a map and just so
you know that the existing parcel is own
mining in King County and we didn't want
to be comparable and and zone at that
why not I'm not going to answer that
[Applause]
okay so here is our King County Island
and so you can see basically so what
show clone that maps con so it showed up
is 10 11 12 and 14 so that's this parcel
you can see the parcel boundaries right
here so the city of Issaquah owns this
parcel which you can see right here this
is down at the bottom of the hill so
elevation aliy this is at the bottom
this is slope up to the top it crests
about right here so there there's a
crest line that runs along this line and
then this wooded area is up at the
elevation of is qua Highlands and
Swedish and the subdivision that's going
in right next to it so the area that
we're talking about being commercial you
can see there's a very distinct eastern
edge to it because that actually if you
had if I'm gonna guess the Google
Streetview didn't come back into here
because it's not a real street but if
you saw that there's actually ecology
blocks that form this back edge and as
Ron mentioned earlier what happened is
they basically created a flat pad they
cut the toe of the slope there's a
ecology blocks that are stacked there
and then it goes up the hill from there
and so migrating that Eastern property
boundary any farther east is really
expensive because then you're actually
having to cut more of the toe of the
slope and build a retaining wall to hold
back the slope don't forget all of this
is owned by the city so any property
decisions about taking a bigger parcel
migrating that taking down the forested
hillsides is a decision that the City
Council would have to make and as I
mentioned earlier and even though as
Trish mentioned these parcels this one
here and this one here and this one here
are owned by wash dot you know both wash
dot and the city of Issaquah support
mounts to sound Greenway and part of the
vision for mountains to sound is that
this hillside remains forested and so
that's one of the
reasons why I think to answer the
question earlier I'm not sure watchdogs
concerned about us designating this as
community facilities because them
selling it for residential is probably
not in the cards politically and it
helps that we're looking to potentially
cite a reservoir somewhere back in here
so I don't know if that's helpful but
that's part of the story oh one of my
concerns is that as far as commercial if
we zone it as commercial that's not
owning it you're putting a designation
for land use I'm sorry we're giving it a
designation of as commercial if we do
that then the city would be this desire
maybe to sell it wouldn't that be prime
property for the city to use for
facilities we could do that still so
just because you put a commercial
facility on it so I'm gonna pull the map
down a bit and so right here this is the
city's Public Works operations
department so we we have facilities in
this location maintenance facilities and
we actually own the trailer park so we
own this parcel too so you know this
piece of property though like I said
right now right now we've got plans for
it it doesn't mean that we'll actually
get that over the goal line so if at the
end of the day we own this and don't
have a use for it we could use it for
like a parks maintenance shop because we
are trying to move the parks maintenance
shop out of confluence park so there's a
lot of things that we're trying to do
that we could use this property for and
at the end of the day if the council
were to decide a different zone so let's
assume that you guys make a
recommendation that it all should be
community facilities or let's assume you
make a rec you go with staff and make
the recommendation that that should be
commercial city council still will zone
the property and
if they choose to put a different zone
on that property then we come back in
next year's comp plan docket
well actually we could do it this year
because we'll know the answer to that
it's potentially in a couple weeks but I
think I guess what I would say Ron is I
think what we're looking for is for you
guys to tell us what you think makes the
most sense here and then we'll take that
forward as a recommendation to the City
Council from PPC okay so if if what the
if what the staff of what the
administration is recommending at least
for parcel ten doesn't make sense for
you then pitch a different alternative
and you guys can deliberate on that
we're not there's there's multiple
choices here
so if we decided as a as a body to say
well OS CF CF for the entire parcel for
all Lots expected Lots then the city can
come back with a proposal and say this
is what we want to rezone we want his
own lot n as a commercial piece and this
is why that thought that thought and
then we can make the decision and that
can go to City Council then you actually
make the decision to zone it so they
would make both the decision for zoning
and for land use so what will happen is
so the administration makes a
recommendation you guys make a
recommendation it's great if they match
if they don't match then the staff will
provide a rationale for why the two
recommendations didn't match and then
the council makes a decision based on
that okay
I don't see this is controversial at all
I think it completely makes sense to
list that as commercial considering the
surroundings and the landscape of that
and the rest as community facilities and
take that decision off of City Council
since they're going to have enough on
their hands in deciding what will
potentially be parcel 12 well we're not
taking off their their plate they still
have to look at it but they can look at
it as our recommendation we do have to
make a proposal for this so keep that in
your mind sorry I've got a quick
question for Keith yes listen the
parcels that are in front of 10 like the
the Trailer Park and the other
facilities part like skis yes you're
right those are commercial or what are
those CF if there's CF because we own
them ok so I guess the next step is to
make a motion I would like to make a
motion that the king county island is
owned to CF they're not zoned for CF but
has designated as CF that's that's ten
right
that includes ten okay good then if you
know they want to come back and make it
as commercial then it could be a
discussion when they have a proposal
that's fully baked do I get a second
then nobody has a second okay
it's been moved and seconded and is
there any discussion or zealot of zoning
for designating all of those areas I
have a question for Keith what does that
do to that particular part a parcel does
it make it it's still cf it's zoned it's
done so so you guys don't have the you
guys don't have the benefit of
understanding what we're doing with that
parcel and I apologize for that at some
point we brought you guys so much stuff
we you guys should ask ask so I'm giving
you the invitation to ask to get the
presentation on transit oriented
development so the City Council's
already entered into a memorandum of
understanding with a developer to
basically move the CenturyLink
maintenance yard from where it is next
to the sound transit garage on SR 900 to
this location in in exchange for that so
they'll be so we will build a developer
will build a one-story maintenance yard
for CenturyLink because they do not want
to leave the city in this location in
their current location and I can since I
have a aerial photograph up I can go
there if I can
might need to scroll down a little bit I
think I can get there keep going okay
wait I found the park I'm doing good all
right so this is where CenturyLink is
right now this is Newport
this is SR 900 and this is the
park-and-ride garage our plan are very
complicated plan is to move this over to
that bottom piece of property and then
in exchange for the developer building
them a new one of these over there they
will then get access to this piece of
property and what they are going to
build here is some of that stuff that
Jen talked about early we're gonna get
it's a 300
I'm doing this from memory so I
apologize it's like 360 housing units of
which at least half of them are
affordable it's got a human service
space in the ground floor it's got
ground-floor retail it's got two floors
of parking above that ground floor it's
got one level of parking that
subterranean and it's got a big kind of
Plaza space that's across the street
from the new skate park in Tibbets
really cool council super excited about
it but we need the bottom of that
property to potentially be part of a
three party transaction where that would
go to CenturyLink at the end of the
process to replace this facility here so
my apologies for that so if you guys do
community facilities for all of that
given the fact that the City Council
already approved memorandums of
understanding to work with both Century
Link and the developer my guess is the
council will ignore that and probably
put commercial on that I think that was
my question if I got there eventually
yeah if it is cf then the city I mean
you used to you can't put commercial
into it so there is a restriction of
what you can do with it you can't add
the with the commercial in it so I
wanted that to be clear you know the
rest of it you can eventually put
whatever you want so likely and we're in
a kind of a funky procedural thing in
that there's kind of a recommendation
that's in process on the entire comp
plan docket and in the midst of all that
the council is going to make a decision
on one of the things that you guys are
making a recommendation on and if
ultimately you make a recommendation and
they don't concur with it a hundred
percent my guess is it would come back
here and we would change the
recommendation ultimately coming forward
I don't know it seems a little we got a
weird procedural thing going on but we'd
figure it out
but this isn't I mean I understand
aspirationally we're going this
direction and everybody's on the same
boat
if this there is a chance that this
could fall through sure though
could we ins and in essence make a
motion that we zone everything as CF and
if CenturyLink deal goes through it
becomes commercial it's my understanding
the CenturyLink deal can't go through
and CenturyLink it's kind of holding
back on that next step until they know
that the city is behind this part of it
right so so it's a con it's complicated
so there's to make it even more
complicated enters King County and King
County has set aside 10 million dollars
for Issaquah North Bend and Snoqualmie
specifically for transit oriented
development and because Snoqualmie and
North Bend likely don't have the
facilities to qualify for that 10
million dollars it could very well be
that the city has the ability to get ten
million dollars from King County from
their transit oriented development funds
to apply specifically for this project
all the pieces need to be in play and
moving in the right direction for us to
get King County's support for making
that allocation that application is
going in this month so the ten million
dollar piece is for CenturyLink going to
parcel ten and the central area of
becoming that affordable housing piece
yes okay it helps with the financing
back to the conversation earlier about
the markets not here outside financing
if you can get ten million dollars from
a third party that makes a big
difference so with that understanding I
like a plan a plan B kind of thing but I
mean I understand that and it's like
okay we like to go forward understanding
what Keith has just explained do you
still want to go for
with your motion or do you want to pull
evil I would like to retract that motion
is that approved by the person who
seconded it I am concerned said that by
the way these conversations go it's you
know we don't want to approve it and so
then there's a whole bunch of other
information there wasn't provided to
begin with I mean this is the motion has
been withdrawn you know okay so it's the
I assume with the motion if the maker of
the motion is pulled it back I'm
assuming that the second goes away right
that's right okay so would you like to
make a new motion or anybody like to
make a motion that's a question weird
I'm not mistaken we're not approving
anything you're recommending we are
making a recommendation yes so we can
recommend to the City Council that it be
all community facilities that meets
everybody's desire way I see the issue
and then with the City Council having
the greater knowledge of the inner
workings and hidden mechanisms of under
the table deals that are currently
Massenet ting out over here which we
have no knowledge of they can change it
and they can make it commercial it's
ready to them that's all
I was going to suggest that we that
solves the problem I'm very much in
favor of this being designated as
commercial so I will go ahead and make a
motion the parcel 10 be designated as
commercial and the remainder as
community facilities second
and I miss I'm mystified make anything I
can't second it
I miss the motion yeah we were having a
trouble I made a motion that parcel 10
as commercial and the remainder as
community facilities and now Joan is
asking whether or not she can can I
second it I don't think I can the chair
and alternates can't do motions if
there's already a there's already a
quorum of official of what do we call
them regular members and the alternates
do second can the alternates make a
second we have okay okay the motion
fails we have how do you want to proceed
question for Carl if we what do you
think proposing it to be CFF I'm sorry
CF and if this deal with CenturyLink
goes through it goes to commercial or
Parcel ten I think
that's unnecessary counsel we get the
council as council will change it here
you to do that if the deal is contingent
on it being commercial we don't know
that because we don't know all the
details of what's going on and since
there's concerns over a specific piece
of property in regards to the dimensions
and exactly what's going to happen we
eliminate that but just saying we'll do
the whole island
community facilities and then if the
City Council deems it necessary to have
a specific portion nine and ten maybe
make ten a little bigger or something
for whatever reason because of the masa
nations going on in the backroom
smoke-filled okay look I make a motion
that the King County Island is
designated as CF now second it and the
rest are you just gonna are you just
doing Marshall ten are you doing all of
it
Oliver pink I love what you say so
incoming Island one of these parcels
parcel nine is actually privately owned
right I can't take community facilities
right nine is the little part that's
just part of a parcel yes and you
couldn't that couldn't be designated
community facilities because it's not
publicly owned the teeny little 0.077 a
that's not part of the King County
Island it is okay right
and that's nine right so one mr. parson
make a motion then to designate the king
the King County Island as CF with an
exception of personal nine perfect in a
second okay
and the second a second I second
okay so any other discussion with that
all those in favor of the motion is
stated
aye aye opposed no listen oh I left out
Lindsey's no there's three or I've got I
three in favor
so that's Carl Ron Jones with that if
there's no other but you have an entire
list of comp plan amendments that still
need to be recommended to the City
Council travursel um okay we just got
rid of the hard part's the ready to
accept the amendments as stated by
Kristen in relation to housing and I
make a motion to to approve the
amendments to the comprehensive plan and
zoning map for the 2016 docket including
land-use amendments we use designation
rezoning community facilities
redeafination rezoning the over Dale
property and a transportation element
six-year transportation improvement
program and related map I second isn't
that part correct so with the exception
with the exception as as was stated okay
all those in favor say aye aye opposed
motion care well done so with that that
I'm gonna call the meeting to close okay
at 10:00 after 9:00 okay thank you
it could pop you well done
you