good evening and welcome to the
September 28th meeting of the planning
policy commission the first thing I'd
like to congratulate you on your last
meeting I thought we had some great
questions and great ideas to reelin City
so I really appreciate I actually
watched the three and a half hours today
so thank you very much for your time
when you're here interest so usually the
first thing on our on our agenda is
approval of the minutes of the September
14th meeting do I have a motion to
approve the minutes I would like to we'd
like to make a motion to approve the
minutes from the September 14th meeting
by the second seconded those in favor
aye
approved so tonight we're going to have
two separate public hearings the first
one is the end of the development
agreements and the proposed amendments
and so lucy is going to give us an
update on a quick view of what those are
so good evening i'm lucy slum and land
development manager of DST back again I
always like to review the history
because the meetings just keep piling up
hits just keep on coming so we started
in the spring working with two
communities who development agreements
the build-out period has been reached we
started working with PPC and you VDC
jointly in August we've had three
meetings this is our fourth meeting and
public hearing on this matter I am NOT
doing another summary so because I think
we've worked with you guys enough so the
only thing I'm and I'm not even going to
go through everything that was in the
summary memo I'm just going to touch on
the ones that based on that either
changes or things that we've talked
about that I thought were worth touching
on so first is in section
up in the front section Oh 300 scope and
applicability we added a director's
interpretation that would clarify how
central Issaquah would apply when used
in association with the urban villages
so we had several different references
that we showed you last time where
language would be virtually replaced and
you guys were supportive of that the
interpretation would also identify which
level of review we're proposing for site
development permits and that was the
lowest level or the small yeah else call
at the lowest level three acre sites are
what applying the urban villages
currently this would also add a building
of 45,000 square feet there are three
levels 45,000 hundred thousand and
hundred and fifty thousand so we picked
the low bar and then there was also an
explanation related to figures that were
referenced in centralism plan which ones
did not apply and if they were used as
part of code references or standards
what to do with that any questions okay
second we added a bunch of definitions
that the Commission's had identified the
need for we removed informal gathering
areas because the definition that we had
previously provided was almost identical
to the one that was already in central
is kua and we did not add a definition
for Plaza because that was also already
identified defined in central is Klaw
and we thought that was sufficient based
on our discussion when we removed
informal gathering area where did you
replace that way so central Issaquah had
virtually the same language at as was in
the draft so since if something is not
in 1890 avait teen 18 be sorry it's 1819
be the replacement regulations if
there's a definition there
would use it if we don't have a
definition then we go to central is
quest standard so decentralized to go
have a definition for informal gathering
area yes and it was virtually identical
to the one that we had provide okay so
this was your removed because it's
duplicative exactly thank you for
clarifying me so are you saying that
there isn't a definition for assisted
living or senior housing or anything
like that in central Alaska yes although
sociable public realm which is the term
that's used in Tallis and his Highlands
is called public realm in central East
cause so the definition really just
points to public realm it says where you
see the terms sociable public realm see
public realm in the central is quite
standards definitions but there isn't
anything for assisted living or senior
housing really okay and there was Park
but we didn't think it worked well with
what we were trying to do here so we
provided a definition that would fit
better with all the work that you guys
have done around requiring those okay
any other questions on definitions okay
in uses we that very detailed sheet that
we worked through those got inserted
there were three changes made in
single-family we took out transportation
services it's not that we don't want
transportation services there but this
only applies to the single family lots
and taxi stands and car2go and all those
things don't really make sense on a
single-family lot they make sense in the
street but the streets are right-of-way
so that isn't the use that would define
having that available near single-family
homes in Issaquah Highlands because we
had combined retail and commercial into
a new zone this was just a leftover
hangnail that we needed to remove with
the mix juice non-residential because
we're not using that term anymore with
talis we removed indoor recreation
because that isn't really consistent
with the office campus but as part of
support office Support Services
Fitness is still there so it's not that
you couldn't have a gym or an Athletic
Club or something you just wouldn't have
a bowling alley or things that didn't
support that office campus vision any
more questions there okay
in district standards we added a minimum
floor area ratio of one who here knows
when a floor area ratio is or an FA are
okay yeah you guys don't count so floor
area ratio is one way of governing
density so a floor area ratio of one
means you could build a single storey
over the entire site two storeys over
half the site four storeys over a
quarter of the site so it it you need
height limits and other things to help
shape that but it gives you a sense of
how much you can put on a piece of
property floor area ratio there were
maximum floor area ratios and
development agreements there were not
minimums however the city is moving you
know as residential we have a minimum
density and as us in the development
agreements and as a city we are moving
towards minimum densities to assure the
insure that we are getting efficiently
smartly developed land so this is
different than the development agreement
but seem consistent with where we were
as a city in terms of change that we
made we had required a 15-foot first
floor and we had applied that to
non-residential projects retail and
mixed-use projects we took it out of non
residential office buildings currently
need 15 foot first floors that is
something that sometimes works if they
have certain kinds of lobbies but there
was a concern was that with the height
limits that would restrict the number of
floors and we weren't putting that in
there to try and reduce the number of
floors plus at
Halas the office campus isn't even
allowed to have retail so it didn't make
sense to apply that there so it was
removed from both Towson issaquah
Highlands for non-residential projects
only applied to retail or mixed-use
projects questions okay
parks we had a requirement of 250 square
feet per net new residential units and
you all asked we sort of talked about a
bunch of things and you had asked for
some criteria and standards to make sure
that we were getting what we wanted
we've proposed something so I don't we
need to hear if this seems like the
right things kind of hard to read and
you're well summarized sure so it says
with net new residential development new
parks will be provided at the minimum
rate of 250 square feet per residential
unit you know what let me do this let me
find it in the code so you can actually
just look at it it's on page this is on
page 43 of 287 if you have your packets
does anyone need a packet okay I'll take
one if you have some appended so this
way I don't need to read it out loud but
I'm happy to talk about it in concept
we're saying it only applies to net new
units and that's those that are added
beyond those in place upon the effective
date of this code the characteristics
are that it will they will comply with
the urban village goals and guidelines
they have to be provided on-site for
multifamily this means as part of the
parcel for plats this means that it's an
integral part of the overall
subdivision in either attract or parcel
that it will have visual and
recreational variety in pedestrian
amenities appeal to the senses have
seating lighting and it will have
elements such as I should say seating
lighting water features paving landscape
artwork special recreational features
Sun and shade it be located away from
surface parking lots loading waste
collection service areas the land will
be usable pleasant integral component of
the project or plat in which it is
located
it won't be on leftover property or in
locations that are isolated our hidden
which might create safety issues and
that it should have an access easement
so these are privately owned with public
easement I would assume that they are
privately owned but we did not specify
ok and then what oh sorry what was the
rationale between having it on requiring
it on site for multi-family well I think
that that's the way most of the parks
that that we were looking at except for
the city-owned parks that's the way most
of them have been done so I think we're
looking at something that's integral I
suppose I I mean I guess it just I'm not
sure what you would do if you said you
could buy property off-site you know
like how does or buy property in his
Highlands I'm just not quite sure
how that would work this is new park
requirements what were they before this
how is there were none no it was there
were so when we started there was a
capital facilities plan that had a list
of certain recreational features that
had to be provided then there was a
master parks plan maybe 10 years and to
build out in which the those capital
facilities were located in certain air
to ensure that they would be built out
and as a kind of coordinated effort
between the master developer and the
city in addition to those capital
facilities multifamily projects in the
guidelines are supposed to provide these
projects single family plots have as
kind of a custom
and a part of the character provided
them and I think as we have reached the
end of the build-out period our proposal
to you is that these parks have become
an integral part of the character and so
therefore we are requiring them as we
complete the build-out of the project
but it's not based on it's based on
character and some research we have done
over the years but not on a development
agreement requirement okay so the
research you've done have come up with
250 wear feet in other areas and which
is actually for iske highlands it's less
than what other areas have but we wanted
a consistent I think the message we'd
gotten from you VDC probably more than
PPC was that there should be a
consistent Plaza and a consistent Park
requirement between the two communities
so in looking at the two projects that
was the number that we're proposing
based on our analysis of the two urban
villages so in looking at this
requirement looking at these pictures
they're great pictures but the reality
of is if you only have if you have a new
one to four units that's less than a
thousand square feet that's hardly
enough space to consider Park so should
we put in some sort of minimum
requirements saying that if you have
more than four net you new units then
you have to meet the thousand or if
you're putting in one net unit it's
hardly we want to even go there well I
guess my thought would be that based on
our conversation last time is that a
project let's say you had
I'm going to use your example you have
an existing piece of property that has
ten units on it right now and the way
the rest of the standards are written
that park that amount of park is
protected and cannot be removed or
reduced without council approval so if
you were redeveloping a ten unit project
into a 14 unit project you're right you
would only be adding a thousand square
feet but that would be to whatever was
there before so I think the idea is that
you couldn't take out the existing park
and put those four units in you would
have to increase the density and grow
the park area somewhat does that make
sense yeah that makes sense and I was
kind of thinking of a situation where
you have an owner that has maybe two
duplex or four Plex units and so space
might be a premium for them and they
wouldn't have that expansion capability
but they're adding maybe one or two
units it almost seems like we'd be
defeating itself because we would rather
have the optimized structure or a new
development or that they would they
would be restricted from being able to
do that because they'd have to come up
with five hundred square feet of a lot
which they might actually need for those
two units and for five hundred square
feet of lot it doesn't it seems really
restrictive so remember there isn't a
way to increase the density right now
council would have to approve TDRs
coming in and if those were allowed I'm
not sure they would you would be buying
one TDR to create a duplex on your
property that would be a lot of expense
and process to add one unit and then
have to come up with an extra 250 square
feet yeah so are you suggesting that we
have a
option to allow them to invest into a
fund the purchase park property I'm I'm
not I because I think it's just such an
unlikely scenario that I don't think
that we need to address that but that's
that's me I need to hear from the
commissioners I was a proponent of this
I felt like you heard our back and forth
discussion last time and I thought this
was the president I think we have a way
of really mirroring the kind of
community that we want to continue to
encourage I think this is a really
important requirement as well and by
really specifying the net new I think
that we make a clear distinction between
adding and so I recognize your point
about how much adding is and you're
worried about the impact of small
additions but to Lucy's point I don't
think this is a realistic situation
where everyone's gonna be want to be
turning a single-family home into a
duplex and we'll be able to easily go
through that process even if they did I
would like to see them contribute to
this I think that's a part of being in
this community and I'm a proponent of
how it's written right now
oh you continue that thought ad use so
you have a house and we're trying to
promote Haiti use so we allow someone to
build an ad you how are they going to
come up with the 250 square feet on
their lot so no ad you is not considered
an additional unit an ad you is
accessory and so it's assumed that the
provisions that are made on the lot are
sufficient to accommodate this accessory
use so the ad use are restricted by size
and other factors to keep them as an
accessory use so you don't for instance
on a single-family lot you you get one
house and you can have one ad you you
don't need another piece of entitlement
or zoning to be able to provide an ad
you okay and take into consideration if
someone who has a one acre lot and they
split the lot that's one additionally
new unit right no they don't but they
don't have an entitlement for that unit
two so you've got you've got to have
separate Council action to create the
entitlement for the unit above and
beyond the fact that it's sort of an so
this is an oddball because the way
you're describing it run is very
consistent with the way it would be in
the rest of the city if if we have five
thousand-square-foot zoning and I have a
ten thousand square foot lot I can short
plot it and put another house on it but
right now we we can't stop you from
short planning it but you would have no
right to put a house on it you would
just have a separate empty lot okay so
and so what you're saying is this policy
would what we're discussing tonight
would give you that outcome you would
have a homeowner who wants to create a
10,000 square foot lot they would have
to come up with a 250 square feet of
work space if they short planted it and
had some provision to allow them to add
another unit and right now there's no
provision except going to council and
buying a TDR to allow them to develop
that lot okay this seems a little
confusing I think it's a little bit hard
to think about the Highlands or Telus
being built out and they're not being
situations where and new homes are gonna
pop up or something like that that's
where we're at so right now we're simply
saying the entitlement that was
associated with the development
agreement is all there is that's
different than other parts of the city
where you may be able to figure out
change zoning or in some way increase
what you can do on your property what
we're giving people is what they possess
now and so we're just simply saying with
the parks piece is that has been a
integral part of the character
that as the community community finishes
building out the entitlement that was
part of the development agreement they
would need to be providing parks at a
certain rate if they are not vested
under the development agreement okay
clarifying question on that Lucy so it
says dwelling units in place do we have
any residential units that have current
entitlement that have not yet been built
I know we've got a fair amount of
commercial retail office space that's
hasn't yet been built I'm thinking of
the big what's the developer but that
that's building next I was going yes
thank you polygons clarify I think that
it's has to do with vesting okay so for
instance the three left over units that
not polygons but the shelter if they
added those three units a couple years
from now would they have to supply 750
square feet of park space if they were
not but if they were not considered
vested throughout in juice okay so
though so we're assuming I mean they
think it always file something Burroughs
I mean those three units would not be
vested but the polygons presumably would
be fully vested so a couple of thoughts
I vesting is very complicated right now
we're still talking with the city
attorney and we're going to propose
something to the council about certain
kinds of permits are vested by by the
state in certain aspects and then other
things are not automatically vested in
the city we'll have to make a policy
decision about whether they're vested or
not I did look so I did look at polygons
and the city are at sort of the pre-op
phase for Phase two of their townhouses
the last phase of townhouses and I did
look at the open space they're providing
in that particular project and they
exceed this so if they were not vested
well they would they would say weathers
they would have no trouble meeting it
yeah because I wanted to make sure we
weren't backing ourselves into a bad
situation
and what about the there's just a few
lots up on Grand Ridge Drive in the
highlands so I would say that those lots
are vested and therefore that is not an
issue but I think that's a good thing to
clarify too okay
same for parcel D a lot to you whatever
it's called up in the Highland rec T
track D thank you would that be
considered vested whatever their
entitlement is we don't have a land use
permit at this time okay what is one of
my fellow Commissioner members think
about if you're trying to gets built for
public housing or affordable housing
would we still expect them to fill its
requirement yeah I think they would have
to go before council and say this is why
we're making a proposal as to why we
shouldn't have to fit this and they
would have to be specifically asking for
an exemption okay agree I would agree
okay so we'll clarify that language
under the sort of introduction of the
in-place language yeah I think this
ending the spirit of it's fine there was
more worried about those yeah no I think
that's a good good call anything else on
this slide
okay plazas which would be the next page
44 out of 287 is the language one point
five that I've got up here essentially
that's the the rate is the same one that
we talked about 25 square feet per
thousand square feet of new
non-residential construction it has to
be on site it can be broken into
multiple spaces however if they choose
to do multiple spaces they cannot be
smaller than two thousand square feet
and it needs to be located to serve both
the site's users and the public should
we consider in addition to non
residential non community facilities if
any of these properties were to include
a school would we expect them to have a
plaza
at that rate a school yeah I guess my
initial reaction I haven't thought about
this at all so unbar niscitam
they provide a lot of onsite recreation
so that seems to me and that bent the
community is often allowed I'm
suggesting I wouldn't want to force a
school to have to create a plaza oh okay
so you're wanting to exclude schools yes
I would concur with that so I will will
clarify that language too and I would
just put it in there it's community
facilities because then if they're
building a park I mean I sure wasn't an
exception if it's a private school
it wouldn't be C F F so correct that
would be in public facility rather than
community facilities but otherwise I
would agree with you okay and then
lastly adjustments and modifications we
talked some about preliminary plats and
we tried to unpack this process somewhat
the details are on on page 56 of 287 the
idea is that you know we work with the
applicant in a collaboration meeting and
then a pre-op meeting and then they make
the full preliminary plat the middle and
when that happens well let me take a
step back let me tell you what the
process is right now and that's what
kind of was the genesis of this in the
city right now if you have a preliminary
plat staff issues a report and it goes
to the Hearing Examiner the only sort of
public meeting other than the Hearing
Examiner meeting which takes place
during the day is a neighborhood meeting
which is held by the applicant in the
neighborhood okay but I think the thing
that we found working with the UV DC
is that we appreciate a larger community
conversation did you ever think you'd
hear me say that that we we've really
appreciated the larger community
conversation with both the Commission
and the public and the neighbors so it's
not that we don't want to hear from the
neighbors we absolutely do but we want
to have that sort of larger community
conversation because Platts really do
set so many things you know they're off
in the streets and where the parks are
going in all kinds of things so to try
and find a balance between the city's
process and what we've been in doing in
the urban villages what we would propose
is that once we get the full plat the
middle and it is deemed complete we
would hold a community conference
community conferences are hosted by the
Commission in this case the Development
Commission after that meeting in which
the public the neighbors the
commissioners get to speak the applicant
can speak we would produce a community
response a community conference response
memo which is kind of like the memos
that we've been doing for you guys which
we call briefing response memos so we
would summarize all the topics that have
come up and the applicant and staff
would respond to them and have sort of
conclusions this is supported by code so
we're going to do X this is an
interesting point and we've asked the
applicant to consider it but we don't
have a code basis for requiring it you
know go through all all of that the
community conference response memo would
then be issued for a two-week comment
period so if the Commission the public
the neighbors disagree they have an
opportunity to read through how we've
summarized the topics and how we've
suggested responding we take that and if
that if their concerns are supported by
code we would incorporate those into
either the memo the conditions the plat
and then that would be one of the
attachments that we would send to the
Hearing Examiner for their canoe
in reviewing the plat in making a
decision on the play so I like this idea
and I think we've seen a lot of
developer community involvement in
particularly in the highlands where
you've got that community engagement so
I love this idea I'm a little bit
concerned that we're putting something
in place as far as development review
for the urban villages that's separate
from what we're seeing in the rest of
the highlands I think that feels a
little bit wrong from the rest of the
Highland sorry the rest of Issaquah
thank you
so our ideas we're going to propose that
we change the planning process citywide
but right now we're just starting with
the urban villages so we will have that
conversation with Council and let them
know that that's our intent okay what
would it look like if we have that
conversation with Council and go forward
with that but there are some adjustments
maybe they want a one-month comment
period or something like that
how would that reflect on this if this
is already implemented they then end up
being different well so remember we're
gonna have this goes to Council they're
going to be aware that this is what
we're proposing and they're gonna ask
that same question why is it different
than the rest of the city and we're
going to say we're going to propose that
what you approve here is then
implemented citywide if they decided
when they went through that conversation
next year that it should be a one-month
comment period for instance as you I you
know just throughout we can as part of
adopting that code we could change this
code at the same train so there are
there mechanisms to to make them
eliminate this code and say point to
city of us a question or something
okay sure well I appreciate you adding
the second level on from what we
discussed this other week having this a
second opportunity because sometimes
life happens and you missed your first
chance and so if you were to miss the
meeting you're still able to have
have an impact so I appreciated you
hearing those comments we had the other
way yeah no we i we think it's a good
addition so that's that's all I have so
I'm I'm open to answer any questions or
other things that you feel that I should
you want to talk about or that you would
like to ask me about are we going to
address the two applicants that we have
who are requesting changes or is that a
separate discussion we have so unlike
our previous meetings this would just be
a general public comment period we don't
feel that all the changes that we think
should have been made have been made I
know that they are still asking for
something different than what's
currently being proposed they're both
here tonight I imagine they will speak
and then you are welcome to ask
questions of me of them however you
would like to proceed oh that's what
we're gonna do we're gonna open up the
public comment period of this and then
after we get the input we're going to
come back and if there's any questions
that comes up that's that's when you get
a chance to to talk about anything else
that pops into your mind so with that
I'm going to open up the public hearing
at 7:05 and this is on the end of the
development agreement the what lucy has
just talked about now later on will have
the opportunity to talk about mixed use
vertical mix use so with that dua is
there anybody in the audience that would
like to make a first comment so let's do
that one and then and then you and I
think there was a sign-up sheet that
went around
hey Jay would you go get it
you can you can speak even if you don't
sign that piece okay good evening I'm
Ken Bellamy
7900 southeast 28th Street Suite 238
Mercer Island
I'm with trimet and were the one of the
owners of the 17b parcel in talus the
talus development agreement was adopted
in 1999 and a great deal has changed
over the last 18 years the agreement
will be terminated in the next few
months and the replacement zoning will
have several modifications to properly
recognize that today's codes conditions
and objectives are significantly
different than those that existed when
the agreement was adopted we support the
proposed UVO zoning on our property for
five hundred and sixteen thousand square
feet of office which is the existing
approval under the talus development
agreement after considering comments
from the U VDC meeting and those of the
board of the talus homeowners
association we're proposing one revision
which would permit the development of up
to seventy seven townhomes on a portion
of our property our proposal is to allow
the potential conversion of office to
townhomes at a ratio of one townhome
unit for twelve hundred square feet of
office this ratio is consistent with
previous conversions approved in talus
three major changes have occurred since
nineteen ninety nine that weren't
consideration of our proposal firstly
the office market second biggest was new
vision adopted in the central Issaquah
plan and thirdly changes in the talus
community the office market today is
much different than it was when the
talus development agreement was adopted
in 2006 we purchased the property and
proceeded at a cost of four million
dollars with architectural and
engineering
as well as the site development other
necessary / permits for an office campus
the vacancy rate on the 990 corridor in
2006 was 4.2 percent and today it is
nine point one percent in 2006 major
office tenants were the predominant
occupier of suburban campuses in the
i-90 corridor was the number one choice
of office investors in recent years
leasing and investment activity has
moved to those more urban locations in
the Puget Sound market desired by the
high tech tenants which account for much
of the new office space occupied in the
last five years and 40 percent of all
leases signed these preferred or urban
locations are characterized by dense
mixed juice neighborhoods with services
retail 24/7 activity walkability and
access to public transit during all this
time we have continued to aggressively
lease a market for lease our property
the second major change since the
adoption of the talus development
agreement is the approval of the central
Issaquah plan it was adopted in 2012 to
guide the long term evolution of the
1,100 acre commercial core into a more
sustainable urban area that meets the
community's needs for environmental
protection jobs housing and rapid
transit this is now is opportunity to
create the vibrant urban center today's
high-tech businesses shops and urban
focus residents desire third major
change is the talus community itself the
vision of the talus development
agreement was to create an urban village
community with a mountain village
character it identified 15 community
goals which have mostly been achieved
talus is now almost completely built out
and the residential component is
successful however the most significant
component that will not be built is the
village center that was to be the heart
of the
and provide a lively gathering place to
run errands have coffee shop dine and
partake in community events the office
campus was envisioned to be in proximity
to that village center which would have
provided the shops services and
activities necessary to support the
viability of an office campus on our
property for today's large tenants there
are several benefits to take into
account when considering our proposal it
will allow development of a portion of
the property to proceed while we
redesign the office buildings to
accommodate multiple tenants such as
regional branches or back offices of
traditional offices as well as
organizations and institutions another
benefit our proposal offers is that it
complements the objectives of the
central is Squa plan with additional
customers for the retail and service
businesses and more users to support the
viability of rapid transit at the same
time the townhomes will not compete with
the high density mixed use housing
component of central Issaquah the King
County buildable land report 2014 notes
that almost all of us cause substantial
residential capacity is in the mixed use
zone
finally our proposal is consistent with
the existing distinct character of the
talus community townhomes are an
existing housing type in talus and they
are well suited to its mountain village
character the major concern we have
heard from the talus community is
traffic as an owner of property and
talus we acknowledge and share that
concern traffic analysis shows that
residential uses generates significantly
less traffic than office however a study
of peak hour counterflow traffic impact
has not been done this will be completed
an appropriate mitigation identified as
part of the required approval process
for any specific project
we respectfully request your support for
our proposal to allow town homes on a
portion of our property thank you for
your time and I ask one question I
wasn't clear the homeowners of Tallis
want the town homes or they're against
building the townhomes the first of all
we don't have an exact answer from them
at one point they suggested townhomes
may be appropriate but they also said
that that was conditioned on some
benefit to the Tallis community and we
don't know what that is we haven't been
able to have that conversation
thank you thank you thank you I'm gonna
go back to since I do have a clipboard
in front of me
the first name on the Left Ford is Fred
Nystrom so I'm gonna have to you'll be
there but I'm gonna go buy this
good evening my name is Fred nice term I
live at 3 9 1 southeast Sycamore Creek
Lane in Issaquah and I mentioned to you
a couple of weeks ago when I was talking
in front of your group meeting that I
too had sat in those very chairs where
you are tonight for a good many years as
a member of the Planning Policy
Commission and during my time on the
Commission we dealt with the development
of Tallis the Issaquah Highlands and the
commercial strip along Gilman Boulevard
all sort of complex and thorny issues
like you may be facing in your
jurisdiction or your time on the board
we debated these issues on fairly open
sessions often challenging our staff and
the representatives from the city to
clearly define meaning and intent of any
intended changes that they suggest a lot
of this was tedious technical and a
little overwhelming with its
complexities but we endured over the
years because it was universally
believed that it was our duty to make
certain that any change that had been
suggested be it zoning or any other
overlay that controls the development be
dissected and represent the best
decision that we could make with a
knowledge that we have never did the
staff try to insert a change in anything
we're working on at the last minute
without the understanding that it would
get our personal scrutiny along the way
so how is it that after so many years of
talking about the the ease of taking the
the zoning regulations and development
agreement regulations for you know I'm
speaking now for the highlands in
particular and
directly into the new follow-on
agreements from Issaquah suddenly this
last Friday night the staff produces an
entirely new package and expects well it
really does away with this at this point
of consistency because it changes things
significantly and now you're expected
several days later to understand it and
vote on it and give it your personal
stamp of approval with very little time
to look at what afar is and what the
impact is now typically you only backup
the far in this case it affects shelter
Holdings property differently than it
affects anyone else in the highlands so
there goes this point of consistency so
when a jurisdiction normally inserts or
considers a minimum for there's a lot of
comprehensive study and analysis so you
have to ask yourself why in this case is
this a last-minute change that has a
significant impact and why is this not
being totally debated here in your
format and in other places so it's
understood what the implications are
before you're asked to vote on it
minimum FAR's were never a part of the
development agreement and are not
appropriate now shelter should be
allowed to develop according to the same
general rules as everyone else in the
highlands it's only fair and reasonable
so please be real careful when you're
asked to approve something where you
haven't had a chance to really dig in
and give it your own personal stamp of
approval now let me say one other thing
that is along the line of obvious
inconsistencies I acknowledge that the
city wants to push as much density as
they can down in the central area
the redevelopment area which is probably
a very good idea but why in the world
would we as a community not be
encouraging low and working-class
families to live next to the only
parking right in the entire plateau why
is it that we say by our decision then
unless you have enough money to drive
your car to a park and ride you don't
get to ride the bus instead of putting
homes where they can walk and use the
bus okay I've had my time I've said my
piece thank you very much and we thank
you for your opinion Fred's
TIA
hi I'm TIA hi I'm with shelter Holdings
thanks for allowing me the time to speak
tonight I know we don't have a lot of
time tonight so I'm gonna focus my
remarks on the issue of biggest concern
to us in the current draft which is the
proposed minimum F AR and then my
written comments address some of the
other issues that I think you've heard
from me in the past that I think remain
open at this point so for the past two
years we've been assured that the
devatas the development agreement wraps
up the zoning will give us the same
development rights as we had under the
development agreement that's clearly not
happening our users are getting narrowed
the continuously changing SIDS are
getting wrapped up wrapped in in an
unclear manner and now at the last
minute staff has proposed a minimum F AR
that changes everything
imposing a minimum FA are severely
impacts the ability and the character of
development on our property it
eliminates the ability to do any retail
that would be similar to and would
complement Grande Ridge Plaza it
severely limits and in some case
prohibits our ability to do commercial
or office because of the amount and/or
configurations that would be required on
these large Lots minimum FA Ark is
completely at odds with the city's
stated goals and approach to creating
the zoning with a minimum FA are nearly
every non residential use would now be
non-conforming minimum fer is not a
concept that's been used throughout the
city in fact Central is akua's urban
core is the only place that currently
has a minimum F they are for commercial
I understand that there may be
considering changes but at this point
that's all that there is and it's at
point five five so this would be
dictating that Issaquah Highlands be
much more dense than the urban core of
the central Issaquah area imposing a
minimum F AR is a huge and extreme step
typically reserved only for the densest
of urban areas you really haven't been
presented with adequate information or
analysis to carefully consider a minimum
F AR
for example why is it appropriate or
necessary here or why is one the
appropriate number where did that come
from it doesn't appear to be related to
anything in Issaquah Highlands the
development agreement had no minimum fer
it had targets which actually recognized
the difference between retail and
commercial developments so the
development agreement had a target F AR
for retail at 0.25 and 0.75 for
commercial even the old 2002 Microsoft
proposal which I know people often refer
to as sort of the original vision would
not have met this proposed minimum F AR
it was closer to a point for four F AR
so I guess I would ask you why all of a
sudden is the vision for Issaquah
Highlands commercial changing so
drastically the concept of having a
minimum F AR while also having an
overlay with a zoning cap also has some
inconsistencies potentially leaving some
parcels in situations where it would be
impossible to redevelop and comply with
both the minimum F AR and the Max owning
cap over the past few years we've done
extensive outreach to the Issaquah
Highlands community and had extensive
communication and analysis with the
brokerage community we've worked
extremely hard to bring commercial
development to Issaquah Highlands and
we're continuing to do that we're
finally at the point where in response
to public input and market conditions we
have some development proposals which we
are currently in the process of pursuing
applications for all of which would
comply with the development agreement
regulations and all of which would be
precluded by this proposed code so to
give you a sense of what those are there
we're looking at 120,000 square feet of
retail on blocks a and B so when I talk
about a through E I'm starting at the
North End by the park-and-ride working
my way around the corner so blocks a and
B we're looking at retail which would
have things like probably four or five
new restaurants fitness users maybe a
drug store other retail possibly a
daycare also looking for an
entertainment use there
on Block C on the corner we're looking
at doing a hundred and fifty thousand
square feet of office commercial with a
fitness center that's on the corner of
Discovery and ninth and then as you go
around the corner onto Discovery we're
looking at a four-story medical office
building with over 80,000 feet of
medical office plus street-level retail
and commercial uses we're also looking
on block e at a hundred and ten thousand
square feet of commercial and small
retail uses all of these plans have been
developed with an eye towards retaining
the possibility for future more dense
development on-site when the market can
support that but all of these projects
would be prohibited by the minimum F a
are these are all real projects that
will bring jobs services and revenue to
the city so I've just you know I
normally wouldn't put out there are the
applications that haven't all been
submitted but I want you to really
understand what you are doing if you if
you recommend a minimum FA are so our
request is that PPC honor the city's
goals of maintaining character creating
as few non-conforming situations as
possible and using regulations that are
consistent with the rest of the city and
the city stated intent that the new
regulations would mimic the development
agreement and think about what's
rationale what's fair while recognizing
property rights and desires of the
community for additional retail
restaurant services and jobs keeping
this in mind you should recommend
eliminating the proposed minimum F AR
and recommend further cleanup and
clarification of the code be conducted
prior to recommending to the council
it's really important to note that there
are two crucial sections that are
missing from this proposed code vesting
and mitigation until those sections are
included the package is really not
complete and the public neither the
public nor the Commission can make an
informed decision and recommendation to
the council we also stand by our
previous request to allow conversions of
some of the commercial to residential
particularly in the north end of our
property near the Transit Center we're
including residential uses clearly the
most appropriate use
that parcel there's lots of additional
thoughts in the in the letter but I
won't stand here and take up your time
to restate all of those happy to answer
any questions you might have
thank you
hello to the Commission my name is Steve
Johnson with a full receivers architects
my office is at 14 11 4th Avenue Suite 1
3 0 6 in Seattle thanks to the
Commission and the V CDC for being here
tonight and taking the time I'm the
architect for shelter Holdings we're
currently working on a retail proposal
for Issaquah Highlands the Tia spoke we
were also the architects for Grand Ridge
Plaza so we've got a lot of experience
in this community and interpretation of
the former code shelter Holdings has
asked us to take a look at the proposed
code and we have concerns and a lot of
questions I apologize that this is the
first meeting I've been to but I have
been following the different
reiterations of the code and I'm up to
speed on it our primary concern is Tia
said and the former Commissioner is of
the minimum FA our requirement this is
kind of slipped in at the last minute we
haven't had time to fully analyze is I
think you should and has been suggested
of what how this plays out with the
density of the code the density of the
properties I believe it's inconsistent
planning and has unintended consequences
for example the fa r prohibits any
standalone retail development except a
multi-story mall if you were trying to
do mall and not office which we know of
is a project type a mall as we know as a
project type is not desirable or
leasable in today's environment in fact
except for under small circumstances and
and constrained use in fact under the
proposed it so-called highlands code
University Village would not meet an FA
r1 requirement it would probably be in
the vicinity of 0.5 but you'd have to
argue that yes the University Village
provides a wonderful pedestrian shopping
experience and you could also argue that
it probably meets the goals of the urban
secondly the FBR creates a
non-conforming density for most most all
non-residential developments that exist
in US Issaquah Highlands today so
there's an unfairness and an unbalance
in imposing this on the new development
which was not required of grand rich
Plaza in other words all existing
development Greenwich Plaza would not
conform to these FA are standards next I
cannot think of another jurisdiction
that it imposes a minimum fer that
doesn't allow for true mixed-use
development which includes residential
Seattle has recently imposed a minimum
fer in their pedestrian oriented zones
which I would consider to be similar to
the zones but a higher density to to
what is Sequoia Highlands is trying to
achieve but residential is always
allowed on the upper levels they're
constricted on the lower levels for the
sake of the pedestrian experience in
putting retail on the street but
residential is always allowed above that
whenever there's a minimum FA are
imposed in order to meet this level
which is not excuse me this was in order
to meet this FA our requirement will
require that retail shops and
restaurants would have to be provided on
a second level which I know as a retail
expert is not Lisa Belen today's retail
world unless it's in very specific
high-density areas such as downtown
Seattle or downtown Bellevue the
unintended outcome of this FAO
requirement is to require commercial
offices space because without
residential this is the only remaining
viable use to be provided on the upper
floors shelter Holdings is demonstrated
that there is some market for additional
office space but not in to the extent
that would be required by this FA our
agreement if it covered the entire
shelter Holdings properties
the proposal that we are working on
currently will bring exactly the type of
services restaurants and retailers that
residents have said that they desire and
those community goals would be
prohibited by this code if the fer
requirements are approved the and I was
running some calculations when Lucy was
going over the minimum Plaza
requirements the 25 square foot Plaza
per 100,000 was per 1,000 square foot a
development means that if you proposed
on any site less than 80,000 square feet
of development you will provide more
than the rate than what she implies so
in from instance that the two thousand
square foot minimum Plaza if you had a
forty thousand square foot of
development which is considered as a
large grocery store you would have to
provide twice the rate of what she's
suggesting too because of the 2,000
square foot in minimum Plaza area we'd
also like to point out that having only
a general statement in the proposed code
that SIDS fills in where new regulations
are silent without a clear list of which
provisions of the SIDS apply is very
confusing for the end-user and the
architect architects and owners need
clarity and certainty which this
proposed code is lacking we work with
all local jurisdictions Bellevue Redmen
Seattle and I've never seen a code which
is hard to navigate and difficult to
decipher which regulations apply between
the various codes it is usually very
easy when interpreting codes to
determine which regulations govern and
there's cross references provided that
typically provided clear direction in
summary I know that shelter Holdings has
offered our services to the city staff
to help review this code to make sure
that it works from a practical
standpoint and I want to reiterate that
offer I believe that proposed Issaquah
Highlands code for all its good
intention isn't sufficiently developed
developed to be approved thanks for your
consideration thank you
why didn't type anything so I'm just I'm
just a lowly citizen here and in
Issaquah and I have been since 1993 I
currently live directly across the
street from the shelter Holdings piece
and in my when I was looking through
this I've been following the meetings as
well I haven't attended I've just been
watching and then when I saw that the FA
are come in and come into play it really
kind of made me a little nervous because
I'm very anxious to have more services
up there I'm tired of having to go to
the RAM I don't wanna have to get my car
and drive down there's some great things
that have come up and in central
Issaquah here and I'm excited for that
and I think that's those restaurants and
there's a great new Mexican place over
in Gilman village I love it you know
there it's really good camera or the
name but it's good I want to see those
things come up to the highlands and I
think that having the ability to do that
is going to be harmed with the FA our I
mean just in my small amount of research
again I saw the places like downtown
Seattle very concentrated living areas
they have like an F AR of two but that's
just not quite where we're at and I
didn't see any data economic or
otherwise as to why it was being applied
it seemed that it was just being moved
from one part of town to another and
then yet again I couldn't find where it
actually was already in place in
Issaquah so I just am just hoping that
you you vet that a little more and
wonder you're to yourselves and why is
this being put on this one parcel and
I've lived in that location now for
about eighteen months and I'm just
waiting for something to come that I can
use also I read through the hundred plus
pages that related to the Highlands
because I was very curious and several
times in there it's mentioned that cars
are a problem and that they don't want
to see cars they don't want surface
parking and that makes me think back to
part of shelters original proposal which
was to put all the parking underground
to build these great pedestrian malls
which we continue to hear about to
provide more restaurants and then also
to put residential close to transit and
all of those are goals that appear to
have been in place since 1996 and it's
mentioned numerous times
so I was just kind of astounded that
there was so much pushback to their
initial plan but I'm hoping that you
folks can can find a way to really
evaluate what the fer is is it really
necessary there is it an economic harm
to the developer and how can we get more
exciting things and have that vibrant
village feel which again is mentioned
numerous times in here how can we get
that up there and not stifle the growth
but build something that the residents
continue to say they want which are the
other restaurants at least that's what
I've heard and all the other meetings I
went to so thank you for your time thank
you
Torian does anybody else want to make
any comments about the
Kenny's Minh to 473 Northwest Stony
Creek Drive and I'm a resident of Talas
so my comments will pertain to tell us
and the expiration of the DA persons
concern I've got is tree cutting for
views a little background three years
ago the talus HOA board authorized a
green belt to be cut in order to
preserve the views of a handful of
Tallis residents and this decision was
wildly unpopular and when the tree
cutters arrived the city was called the
police recalled and the evening news
works called and we were on the six
o'clock news and a hundred saved Tallis
tree signs popped up in a hundred Tallis
yards and they were all over State Route
900 all the way down to me Valley City
ruled that our development agreement
allowed that and the trees were cut but
the language was said to say that once
the build-out period was done you
couldn't do that anymore
and so my question to all you is where's
the new language know that the DA goes
away that says we're not going to be
cutting trees to preserve views in
Tallis second comment I'm a little
nervous about urban villages reverting
to central Issaquah plan rules Tallis
doesn't seem Orban to me it doesn't feel
anything like gateway or atlas or
anything in central Issaquah feel
suburban to me and I hope there's no
misunderstanding the talus is part of
central Issaquah that's not it's talus
just to comment about that I looked at
the things that are allowed in
single-family zoning that would be like
my house and my neighbor's house allows
Bed and Breakfasts temporary and
seasonal usage and group houses
I don't want my neighbor's house to be a
bed-and-breakfast or a group house and I
don't even know what a temporary or
seasonal use houses but that's not for
me and I don't want that there's a
statement in some of the staff
documentation about a hundred foot
wooded buffer required on the east side
of Talas between talus and State Route
900 I don't think this exists I don't
know what it means and I don't know
who's responsible to put there but I
sure hope it's not my homeowners
association so I'd like to know more
about what that's all about
now one last comment I'm troubled by
comments I hear in this room about
owners burdens on developers and I guess
I just have to think in an environment
where every day I read a next-door
residents up at arms about rampant
development gone wild here in Issaquah
development that so many of our
residents just abhor I mean to hear gee
we have to make life easier for
developers seems just out a character
and out of sync with public sentiment I
guess what I would suggest is when
you're thinking about the rules and what
we should require developers to do
whether it's 250 foot per new residents
for park space or something else I'd ask
you to consider you can always use
mechanisms to loosen those rules they
exist but you can't put in a new rule on
a property owner you know after the fact
so make the rules good and stringent and
then allow mechanism to be able to
loosen that up or inappropriate but you
can't go the other way thank you for
your time
seneschal a long and convoluted bang
with lots of words and I'll get to that
in just a sec you know who you are
so you don't have to introduce yourself
yeah super Coney Marsh I live on squawk
Mountain so one thing that was discussed
was plazas and one of the things that
neither village has gotten is large
enough plaza to actually hold a
significant event it's it's a shortage
in both so rather than dividing them
into smaller units I would rather see
them assembled into larger units so that
then you would actually create a
community gathering space of
significance because we have lots of
little things that are hard to use so I
would rethink that I also when you say
CF that's that's government buildings
for example and you know I think a
government building should be required
to create a plaza so I think that that's
a little gross just to say CF doesn't
have to may be community facilities
facilities needs to also have Plaza
space you can discuss a little bit of
the Tallis language that is odd and I
don't know I put it in my letter but you
know Tallis actually has language saying
and this shall carry after the
development agreement is closed now I'm
not sure if there's a other language
like that in either of the development
agreements but I would ask for a scan to
see if there is and then I think we
should either carry it through or the
council should change the development
agreement before it is ended so that it
needn't be carried through but I don't
think you can just let it sit there and
not do it I don't think that is within
the intent of what Tallis had expected
so then you see me fighting the green
necklace because like the gentlemen here
are doing the development and you know
I'm on the other side I'm always pushing
back at the development but we both have
to read the code and try to understand
what it is getting us and so you dive
into the one chapter and then it shoves
you into the central Issaquah planned
chapters and then you go to the list of
the language that you have to switch in
your brain and say no this word means
this this word means this and then you
have to decide is this making any sense
at all and it's really a difficult
exercise one bell ringer for me was the
green necklace we do not have green
necklace in the Issaquah Highlands we
don't have it in Dallas and I don't
think we can use the term green necklace
from our central Issaquah plan area and
have it mean anything appropriate so I'd
ask for that to be evicted I don't know
what should be put into its place also
the landscape chapter of the central
Issaquah plan says that you can have
100% tree removal yet at the same time
you all keep working with a
comprehensive plan that requires that we
are supposed to maintain our forested
hills and also replant trees and the
talus in Issaquah Highland areas where
those tree escapes were not maintained
this to me seems like an it is in direct
contradiction of what our comprehensive
plan says so my solution I wouldn't use
the central Issaquah plan landscape
chapter I would carve out something that
was more appropriate and I would like to
see an overlay that would actually begin
replanting and protecting those forested
hills as the comprehensive plan has said
for the last three years and we have
done nothing about so then now I'm gonna
now I just need to say a few things
about the Issaquah Highlands from the
way way back machine when that was still
entirely a forest and there was nothing
there and so having watched the forest
go down and I hear somebody who's lived
in the town in the
for a little while and they're grumpy
because they don't have more I look at
Jeff Walker who left and he was so happy
to get anything at all right now we are
supposed to be emphasizing the growth in
our central Issaquah area not creating
extra growths in our urban villages so I
think we need to stick with our plan and
put it where we say we're going to put
it and we're trying to create the
infrastructure sure to support it thank
you
would anybody else like to speak seeing
nobody I will close the public hearing
at 7:45 and open it up to I'm sure
questions from the Commission I just
want to start and say thank you for
everybody showing up there's been some
really great points I think brought up
and I think this is a very valuable
conversation so I want to start at least
at that point I was part of the chamber
when the developer of talus came to
present his their plans for or talus and
the one thing that was said over and
over again was you won't see the houses
or the buildings from SR 900 that was
over and over and over again so the
chamber said oh this is great we you
know it's a great idea you know we need
the development so that makes me a
little concerned about what is actually
going on in the plat at the bottom the
how that's going to affect
traffic and ease of entry so that kind
of that the whole thing whether it's
townhomes or whatever it still bothers
me that without knowing what the traffic
is going to be and how it's going to be
accessed and all of that I just have a
interesting and if you want to say
feeling about how that's going to work
in the in the overall design expected
some it's just so much to address where
do we start with this all gonna start
with Karl Karl yeah yeah thanks Jonah
first of all I'm gonna channel when Jeff
left he had another appointment but he
wanted to make one comment about and
mine similar however you guys want to
address way we would request on the U V
DC is to ask staff to go back and
address the specific points that were
brought up certainly by some of the
applicants and those questions they had
and particularly the questions in the
IHI f letter and document I think Jeff
and I know I just share the concern
seems like the FI our question is for
jumped out at us is sort of new so I you
know Lucy and Keith and team I'd like to
get specific responses of why those
changes were made what the motivations
were in addressing any inconsistencies
that seemed to have arisen because it I
don't know that's the sense I'm getting
from a lot of people here I certainly
heard it heard it from the applicants I
don't want to specifically respond
applicants questions or comments but
that's sort of it's a level of
discomfort from trying to transition
from the development agreements to sort
of a like-for-like to new zoning seems
like we've changed and things along that
were inconsistent that we started with
that's my main comment Joe if it's a can
be taken as a cover I want to agree with
my other commissioner
you guys have brought up some really
good questions and I think are really
important to be addressed before we can
continue on or have a motion to accept
this plan unless Lucy can clear up all
the questions that have been that have
come up yeah I was gonna say I mean I
hate Karl I think your point and I think
that's probably where we are based on
what we've heard but since we're here
you know all together and having fun
Lucy could you just just spend a minute
or others maybe to talk about the floor
area ratio and that was a new new thing
that you know popped out to me and
during the presentation and then in the
packet but just more about the numbers
and the rationale and consistency with
what we have in other places and just a
little more background on that would be
helpful for tonight and then we can
decide kind of where we want to go from
there but I can start and then I imagine
Keith has some things to add as well the
entitlement that shelter owns would
require an FA are of two to use all of
it so I so I'm not sure that an FA are
of one is unreasonable it does assume a
much or mainly structured parking which
I have heard from them is a concern and
that is something that the city has put
in place for projects in central
Issaquah and minimum of 50 percent
requirement with vertical mixed you
shall hear a 90 percent requirement
being proposed
edgr hearing later tonight the FA are
used in central Issaquah Tia's comment
was somewhat true the commercial FA R is
0.55 the residential FA R is 0.75 but it
isn't limited to the urban core if you
have a parcel of three acres or more
anywhere in central is Squa that minimum
fer applies so it isn't limited to a
small geographic zone it is applied to
many properties and Gateway for instance
had to meet that and that was a
challenge I think that really it is for
reference what's the what is the far of
gateway points out your live one point
seven five points cepo on the points on
5
they just made that garage parking and
parking structures and garages do not
count towards the FA are they would have
made it easily if that had counted so
one of the big changes is there's no
more master developer and so you know
the city for 20 years in his client's
and 15 years in talus we had a partner
that was helping us had good development
and development that fit the vision of
the community and because each of them
created their own neighborhoods really
and so right now we don't have that any
longer and so there is nothing to
without standards in place there's
nothing to guide the developers of the
properties within the villages that are
left to develop to develop in a vision
that we think is consistent with those
communities and so given the
conversations so the FA our conversation
we do in vertical mixed-use tonight Jen
okay so you're gonna hear that the
proposed FA are max for vertical
mixed-use is 8 so when we're talking
about 1 you know what what what one is
is really trying to push us away from
single story development with surface
parking as much as y'all love Grand
Ridge Plaza we were actually kind of
disappointed in Grand Ridge Plaza and
Connie's nodding her head and 9 as
nodding her head because it was less
dense than what we wanted but we pushed
that developer to give us at least one
parking
structure and that's east of the cinema
and it's because you know we didn't have
the tools to make them do anything more
than that and so I guess you know as
we're sitting here defending putting a
new tool in place I think it's because
it occurred to us that without that they
could build single-story retail with
surface parking single-story commercial
with surface parking and there's nothing
to stop that you know except for the
requirement for structured parking and
putting some sort of minimum if they are
on the project so our apologies for it
coming out a little late maybe we should
have thought of it earlier but this is
the first time we've done this so so if
we're looking at some of these
properties I'm just trying to understand
if if a if they are jus update the map
sure if an FA are of one would require
structured parking or if there would be
a possibility with the height
requirements that they could do two
stories or three stories on a portion of
the property and have the surface
parking and still do that yes so they
would be able to do right that I but
just speak to Steve Johnson point is I
think they're concerned that I agree
with him two-story retail is is not
workable here retail with office above
it I I think their concern is that the
market isn't here for that however I
think I was I was interested in what Tia
outlined was a you know about four
hundred and sixty thousand square feet
out of
1.8 million square feet that they have
as a zoning cap and that more dense
development could come in the future I'm
not though we've only seen a plan for
one out of the five blocks so I I don't
know they may have phasing ideas I'm not
sure it worked with the scheme that we
had seen so I'm not quite sure how that
how what they're proposing now could
then be phased in to meet a higher use
of their zoning cap
we have any other areas where with a
retail zoning we have an FA our minimum
requirement one though the approach I'm
taking as much as I am not in favor of
multi-use residential on that property
to add more residential to the Highlands
I think it may become difficult to have
that kind of an FA are in the current
economic situation without including
residential in that so I'm trying to
think if there are other situations
where retail has required that so I I
can't imagine if you're not building
two-story retail I don't think you can
meet Rita I don't think you're gonna
meet 1.0 with a hundred percent retail
so I think we're I think Keith or at
least let me escape I think we're
basically requiring that any sort of
development has some sort of commercial
office space component sort of mixed-use
non-residential that's their entitlement
that's the property that they built
that's the current he ours I mean it's
not like Wright sees just pulled this
out this is certainly so so they're in
touch so they're entitled to build that
and so then I think the move the city is
making is for Korres you're basically
requiring that hey if you want to
develop retail you're basically going to
have to develop some some amount of
commercial or office space so I'm gonna
I'm gonna go back in the Wayback Machine
for a bit because Connie took us there
earlier so I'm gonna I'm gonna use the
same dial so they bought this property
for Microsoft Microsoft's entitlement
was office okay so for 15 years of 20 we
expected that to be an office campus
right so the community did buy we I'm
saying the community so they after they
bought the office they also bought
retail entitlement that was left over
from poor Blakeley so so again the
question is is what is the expected land
use there if it's commercial with
supplement of retail on the ground floor
that's very different than a retail
development with maybe one or two office
parts
right so it's you have to think about
which way is this thing balanced and and
what do you guys want because I think
that's really important in what you
potentially get at the end of the day
another question for reference the
office park that's kind of backed up
against Lake Sammamish what so it's got
its got the four photos that there's a
seaman's I think marzo yeah
for reference event so those are some
relatively large buildings a lot of
surface parking what floor area ratio
would that be roughly I'm looking at our
economic development manager and we're
going to people you're referencing
actually most of the parking is actually
in a garage its underground we could
probably do that calculus right now well
the problem is this parcel is huge I
mean yeah you've got some green space
there's a river bank but if it if you so
the buildings what maybe maybe half so
there's and then those buildings are all
wood so there's a 750,000 square feet of
Class A office there so we don't there
we go site is 89 77047 I don't you know
that I see is dect is multi-level it's
not surface so but bad which okay so
that's like so that development which i
think is relatively dense is not meeting
far one okay
that's all full I saw this as a
progression we know where we've been
we've seen what we've gotten from that
we've evolved we've got a little smarter
I actually appreciated this tool from
the city and it didn't raise the same
kind of ire that I normally have for for
similar circumstances I look at the
original intent of what we want in in
our development agreements and when we
see what we've gotten I see this
adjustment of moving to this next phase
and so it
maybe shading from my work on the UVC
but I see this block as being something
that was supposed to be something that
we still have a need for it hasn't been
created somewhere else I think it's
completely reasonable to tell the
applicant to that we can still honor
their there are three dwelling units
that doesn't mean necessarily that it
should be residential I also appreciate
that the city actually went through our
comments and the applicant request and
came through and said you know what we
want to actually move assisted living
into a commercial rather than
residential zoning you know that was a
specific request by the applicant we
talked about it I thought that was a
nice response from the city as a good
halfway point and I would reiterate to
that I would rather see that
specifically zoned to the a block
because I do want to see that commercial
element being able to use the
park-and-ride so all those services of
people coming and going to be able to
support assisted living being able to
easily use that park-and-ride I don't
know that I really agree with the
comments of saying that because it's
near park-and-ride we should completely
rezone it for housing I'm not in support
of that and I'm also not in support of
taking this really cherry piece of
property in the highlands and sparsely
populated it I think it's important to
really not only fulfill the needs of
what we see we still need in the
highlands but to also really fulfill how
do we get that and kind of you know we
always talk about you know the teeth is
in the zoning and this is our chance to
to use some teeth all right I think I
make the vision I think a great way to
look at some of the things and this is
of course very speculative maybe we
shouldn't do that but I feel like at
Tia's document and a question - and she
kind of rattles off some of the some of
the sample projects so like I see a
four-story medical office building with
ground for retail that strikes me is the
kind of dense development it's bringing
a lot of jobs during the day but have
some ground for retool that that strikes
me as like the type of thing that we
meet I would imagine that four-story
medical office building should easily
meet a far one I mean you've got
structure Mario it's a like a 250,000
square foot site I don't know I do
wait hold on so that would but hundreds
through this graph what is the entire
thing or just depends it depends on how
small the footprint of the building is
right so you take a piece of property
and you put a big four-story building on
it'll easily meet probably a two to
three FA are if the if the footprint is
very small I mean like less than a
quarter of the total property four
stories you know you're you're pushing
one at the most it depends on the
footprint of the building so this is
more like point three okay yeah so that
would be a four story building that
would be then surrounded by a sea of
parking yes so it's it's basically the
building is on just less than a quarter
of the site with surface parking on a
quarter and structure parking deck on
the back I mean I'm not asking you to
review this but you know we we are in
the process of discussing it but I'm
just saying that on on that site it is
probably an FA are of 0.3 maybe 0.5 okay
so I'm generally in support of moving us
toward something with a higher f AR than
we saw in grand rich Plaza I agree that
was a disappointment we should be moving
things forward I will agree that the
number 11.0 seems a little bit
cherry-picked
and I wonder if there's economic
information behind that you know why it
was 1 vs. 0.75 or 1.5 or anything like
that going to our Economic Development
Director okay um so I mean so what's in
the central Issaquah plan now is 0.75 I
think the analysis we did with vertical
makes use is 0.75 didn't get you any of
the drawings that the consultants showed
us that we were going to get with
vertical mixed-use and so as we did the
math
on the numbers for that vision that we
wanted which was like four-story
buildings with maybe a little bit of
surface parking on a block those numbers
went from 5 to 8 on FA RS so so when you
talk about 0.75 yeah that's in the code
right now for central Issaquah and if
you wanted to pick that you would have a
rationale for doing that I think from
our perspective you heard it from Lucy
earlier if they want to build out all of
their entitlement that they have on the
property that they own they would need
to average out a two-fer over the entire
20 acres and I think what we're saying
is all right you know on a partial by
partial basis they should have some
flexibility to have some parcels that
might be less dense and then some
parcels that might be more dense but we
chose one because one we thought it was
attainable and two because they should
be thinking in that if they're going to
try and actualize all that they bought
and I think from a density perspective
you know the number of employees that
were anticipated to be in the highlands
you've got to build a lot of square
footage to get us to that point where we
actually actualize the vision that we
thought we were going to get so so yeah
it could be super aggressive and if you
guys want to put it to 0.75 that's fine
they're right we didn't we didn't hire a
bunch of economists to study that and do
a bunch of research on FA are on
surrounding commercial projects but we
also know that I mean I think I mean we
could do the FA our analysis on the
proposed Costco building that's coming
in it's a nice it's six hundred thousand
square feet and we know the parcel size
we could probably pull that up right now
and tell you what that's going to be
it's going to be higher than one in a
situation since we're also asking for
plazas when commercial spaces put into
place you know do we have a sense how
that would affect the FA RS because
plazas are obviously one-story they take
up some part of the property right
don't know how that works into the
calculus I can't it's a bit it's the
whole parcel yeah so that could be a
justification for going let you know
somewhat less than one I I will say that
I think it was a miss reading of the
proposed code that two thousand square
feet of plaza only comes in if you have
greater than that and you're proposing
specifically language is there before
when you're breaking it apart into
multiple clauses I think that staff
covered that language and I don't have a
concern with that with that comment at
all and I I appreciate I think the
language actually found it's pretty
clear there and actually since we're all
clauses I know we're talking about the
Highlands right now but we kind of see a
different situation but an internal
struggle happening on the plot and Talas
and what we've what we heard from having
the benefit of these multiple meetings
to hear from try met and from from
Tallis we kind of heard this back and
forth I appreciate it that there's been
a change from the developer of coming at
it week after week I see a response from
the community and the applicant trying
to meet that I really appreciate that
and when there was this comment about we
would be amenable to the townhomes and
this is again I'm speaking from the from
tell us a few point from the homeowners
association but we'd like to see
something for that and I kind of like to
to bring up and this is again more for
for trauma is what could be something
that the community wants and I really
like Connie's idea we've talked before
about amphitheaters we've talked before
about large communal spaces and so when
thinking about maybe tell us wants to
have an area and again this needs to go
back to them I can't speak for them but
when looking at what is a direct
attribute to the community by allowing
this change in your entitlement that
plazas might be a way to integrate that
maybe maybe tell us wants to have
something that is an amphitheater for
hosting concerts and things like that
maybe they don't but I had this thought
of trying to
a way to suggest kind of concepts of
maybe maybe there are ways on that
parcel for for the developer to be able
to help create a community need which
was clearly asked for I think what
Scouts are really important right now is
we need to not be short-sighted in the
sense that the market may not be here
today to support these developments but
what we're looking 10 15 20 years from
now what does that market are going to
look like maybe that would be the if we
hold out today we will get what we
envisioned long term I think that's
that's a great point in that I think
it's an argument in favor of having a
far and then having a higher FAR's you
don't want to under build I think you
want to it's an empty lot this is now is
the easiest time it'll ever be
redeveloped what's gonna be built there
is probably what's going to be there for
the time being and so I think requiring
additional density to in order to shape
the vision we want I think I think is I
think is good I would agree that I think
grande ridge Plaza is the I mean it's
nice but it's big it's a strip mall and
so I think I think putting requirements
so that whatever comes in is it's denser
than grandma's applause I think at
minimum it needs to be done just in
Grand Ridge I think I agree that that
that meets the the vision of what people
want that that space to be yeah and
maybe just a final comment for me and
with you know certainly respect with all
the up for an investment that the
developers are made and a little bit of
a changeup in some respects yeah I
appreciate that I I do agree with you
know thinking bigger and pushing them a
little bit I guess I would just
depending on how we end up here if we
end up with a recommendation or whatever
if and when it goes to council I guess I
would just recommend you know a little
more robust sort of analysis and
something in the press
to them just so that you know they're
gonna ask all the same questions we are
where did the numbers come from what
does the economic you know impact of the
developer and all that sort of things so
just a little bit more behind now I
think would be useful for that just to
sort of inform that conversation that's
all I've set with it would you like to
see that I would like to see that yeah
but I don't know if we're in a if we're
ready to move and make recommendations
or anything at this point I'm looking
around to see I feel fairly comfortable
with the answers provided on things I
think that council will probably ask
those questions and so I think having an
answer at that point is probably
important but generally I'm feeling
pretty good about the responses that
we've heard yeah so just so you know
when we send this to them to the council
the changes they like to know what
changes you make and so we will
sometimes explain you know for instance
if you accept the FA our we can provide
a basis for what we did if you change
the FA our we're going to include
something about why that change happened
and so it it doesn't the way you got it
was because you've been talking about
this for three previous meetings but the
kind of cover memo that you got we you
know we kind of provide that bridge from
what you all have talked about and
identified to them as well what are you
expecting from us tonight on this
particular issue
just further conversation and ideas well
this is the public hearing so typically
it would be a recommendation but you may
not be ready to make him recommendation
Lucy we heard comments from individuals
and I'm thinking of Connie's email that
she had sent us specifically addressing
both tree retention and Talas as well as
language about
seeing kind of replanting x' after you
know gross removal of trees can can you
address how the city won't have is
addressing that sure
so the developed both development
agreements as quo Highlands and talus
had tree preservation provisions in that
took effect after build-out so if you
remember back to our discussion last
week there was no guarantee that after
build-out that the development agreement
would ever be terminated so the tree
preservation provisions were in place to
ensure that after build-out that tree
preservation would happen I haven't
studied the talus provisions I was at a
conference today so I didn't get to go
back and look at the things that Connie
said except on my phone but I know for
the Issaquah Highlands ones they are
significantly less robust than what we
have in place for central Issaquah or in
the municipal code so I would not
recommend I think those were in place in
case the development agreement remained
I do not I don't recommend retaining
those now if there's something in there
that people like we can talk about
whether that should go into IMC or
central is kua but we really as we said
we're trying to have less codes than
more and so I think the question is I
would disagree with Connie relative to
not using the whole landscape chapter I
do think that the tree preservation
piece between s qua Municipal Code and
central Issaquah is a good conversation
we have recommended central it's a becau
because we were recommending centrally
if the main provision and I'm
going to look to Jennifer to make sure I
get this right is
in central Issaquah you can reduce the
trees to zero but you have to replace
them in central Issaquah or pay into the
tree fund now because of the language
we've put in place that would be you
could reduce the trees to zero and you
would have to either replace them in the
urban village or pay into the tree fund
in its quad Municipal Code you cannot
reduce it below half the required amount
so depending on the zone that's either
that would be you would either be able
to reduce it to twelve and a half or
fifteen percent with the school the
compact school things that you did you
ended up going or this council maybe I'm
not this may not have happened with you
guys this may have happened to council
the approach they used is centralist
squad central is coiffures outside
central is Kauai you use the IMC for
tree preservation so I think those are
the two choices on the table either
using central squad now that I've
thoroughly confused too about the
differences or the Issaquah Municipal
Code relative to tree retention and
replacement the answer is yes you can
fuse this so who really make this very
clear what has the strictest tree
retention policy and what is that that
would be applicable for these areas so
it's a little bit of a divided game
central it's called let's you take it to
zero but requires replacement either in
the same area or you pay into the tree
fund the city does not allow you to take
it to zero but you just pay into the
tree fund you don't replant so they're
they're slightly different they have to
stay at 15% yes
so it depends on whether you want you
want to prevent it from going to zero or
you want the trees plant replacement
trees planted in the area and I'm just
not going to make a value judgment for
you which one you think is stricter do
those apply to a built out property or
what they also apply to a Greenbelt area
that is property yeah would it be like
private property open space what is a
zoned so develop property follows a
different requirement tree preservation
is for developing properties and yet the
question was about trees removed on
Greenbelt areas right right and I think
the question was that as well as view
protection and right now city code both
tree standards don't recognize views I
mean so just because you want to have a
view of the lake doesn't mean you can
cut top all the trees and get a view of
the lake I was gonna build and they're
like you can't build so I think actually
Lindsey the if the point you're
referring to was Ken's point about the
tree buffer that's a separate thing than
tree preservation there was a provision
that the it's my fault because I
combined them two I brought up the
discussion and so they're gonna come
together so I'm not surprised you just
want to see how well my brain works at
this hour actually the later it gets
there was an exception so the the
hundred foot buffer was required where
there are pond there are some exceptions
such as for ponds this area was used for
construction at one point and it has
not been reforested that is something
that's on our negotiation list with the
master developer to complete the
restoration of that area I don't think
we're looking for the HOA to do that so
they're not the master developer so as
it's written right now I want to give
the example we have this contested piece
of property that is now apparently
moving forward in the Highlands for the
building of a school so we've talked
about this CF designation two plazas
apply to government buildings meaning
and schools and we have a voicing of
opinions saying should schools have to
have this requirement versus why do they
have an exemption to not have to have
this requirement as it's written right
now this law is going to be clear-cut
what is the obligation right now to
replace those treats them are we're
losing I'm not going to talk about that
because it has no UV zoning on it so it
isn't I don't need I don't want
additional gasoline this evening so if
we speak hypothetically about a
different lot that is completely treat
and it's going to be clear-cut for the
purposes of a government building what
is the obligation in the code right now
about those trees so I'm not sure that
there are any treed Lots in Issaquah
Highlands or talus they may there may be
selling Balinese Robert II may have a
few what Bellevue college lot it's not a
different development agreement
they're the exception to everything they
are numbers when you're ready to go back
to that one so in the reality this whole
tree discussion is almost a moot point
because the only parcels that are
developable in the highlands don't have
any trees on them already currently they
do but then it's about how many trees
you can cut off your property I think I
didn't get added as the world continues
to turn and change around us what is the
current tree retention as this reads
right now if I have a lot that is treed
it gets a clear cut is right now is it a
path adapt and system wrong around the
15 percent it's you can you could take
it to zero with I believe with an
adjustment of standards and you could
either replant on site in Issaquah
Highlands or pay into the tree fund
thank you and there is no language
currently to talk about view mitigation
and clear cutting it was previously
addressed in the development agreement
there is no language as to plants that
for disallowing the clear-cutting for so
I don't I don't think either central is
Squa or IMC allow so they're they're
more like criteria for what when you can
cut trees it does not mention views I
believe but views are not one of the
criteria for cutting trees so it's it's
it's kind of backward it you back into
it if it's not listed then that's not
one of the options though as it's
currently written it's more of a seek
forgiveness after I've done it rather
than ask permission
Oh we'll seek forgiveness comes with
penalties if you cut trees before you
have a permit but that isn't current
that isn't currently written in as we do
it so you'd have to refer back to the
central Issaquah right so you can't cut
trees in either central it's claw or the
of the city without permits or approval
and review and that means that we look
at the caliper sizes of all the trees
you it's not just retaining the trees
it's retaining the caliper size so if
you have big trees or small trees its
you we add up all those calipers of
trees that count and you have to retain
a certain amount of it right now the
central Issaquah guidelines give us what
we need in the stock that's why it
hasn't is it currently being addressed
so it is a set of tools that we use in
one part of the city we have effectively
used it there's some concern about using
it in other parts of the city that is a
policy discussion and I don't have a
problem having a policy discussion I
know that there are people who would say
there's a right answer and a wrong
answer I'm providing you with
information I we recommended centralized
squad because we were recommending
central it's kua for everything that
wasn't covered that doesn't mean that we
couldn't say except for trees which have
to follow the IMC provisions and so
let's if a developer decides the clerk
cuttin and we make the agreement that
that's okay and the developer pays into
the tree fund assuming we have a tree
fund going right now all have we spent
the money on the tree fund what have we
done with that investment I don't know
that we know it's administered through
the parks department so you know we're
permitting we are not construction so
unfortunately I don't know the answer of
how they have you know whether they put
them in parks or they use them for open
space replant I I don't I don't know in
specifically how they use that money so
it's for city-owned so usually it's for
you know
we end up buying properties along the
creeks and in other places and and I
know that the parks department does use
that money to replant on city-owned
properties so and you know for example
you know there's one area comes to mind
for me at least and that is you know
we're gonna about to take a big open
space area as part of Gateway and it's
right now it's needs to be revegetated
once all the blackberries get cleaned
out you know and that's going to be an
area that planting trees is the best way
to keep blackberries out because it
basically creates the shade canopy that
does a lot of the blackberries to grow
so so there's always a need for trees to
be planted and so what kind of trees are
we planting and I asked that because
we're I'm thinking like for like so if
we take out a grove of Doug firs are we
planting Doug firs are we planting trees
or City like trees in place of that I
think it depends on where you plant it's
where you plant them I don't even know
that necessary planting happens I think
that they nest a green space it's that
tit-for-tat I don't think it's a direct
correlation of tree fund means trees I
think sometimes that means from green
space to the city ok so I'm hearing
uncertainty for trees and for FA ours
you want some information on fer ok so
hopefully how my numbers are right so
the medical office building that's at
4th Avenue and the ni 90 is quoi medical
building I believe it's fer is 0.8
Swedish 1.1 the Swedish is right there
yes okay and technically it's up there
but yes that's why I was like wait you
can see it from here
here let's just let me just point the
bit the first building that Keith
referred to is this one that's right
here okay that's a link that's not even
point one and then this one and then 90
East which is it's where Microsoft it's
the office buildings we were talking
about earlier
that's point 85 and the office building
that's about to come in for land use
permit from Costco's of five point five
nine stories maybe the biggest billion
Esquire I'm sorry a minute tall is
pulling us apart actually I think it
might be eight stories
you didn't only eight cuz that would be
the same as rally Hotel what's the so
the tallest building and is it was still
gonna be Timber Ridge just in case
anybody wants to know for that
trivia night okay so that's what I got
just from some quick numbers I support I
support the 1.0 yeah so yeah I put the 1
1 0 to I just think it has to go to the
council with the acknowledgement that
the people that actually are affected
are quite upset about it but they're
also upset about structured parking it's
true there's a there's a quantifier list
of the things that they're upset about
let's just
that's there is anyone on the let's
propose this Way's anyone the Commission
objects to 1.1 or is deeply four-pointer
is skeptical 1.0 thank you not trying to
sneak an extra tenth in there is anyone
on the Commission skeptical of it I'm
not skeptical but I'd like to
a little bit more about the intricacies
of what problems is going to present to
the Builder and also is the city getting
one at once and why it wants to so what
I'm proposing is - we could go on for
this conversation for all or all night
but everything else in the plans those
are the only two things that you had
some heartburn aligned and some definite
questions so what what I'd like to do is
kind of take to have this Lucy take it
to the City Council with the with in
knowledge that we had we needed some
more explanations on those two
particular issues and that you know that
the lucy has said that she's going to
put some things together and make it
more whatever one of you said more
complete when they go to the City
Council but with those two things that
those are issues that we feel we need to
have more so I just want to make sure I
know which are the two issues one is the
FA are and then trees okay just want to
make sure and I just one a third thing
just a clarification on the the plaza
requirement for public community
facilities you got that you guys had
identified a couple of edits yeah that's
two plazas and Parks I think that was
the only one that was real substantially
the other ones are more edits and
clarifications I think that one was
actually a slight policy shift that we
were I think that for the community
facilities designation and theory the
school district would go to Council and
say we feel this is an undue burden and
would be able to lobby against those
plaza and and park requirements and so
building in the code that CF is not part
of that regulation I don't know that I
support that
oh it wasn't a it wasn't a CF it was
based upon the type of building not that
so
let me just say this I'm thinking
through what we're saying here right now
a non-residential project in like UV
calm reach or whatever it's called would
have to do this Plaza requirement I
think that we if there was some reason
that we wanted to we could either
exclude or include the CFP o because
we're establishing those zones just for
the urban villages I would be hesitant
to for the CF that applies to the rest
of the city that we are changing that
here because we're simply acknowledging
that in this code that those show up on
the map but we are not in any way
altering the uses or requirements or
develop district standards or
development standards for that so as a
public school is us is a CF F zone that
is already established in the city okay
yeah I guess I've every sort of reason
my idea I agree with what Joyce said I
think we just to leave it keep it simple
and then they can come and ask for a
variance if they school district is very
good at it yes there's a lot of
experience with it well I I guess what
I'm saying is are you asking to change
the Issaquah municipal code for
community facilities facilities which is
what in the park section where it says
non-residential stuff requires it had
originally been suggested to specify out
yeah I had said hey we should exclude
schools from that and then we said well
maybe we'll just do all CF and now we're
like oh no just let them ask for an
exception keep it as is but schools
wouldn't this wouldn't apply to schools
they're non-residential aren't they what
you proposed in the park codes
a non-residential requires plaza true
I'm I'm just okay I'll be watching this
section so at this point it sounds like
we're moving we're proponent of this
though though we would like the council
to have more information on the two
points that we suggested as written
where we're in favor of this document
yep do we have any commentary or any
concerns about the proposals for the to
specific developers asking for
adjustments I would like there to Civic
language that the the specific allowance
of the assisted-living be put in block a
I think that's important for the
community but if the rest of the of my
fellow commissioners feel that that's
more of an opinion than a direction we
want to go that's more than fine by
changing the code that that's not the
way it's drafted right now it's just an
aloud use on anywhere yeah on in a non
residential commercial entitlement there
to decide where so with that would we
need a motion would she need a motion
for that no asking do we have any
commentary on those two plots other than
to say we agree with what staff has
recommended and we don't want to make
any variances and I further encourage
the discussion between that tell us
homeowners association and TriMet and
hope that a council can be addressed can
how can have something brought to it
that is a collaboration between the two
but at this point in this forum I don't
know how we support something other than
what staff is proposing I agree in the
staff proposal for Tallis is basically
to leave it with the office space yes so
it's it's leaving it as commercial with
additional uses
such as assisted living and we are are
following the sort of commission HOA
Property Owner discussion and at this
time I think as joyed aptly described it
it has not been resolved yet when it
says on the witnesses on the docket so
we have proposed a couple some meetings
with land and Shore in October and
November I won't go into the dates with
tentative adoption data in December so
there's some times a little bit there's
some time yeah excellent anything else
anything else with eyes any thoughts on
the comment on narrowed retail uses and
that being too prescriptive I think this
was number 13 so we've answered that
before I'm happy to answer it again I
think we have the uses at Issaquah
Highlands were exceptionally broad for
retail for commercial for mineral
extraction and asphalt processing and a
lot of things that I don't think that we
think are consistent with the character
it is true we are narrowing the uses
based on what's there and what we feel
is consistent with the uses that are
there but we have tried to retain some
flexibility to allow for evolution of
uses and uses that we don't anticipate
under retail or cultural facilities etc
okay okay I have one I know this is
gonna
I mean I go over all the staff but there
have been some comments and I find it
the same way that when I'm going through
and and you have a line and says a dot B
dot whatever C refer to some code
somewhere else I think that's what make
one of the things that makes it hard for
developers to go in and understand the
code and I was just wondering why I know
it would add more paperwork thickness
but why do you do that
why can't you at least put in the
synopsis any further information go to
the other document to find out what you
can and cannot do do you have an example
Joan I just want to make sure I'm
answering the actual question that
you're answering
it's just a question of I think you've
said a couple of times that you don't
want to make the the document too long
it's easier if it's in there then you
don't have to redo it
and so I want to know the basis of why
you do it that way I know it's just
wouldn't I think as a developer and I
think I've heard some comments that you
know we can't understand the code we
can't we have to go back and forth we're
not sure what it says so why wouldn't
you do that so at some point I well I'd
say two things first of all the
development agreements have always
relied on this qua municipal code for
the things that aren't covered and it
says it just basically the same way it
does in here and so there's obviously
the development agreements are bigger
there's more content and therefore there
were fewer instances of that but we've
always had to rely on the on parts of
the municipal codes such as definitions
and processing and public notice and
fence standards I mean there were all
kinds of things that we would have to go
get out of this qua Municipal Code so
we've been doing that for a long time
this is more pervasive you know that is
true I think at some point we hope in
the next couple of years to create a
synthesize code update the IMC integrate
the centralist squawk code integrate the
urban villages into central squad that
is a really big work task especially
with the moratorium work items that are
changing centrally Squa so this made
sense to us I understand some of the
challenges of using the codes together I
understand
that it's a big process but I think when
you're actually putting it I think it
all needs to be put together and it's a
something that should be going up closer
to the top of what needs to be done to
make everybody understand what it is and
how it's put together just saying
attachment 3 C code 45 that you know you
may be at some point in time before you
put it all together you know while
you're doing this you can add what it
actually means as a to two-sentence
thing not the whole old body of the code
and the other process okay just a
thought so with that so I'm going to
make a motion if there's we're ready for
that Thanks
so I moved PBC recommend that amendment
one creation of Issaquah Municipal Code
chapter 18 19 be urban village
replacement regulations be approved as
an amendment to the S quad Municipal
Code with the additional detail and
clarifications that we talked about here
tonight be included in the packet that
goes to counsel he's like in the motion
all those in favor say aye
any discussion that was a good motion
all those in favor say aye aye
Bost Thank You Lucy
thank you
Jen Davis is going to talk to us about
vertical mix used in central Issaquah I
already had a teaser about if they are
[Laughter]
if you're all sensuous crotch on before
yes it's literally like I think the last
five pages this is just these last five
code proposed code and then
P means permanent I assume right a
little buddy okay starts on page 279
okay yeah the last five okay and then
riffing off for the comment they had
before about like Oh like retail was too
narrowly defined looks like it literally
just says retail I kid there's no
there's no more narrow definition and
than that looking at page seven not in
central squat okay but it is in the
island that's more prescriptive we
earlier saw a list of uses associated
proposed to be associated with the UV
retail zone and is that a prescriptive
list or a yes yes yes but it did have
some fairly broad categories in it if I
recall yeah it feels off though I prefer
when these things are more vaguely
worded to allow for that was the
evolution of the space that was the
intent for central ok but we but but for
the Highlands we did want to be more
prescriptive yes there was there was a
list in there that specified what uses
would be in the retail zone come does
that answer your question yes okay and
you're on all right good evening so my
name is Jen Davis Hayes I work as the
Economic Development Manager here at the
city and I'm back to you tonight to
continue the conversation around the
vertical mix use code changes as part of
the moratorium so we'll start off this
talks about the schedule where we are
but we'll start off of responding to the
information that was requested at the
last meeting and then talk about the
code amendments so as you can see here
we are really close to the finish line
and this is the public here will be the
public hearing for the vertical
mixed-use changes and hope to then have
counsel consider adoption on October
16th so that's very exciting so one of
the questions was to look at we had
mentioned that this is a project that's
been wrong and
time going we received money last spring
to look at this before the moratorium
even started so when I say last spring
mean 2016 and the idea was that we were
not seeing the development products that
we envisioned in the centralist call
area we wanted to better understand what
the market was like and so we actually
contracted with Eko Northwest to conduct
a study and so I pulled the information
out of their scope of work to understand
again what what we asked them to look at
and compared to what we asked our
secondary consultant to look at so again
this is again in response to requests
from the Commission to represent what
the scope was and then the current
market dynamics so again they looked at
more of the economics and so they did
come back with saying the current market
dynamics does not support vertical
mixed-use products but it's moving the
right direction they believed it was
going to be from between five and ten
years before that would come about the
second part of their scope was to look
at recommendations and so what I did
here was these are options so they did
not go deep into the recommendations
because at the time when we spoke to
Council they talked we talked about
these options and council had actually
through multiple conversations had come
to the to the conclusion that they would
like to instead of look at incentivizing
vertical mixed-use required making sure
that our code has the requirements that
when it does happen if it's five years
of it's three years if it's ten years it
happens in the form that we want to see
so of the options that the eco Northwest
presented for us that the two and blue
are the the ones that carried forward
into the next phase of this project any
questions about the scope and kind of
what EKOS north/northwest
did for the beginning of this project
so then we were directed by Council to
get some additional assistance for
through a consultant to do to look at
the project scope which is to develop
recommendations to ensure vibrant and
mixed-use community community develops
within the central its call plans so it
was less about looking at the market and
doing studies there but actually looking
at our code and saying does the code
what what changes need to be made if any
to ensure that when that Martin a
development does come that it happens so
again so then their recommendations are
to define that the sub areas where we
will require it and require ground-floor
on the on the bottom floor and then
define those uses a little bit and then
to also look at changing the base and
the maximum height increasing that they
are and then also decreasing the
percentage of surface parking allowed or
another way of saying increasing the
required percentage in structured
parking so again so it wasn't again less
about a market study more about looking
at what the site was identified what
things need to be in place when it does
redevelop it becomes what we want to see
any questions in general about their
recommendations so we were here last
time I yeah I have a question I don't
mean the sidetrack why is there so much
focus on first floor heights why do we
have that requirement and why do you
know it currently exists in the Central
School plan to look at 15 feet and so I
think a lot of the ideas that your first
floor there's a lot of additional
requirements for HVAC and other systems
and in a retail space that may not be as
required in an office space or
residential and so and if you build to
that level so maybe right now it may not
be the retail but it can easily convert
to that if it doesn't move forward with
that okay so it's similar to a
requirement of like say requiring you
know doors facing the street or
something like that it's even it's just
a developer's forced to build it that
way to facilitate later convertibility
exactly right right got it and then it
doesn't require like oh well I can't you
know I cannot cover this retail because
space isn't available for that so and a
lot of cities have done that that's
again that kind of transition phase so
again that's already in the central
cigar planet at 15 we believe we want to
give some more flexibility after 20 so
then the Commission asked to look at the
last time we talked about the
recommendations from Crandall Ram Beulah
and the staff recommendations and where
the difference was so again going
through the different recommendations
the one difference for the staff for our
recommendation was Crandall Aram Beulah
suggested that to limit the uses on the
come on the ground floor for commercial
to only the three categories lifted they
listed their food and beverage retail
service and retail service specifically
on use this is called we believe that
the that is pretty limiting and that we
should continue with what's in the
current urban core which is where these
properties exist take removing the
outdoor storage drive who things that
don't make sense for a vertical mixed
use area but to do require those uses
the food and beverage of retail services
from minimum distance of 30 60 feet
right rather from the corner so so
you're reserving the best the the corner
spaces for the types of uses you want to
see there but the in-between can be the
art gallery or the medical service or
the yoga studio or the massage therapist
type of services that are going to be
serving these neighborhoods that are
going to be build up around the vertical
mix use give a question which corners of
the building all course whichever yes
from and this is once on the corners
[Laughter]
all right now I was more thinking in the
context of page 9 where you've like
required frontage but this is this is
for all blocks or for all structures
so it's from the corner and now I'm
gonna get the corner
yeah it's block corners block corners
yes okay I guess
and okay then they all are there any
blocks that are partially vertical makes
use of personally not blocks in meaning
what we're defining is what's required
yeah I'm just I guess something never
mind I'm Superman okay wait for the map
okay yeah I'll restrain myself there you
go yeah so and so so are there any
questions about this or further thoughts
I appreciate that you showed us in more
depth about what changes were made I
think I think that the rationale makes
sense and that having a variety of uses
opens it up to more occupants and it
seems like a good plan I do have a
question when it comes to the retail
applications in these buildings what
about the businesses that deal with
hazardous waste like dry cleaners that's
clearly retail like wood and could that
have an impact on the safety of the
people that live above that because dry
cleaners is very toxic so I actually
don't know how dry cleaners are defined
and lost right this is the right so they
have right dry cleaner like retail
operation so a lot of the ones like the
Highlands didn't allow for that chemical
used to be done on-site so what happens
is for some of that stuff they actually
do it someplace where they can use the
chemicals so most likely where it's
happening in a mix you setting they
won't actually do the dry cleaning on
site they will
the laundry activities on site but the
dry cleaning will happen elsewhere and
be brought in and so if you can see in
this is from the central squad code that
the footnote 22 dry cleaning use dry
cleaning using the chlorinated solvents
is prohibited in these areas and I think
what's what Keith just said is a lot a
lot of times nowadays it's it's more of
a retail store storefront versus the
actual operations this is just a service
front I get it yeah that's that that's
kind of how that process works
Jenn we've been having a discussion this
week and you've been helping to clarify
my questions about this increased for
the building heights and I appreciate
the details that you've given me to try
to justify this change but I still have
some reservations about this so just
want to give you a heads up that well
we're well we're moving on I'd like to
go back to this this increase in the
later part of discussion it's by 10 feet
right right now it's 125 and you want to
go to 135 for the maximum yes'm embeds
including but using bonus density okay
okay okay so yeah and again I might be
jumping out on slides do we ever do we
have any thinking of our last the first
half I mean do we have minimum FAR's
[Laughter]
this is my first VMs to miss all the
other ones so okay yeah so so we can
definitely go into more the details this
is the generally what we're looking at
so increasing the FA RS for the further
vertical makes use across the board
again changing the base and the max
Heights creating a the floor height
range so 15 to 20 feet for the first
floor and then the parking so that's our
general code recommendations they are
reflected in your packet in these
different chapters again looking at how
we did that and you'll see in red in our
slide that we actually have some
staff proposed changes to the amendments
there we believe minor and that are just
more of making references to other
sections of the code so that the user is
able to identify that they're in a
overlay area and know where to go to get
that information so we can we can talk
about that information now are you can
we can stop here and discuss the current
proposal that you have in your packet
what would you prefer to do presenters
choice I'm sorry
Venters choice do you want to add our
sure I mean again these are pretty minor
changes that we're looking at so okay so
so looking at chapter four so where we
have the table of permitted land uses we
so that's pages to 82 to 85 in your
packets so that is merely taking what
currently exists and marking off that
there's footnotes now 23 and 24 but
we're looking at changing 23 to say to
refer to the the vertical makes vertical
mix use overlay what we did in that's
not in your packet number 23 is add in
the words in red as defined in Figure
for a so it's referring to the two maps
that we've added because we had some
feedback that again you know as the user
what if they don't come in through the
route you think they're going to come in
in order to look at the code information
so we wanted to we wanted to add some
more connection points so again doesn't
enchant change the intent of the code of
the changes it just makes that arrows
any questions that's gonna be the same
here we with the note adding the note in
red that explaining a little bit more
directing them to section four point
four district standards F again that's
where we do the summary and then we
added one more map and then you know
refer that M is map to the four point
four B which is the the map just right
here so I'm again making those
connections so that if it gives the
bread crumbs along the way so I think
again pretty simple kind of stuff right
so we can go down let me start from the
kind of the recommendations so the first
part of that is looking at the geography
and so this is our proposal is to create
an overlay on the hatched parcels and so
to give you a little idea this is our
zoning map so but to give you idea where
these are so you have on the corner of
12th and Gilman is Chase Bank you have
Town & Country Center which includes
that used to be Sports Authority soon to
be Hobby Lobby Gold's Gym and then you
have the Commons coming on this side so
that's Trader Joe's and I have all the
little brand icons on our zoning map
right and so then the black are then so
you notice that it's a dotted line form
all streaks that's the future
Wall Street extension that already exist
in our code so we're not making up
anything new here and so the required
ground-floor would be on those on those
parcels along 12th on the east side
because on the west side is the Raleigh
development agreement so we can't make
any changes to that on the north side of
the future mall street and then the
maple part portion to Gilman so that's
basically in front of where Trader Joe's
is now and if right over the target they
yeah and and then I wildfin wildfin
thank you no that's not that way so it's
in that little like half block section
there again the Wall Street doesn't
exist yet so you don't see it yet why is
the target not sorry a lot not a target
is its own property it's his own
property and we are looking at really
narrowing like where we think vertical
makes use has to be in the commercial on
the ground floor and so these are just
didn't just to clarify so so someone
could redevelop he's the target as vmu
they're just not required anywhere in
the sense it's cool that allows it you
not saying it can only be okay so this
is this is this is where it's required
to be it certainly allowed in more place
yes what page is this map on we don't
have the second map doing no the second
map is actually the centralist quas
owning map that's in the code right now
we added that little footnote to it to
say and there's also four B which is the
VM you mounted and then inside of this
because I'm behind and so the V mu is
allowed and all of the red or all of the
red and the blue and the purple V mu
would be allowed in central Issaquah it
most of central sukwon most yeah oh but
they look at it okay I didn't realize
was that broad okay yeah I'm kind of
struggling with this map here which
would this one are the the one before
okay yeah that one there so it does
exist when I'm looking at this thing
black has required ground for frontages
which means all the rest of the red
could be but it's just not an actual
well it says urban core that could all
be residential this is so we could what
you're saying or proposing here is we
could essentially almost eliminate all
the retail operation that is going on in
the Commons and all of it would be then
funneled to the black areas they they
could do that currently they will they
do not have any intention of doing that
so what we are saying is that yes so
along the black area has to be if you're
going to rebuild a redevelop that
ground-floor person portion has to be
built and then the uses have to be what
we defined as commercial ground use the
additional floors can be office they can
be residential the back portions if
there's additional buildings that don't
fit up against those but Street can be
other uses but currently that's what you
just described could happen today so
we're actually requiring more versus
less do you want to say yeah so the so
we're not trying to redevelop cut the
Commons into a residential area that's
not at all the intent actually it's
again this kind of requires them to
continues to use some retail but there's
no intention by the common to
to do that so today they could actually
rip all that out and go with
high-density housing yep yeah okay but
they are one of our premier shopping
centers in Issaquah that is getting the
highest rent so I don't think that
that's a worry on this map for the issue
of corners I'm wondering if you can
point out so it all of the intersection
would be corners and then 60 feet within
those 60 feet from those corners would
be okay so so not not where it would
bend in the road but it would just be on
the wind yeah so there may be some
additional so the challenge with the
future Street that hasn't been defined
yet so is if you this might be hard to
read in the on the map it actually on
this map and the future and the
circulation map where where this the
road is plotted out it says that the the
actual location will be identified once
redevelopment happens there may be some
additional crop there probably will be
some additional cross streets that will
be also in place so we don't anticipate
that it you know again a first
circulation if it matters it would be
challenging to actually multiply yes so
right now central Issaquah would say
that the block length can only be a
maximum of a certain dimension which is
much less than that
thank you so they would need to either
provide streets to break that block up
or pedestrian in block connections they
car Road in a passion Street constitute
a corner I believe it would try that so
you've got like 300 feet of a block
length maximum block it's either 240 to
300 somewhere in there
unfortunately Lucy left she would have
known and so we're talking about the N
60s are the active retail spaces so
that's a 120 of that 240 right so that
leaves you with like 120 mid block that
might be
your insurance agent or something
III think that a little more not too
clear to make sure we look and do we
find what the so it's 240 to 300 is that
Jennifer did you find it 300 is what
it's coming out of my mind okay all
right so so yes so it said obviously
again we wouldn't be able to have that
huge building what was the reason for
just having a well then sorry with my
direction I think the normal side of the
future northwest mall Street I required
ground for plunges rather than both why
so one of the ideas that is not in our
recommendations but we're going to be
looking at in the future study is so one
of the ideas is obviously zoning and
codes are very important to make sure
that you put that you have the
requirements there but there the there
needs to be some amenities and some
they're there in order to encourage a
community to grow and so one of the
things that the consultants looked at is
for the future mall Street which is
again
already defined the Central's called
plan area looking at making that a
promenade and so a walking area where it
it's almost like a Linda linear park on
the one side and then having the retail
on the other and so the idea is and I
believe that in central pod the mall
Street has been envisioned as a
pedestrian walk I would say walkway but
kind of pedestrian oriented like no so I
think I mean so right now you you we're
dealing we're dealing with issues of
you've got too much traffic on Gilman
and Newport right to really make them
active mix you streets you want a lower
volume of traffic for it to be a a more
pedestrian friendly walking experience
right so if you're gonna focus where
you're gonna mandate mix use that's why
mall becomes I think a great opportunity
because our vision for it is it's much
less traffic it's much more pet oriented
not shirts of owner it could very well
be as Jen said what our consultants came
up with what they thought was it would
be much more like a promenade but I've
heard everything from maybe it's transit
only to I mean so there's a lot of
ideas for mall Street that still need to
bake a little bit yeah but that's that's
where you that's where you kind of make
the the mixed-use happen because there's
less traffic so that's great but are you
saying that but the make sure marina
line right are only requiring retail on
one yes Wall Street yes cuz the other
half would be more than linear I don't
think I don't think that makes any sense
I mean I'm no consultant but I think you
can have a great beautiful promenade
with retail on both sides of the street
and frankly I think yeah I think having
retail both sides the street makes her a
better promenade than then only the
consultants did say was having that that
Street presence and having people
oriented you're gonna have more of that
if you have multiple areas of the next
years which is why you wanted it to
curve around the corners and you
couldn't do it on the rally side but you
really hoped that it would be there on
the rally side right so to say we really
hope that it would be here on this area
but on this one we're just gonna say we
don't know also fits with me also it
should be sorry go ahead
also from the pedestrian point of view
it would seem to make more sense to have
the walkway so that you could go in and
out of the retail rather than have to go
back and forth across the street if you
wanted to go to a store on the on the
retail side and you're walking along the
walkway site
oh yeah unless it's it's no cars I mean
that's pretty common that you find in
Denver also too is that you have
pedestrian only and you have retail on
both sides yeah I think that changes it
because then you would have that freedom
but if you are having to cross across
the street that's that doesn't seem like
a very conducive walkway and it also
probably wouldn't add as much foot
traffic to the retail so it yeah and
again you know so part of this is we
didn't get into that detail of what mall
is gonna look like and so it's kind of
hard to so Harold why are we changing
the code when we don't know what we
wanted to look like I mean you're you're
giving it allowance so you know if we
allow
in the code we hope that it will come I
like that concept of this directive of
saying we want to make sure that we
allow for having the mixed use and
having that bridge with the retail but
right now when it's so unclear and but
yet we're writing in this is exactly
what it is right so two things so it is
defined in the code about the what the
standards are the street standards from
all are so it's so that exists right so
it's not like do what you want again the
other kind of footnote and the other
thing that you'll note is that these are
mala goes through two rather large
property owners right and the idea is to
work with a property owner upon
redevelopment to define what that looks
like a little bit more now that doesn't
mean we're gonna say what do you want to
do as your street but that that's the
time that we can we can require them to
do some of these things that maybe not
maybe above and beyond what's currently
allowed required in the in the code the
other pieces again so these are you know
there's multiple things happening
obviously the park strategy you know is
going on in our community and talking
about so if we're looking at so not just
the promenade or whatever maybe but
other kind of public amenities and other
opportunities to fill in the green
necklace we didn't want to go and define
something that then counters what the
park strategy is out there doing a whole
bunch of community involvement with
because we want to make sure that that's
aligned so we have the intention to
actually continue to work with our Parks
Department as we as we look at what this
area looks like and it and potential
future redevelopment opportunities to
ensure that we get again the green
necklace or whatever comes out of that
park strategy there is also some ideas
of looking at an urban park and such but
for our scope for this project we could
go pretty far and redesign this whole
area but that's not our scope and so
again to help me with my orientation
right now the corner of 12th and maple
is the previously held Sports Authority
building wealth and maple know is
actually a a office building so the the
hatch part up right the hatch part
starts where that is
and pretty much from all so it's
basically a you know so III have this is
a kind of a non sequitur the top pot
that's on that's on 12th in its
kitty-corner there has that been deemed
a historic building and has been
grandfathered in I don't believe it's
been deemed historic it's part of the
raleigh development agreement so it's
under different rules and regulations
you don't know what those rules are so
looking at the map right now it's so the
development agreement as far as what's
allowed there is usually for that
building yeah yeah for that for that for
that plot that's on 12th and so the
rally I mean I don't know if I can in
general the raleigh development
agreements pretty similar to the central
Issaquah idea where you're looking for a
mixed-use higher density so there is I
wouldn't know I guess let me get to let
me get some of my points I'm wondering
how much of this I'm because I'm
picturing it as it is now and
effectively the future north west wall
street exists though it's not a surface
street it goes through or like that
corner that corner guy that's on Gilman
is the Chase Bank yes so effectively the
rest of that is their parking lot so to
be able to create this all that's going
away we need to imagine a completely
demolished area where none of the none
of that shopping center as it currently
is exist other than maybe the office
space it's on Maple in 12 right that's
not paper Hobby Lobby a sense they've
just yeah least that out which was what
they said in one of the previous
meetings and we also you know remember
the market study shows that we're not
looking at getting this Accord in the
market for five to ten years so this
isn't something that next year or two
years I'm things changed so it could
come sooner or later but you're right
this there's no there's no plans like
we're gonna pass this and then tomorrow
the developers are the owners are gonna
be in to redevelop we're allowing for
this area but we really would be
contingent in the next decade that it's
completely completely redone I don't
know that in the next second it would be
completely redone I don't know if I
would state that what we're saying is if
there's going to be redevelopment there
it has to happen within these framework
so that they can't just redevelop and
build atlas can you put me to the other
half there yeah did you say they can't
just build a central sequoias zoning map
yep and so can you point out where QFC
is for me on this on this map right now
so so so we have that's where we come
down so when we've had discussions about
where light rail is coming in and we've
allowed for you know for Sound Transit
to do what they want wherever they want
because we want to give them that
freedom as they've requested this has
been a parcel of land that's been talked
about as a possible site for this so has
this been accounted for in this this red
overlay as being the area that's been
highly discussed for transit coming in
so yes so in general so what I will say
when when Sound Transit did its work for
st3 diffident off' i'd this parcel area
to do for the cost the other point to
note is that they have never a sighted a
station where they have identified it at
this early stage right so so doesn't
mean it won't be there but i'm just
saying it never happened yet they just
they just need to look at some of the
characteristics of what the light rail
station would be like etc so we are
consultants crandall arambula who also
have worked with us the city for the
architecture overview and design
guidelines have thought about where
light rail is going and we and we
believe again that the area we've
identified is gonna be close to where
we'll be it will most likely be within
that you know urban core
Tibbits valley gilman district so we
when we were looking over some of the
earlier information on vertical mixed
use and why it hadn't already come in
one of the things was that one and I
think three mile radius
number of households and things like
that
yeah so that still that still isn't
going to be in place even if we put in
the requirement no but it is changing so
at the time we did those studies last
summer atlas
wasn't there gateway wasn't there in his
word bail you know so the so that
density residential density is coming
but again it's not it's not to the full
bill that obviously but I'm moving in
the right direction I think that's the
thing that echo Northwest said is things
are moving the right direction and you
know nobody can really truly be the
predictors of the you know crystal ball
but well I was just gonna say I think
that the five years doesn't seem like a
very long time to wait especially when
having these changes will take time and
they're major changes so I don't think
that I five years to me seems like
planning for that makes good sense at
this point but that's also not so
distant in the future that you know that
planning for the sound transit and so on
yeah I think it makes sense at this
point I think we should be even more
aspirational and and put retail on both
sides of the mall Street and just say
aspirationally this is what we this is
what we envision because if we don't
actually ask for it now people won't be
thinking that this is requirements
required but it's aspirational in the
sense of if you put it on both sides and
then just like nothing happens for ten
years we can revisit it but I I so i
think it's aspirational in that sense
but i i'm i agree i think we should
require it on both sides of mall Jen I'm
sorry I'm so obsessed with that other
map can you point out you may because
I'm like oh can you point out where the
post office is for me so it's always
confusing so I think it's like right in
here is that about right outside no
actually right it's right here it's
actually right there yeah that's that a
little bit to the left of the white tree
I think
no that's the entrance right now
all that land right now and all that
road closure I have that you know what
it's all it's all designated a mixed-use
right now yep okay
so the answer to rally development
agreement so that parcel is identified
as mixed use within the mixed use zone
they can go up to ten stories and it
allows for obviously a mix of uses it
goes up to ten stories and again and
clarifying is that 125 feet in the rally
development around it's a hundred and
twenty five feet thank you for looking
that up yep I'll leave my laptop on I
started go back to the other map I just
wanted I guess a couple thoughts the
idea of putting the you know vertical
mix cues on both sides of Wall Street so
I guess two questions one is in
discussion about only putting it on one
side was that there was a thought that
if we required it on this on the south
side or whatever the bottom side on that
cuts too much into those existing
parcels and makes those less usable or
was it really just a or was there not
that much about that we heard at that
point I think that was I mean and part
of it too
could be that you're looking at building
so this is again this is the nape will
tend to be neighborhood serving retail
and so having too much is challenging so
if you think about the downtown's you
know you have a couple blocks of it and
that's about the right amount for people
who want to walk and receive those
services so it might have been also you
know they calculated how much square
footage it was in here and kind of
thought about the market and thought
that that made sense so I need to
clarify what I said earlier so the so
ten stories is what they're allowed so
under five point two
Appendix C of the rally development
agreement which says criteria for height
increase a building may be increased to
12 stories or a hundred and fifty feet
from finished grade if there is a
mid-rise building five to nine stories
already constructed within the
neighborhood or there is or maybe that's
an and/or and I'm not sure there's no
transition there is not another
high-rise within 110 feet of the
proposed building so they can go up to
150 feet if there's another if there's a
mid rise and not another high-rise
within a hundred and ten horizontal feet
what's considered the neighborhood the
Riley development agreement area or the
Tibbets Valley they have two
neighborhoods
hila and rally Center okay so but not
like it not like across the street and
then outside their development agreement
if there's a building all right so not
like it something's here that's not
going to go to our building yeah okay
I'm sorry I'm sure we're going to
continue this discussion about some
about the vertical mixed-use but I want
to give the opportunity maybe for Joan
to open it up to public comments it's oh
okay no no I mean so we didn't go
through all of them but the public with
the pond I can definitely sit down and
we can continue okay I officially open
this up for public comment you'd like to
sign the clipboard 135 is too high it
should be 125
I will I doubt I live to see a day where
we have rally going to a hundred and
fifty but you know I mean that you know
30 years from now be dead so there we go
maybe 40 the question of how close can
tall buildings be together in the
central Issaquah plan and did the rally
hundred feet separation carry through -
that would be sort of an interesting
question for this
particular area because we're sort of
focusing on it is more dense and
allowing these hundred and thirty-five
foot buildings and I frankly don't
remember
and then I'm even because I'm hungry I'm
tired and I'm cranky is there anybody
else that would like to see me sing
nobody else I close the public hearing
and go back to Lucy's Thank You Connie a
quick question sorry thank you thank you
for hearing actually a concern on the
corner of East Maple and North West
maple and Newport there is a wetlands
and this looks like this isn't built out
for building so that's not what this
intent so this map does not include
wetlands or parks agrees this is the
zoning map so currently that area is
zoned urban core but you could not
develop it because you wouldn't be able
to you know you're it's a wetland so
this is not intended to say it's just
because that's all one parcel you can't
just half you know you can't do an
overlay on part part of something okay
yeah I see yeah
but but you know again just like any
other parcel in the in the central area
they can't just build on it because
their zoning there right so when we were
discussing this central area plan and
there was a desire to put something like
7,500 units or people in there have you
divided it you know if you put that
there do you not have to put ten story
building someplace else I mean how is
how we how do you make sure that you're
going to get that density unless you
have some idea where you're going to put
it you can't just say I'm going to put
five story buildings there and then only
get three stories of how do you do this
so the way that it works is for us to
get designated as a regional growth
center it's about buildable lands so we
have to have the
owning in place that allows the capacity
it doesn't have to guarantee its
fruition right so so if we have the
capacity that allows for 10 storey
buildings doesn't mean that everybody
unless we mandate it that everybody has
to build 10 storey buildings we you know
the way that it actually plays out will
probably be much less than that over
time if we get to a point where now we
no longer can meet our target for the
regional growth center we might have to
provide some additional zoning somewhere
else within the regional growth center
to accomplish that but that would happen
at a later point or long ways away from
that like 30 years away from that
50 years away from that true but if you
I won't be here to worry about that
[Laughter]
wants to build a five storey building
yep and over here you have another
developer that only wants to do a five
storey building and so all the land is
built
oh you can't come back and then so so
the right now I understand so the the
buildable lands analysis doesn't happen
once every 30 years I mean we're doing
it again next year so what happens is on
and I don't know the frequency I want to
say it might be on a five year cycle we
go back and look at what our what's our
buildable lands and can we accommodate
the capacity that we're planning okay so
that's what I'm asking it happens more
frequently then and I haven't really
seen that kind of presentation I've seen
you know this little swatch and maybe
this little swatch over here but I
haven't seen a central area wide plan
for where it's gonna go good good
question it's coming right well so it's
so it's there in the zoning way I mean
the zoning allows for certain density
and number of units to be built and so
now we wait we will be actually wait for
property owners to decide to do sure
that that's what's gonna determine it
but you still have to have some kind of
idea that maybe it'll work you can
always well gee I'm getting five stories
here and I really need more so I will up
zone right this area to to provide for
it so yes and right now you know because
there's also the density bonus program
it's kind of like there's capacity and
then there's even capacity beyond the
capacity so you've created this kind of
scenario that can now unfold as we go
through actualization of development in
central Issaquah we will know whether
we're falling short of the goal line or
still going beyond right now we don't
know because what's happened hasn't been
there's been nothing in the core i think
alice is outside the core gateways
outside the core you know there's no
reason for us to change anything yet
because nothing's happened so we're
waiting for that development to start
happening in the core now we're putting
a lot of other things in place in the
meantime while we're waiting you know
we're adding regulations or requiring
structured parking we're doing a bunch
of stuff but you're right once things
start building in the core we will be
able to understand whether we're gonna
meet our targets or whether we're gonna
fall short and if we fall short we're
gonna have to do some measures some
countermeasures to help us get to where
we want to be I just want to don't want
to get into situations where we don't
have the code we don't have the
regulations written where we can have a
gas station in the middle of somewhere
like the storage units well we had to
put it there because we didn't have the
codes written to prevent it from being
there right so those are the kind of
things that I'm concerned about not
exactly the height or or if we hit the
target I want to make sure that the what
goes in there is something that we
really
at the community so that gets to the the
land-use tables that are in your packet
and page 2 to 82 to 85 is there any
questions or comments or concerns with
what we chose to it to amend well if you
still have storage units still allowed
right yes yes we removed like more again
this the outdoor storage and drive
throughs that are obviously not intended
to be an epidural you know there may be
that storage units are again so you
can't have them on the ground floor
you need to have again those at least in
the first 60 feet on either side of the
intersection those more active uses you
could have it above why can you not have
tractors why they might have been
removed from the code because if you're
trying to create a pedestrian oriented
location it's our environment to have a
drive through building or they're gonna
how you orient that orient that well use
the chance as an example they have a
drive through on the corner there I
think the chase is not an example if you
have an area where you're encouraging
people to be on the sidewalk to walk on
the sidewalk to have outdoor cafes then
you have a curb cut in between because
the cars need to go through it's not
that of the mindset and I'm not a
planner so it looks like keith is
currently future mall street yes does
allow cars right as written in the code
yeah though and you're hoping to divert
traffic from Newport and Gilman and put
it on future Northwest mall Street I
believe you said earlier I don't think I
said that no no no you went you through
traffic on Gilman you want to you want
to keep it on on the roads that are
pushing cars on future Northwest mall
Street maybe maybe so that's a
conversation we'll still have but I
think the point is you know if you're if
you're trying to create something more
like Ballard you know where you've got
you've got a
Pub next to a restaurant next to maybe
the dry cleaners you know in theory
you're trying to attract a more a less
car-dependent portion of our city to
actually live and and create that their
neighborhood right and so how does
Starbucks with the drive-through fit
into that image when because now you've
got curb cuts for the drive-through you
know you're just you're you're spacing
out that land use for people to stay in
their car and not to get out and
actually go into the coffee shop
I think you'd much rather have a copy
shop that's oriented to the sidewalk you
know this gets back to the conversation
we had the other day about the doors on
the back side and are those really
additive or are they subtractive to the
street front so I'm just thinking of
even just just in that block there's
three banks I believe all with Drive
thrus right there where are you
proposing that if I if I need to use a
if a bank wants to go into this red zone
then you have to get Park and get out of
your car to be able to utilize that bank
very small area right so the banks can
can locate in any other area in the city
where Drive thrus are like currently
there I mean what I'm saying and they're
really serving a need yeah but there's a
lot of banks I mean the bank I go to on
Lake Mont has no drive-thru it's a walk
I think I think these these regulations
were written further when the time comes
when that Bank gets torn down and
replaced with like an eight story
building not now what not when not for
when it's not so the bank can be
remodeled and no conscience change of
the code it's because you're trying to
change the way that people are using a
space and clustering into this area and
the building so there's still I mean so
joy there's still other than in the
areas that are hatched there's still a
lot of other places within central is a
cloud that you can put a drive-through
Starbucks that drive-through bank
drive-through facilities that's why we
didn't do the whole area we just did a
sub right area it's kind of maybe hard
to see the hatching
you know on this super hard yeah but
it's yeah right in here so yeah you get
three parcels right so everywhere else
in central I think also the
drive-thru concept doesn't mesh very
well with the vertical mixed-use because
if you have a drive-thru you're just
you're specifically avoiding going into
that building and you're then leaving so
you're not even considering what what
the other uses of that building are so
it seems counterintuitive to have a
drive-thru to me you know if they are is
a certain amount of floor area to car
specific surface parking yeah but you
will have cash or shape that's true
picture you chicken yeah our phones or
something we thought about the uses that
would not be permitted in this area so
again we followed what the urban core
currently does not allow in this area
again the things that we did take out
are the drive throughs and the outdoor
storage which don't seem to make sense
for vertical mixed-use we didn't do we
decided not so going through and
recreating all the all the analysis and
the efforts of creating as a central
squat plan in the land-use table we
didn't feel that wasn't necessary to
redo that whole process but to take
looking at what what the great work and
thinking that's went into it for how
many years look at Joan is it five seven
ten years and and refined that rather
than go and pick apart and relook at
everything yeah so can we talk about
either the FAR's or sea surface parking
/ sure okay when I jump into the stuff
yeah yeah
okay so again what we're proposing to do
is to have a second table beyond below
what the current table and to again
really clearly call out if you're in the
vertical mixed use overlay again three
parcels right now
what that requires and so we working
with the consultants again they did a
lot of analysis to get to this right so
and what you may have missed before is
is they and actually when they went to
the council work session more so they
walk through that analysis a bit more
and showed okay
current under the current code you know
you can build this kind of smaller
building with lots of surface parking
right and that's again currently allowed
by the you see you know urban core FA RS
but what you really want and what is
necessary for to be successful for for a
vertical mixed-use building because of
the additional costs is to have to to
you know they and they presented the
lots of pictures of vertical mixed-use
buildings that you've seen all over the
the area and in order to make that all
calculate out basically these are the FA
RS and height limits that they are
recommending to be successful so as we
mentioned it goes for thee so now
remember minimum is minimum base is
actually the maximum before you go into
using the bonus density and then the
maximum is truly how far you can go with
the bonus density so it's I think it's a
little confusing the base seems like
that's where you have to be you're you
know so the minimum is a 2.5 then the
maximum as I will call it here right now
where you can go before you touch the
the the bonus density is 5.0 and then
looking at the maximum 8.0 and so the
the and then again that carries through
with the the base height and the maximum
height again all calculating that
together to make the building feasible
as opposed to having a point 5 5 FA are
but we want you to be more than one
story still requiring 10% pervious same
yeah it's up to its it's I think it's oh
yeah and it's 91 yeah they're right over
yeah you're how will you do that if
you're build two lines are
zero zero and ten that's currently what
the urban core is so how do we do that
in there of course it's landscaping it's
what the only build to the front
the others are setbacks right if you're
in a block so so you have to build you
have to have you have to be at the
street anymore now if you're on a corner
because it's not a round block you gotta
be on two streets but the backside is
where you're gonna have probably your
loading zone it's going to be where you
that one plant that one tree that we
make you plants gonna be you know
looking kind of wilty that stuff so I'll
be behind the building so we're gonna
have 10% for the record I would
appreciate one of those on Maple and the
new round about strike that from the
record I think that's it yeah so that's
what's good that I don't see why if this
is our true well mini ballad that we're
building out I don't see why we can't
have though just those specific lots not
all centric oh don't don't yell at me
yet join but I think those specific Lots
I don't see why you can't we can't go to
hundred percent because good I think you
want to build the building and then you
and then it what it should be flush with
the two buildings next to it I I don't
know that the administration would push
back on that I'm not sure we're gonna
fall on a sword over that but I'm not
sure we would argue with that
suggestion if the Commission wanted to
do that why is that I want to what is it
remind me central Issaquah give me give
me the numbers compared to so this is
strictly for our overlays right so these
isn't just all the red on the map this
is just for our overlays correct right
yes and what is it current what what is
it in the red and give me in their core
oh it says one give me the give me the
versus numbers change 95 percent 95 this
is lower no we didn't change this
well this should be okay so only 10%
what's wrong there's a typo because we
didn't check
we didn't change them but her visa so
now we're talking about 5% okay so now
your staff recommended correction yeah
so we didn't change we didn't change
these at all we change the height Mac
I'm sorry it's the height maximum we
didn't change the height maximum has
changed yes basis train this it was
changed oh sorry that was a typo so we
can correct that bill to one that's
supposed to be 95 or 98 it should be 95
we did not change you're looking at 5%
realistically that's five feet of dirt
in front of a building that's if they
back it up 10 feet that could
incorporate some green space you've got
your setbacks which Keith alluded to
that could also add green space they
have any surface parking they're gonna
have to have required landscaping as
part of this so just depending on what
the make out of the developments gonna
be they're gonna be certain green
requirements that may or may not get
them to a total of 95 percent that could
be a tree in the middle of the sidewalk
no not I'm a sidewalk not if it's public
it has to be on the tree yes are there
plaza or park requirements are not
applicable right now correct those are
requirements in syndra let's have caught
for community spaces both private and
public but what about for they were not
they're not proposing to change any of
those requirements associated with what
for community spaces on those properties
all right that's the same it's just
these development standards plus an
extra 5% for impervious the question is
if a developer put a green space on the
roof
and then had pervious surface underneath
the building to absorb water which is
like what's over here on Newport that
were suffice for the five percent you
could actually do it that way and not
have actually any visible green space so
so anything that prevents water from
infiltrating the soil but that's at this
point you can have a green roof that
then filters naturally to a reservoir
underneath right now with that false
Isis exact same thing okay in that case
we're talking five percent people no no
I think I disagree I think I think this
I think for this year I think this is
important because I think requiring some
impervious or a surface specifically
prevents build building a full build-out
which is which is which is what I'm
envisioning for the OCLC you're five
percent and I'll raise you the ten feet
I'm will go to the hundred percent for
an impervious surface and we do not
maximize to 135 feet can you go through
the explanation again for why you moved
it to the 135 Oh
build a coalition okay so we're done
talking impervious or so we will correct
so we will go back and press that and
then of course if you recommend
something different we will do that so
again looking at whatever we want to see
for the built for the building for the
floor Heights again trying to get an
increased on the ground floor and
looking at we were looking at six and
ten stories Flores is that with the kind
of the calculations Keith I'm looking at
for the ten is that what I think that's
the calculations that Crandall ran Billy
came out at as far as with six four
before the density bonus and then ten
okay no no no ten floors not ten feet
stories yes so yeah stories that's what
so as they originally that's alright
that's alright that's right
that's late and I kind of that was from
like three three slide shows ago so they
originally actually just were saying
let's just require floors and we heard
feedback to say no be consistent with
what the code has and convert it to
basically feet and so then when you
convert that looking at you know wanting
to have at least you know to allowing
them 12.5 feet per story when we switch
from feet to stories in the highlands or
the other we gave stories and then we
gave a max height yeah so but but this
is consistent with essentials because
this is gonna be right next to the other
century like what code you know and so
that that table we just saw you know is
is similar to the table above and so
again we received feedback from camp I
think was counsel who said let's not be
mismatched and within the same table and
the code in the area so so when you get
to that that gets out to the 135 so to
clarify it's basically converting the
12.5 feet per floor for 10 floors not it
for 9 floor to 20 and then the ground
floor is larger that's what bumps it
from 125 to 135 I think there's a little
around yeah okay when you put things on
the top of the building you know you
have the top floor and then you add
something to make it decorative you
count that it's and it's currently not
counted as that's part of the central
Issaquah plan currently we did not you
know look to change that so certain
features are not counted in the building
height okay and it depends on if the
root roof has a pitch or if it's a
flatter coped roof so there there would
be a little difference on how we measure
there but mid mid mid point of the
highest pitch if it's got a pitch so
certain things are not counted kind of
above that
- I put some nice we might make yeah
maybe they're nice opponents - so we can
go higher to make sure that they weren't
part of the yeah but what about things
like AC unit yeah that's what and that's
what I when I say features there's a
whole wide array of things that your 135
HVAC I think all the buildings should
have yeah trees on top of them and we
just put it in Statue of Joan on the top
of all the buildings I know yeah I got
the explanation yeah again there was
some calculation looking at you know six
floors eight ten no the bonus density of
what you're required to you know put in
as far as because this is the urban core
so currently it's ten percent of
affordable housing and some other things
are HSN never mind
that's I'm sorry let me take that back
so the ten percent is for inclusionary
zoning the bonus density then requires
you know the affordable housing and
multiple things choices you have from
affordable housing open space and fee
yeah so we're not so again looking at
that cost for what you get further we're
not gonna get enough affordable housing
if we only require ten percent in a
building we need to be able to back
conversation will be in front of a
building a building that is all
affordable housing well we we are
working on that and the transit-oriented
meant project and we can talk about that
at a different time but yes so the max
height I want to go back to max a for
just a moment 125 135 that's a
difference of two stories and ish cuz 10
feet is a short floor yeah all right so
that that may not sound like a lot but
the other day I was looking at a 10
story building or nine stories at
Microsoft and I was thinking my gosh
that thing is humongous leaked all and
we really want to put 130 525 what's
buildings in our anneza class I mean
that's so the 125 it currently exists in
central Issaquah in the urban core so in
that woody 5 already exists yes that was
no debate going down beyond beyond that
question is about increasing it I mean
one story I don't know that one story's
gonna make a whole lot of difference
when you're looking at building that
high already
I mean it's ginormous yeah we're
debating another 10 and another 10 and
at some point we'd say this is where we
want to be right now you want to come to
me in 10 years when we're building this
out this is all amendable but this is
all fictitious and so it actually does
matter I mean this is this is the
standards that we're setting right now
for a future site that we have no
concrete evidence as to how or when it
will be built we just want it to come
and so the argument right now that I'm
hearing from staff is to say we've
talked to developers and this is what
they want they want to have more max
height and I don't have I don't really
don't see there being a situation in a
decade where developers say yeah we're
good we don't really don't need any more
because who knows what's coming next
about we need a much grander entryway I
mean we need about since think about how
we're conserving space and how we're
utilizing that space I don't think that
continuing to give on our view corridors
is really the greatest idea I mean right
now
Safeway parking lot has one of the best
views in Issaquah and when we're look at
developing Gilman Boulevard you're
looking at basically destroying a large
chunk of what people associate as
Issaquah we want to concentrate this
density but why does that have to come
at the cost of every two years adding on
another 10 feet the 125 was hard fought
I mean that isn't to say that there
wasn't a lot of people the community who
disagreed with it but it was a hard hard
fought hard won battle to say this is
now the standard for Issaquah and I have
concerns even though it is in limited
areas and limited use actually when
Keith reads me reading about rally
saying yeah well you can you build here
build higher I mean like at one point
does this end like this is not what I
have heard from the community that they
want in Issaquah is ever-expanding
Heights and so I see this as an easy
place to right here say do it in 125 you
still want to have your 20-foot ceilings
on the ground-floor retail no problem
but you're gonna have to evaluate where
that comes from the rest of your
building
Microsoft Building in Bellevue under
Howie Steakhouse is 10 storeys on top of
the retail and then the structured
parking so then that's more than 10 I
count 10 10 stories of Windows so if you
on top of you're talking about the
Braeburn yes so that what she's saying
that would be more than 125 if we say
way more you have other structures
underneath it it would account if they
build it here they'd have to count those
structures as putting Braeburn actually
has two different levels of retail and
then there's the ground-floor parking
and and some retail so I think that
might be actually three my figured
retail I think those windows are two
stories I think that's a 20-story
building yeah think about driving on it
from the case to clarify though and when
you say that we ask developers we with
Crandall Ram Beulah is a planning firm a
consulting firm and so they did an
analysis of what it takes to actually
make this work correct and be attracted
to developers I'm sorry so that must be
attractive to developers financially
feasible for developers if you want this
to happen again but again not not giving
away really anything because they again
for this to get to 135 that the bonus
density which requires some paying so
this I don't I'm not arguing against I
just wanted to be clear that that was
not a what a developer's one so just to
give us a perspective yes how big is the
new hotel Riley the hotel is that row
eight eight eight eight stories and help
exactly there's the relevant it's on
okay so twelfth is that what so we're
looking at that map of as a twelve and
maple run into I got my brolly
no no so it's over by the car
dealerships behind the car dealerships
yeah it's the type of silver cloud this
is it's right over there right behind it
the tallest building in this in the core
for now so it's just clothes are there
any quite obviously we have you know
some discussion around Heights and FA R
which we should so are there any
questions or any proposals to kind of
more discussion what about the
discussion around requiring retail
frontage on the other side of mall ok
great so I I guess I'm asking is there
any other additional conversation not ok
no no I just want to make sure
so the parks of you did remind me about
parking and so again that's on page 287
of your packet and you have been
involved in that conversation for the
parking study for the rest of centralist
o'clock and again looking at the
consultants did an analysis and if you
still allow 50 percent of your parking
required parking you end up with a lot
of surface parking and so again looking
at how could we make sure that we get
the structure and the type of former
building where you know again you're not
having parking lot in a parking lot in
parking lot with it you know buildings
around but mostly when you look down you
look through there you see lots of
structured surface parking so they are
recommending 90% do you have a map of
the water table in that area you know
for instance you're not able to build an
underground parking lot in Old Town but
in this area is underground parking so
Alice is doing that now has that correct
so I don't think it's gonna go down to
3/4 levels but there is an ability to
build what people allows for some
underground parking to include that
would account towards the structured
parking requirement we had not done the
analysis exactly for these sites and
that no
our there's another site that's across
from Tibbets Valley Park that is doing a
one-level underground parking so they
have they're able to do that so a quick
question for the structured parking I
would assume they're going to allow for
bicycle storage it's in the code as
persons already in the code right and so
that's already baked in yes and that's
part of the structure terrain okay
that's part of their development I'm
looking at Jennifer I don't know exactly
the rules looking to change anything
that take away to say we want more
vehicle spaces and I just want to make
sure that there is bicycle person or
bicycles in these garages biking Park
bike park light and I'm not sure about
the required weather protection over the
bicycle parking right off the top of my
head I could do some flip in real quick
here in a second but there is a revision
for bicycle parking and it the thing
that comes to mind is that it's required
to be close to the entry to wherever the
shops are I mean if we're talking about
ground-floor retail that bike parking
would need to be in proximity of those
entries that's I know that's what the
code says right now but I'm not totally
sure about the weather protection part
of it well that's actually there's two
aspects of that aspect the retail
service side but also the residential
side where are they going to put their
bikes and I bring that up because you go
to Microsoft and those bike racks are
full and I know there are some
developments who have elected to provide
a covered bike storage but I'm not again
I'm not completely sure on the
requirement itself so can I think if
most developers who know ok the type of
user that's gonna be this type of
building they do want some storage for
bikes or you know whatever maybe and
they want it in a secured place so
they're gonna be putting in the in the
parking structure so again the project
we're working on across from Tibbets
Valley Park that's what they're doing
because they don't want they want the
residents want to have a safe secure
location I don't think that's the case
for the development that's going in next
why cross the street from at work okay I
don't think they have I believe the
discussion was there is no bicycle
parking in that building for Vail I
don't know
yeah and they are actually in a
different zone so I mean we I don't know
if there's different requirements for
the different zones no it's based on use
so residential requires a 0.15 spaces
per bedroom for multifamily so said they
must have it somewhere then yeah they
must have like part they had their
record they're gonna be required some
portion of bike parking yeah so so I
asked for actual pictures developments
that I've gone in like in Kirkland or
something and I got the pictures but the
requirements for covered parking were
like 25 percent and the rest were on
street parking mm-hmm so how does that
mean with 95 percent 90 percent in is
how do you think that affects the
ability to not only build the buildings
but you have rents low enough so people
can afford to be in there so anytime you
add more regulations it has increased
the cost when I didn't get from the
other from the pictures where where how
they access their underground parking or
their structured parking you know I've
got a picture of the building but how do
you where is the parking yeah typically
I'm getting for these areas you know so
that would be because we require that
ground floor commercial it's not gonna
be from the front are those streets I
know that so happy I wanted to know what
they did right because you just see the
picture of the front of the building you
don't know where that parking is and it
would be nice to know how they access
right and the value of of that to get
people the retailing and people sure so
I know that in the research we did we
did looking at Redmond Kirkland Bothell
Linwood who's in transition as well is
that they defined pedestrian oriented
streets that don't allow again that
parking entrances and sort of I don't
know for those that seem like the
pictures show that that the parking
entrance was on the side street or not
you couldn't see it at all so it
obviously is behind but but the the
other thing to think about with the
additional cost is that the land costs
in Issaquah as they go up building a
surface parking lot is going to be not
as productive cuz you're not earning any
money off of that right so you want to
build something that you're gonna earn
and come off of and so it's the market
is gonna get to the point where they
would do that anyway and we win and I'm
not kind of quote numbers exactly but
when they did the parking analysis they
looked at what's already been done the
percentages as you guys had that
in-depth conversation you know we're
kind of already they're you know getting
up there as far as the percentage so we
believe in this area we again we want
less surface parking so well when we
started when the first when I read what
you sent me and it said 25 percent
structured parking and I was concerned
when we go up to to 95 percent then that
makes more sense or 90 percent it makes
more sense to me I was afraid that oh it
was going in they're going to do oh
there's a samples from other places
you're saying okay okay yeah Trish sent
them okay
anything else
so where did we land with all of this
we've heard hundred percent we've heard
back to the 25 well let's go back to the
far we haven't talked about staffs
coming to these numbers these are again
looking at the the consultants looking
at calculating what can currently be
done under the urban core and what you
would need to have as a minimum if they
are and allowable F a hours to get the
type of product you want this is what
you need goes up again with the 0.55 as
a base which is what I mean a minimum
sorry that doesn't even barely get get
to two floors right and if we're trying
to require versus encourage write or
make sense I mean this makes sense given
how ambitious just these this particular
sector is I think doing half is
reasonable everything the other the
other changes anything that up south
beside I mean you've gotten answers to
all your questions so that what is being
presented is acceptable to you 100% but
I also want to go home good policies
made right now understand this is the
future and it's you know this is what we
think or what they think it will be
changed eventually but at least it's a
plan that you can start with and go for
there's nothing you know blaring in
there that might really besides the fact
that I understand that nobody lives in
Issaquah wants and story buildings but
they're gonna
so we might as well doing the right way
mm I have a question maybe to Joan
there's three this is in three parts and
the finding effect we need three
separate motions or one I would think
it's one is three separate amendments to
different parts of the code I mean I
don't know if it matters but so it's all
to one coat okay so if you wanted to
package it as staff proposed amendments
plus additional staff proposed amendment
plus the impervious correction you could
bundle it that way the point is to make
it clear what you're voting on so I
would like to make a motion of amending
the height to 125 and not the 135 a
staff has suggested I was I second that
a further discussion I I am in favor of
keeping it at 125 because it seems
somewhat like it's just creeping up
because of this other requirement that
was added on the lower storeys and if
that was a very intentional decision to
put it at 125 I would be in favor of
keeping it that way there just as a
devil's advocate at 125 we weren't
getting what we were looking for and we
asked the consultants to say hey what
are the things that are blocking this
and one of the things they said was the
FE ours and one of them was not allowing
enough space for that base ground floor
and also all of the floors that they
wanted to establish that being said I do
support the 125 I just want to throw it
out there I think we're ready to vote
I'm not allowed to vote against write
these
I'm commissioners have to vote on this
puzzle all those in favor say aye aye
opposed nay
yeah it isn't it you are voting no yes
okay that's three four and two against
just for clarification I heard joy you
had made a motion to change just the
height the max height width with the
density to be a 125 so that it is
concurrent with central and central as a
cross so there would be no there
initially would be no amendment to the
no change
okay okay thank you for the
clarification now we need in a emotion
of the rest of it I can't make the
motion so no and I'm confused
so that was sorry so that was then for
which of these three minutes see 125
no I know I know but which of the three
there are three different amendments and
the finding effect so that 125 is
specific to as a portion of the very
first fine it has been a one okay this
is getting and getting a little bit
messy so I would I move then to
[Music]
recommend the amendments one two and
three as stated in the finding effect
aside from what we yeah as amended yeah
that's all I guess I'll second that
any discussion all those in favor say
aye aye
motion carried this has been the longest
me people thing clarification staff had
proposed edit clarifying edits for
cross-references to make it more clear
as to where you go and what you do
whenever you get hit these requirements
did the Commission want to vote on those
tonight as well or you know we have
to do that because it was just they
weren't really changes they were just I
can appreciate that response so thank
you I think we're good okay okay I mean
you're not changing it you know any word
so more direction and we're gonna crack
that 90 to 95 correct thank you for your
work on maybe put it 100 items conclude
the meeting thank you very much we're
still on air you want to conclude the
meetings yes I'm looking at the clock
and just wondering how in the world it's
gonna close the meeting at 10:00 7:00
no7 thanks thank you thank you
you