evening good evening we're on the air
welcome to the may 10th planning policy
Commission meeting first item on the
agenda is a quick approval of the last
meeting minutes or any additions or
Corrections a motion to accept the
minutes I'd like to move to accept the
minutes for our last meeting I'll second
all in favor aye
it's approved let me we're gonna have
the public hearing we have a number of
things to discuss tonight hopefully we
will move quickly I ask everybody be
patient I ask you to be respectful when
you're talking with other peoples may be
differing opinions we'll try to get
everybody a chance to talk I don't know
how many have signed up but if it starts
going on I will let everybody have five
minutes talk when their turn comes with
the public hearing and we'll proceed
along that way we have the municipal
regarding the expiration of Taos
agreement and then another town hearing
on old town sub area plan and also
proposed transportation improvement
program tonight so we have a busy agenda
we will proceed with Lucy's gonna run
the first part I guess yes but we're
gonna start with the city attorney so
the attorneys gonna talk to us Thank You
mr. chairman
very briefly I have a few preliminary
comments concerning the the Commission's
consideration of the the tellus
development agreement we are aware of
some procedural arguments that have been
raised by legal counsel for the owner or
developer of the talus nine parcel and
this concerns the extent to which
tonight's proceedings are legislative
versus quasi judicial in nature and
whether the proposed classification of
the talus nine parcel constitutes a
site-specific rezone under state law
much of this argument is based upon a
decision of the Washington State Supreme
Court that was just issued today our
office is currently reviewing that case
with city staff and we have not yet
formulated any final procedural
recommendation based upon the potential
impact of the Supreme Court's opinion on
these proceedings
however without conceding that these
proceedings are in fact quasi judicial
it is our recommendation that the PPC
members receive and undergo the brief
appearance of fairness disclosure
process that mrs. Lowman will now lead
you through good evening Lucy slum and
land development manager this is gonna
be new to you guys don't typically get
this so we're gonna go through three
slides to talk about go through the
quasi judicial review process the
purpose of this is that a quasi-judicial
permit is like a court and the
proceedings need to both be fair and
appear fair in this case that is for
some predominantly a procedural due
process activity part of it is around
the kind of noticing and other
procedural things that we need to follow
but also to ensure and discuss the
decision maker or recommenders
relationship with any people who benefit
from the decision so I would like you to
read through their questions that are up
on the screen and then I will ask you
some questions related to them
how many people answer no to all the
questions what's the definition of own
or control property near the subject
property so the city attorney has
mentioned to me that it he uses within
300 feet so if you received a notice
okay so you would answer no to that okay
great
thank you and then the other piece of
this is ex parte con contacts that would
be any conversations amongst
commissioners with the public with
anyone else that were not part of the
official record which would be basically
outside of these proceedings as anyone
talked about this matter outside of
these proceedings I have I had a meeting
with Chris Rea he requested that as a
way to talk about the fact that this was
going to come to pay BC that gave me the
ability to get into the research a
little bit early and but I have not made
any official decisions prior to coming
to this meeting anyone else
okay does does the anyone care to
challenge the participation of any of
the commissioners this evening miss
lemon I just wanted to address
Commissioner Walsh's disclosure it's
appreciated the fact that you disclosed
the meeting and the substance of it I
believe addresses the appearance of
fairness concerns that the property
owner would have I do ask that because
councilmember Rey is a proponent of the
project that the commissioners not have
further meetings with him about it and I
should identify who I am who are you why
are you talking my name is richard hill
and i'm counsel for the property owner
thank you
so thank you that's the end of the
quasi-judicial portion so let me give
you a brief introduction to Lucy I'm I'm
sorry if I could briefly interject with
respect to the disclosure made by
Commissioner Walsh I think it would be
appropriate to remind the audience that
any member who wishes to speak tonight
is able to rebut the substance of the
disclosure that Miss Walsh made during
the course of your public comments and
that would be the opportunity for you to
do so okay perfect thank you so the
structure of this evening we only had
the planning policy Commission as a
seven member body quorum is for members
hello quorum and so Commissioner
McCauley is only able to be here until
7:45 that is the extent of time that we
can meet this is a public hearing we
will I will make a brief presentation we
will watch a 15 minute video clip then
we will take public testimony and we
will hope to accomplish as much as we
can in the time that we have this
evening
so what we are bringing to you is
related to towels parcel nine and ending
of the development agreements the
process began early last year in the
spring this is just a record of all the
various meetings public meetings that we
have had either with the community with
various Commission's or council council
committees on in March this the council
remanded to PPC the designation of
parcel 9 within the context of the
replacement regulations and the question
is whether it should be you vmf for
multifamily or you vsf for single-family
you may remember because we worked with
you last summer that there were three
goals they've evolved a little bit since
you've seen them but they're essentially
the same
that we had three goals through this
process one was retaining the character
of each urban village two was to create
as few non-conforming situations as we
could and lastly was to replace 15 to 20
year old regulations using and used the
city regulations to the greatest extent
we could without affecting the character
to do that we sat down with each of the
parcels in Tallis we examined the the
uses that were in place and based on
those uses if the property was developed
or if it only had entitlement and had
not been developed then we proposed
zoning to either match what had been
built or to implement what the
entitlement that they possessed this
chart was developed for the community
meeting at Alice in January the left
hand side is the what was in the
original talus development agreement the
right hand side is the proposed talus
replacement regulations you'll notice
that some of these in this column and
this column there are some many arrows
that are blue pointing down that means
that over the course of the property's
being developed either the density or
the height was reduced so that was not
part of developing the replacement
regulations it was part of developing
each parcel along the way and there was
one parcel the orange was the one parcel
where it was increased during their land
use permitting phase all the white cells
mean there was no change so to clarify
those who decisions made by the relevant
developer within the development
agreement or those decisions made by the
city or both so generally you could
reduce your category through an election
process so it might have been the master
developer or it might have been the
individual parcel developer the city had
to confirm that it was consistent with
the criteria
but there was no significant action
needed to take that it was built into
the development agreement so just to
cover the history a little bit more of
parcel 9 on the left you can see this is
the image that was in the development
agreement and Talas parcel 9 was
assigned high-density and those
development regulations are shown here
then but you know that didn't actually
subdivide the land so the first action
that took place immediately the year
after the development agreement was
adopted was a master plat of Olive
Tallis it did not change any development
regulations but it established the first
sort of first set of boundaries for each
parcel subsequently in the years 2004 to
2013 there were three lot line
adjustments to the parcel again did not
change any of the development standards
it was still designated as high-density
residential but for purposes of
infrastructure reservoir and development
parcel size lot line adjustments were
performed then in 2014 a preliminary
plat of parcel 7 and 8 was submitted the
density categories such as high density
or medium density actually have both a
minimum and a maximum density and so any
proposal land use proposal must fall
within that range both parcels 8 and 9
fell below the range so each of them was
reduced by a density category so that
was the time at which parcel 9 was
reduced to medium density so now we're
at the point where we're considering
with the replacement regulations the
zoning up until this time all the
parcels in talis were zoned urban
village and it was basically that sent
you to the development agreement which
had all the details when we were
considering the replacement regulations
we had to say okay how do we take what's
in the development agreement
and change that into zoning so our
decision tree is essentially what is the
land use it's residential what our
zoning options for solely residential
property it can either be you V
multifamily or UV single-family and a
lot of that fell to do we have one unit
on the property or do we have multiple
units on the property that was the
primary question at the end and so
that's where it kind of the crux of the
situation because parcel 9 is in this
purgatory between having an approved
preliminary plat and not being final
plaited with 90 dwelling units on a
single parcel staff identified you V
multifamily however if the final plat
had gone through and it had been parse
alized if that's a word
thank you for accepting it then it would
have been zoned UV single-family so
we're kind of in this betwixt in between
and that is the question that we're
coming back to you with I think the last
piece that we want to loose you to
clarify on that so whether or not it's
MF or SF it so it still has the same 90
entitlement yes is the proposed plant 90
property units either way yes
so the plat had 90 Lots for the 90 units
okay so the total number of watts inside
parcel 9 will not change with this
discussion so right now it has it is
proposed to have a zoning cap of 90 the
plat had 90 Lots I don't know what else
I I don't we don't know exactly what's
going to happen going forward subsequent
to the landslide in 2015 and the
stabilization work that's going on now
so it's my understanding we're not
getting into lot line
and anything around that in either let's
see in either case could it be built up
versus individual units I don't know how
to put okay between them let me give let
me give it a shot and see if I actually
am answering your question yeah so under
UV multifamily you can build either
stacked flats or or attached units or
detached units so it's a broader range
of uses as you can see listed here
single-family has only detached and
attached units on individual Lots and
these uses are consistent with the
property if it was final plaited if it
was not final plaited and they had 90
units than they would so but even with
the UV MF if they wanted to create what
would have been the final Latinization
to create another word for you thank you
they could because it includes
single-family detached and single-family
attached townhomes yes on individual
love okay but to point out some of the
concerns that have been raised I think
part of it is that there is a broader
range of uses than were that the plat
would have resulted in the current the
they were allowed to have up to sixty
feet under medium density me a
multi-family would be consistent in
having the 60 feet although it has some
different restrictions under the
replacement regulations whereas the
single-family has the height of 45 feet
so I think that there you'll hear this
in the video in a moment I think there's
some concern about expectations versus
possibilities and then lastly the chart
at the bottom is just my crazy chart
I'll explain that in a minute but the so
here's parcel 9 in the zoning map
here's parcel 9 in the land-use map the
zoning map
pink is single-family I someone else
picked these colors I have no idea why
and lilac is multifamily and so you can
see the variety of zoning that's in this
area oh you can't because they all look
the same
oh okay I'm sorry yeah okay let me point
to this so 6a is lilac this is the
proposed zoning parcel 9 is lilac parcel
14 is lilac and then this little parcel
8a right here this it's a little quarter
acre those are the four parcels that are
[Music]
proposed for multifamily thank you have
any of those been flattened so none so
as multifamily they wouldn't be plaited
some of them are built but okay that's
time I'd say okay folks a is built okay
and 14 is built obviously parcel 9 is
not built and 8a is not built okay
what's on parcels 6 and 14 6 is a
stacked flat apartment building project
multiple buildings as is these parcel 14
is kind of a garden apartment style so
it's a lot of different buildings and
then the land-use map you can see the
the letters standing for low medium
and hi for instance and this map has
been carried forward only because the
urban design guidelines for Tallis are
based on those categories so it's not a
regulatory map anymore but it just is
another way of looking at the area and
sort of because it does represent
densities so you can see that can you
know
okay the check mark look like they're
checkmarks so in zoning there are you
know many parcels that are single-family
and three that are multifamily the
single-family are both single-family
detached and single-family attached
multi-family housing type and
multi-family zoning obviously match up I
think the only thing and I'm not sure
this chart means anything I just did it
so I thought I should give it to you you
can see that the low medium and high
don't necessarily match any particular
housing type or zoning it's there's a
little more diversity so I don't know
that there's any conclusion to draw
other than that happened so that's the
end of my presentation I think our next
step would be to show you the video clip
from the council and then we would open
it up for public testimony
additional information that I wanted to
read into the road hearing last week
councilmember Rey had submitted various
questions and had discussions with our
city staff and legal staff and I wanted
to provide some
you never see this happen huh apologies
the concern is that it was supposedly
based on
Lucy's woman is trying to show a video
that just right but it's a book from
unit and the ions were formed when two
counsel was okay we recommended
hard to push it through okay okay thank
you you have to find that point again
she knows she knows like three hours in
yeah hours in four minutes
hey go no yeah that's it that's gonna
I have some additional information that
I wanted to read into the record during
last week councilmember Rey had
submitted various questions and had
discussions with our city staff and
legal staff and I wanted to provide some
of that information on the record today
for other councilmembers who may not
have been aware of it and for the public
a council and ensure committee met on
March 1st 2018 to discuss the ending of
the talus ta and the adoption of
replacement regulations during their
discussion the three committee members
discussed the various options for
replacement zoning on unbuilt parcels
and talus the committee recommended that
the bill be moved to the March 19th
council meeting for action and that
additional discussion could occur as to
the options for zoning for unbelt
parcels since the committee meeting
additional questions have been asked by
council members of our city attorney and
ESD staff the information below answers
the questions and is being provided to
Council for consideration during
deliberations the information describes
the zoning designations for council and
provides additional background
information on parcel 9 which was the
subject of the committee questions there
are several options that can be
considered for the unbuilt parcels
multifamily zoning this zoning would
allow the dwelling unit entitlements
assigned to a parcel to be used for
multifamily or single-family development
a parcel 9 this multifamily zoning would
permit both townhouses or apartment
buildings Gerdes of the building form
the maximum height would be 60 feet
single-family zoning this zoning would
allow the entitlements assigned to a
parcel to be used for single-family
development a parcel 9 this zoning is a
lower density category than originally
assigned to the property under the DA
this zoning would reduce the building
height allowance to 45 feet
single-family this zoning would permit a
townhouse building form and would be
buildable under the existing approved
preliminary plat for parcel 9 personal 9
was originally designated as high
density on a 3.5 7 acre parcel this
would have permitted the development of
the entire
90 dwelling units to be in a building or
buildings up to 85 feet tall
subsequently the parcel was redesignated
as medium density and the parcels post
parent was expanded to over five acres
under the current development agreement
this allowed for the 90 unit entitlement
to be built in a building or buildings
up to 60 feet in height if the developer
of parcel 9 which has an approved
preliminary plat for 90 single-family
attached lots that are townhomes does
not wish to or cannot construct what is
shown on the preliminary plan then the
developer would need to propose the
subsequent development that meets the
requirements of the replacement
regulation City Council adopts the
council chooses to proceed with the
staff recommendation from the AV the
process tonight would be to move second
deliberate and vote on the move to the a
B if the council chooses to consider
assigning single-family medium density
zoning instead of multifamily medium
zoning to any parcels the process would
be to move and second emotion to discuss
the proposal to reconsider the
recommended zoning designations and to
request a public hearing at a council
meeting at a date certain to allow for
discussion of this change to the
administration's recommendation the vote
on the motion may be considered after
the public hearing there would be no
vote on the main motion at the council
meeting tonight the council may wish to
consider the following when reviewing
their options the December for City
Council meeting Council reviewed the
goals for ending of the da's in both
Highlands and talus they were to retain
the character of each urban village read
as few non-conforming situations as
possible and replace an update the 15 to
20 year old standards
he's standards use current and city
regulations to the greatest extent
possible except where it will
significantly impact character that was
delivered to Council on the weekend by
an email and I just want to make sure
that the public was also aware of this
information
any questions for Lucy let's remember
winters thing thank you earlier Lucy
when you had this slide up when you were
presenting you you talked you said that
these proposed reg you reg ulation for
parcel 9 were difficult I think you used
that word which but I look up there and
I remember the same thing when we were
in committee at land and shore and the
currently kind of what's allowed there
per the revised preliminary plat looks
exactly like proposed replacement
regulations so that seems pretty
straightforward to me what what am I
missing anything so I think the two
sides to this coin are that in terms of
the where the parcel is right now and
the regulations that were in place with
the preliminary plat plaque and the
proposed regulations they match what I
think the concern is that if the
preliminary plat had gone to final plat
we would and and those it had been
plaited into those 90 Lots we would have
applied single-family zoning to that
completed parcel and so I think that is
the concern is do we zone it based on
where it is right now and carry forward
with more flexibility or do we carry
forward what would have been if it
hadn't slid and if it moves to final
plat okay thank you remember right I
still have a lot of questions and and so
if you if you all would indulge me for a
couple minutes I mean have a lot of
questions and part of the reason I want
to go through these questions is there's
a lot of uncertainty about the evolution
of parcel 9 there's a lot of information
that that has been presented in ways
that have been difficult to understand
for both the council and for the public
and I want to make sure that we have all
the
nation they lighted before we make this
decision that it really could have a
significant impact and we heard it today
from the public significant impact on
the community so so I'm going to take us
back to to Ground Zero so work with me
here
how's parcel denying currently zoned
urban village what's that mean right a
development agreement how was uh and you
talked about this one so I got got my
notes here that's okay okay thank you
see how it was a parcel I originally
designated in terms of density in the DA
so it was high density it's it's this
left-hand column and I'm just pointing
to it help guide us through it high
density residential which did not allow
single-family detached only attached and
multi-family 85 feet in height 23 to 150
dwelling units per acre awesome and the
changes that were made to the
development agreement that changed it
into density and expanded the size of
the parcel that was done so the change
in the size of the parcel was I believe
a lot line adjustment that was made
prior to the preliminary plat I'm so
impressed that you think I remember
everything so they the parcel 7 8 and 9
you can see how for instance the road
alignment changed between the original
adopted development agreement and the
planning for parcel 9 and so in
adjusting to create the three parcels
that would be plaited there was a lot
line adjustment then when they were
ready to do the preliminary plat and we
were going through the sort of
preliminary discussions we recognized
that based on the number of units that
they had purchased and the size of the
property they could not meet the minimum
density which is the 23 dwelling units
per acre for high-density so there's an
election process within the
development agreement which allows them
to shift down one density category
without anything other than just saying
we want to do that which is what they
did which took them to medium density
residential which added detached
residential as a use reduce the height
and reduce the density and they had
purchased as their entitlement 90
dwelling units and and those those
changes were approved by the master
developer and the city so that became
the new law of the land in the due day
so when the preliminary platform was
filed how was the the land identified in
the preliminary plat was it
single-family multifamily that is a
level that is a kind of zoning approach
that isn't used within the development
agreement so it just was classified as
medium density residential which had
this range of residential uses that were
allowed and as long as it fell within
that range of uses the ones I've shown
here in the middle and was within the
density met fell between the density
minimum and maximum it was allowed so we
did not classify it as one thing or the
other and the the platform and showed
individual property lines which would be
consistent with single-family not
multifamily extinct family attached
right so I was just looking at a couple
of neighborhood neighboring
neighborhoods so a sentence in Terra
which both have attached townhomes that
show individual property line and are
being designated or zoned proposed
zoning on them is single-family right
and I think you're touching on the point
of being in this kind of purgatory
between preliminary and final plat was
the was how we ended up in between yeah
I'm just I'm just trying to get to
intent because you know we're right
where I said is we're trying to balance
two things neighborhood expectations we
heard those earlier today and property
owner in town
and so I'm trying to establish what but
what really is the intent so let me go
ask you some questions that bet you
won't know the answer to what if I go to
the king county assessors parcel viewer
how would the this this parcel be
identified as its current use go family
if I were to go down and read the thing
that said what's the highest and best
use if they can't smell rain just reader
the answers I don't get it all right
you're saying no each time it's a thank
you that I only had the two so it's
highest and best use right now is single
family so I'm moving on so when you
presented to the Tallis community on
January 23rd you indicated that this was
going to be oh your table showed adopted
density on parcel nine was high with an
80-foot cap and that we were down zoning
to get to medium density so I was just
curious why you didn't disclose that
we'd already done that down zone
actually that was a discussion item I
believe at that meeting and what I
identified wasn't that we were down
zoning it that over the course of
propertied about well in in thinking
back there was one parcel that was up
zoned through the process and so we
talked about how the table represented
what had happened as the parcels were
being developed and those changes mostly
of down dropping to the next lower level
and the one kampl of it being going to a
higher level had all happened during its
development it was not part of the
replacement regulation process okay
so recognizing that the parcel 9 is will
be vested under our vesting rules the
irr most restrictive vesting rules and
it could be built as currently plotted
as single-family attached homes would it
also be possible on that property with a
with a multifamily designation 60-foot
to put in a five to six story apartment
buildings
on that parcel you know I thought about
that while there some of that is true
but the hillside designation are the
hillside regulations that have been
added in the urban villages would be
more restrictive than typical
multifamily parcels because the
limitations on regrading and walls and
stepping through the site so there would
be the ability to put in stacked flat
apartments the form of the building
might be different than a traditional
apartment building we could put in
fairly large apartment buildings I mean
I guess that's not a good question
apartment buildings would definitely be
a form factor we could put into that
parcel yes and and they could be and not
you told me about this so I'm the
because it's on a slope it would be the
bottom could be 60 feet tall so it's I
said no but I think that the diagram
that is here sorry I'm using a PDF
because I thought it would work better
so from the road the maximum building
height would be fixed it would not be
able to average the grade so the topmost
level would be the 60 feet but the
building would be required to step its
roofline following the grade which would
therefore restrict it from being 60 feet
at the street or defeat at the street I
unless I evaluated yeah okay but but
tall and also because there's
multi-family no setback so it could be
right at the street right so good single
family you know single family that's a 5
foot setback ok
so when you were talking to the
community did you share the the fact
that we could be building apartment
buildings on this parcel with them we
and councilmember Rey the question might
be was whether or not building forms
were discussed because I'm not sure no I
think it's more than form because it's
also use I think there's a difference
between single-family individual
ownership and multifamily rental and it
has it has significance not only in the
form of the building but in the quality
of the neighborhood so I think it's
significant I think it's something that
it would have been very important that
for the public to understand at that
time to provide some feedback and what
I've heard from the community is while
we felt like we were getting kind of
partial information and we didn't really
understand all of this because it's very
technical and very jargony and they were
feeling very much like they used the
word bum's rush but they weren't getting
complete information so that they could
react to it so I'm gonna kind of stop
there and kind of summarize and the
reason I brought this up is if we
designate this property as single-family
we can build exactly what is entitle or
what is currently envisioned on that
Plata's designated by the current plat
on nine so the developer can build what
exactly what is currently envisioned on
that Platt was a single-family
designation if we designated as
multifamily then the community is at
risk of that parcel being turned into
apartment buildings which is something
that I've heard pretty loud and clear
from the community community is not
something that they think is appropriate
my incredibly succinct fear is if we
don't own this thing as multifamily
we're back here three years from now
we're having a quasi-judicial proceeding
and we're gonna have to go ahead with
something we know is wrong councilmember
Rey I don't think we've made a motion
okay whatever thank you you can you can
deliberate more after the motion is made
are there any other councilmembers who
have questions Oh council member Ramos
thank councilmember hunt
I just want Christian on height because
I had no went from 85 to 60 but then I
heard that it's 45 but I haven't seen 45
anywhere so I'm trying to fit where the
45 came from so I believe 45 came up
because single-family zoning would limit
the development to 45 feet Oh the
current the current buy-in is 45 foot
lemon no the current proposal is 60 feet
which is multifamily zoning and that was
the concern that was raised now the
other possibility I don't remember
exactly when 45 feet was mentioned it
may be partly because the townhouses
would likely have been built at 45 leave
council member Ramos that was part of
the information I gave any answer to
counselor grace questions this weekend
is about single family versus
multi-family that has been the 45-foot
it's not on the slide because it's new
information from this video
councilmember hunt okay
so I believe we're gonna open it up for
public testimony um is there anyone who
would like to sign up who hasn't okay
I'm gonna take the clipboard up after
watching that video we'll open it up for
public comment at 7:18 there's only two
people signed up so far inside usual and
then let's since since we've got a hard
stop at 7:45 let's stick with the
five-minute limit yeah five minute limit
no problem hi I'm Brooke Ixchel the
president of the Tallis residential
Association I'm at five to two Timber
Creek Drive Northwest in Issaquah hello
committee members in 2014 rez mark
received approval to build 90 time
townhomes on parcel nine and if the
landslide would not have happened in
2015 today we would be looking at 90
mountainside townhomes no higher than 45
feet when we drive up to the top of Taos
Drive but we did have a slide and so
regardless of Zoning because that's a
lot of stuff that's very technical
really what we want to get at is all we
want is what we thought we were gonna
get back in 2014 this whole issue really
is coming down to fear of the unknown so
I guess I'd like to lay out our fears
and hope that through this process you
can help us alleviate those so first or
worried that ninety mountain side
townhomes will turn into one giant 60
foot tall monstrosity at the top of Taos
Hill frankly we're also worried that 90
will become a bigger number and then
we're also worried that due to the
financial impacts of the slide that the
goals of the Builder will be to build
whatever is easiest whatever's cheapest
and fastest to get out and though we
will be the only ones left with that
outcome
so to ease our fears and focus less on
zoning speak I'm asking that the PCC as
part of this process
just ask the owner or lawyer of parcel 9
to disclose what they do intend to build
when the hill is stabilized and we would
all benefit from knowing their
intentions
thanks mr. Hill
thank you
commissioners good evening my name is
rich hill and I'm counsel for the owner
of parcel 9 very much appreciate the
opportunity to address you this evening
and your consideration of the issue
that's been remanded to you by the
council the phone owner of parcel 9 to
respond to brookey's question fully
intends to develop the approved project
pursuant to the preliminary plat upon
completion of the retaining structure
walls that as you know are currently
under construction at talus that's their
goal that's their objective with that
said the proposed down zone is of grave
concern to the owner because one we
don't know what the world will look like
at the time that the the walls are
complete we don't know what the world
will look like the creating a Down zone
at this point in time does a number of
things that affects property value it
reduces allowable height it means that
the existing proposal will be a
non-conforming one it increases setbacks
and it deprives the opportunity to do
multifamily use on the property now
tonight the owner respectfully asks the
Commission to postpone the hearing and
mr. lell addressed the council on that
point earlier tonight in light of the
Schnitzer decision and I've made copies
of the Schnitzer decision I know you
probably love to read court decisions so
I don't expect you to read it tonight
but if you have trouble sleeping tonight
you might want to walk through it but
the Schnitzer decision just came out
today as mr. Lowe mentioned that
decision makes it clear that the city's
consideration of this down zone is
what's called a site-specific rezone
process and as commissioners I'm sure
you're familiar with that process in the
city of Ithaca Watsa types it
process the reason Schnitzer would say
that what is your app being asked to
consider is a site-specific rezone is
the test in that case is is it a
specific tract of land here it is it's
tract parcel 9 is there a request for
reclassification yes it's a request for
reclassification different from what the
development agreement had applicable to
it and 3 is there a specific part in in
this case it would be the City Council
that asks you to consider it there the
the consequence of it being
site-specific
is that as I mentioned it becomes a type
6 process in the city the procedure that
we're following here today is not
consistent with that type 6 process
secondly it is quasi-judicial and mr.
Lall I think very appropriately tonight
reserved rights but said let's deal with
the quasi judicial process and deal with
that the burden is on the proponent of
the rezone the the proponent has to
demonstrate what's called change
circumstances and I'm sure you've dealt
with that in your experience on the
Commission to justify the down zone and
then finally the appearance of fairness
doctrine is applicable with respect to
the commissioners as I mentioned earlier
tonight I have no objection to your
participation here as I mentioned the
city is not following the type 6 process
for this to meet the criteria of your
own ordinance that process would need to
be followed in addition the staff has
not had an opportunity and I don't blame
your very effective staff because this
decision just came down today but the
staff has not had an opportunity to
evaluate the burden of proof issues the
change circumstances issues or the other
rezone criteria that are set forth in
your ordinance in the event the city
attorney nonetheless advises you to
proceed at this point with the hearing
with reservation of its rights the
property owner would respectfully ask
that you stay the course you set last
September when you recognized
recommended the MF designation of the
property and maintained this designation
there's no evidence in the record
members of the committee
that supports down zoning the property
at this point in time there's no factual
basis for the Commission to say there
are change circumstances since we looked
at this in September I've set forth the
property owners views in some detail
perhaps too much detail for the
commissioners but in some detail in my
letter and I know you've probably had an
opportunity to review it we very much
appreciate the Commission's
consideration of what we set forth in
the letter
in conclusion want to meet my five
minutes in conclusion the hearing from
the property owners perspective should
be postponed because this should be
pursuant to a type six process staff has
not had the opportunity to provide the
Planning Commission with analysis of the
applicable rezone criteria if the if the
Commission does decide tonight to
proceed with consideration of the
council's remand request again with
reservations of Rights five minutes is
up may I have 45 seconds to finish the
sentence it's up to you sure go ahead
okay and the property owner asked
respectfully that you stay the course
you set last September 28th only eight
months ago and maintain multifamily
zoning on the property thank you very
much thank you anybody else in the
public want to make a comment
now all the people came don't nobody
else wants to talk that case we will
close the public hearing
did you at 7:27 oh no did you just come
in you closed it oh no no no that's fine
I didn't didn't know that you were there
again five minutes please okay
my name is Connie Marsh and I live up on
squawk Mountain and I think my takeaway
from this is this is the last decision
with the talents and Issaquah Highlands
end of days and this is the one that has
caused the most concern and well the
guidance all along was to keep it as
close as possible to the development
agreement when you have the one
outstanding thing that is causing a lot
of community anxiety and concern about
changing the the expectations of an area
you can zone it however you want to its
unsewn and you can you can do what you
want and break that well we have to do
what the original DA said there's
nothing saying that you have to stay
with that community expectations is that
it's gonna look like the pre plat like
what what they were told was going to
happen so given you have the artistic
license in this case I would go with the
community expectation that's it
Thank You Connie anybody else I don't
want to cut anybody off
seeing no other volunteers will those of
public comments now at 7:29
so I I have one clarifying question well
in the public comment that the H where
president made one of the concerns was
that this would increase the number of
units that is incorrect just to clarify
because in either case it's gonna be
capped at 90 so the decision here is all
about form setbacks and Heights
the total the total entitlement will not
change this process would not change the
entitlement I think the HOA president
was just speaking to general fears that
that somehow through this process this
process would not increase it as as far
as I know and it would be true that any
property owner could come back to the
council at any time and ask for an
increase and that would be a public
process ya know it was it was it was a
good question I just wanted wouldn't
wanted to clarify so no matter no matter
what we do we will neither increase nor
decrease the number of housing units
that's entitled there's been no proposal
to change that ground as we last looked
at this when we did our joint sessions
and we went through the end of the
development agreements has staff found
something that would cause them to
change their recommendation to us we
have not proposed a change in
recommendation but I think it's it's the
being trapped in purgatory between
preliminary plat and final plat
community expectations and concerns
about changes in the future that caused
the council to remand this back for
further discussion here so is counsel
requesting the down zone from medium to
two single-family density or they just
want us to talk about it more
they thought that single-family should
be considered for this property I don't
know that they had a recommendation I
think that they were remanding back I
don't have the exact language in front
of me split split yeah so I
I watched the I watched the clip did and
then I dug it and I kind of watched the
whole meeting to give myself kind of the
brevity around around the clip and from
what I recall is it was a split decision
and so council would then actually I
think the decision was around process
about whether it would come to PPC or
whether the hearing would and all action
would be held at the council I'm not
they were not taking a vote at that time
on on one use or the other because the
hearing had to take place before they
could do that yes is there any new
information from when the last time when
we said when we recommended medium
density is there any new information
well I think all the I'm not sure that
it depends on how you view new
information the process we went through
the process we made a recommendation we
provided all the sort of history and
detail that we included in the memo
which was sort of back-of-house before
and where we're trying to be very
transparent about all those steps and
how the property has evolved okay so
presumably this is all public
information we've just focused de
lighted and kind of repeated and
consolidated I've everything zeroing in
on parcel 9 right none of none of this
none of this is new nothing they were
just it was just buried among tens of
thousands of other pieces of paper well
right I don't think that we we thought
about these things but we didn't
necessarily present all of this and I
think that the crux of the matter is
that the preliminary plat has been
approved the final plat has not been
approved if the final plat had been
approved it would have automatically
liked all the parcels that were
identified have been zoned UV
single-family but that sort of overt
conversation did not have
and either at PPC or at the Tallis
community meeting and the property owner
since it's just a preliminary plat has
full legal right to come back with a
completely different plat as long as it
fits the zoning correct right the
property the just because you have a
preliminary plot does not mean that you
have to follow through on that and I
think that is part of the community
concern and part of what I remember from
our discussions because there was
another parcel that was actually a much
more hotly debated within within Taos at
the time and one of the reasons that we
didn't focus the nitty-gritty on this
and why maybe mr. Hill wasn't a part of
our discussions at that time was because
we understood that the that the plat was
still undergoing structural issues and
was not actually at a point that we
needed to be looking at what was what
was to be happening on it that we
weren't or we weren't at that level yet
so there was a reason that we weren't
going over this we were just going off
of what we already knew from the
preliminary plat as the plan right is
that is a correct understanding like
then I think staff made certain
assumptions based on its state at the
time and that the council felt that a
very overt conversation was necessary to
ensure that the possibilities and
expectations had been fully aired at
that time there was an encouragement
from from the Joint Commission's
for Tallis to really work with
developers to communicate their their
intent with them and the developer at
the time had one direction they wanted
to go I'm forgetting which part was
seventy right yeah on the corner thank
you
and so I I would kind of go back to that
and I would encourage mr. Hill to go
back to his client to really encourage
them to work with the Tallis community
that's having open lines of
communication it sounds like a big issue
here is really the community cares a lot
about the parcel and that's a great
opportunity for the applicant to be able
to reach out and really take that
feedback and really be a part and a
member of the community rather than
having a lot of mystery and I think that
would help the situation a little bit so
that's a kind of
side that I would never bring 40 with
the applicant but so Lucy I would say my
only frustration with this process is
looking back to that September timeframe
that PPC's discussion was very focused
on that 17b and I think we had a little
bit of blinders on probably based on the
information that we were getting or not
getting from staff about parcel 9 and
that if we had had the opportunity at
that point to go through this process I
think that would have delighted
information much earlier on so that we
weren't having to go back and look at
one parcel in specific which can become
a legal problem well I'm not going to
speak to the legal problems we have
enough lawyers in here that kind of can
discuss that I think I point taken
I think one of the challenges that we
face with the complexity of all of this
and being the first time through the
process is that staff made their best
effort and at the same time that was
part of why we brought we you know all
those meetings that you see I think that
was we were asked a lot of really
interesting and varied questions that
sent us back to scratch our heads and
think through things and unfortunately
parcel 9 just didn't come up at that
time I don't think that there was I it
at the time it didn't seem like such a
big deal we were wrong at the time I
remember we discussed a lot was the
issue of the slide and wanting to make
sure that whatever was built on nine
however it came out was going to go
through super review and it was going to
fit criteria of of not being a huge
safety concern for the community so that
was what I remember us really focusing
on for this particular parcel because we
didn't actually have an applicant in
front of us saying this is not what we
want to have happen and we also didn't
have the community in front of us saying
this is not what we want to have happen
within those discussions so I think that
was a big thing that we talked about was
making sure that staff recognize that we
put in place as to win this parcel was
going to be built out that it was going
to adhere to everything that we needed
as a community to feel that it was of
sound being absurdly built yeah that's
what that was my recollection when I
went back through my notes for this so
is so again and I asked it an Aes that
there's nothing on this since we've
looked at it other than the issues that
the community is feeling that it's not
appropriate to what they're wanting to
envisioned for the parcel is that
correct as far as city staff is
concerned I think I think that the the
point that city staff I think are
continued to return to is that that
we're caught kind of between what what
would have happened with a final plot
and where we are right now and I think
if anything explaining the zoning in
light of that would have been a great
thing to have done last year and I just
don't think we thought about it that way
and yeah and you know that's why we're
back here I think these are extremely
important conversations to have in an
overt way pending and you go maybe I
don't remember I'm letting I have been
here for that meeting but I'm very
confused between this plat B and as you
say purgatory so it sounds like your
preliminary was one thing and if we had
proceeded long it's not it's not as much
purgatory I know you would have got
something different totally than what
was in the preliminary back right no and
thank you for clarifying so the per
limited so we don't anticipate if they
go to final plat we we were assuming
that it would be consistent with the
preliminary class I think the challenge
is that at a sort of very gross level
multifamily is more than
one unit on a piece of property
single-family is either detached or
attached one unit per one piece of
property because this has 90 units on
one piece of property we thought
multifamily but the truth of the matter
is if the slide hadn't happened it would
have gone to final plat in and we and
therefore it would have already been
planted by the time we started the
process mapping in 2017 and therefore we
would have proposed you V single family
and I think that's the where the
community's concerning expectations come
from is that they wanted they want the
zoning to match that planning so let's
so let's talk about community concerns
so I think the comments that the HOA
director made were about about the form
and the bulk of the building which are
reasonable and legitimate but I want to
anchor in on the comments that
councilmember Rea made which I think of
pertinent since he's the one that
started this and highlighted this and he
said what typically goes unsaid and
these conversations about multifamily
versus single-family and I appreciate
that mr. Ray had the balls to actually
say what you know I'm like it sunset
which is he doesn't want renters on this
block of land and if you look at if you
look at his quote his problem isn't
all-day family where it's a single
family his problem is with ownership and
with renters and so the one thing that
and I don't want to presuppose that any
of the good people in this audience
think that because none of you have said
this but the one thing that concerns me
about this is with is with councilmember
Rea bringing this up is he basically it
if you go through the whole song and
dance that he did he basically and
concludes with I want to make sure I
don't have renters living near me well I
would say that that was a point that
councilmember Ray made and that
ownership versus rental is not something
that the city has a
roll in except with affordable housing
but potentially I think there was also a
form concern about the sort of scale and
mass of the building that the townhouses
although the height limit was 60 feet
that townhouses are probably not going
to be 60 feet while an apartment
building could be 60 feet tall and so I
think there was both an ownership and a
form concern that he was daylighting
pending going through the the new
directive we have handed down to us from
the Supreme Court what can you tell me
about what would change about this
process mr. Hill mentioned going through
number six what was that level said he
said type six review so how did what so
I will say that at 4:30 this afternoon I
got to do something about this so I will
just say that I'm not quite sure what
mr. Hill is referring to because a the
rezone process is PPC and counsel and
the process we're going through is
rezone is similar to a rezone which is p
pc and council so there may be some
nuances to that process that he is
concerned have not taken place but in
general the typical steps are the same
well that raises a question to the city
attorney I guess is what does this
decision in the Supreme Court do and
should we hold this in abeyance until
you and the staff have had a chance to
fully really review and decide what is
appropriate regards to what level it
should be done well to answer your
question mr. chairman as I indicated
previously the decision of the Supreme
Court is under review by my office and
we're in consultation about staff
regarding that we should have that done
within the next few days I will be able
to provide a more definitive
recommendation if it's the council's
preference to postpone action and
withhold your your substantive
recommendation until that's complete
that's certainly within your prerogative
I think that's the prudent thing for us
to do is to wait until this thing is
angry had a chance to be resolved by the
staff and the attorney so that would
mean continuing the public hearing to
your next meeting our guys next chance
that we have a public meeting yeah I
mean I'm fine making decision tonight
but I don't think any of you three guys
are I'm not multifamily which would not
end up with a legal concern so I I am as
well I have right at but at this point I
am tending towards to come of not doing
a rezone to the SF and sticking with the
MF however in light of this new
information I do think it's prudent to
continue on and give the public another
opportunity to review this information
but I think I might disagree with you I
think if if our thought was we wanted to
go with a Down zone then I think we
would clearly need to postpone and make
sure that we did that through the proper
steps but I think if if if if the
Commission's position is to stick with
the multifamily then I don't think this
is relevant because then nothing changes
mr. Chanin do you agree actually mr.
Commissioner given if the Commission's
preference is to postpone the
recommendation until a legal
recommendation from my office and and
staff has been received by you I don't
think it matters which direction you'd
actually be making or forwarding your
recommendation on the legal concerns
that have been raised by mr. Hill would
apply across the board regardless at
which if what's being presented to you
is in fact a site-specific rezone
proposal irrespective of how it
ultimately is concluded that process
under the landowners theory would would
would be the same irrespective of which
direction the ultimately
because I'm just I'm just tempted to
make a decision and move on because we
don't like holding things up when we
have the opportunity to move them
forward I understand the the legal
concern and the idea that if we are
considering a single property rezone
outside of the process so that it's
supposed to go through yeah and if I
could commissioners the city will have
an opportunity at the City Council level
to address any of those procedural
concerns if you would like to proceed
tonight with your recommendation there
will be essentially a procedural
off-ramp at that point that the council
can be advised upon just to my concerns
with the idea that if we were to move
forward with this with a similar
recommendation to what we had provided
back in September and then council has
the opportunity to again secondarily
review that and review the Supreme Court
decision and whether or not the process
was followed as it should
that is correct and the council as the
ultimate decision-maker in this context
is really where the the substantive
where the rep termination will be made
you make basically we're in the ball
back in their Court which is what we
always do because we only make
recommendation that's right so can I
make a motion to make a motion okay I
would like to make a motion and I don't
have the ad in front of me so I'm not
sure what language we should be going
with we don't have findings of fact so
so two things I'm not sure the form of
your motion so I had a very crude
version that I provided the second piece
is because it was completely unclear
what direction you might take or if you
would even take direction tonight
the second piece of on the sheet of
paper that's provided to you was a
motion that would have a staff prepare
findings of fact and conclusions to be
reviewed and signed by the acting
chairperson that's very typical in the U
V DC and DC to have those findings of
fact reviewed and signed by the
chairperson and so I just wanted to
offer that as an option because we did
not bring those this evening not knowing
how many permutations there might be to
consider so we could move to recommend
that the agenda bill goes back to City
Council which has the same
recommendation we did in September yeah
exactly what would that make sense as a
motion I would say maybe not in
September because some changes have
taken place since then but potentially
retaining the UVM F for parcel 9 okay so
I move that PPC recommend agenda bill
seven five to four to City Council with
the multifamily designation for personal
nine I second moved in a second any more
discussion I can you do the second
motion I move the PBC direct development
services department to prepare finding
as a fact in conclusions for review and
approval by this evenings acting PPC
chairperson affirming the PPC's
recommendation to once again approve the
agenda bill 752 for to counsel with the
multifamily designation for personal
nine thank you second is there a second
I second
all in favor any discussion all in favor
aye thank you not sure how many people
in the audience are planning to stay for
well the next public hearing but I hope
a lot I believe we are losing our yes
yes I have a public hearing because we
don't have enough we won't have a bounce
so thank you all for coming we just need
to close the meeting at this point well
you know we think we're gonna do or
asking Curt I'm trying to get the
attention and we're trying to see if
Curt wants to go first with the TI p
we're losing our quorum right well the
TI PD isn't a public hearing okay
I don't think we should do it well it's
going to council within a few weeks so
if you didn't see it now you wouldn't
get to see it the TI p the good news is
it'll be on TV so folks can watch it on
TV
the third attachment at the last page
it's very hardly any information we have
an interested party who's not able to
ask actively ask questions and we move
to have a push to another meeting is
quicker cool as I was saying that the
council is holding their public use me
hold on a second please can those people
letter at the earlier meeting maybe go
on the horn we have to continue our
business council thank you thank
everybody for coming tonight City
Council is having their public hearing
on the tee IP in a few weeks so if you
all don't look at it now you won't have
a chance to look at it that's you guys
the issues with PPC and quorums is we
don't always yeah scheduling isn't
always perfect I'll see if I can squeeze
my questions in 45 seconds there you go
and remember you can send him in after
the meeting as well AJ you can send him
in after the meeting as well - Curtis
this is so this is really to determine
2019 2020 not much information compared
to the old tiph project yeah I agree
yeah definitely next time we need actual
project level detail it's just the
description does it really it was a huge
change from how we usually get this
information I was surprised
Nigel because we got using each of the
items as to what's involved in regards
to the work mm-hmm
Carl do we need to pass this over that's
what we did I don't know if it needs to
be filled out or can you give you stated
on the record and I can asking how much
of the work is to work for your bottom
do the line I don't know but just needs
to be stated or if it actually needs to
be like how much of how much of this is
the work that we were supposed to be
doing with their transportation level
okay so since we are still on air uh-huh
people at home are watching this
exciting yeah what the hell is going on
what they didn't see was the 30 or so
people in the audience who cleared out
after the Telus da bill was good pushed
through well for those at home waiting
to see won the raffle we didn't have one
the public hearing on the old town sub
area plan will have to be postponed
because we don't have a quorum or public
hearing no right for the old town for
the old town public hearing we're just
opening the public hearing tonight and
introducing some things but then we're
continuing the public hearings so we
don't need the quorum because it
requires the quorum to make a
recommendation
there's no vote about okay are we good
are we going out of order then yeah okay
okay I'll do the TI P first I guess and
then we will
open public hearing but close it right
away cuz we don't have a corner is that
correct
maybe okay there blink at you cuz you're
talking without a mic but that's alright
okay we're ready to proceed with the TI
p with what we have okay and so a
courtesy of the transportation manager
at the city I I'm not sure what you had
in previous years but you used to have
for urine we used to get a list every
every project would have a page that
would have the funding on it and a
little description of what was going on
there regards versus just this blanket
spreadsheet like the overlay program and
not more those are all kind of standard
but the first one is the southeast 43rd
and Providence point intersection and I
think that's the one I hopefully we
would gotten resolved 15 years ago but
now we're getting closer to the top of
the pile okay and it would have a
description and might even show a little
picture of what we're talking about
every project had its own page and just
to specify as far as the top of the pile
these are in no order right I think I've
ever seen there is no hierarchy right
well so let me I think I can answer now
that's true I think they can answer used
to be they were an order as well so so
[Music]
well head with presentation and we'll
see if we have questions let me tell you
let me give you what I've got here let's
start there so for those of you that
aren't from the aren't familiar with the
TI P what it is and why we do it this is
a brief presentation to go through that
talk about the projects I've highlighted
some projects I'd like to go through
with you
but the the T IP is a six-year plan it's
with fun with funding shown and then
beyond that all the projects that the
city anticipates building in the long
term it's a requirement it's a RCW
requirement that cities towns and
counties prepare it's an advance plan
that looks into the future for not less
than six years and it's the the the code
requirement the reason behind the code
is to assure that each city and town
perpetually has advanced plans looking
towards the future for not less than six
years it's also a very useful document
for us because it's a requirement for us
to participate and to compete from grant
funding this goes to all the other
regional organizations sound transit and
so forth it will be sent to washed out
once it's adopted by the City Council
and and then it's our plan here for 2019
through 2024 and then it will be revised
again next year to be 2020 to 25 so we
are bringing it to you to share with you
tonight we all sort go into the council
Infrastructure Committee next week to
hear their comments and questions there
is a public hearing set for June 4th to
get public testimony on this and then
the plan is to have it adopted at the
accounts the following council meeting
that would be the 18th I believe and
that public hearing is council right
that public hearing is the Monday June
4th at council correct and then assuming
we have the plan adopted then it would
be filed with the state so that's a
brief overview of that
and so the TI P is informed by a lot of
our a lot of different plans we have a
comprehensive land use plan we have
centralized de quoi plan we have the wok
and roll plan traffic concurrency
there's a lot of regional work going on
with I 90 for example the the
interchange justification report that
we're working with the state on and then
as well as staff input and and community
input so that's there's some of the
other players that are involved and
here's the document that again I'm not
sure I would I was out of town when this
went t so I'm not sure all what you got
we do have a idea we do have the packet
that's the agenda bill that went to City
Council that has each project along with
a property with a project description
and funding for each one so if you don't
have access to that we certainly can
make that available to you i'm sounds
like perhaps you didn't get that packet
but every project has its own project
descriptions sheet and then it also has
a the fund the proposed funding for that
project for all however many projects we
have here so there's what I'd like to
focus on tonight is are the projects if
you see the the double the heavy double
line there so those are the projects
that are in our six-year plan and have
funding proposed through through the
next six years starting with 2018 and so
those are the projects that we are
really focused on here in transportation
and I would like to spend a little time
especially since you didn't get as much
information as perhaps you'd like to
have seen I'd like to spend a few
minutes going through each of these
projects above the line because I think
there's their most interesting because
there were we're focused our our time
and our staff time and our money on for
the next for the next six years so
that's what I and then there are back
here there are not too happy to talk
about any projects below the line but
that those are in further years out
beyond to 2024 you can see those to the
bottom half of this
as well as the other projects on the
next sheet so here's the these are the
projects that want to talk about in a
little more detail these are the
projects above the line as I just
mentioned and these are the projects
that we are planning to design and
construct and move forward with in the
next six years and I don't expect you to
read that because I'm going to go
through each one of these individually
and then here's the in the aggregate
here's all the projects on the entire
list and so you can if you can't can't
see this at this scale but if you look
at your packet you should be able to see
that each project it has a code number
and a project and identify on the map so
you can see what the projects are and
where they are I really like seeing both
of those two visuals that's a really
nice way to show where we're looking to
spend money on transportation
improvements and seeing that it's
focused in our urban core area and then
also as you continue on that we're
looking at the entire scope yeah okay so
now I'd like to if you want to follow if
you look at I can't really flip I won't
flip back and forth here but now we're
gonna start here working down the list
and I talked about the ones first time I
talked about the ones that are location
specific so there's a couple here that
I'll skip over for now but I'll be happy
to come back to so for example the
overlay program and non-motorized
program and the camera i TS camera
system upgrades which are the first
three of the first four projects on your
list are pretty much citywide and I'll
talk about those in a minute but I would
for starters like to go through the
location specific ones so again I know
we struggle with this this no particular
order idea and trust me I there's no one
in this room that wants to more wants to
have a transportation master plan that
helps give us
more specificity and and priority to our
projects and we're working on that but
this is what we have now and so this so
I'll just go through the projects
briefly and so this is a a proposed
crossing of i90 and we don't know if
it's going over the freeway or perhaps
we're thinking another option is to
actually raise the grade of the freeway
up in it and then this crossing would be
at grade with the width or the City this
a quarter of town that are not very well
connected now we see this is out there
it's an expensive project I get the
dollar now is here this is project
number 3 PR 0-0 394 million and it's an
expense I mentioned it's an expensive
project so it's not a project we're
gonna build on our own the kind of the
cool exciting thing about this aside
from the opportunities to connect how
many 1 million in six years yeah connect
both sides of the city
we know that sound transits coming -
it's probably don't know exactly where
that where that station location is
going to be but we think there's some
opportunities to start thinking about a
crossing and there's potential
partnerships with wash dot and what
sound transit and so there's a there's a
lot of great reasons to think about
looking at this project it's also tied
to the ijr if you're familiar with that
so the IGR is interchange justification
report what a lot of people don't
realize with that is we're although
we're looking at front street as the as
the center of that study the
requirements for IJ are is that you look
upstream and downstream from that so it
may be that what comes the work that
comes out of the IGR may be a
recommendation to make it crossing
somewhere in this location so it's a
pretty fuzzy line here we don't know
exactly what what that would look like
or where exactly it would go but we
think that crossing roughly between
that's our 900 and the Front Street
interchange makes a lot of sense for a
lot of reasons so that's and I'm just
going to go through these all not happy
to come back and have more conversation
on any of them
that you'd like to so this is another
project interesting project this is
right next to where I work over there on
the other City Hall and this is a
project where the Tully's was in a
Holiday Inn and it's meant to improve
that energy set interchange at twelve
and nine hundred and fifty-six there
Northwest and I showed that whole piece
there and we have a project planned for
that and pretty well described in our TI
P what's interesting about this is the
state is now looking at potential
alternate entrances and looking at some
reconfiguration potentially to their
state park so before our plan was to
move forward this I think start designed
this year but we're going to hold off
until we're so where you have entered
into agreement with the state we're
gonna be working with them to better
understand what that all means when when
we talk about looking at another
entrance to the State Park because if
that's that could likely or I shouldn't
say likely it's potentially impacts the
design of this intersection so we're
going to do that work first with the
state and then we're going to come back
and make an intersection improvement in
the in this vicinity that that makes
sense and supports what the state wants
to do with their Park based on that
discussion that we're having is our time
frame now that's been adjusted for
addressing this I'm sorry do we have a
time frame of the state's gonna get back
to us right so that's right so that's I
the parks department's taking the lead
on that side and don't know if I know
exactly a schedule the time frame
generally is about a year that that
efforts we're doing some traffic study
work as a part of that so I think within
the next year we'll have a lot better
clarity about that thank you
so that's that one and then I won't talk
too much about this this hopefully it's
going to be off our list and complete
here for the holiday season I I know
that our public works director is
working very hard
weekly with the contractor to make sure
that this happens and gets completed for
minimum minimal impacts around the
holiday season to all the businesses in
in the area so big project
another important connection this is an
east-west connection would fit nicely
with the project I was describing
earlier which is that north-south
crossing of i-90 and would because I one
thing that we know and this that
Issaquah really would benefit from is
stronger connections both motorized and
non-motorized but the better we can
connect our our city the easier it is
going to be to get around we have the
advantage or disadvantage as depending
on how you look at having i-90 sort of
bifurcate our city right through the
middle of it so these projects that can
make connections are really important we
think and so here's I'm sorry quick
question on that last one where is that
13 million in change coming from since
we but it's the funding since we don't
have what I guess you guys gave council
that breaks apart every project and says
where funding came from so that project
is fully funded I know dude can i I'm
asking where that funding came from so
it's a comment so it's I can give you
the big game from college the big
picture answer is that it's a joint
agreement between the city and Costco
huh and that breakdown of that 13 is
Carl just alluded to is it half is that
what it was it it's for the it's roughly
it's the split is roughly 50/50 City
Costco yes thank you and so this project
so this is making the east-west
connections we know that this next
project this is a weak link in our
transportation network on in this part
of town and so it makes sense to us if
we are completing this project this year
that it would make sense to make this
other north-south connection between
basically it's one way we've thought
about this is that this
the point so this 60-second project this
project here the 221st project and then
the project that we were talking about
over here in the vicinity of the State
Park can work together as a system so
which is how we like to look at things
rather than just piecemeal individually
so this is another this once this
project
60-seconds complete want to be looking
at this design and construction of this
piece and then also as I mentioned
earlier over here we also we know that
it's it's disruptive enough to have one
project going on any one area so our
idea here is to is to phase these in
some way so that we would build one
completed have the design complete for
the next one and then and then the third
one so that's the story there so for
number eight here it looks like it put
the project wouldn't begin for two years
so it's that's one of the begins to be
funded yeah and so I have to have my
funding for years pardon me thank you
yeah till 2022 warriors so I'm curious
about that distance you're telling me
that the 62nd Street it's gonna be
finished you're thinking come holiday
time right so this year right and then
why is there a foreign you don't want to
have an overlap wiser for your gap well
let me let me go through all the
projects and then can we come back to
that question sure sure
that's a great question I mean we would
like to have these currently problem and
currently we would like to do everything
on this list I would like to do
everything on this list very quickly
there's well let me just go through the
rest of the projects I think that will
help answer that question and it's a the
short answer is it's a funding and it's
a staffing constraints at this point so
if we had sort of unlimited staffing and
unlimited funding we could do unlimited
work it's so anyway that's that's the
short answer
are we constrained or understaffed in
your department well let me let me go
through the product let me go through
the projects first okay and then you and
then you can maybe you can tell me about
you we have it we have three senior
engineers and we have these projects so
I'll be presenting to you so you can
maybe
be the judge of that then we could
supplement that work of course with
consultants so here's a project that
it's pretty exciting this is a project
that's been on the list for a while I
believe the system to make improvements
in the vicinity of the school Central
Park along North East Park Drive
interestingly enough this is we've been
doing some work some traffic calming
work and neighborhood outreach with the
Highlands and this particular stretch of
Park Drive along the school and
specifically the crossings is a very
high priority for Highlands and so this
project which originally I think was
scoped as a signal at Central Park and
Park Drive we've expanded that scope a
bit to look more at that Park Drive
corridor sort of couple blocks each
direction so that we can better
understand the whole piece of that
rather than just signalizing the
intersection and not worrying about the
other issues there so that's that
project in that project are you
considering a roundabout yes we are
considering a roundabout
instead of a traffic signal where what
does that Central Park comes into Park
Drive that's still proposed to be a
signal we're looking at it rounded I
think the it location we're thinking
about probably a little bit further back
where College Drive comes into so that's
I think what we're looking at there but
the the intersection of Central and Park
Drive is still
we're planning for that to be a signal
at this point so this is friend sunset
this project has been around for a long
time this is primarily the the changes
on this one and it has there's different
schools of thought on the on this one
but it has been a project on our list
for some time it is part of a it's a
concurrency required project
it's to put turn lanes on the east and
west legs of sunset so it rather right
now that you
it's either you wait in one lane to make
a left or go through six years out and
so this is to have a separate left turn
and three lane on both legs of sunset it
does to do that it does it's likely to
require the removal of some parking
there right near served in the the
Senate of the rogue route house thank
you so there's a loss of parking that's
that's we understand that's challenging
in our downtown where Tory are trying to
maximize parking but that's how far back
that would go like all the way to the
fish hatchery and not that it's just
it's just that I don't think preliminary
designs I've seen it doesn't extend past
that brew house so it's it's it's a loss
of I want to say you know three or four
parking stalls something on the order
that it's not it's not saying that
that's not significant but it's it's a
minimal amount of parking and so that as
a project is one of the least expensive
and the ones that we're looking at in
this six year period but I would say
goes down to one of those areas where we
have the biggest traffic issues I sure
would love to know why that is in 2024
versus you know something like the
Central Park traffic signal and I'm
saying that as a Highlander you know
what the priority between those and this
is exactly the reason why I'm happy to
be here sharing this information with
you used to get that kind of input
absolutely so that's that project and so
now the Gilman Boulevard improvements so
this is a we're starting on this effort
and I want to put a plug in for the
outreach effort we're doing there's a
survey is going online starting next
Monday I think I'd you like to to
encourage everyone to take a look at
that and give us your input we have some
business outreach plans soon we have an
open house tentatively planned for July
11th that's a Wednesday so it's pretty
exciting to have a great consultant
team working on this and we're working
very hard to have take a
multidisciplinary approach to this study
so it's not a transportation project
where the lead but it's not a
transportation project only its parts
and DSD and operations and emergency
police and fire is everyone looking at
this together it's a it's a very dated
corridor in the city it's pretty much
unchanged in its design and since the
70s I think has a lot of driveways and
not telling anything you don't know but
you know what's so that's been gilman
till now and and and part of the big
part of the work here is to to plan for
gilman in the future and what that so
what is the improvements so then since
we don't have that pack in front of us
right I apologize for that so this is
preliminary design work and study work
so the work we're doing this year is
just to understand along with the
community what that future Gilman should
look like and then the next phase which
is scheduled for next year I believe and
in a bit into 2020 is to continue with
that preliminary design work so there is
no construction project in the TI P for
Gilman and there's a couple reasons for
that one of the main reasons is we don't
know what's going to come out of the
study so it may be it so at one extreme
it could be an entire corridor
reconstruction that the city that's a
city capital project more likely it's
it's likely to be a set of plans and
designs that we that will be very useful
as we go forward and approve development
and redevelopment that comes in along
Gilman so and there may be some spot
improvements to fill in those gaps so
the city maybe be making some
intersection improvements along Gilman
as a result we don't really know what
the outcome is
but we know that without a plan without
a vision for that corridor it's it makes
it very difficult to approve
redevelopments it comes in because we
don't really know what we want there's a
lot of issues access issues along that
corridor and it's a pretty high accident
corridor because of so many driveways
and so many conflict points making it
difficult to get across for pedestrians
and other non motorized uses so there's
a lot of value in this work but I'm
sorry did they order they approve the
study approved the study but was this a
request from staff a request from
Council to look at I think it was it I
think it was I think it was initiated
the staff level and we explained all of
what I'm sharing with you to council and
that made sense to them so they funded
this initial preliminary design work and
this is separate from looking at the
intersection at juniper Rainier Gilman
yeah because that's already been funded
right I don't think that includes that's
no longer on that tee IP right this is
right this is a core this is to look at
the entire corridor and get clear about
what that corridor should look like
going forward so just going back to that
idea the Juniper Rainier Gilman
intersection I don't see that on the TI
p you do 38 i think you're talking about
the the three trails crossing
improvements i think is that what is
that I think that that's that is juniper
and Rainier and Gillis crossing okay
it's that what that I'm going to talk
about that in a minute okay that hasn't
gone away
and so you're probably pretty familiar
with our work on Newport west of 900 so
we've done a lot of we did a lot of
preliminary work with the neighborhoods
a lot of concerns along that corridor
because of the all the development
that's happened out there so we were
very successful I feel and developing a
plan that reflects what the community's
interests are for that corridor we are
now this year working on moving forward
with engineering design for that
corridor and if you look on there on
your sheet our plan is to design and
build that project it's not a cheap
project either they're both of the
Newports make sure tell you the right
numbers two years right they're both
very they're both quite expensive that
that Newport piece is about nearly 37
million the other Newport we'll talk
about in a minute is nearly 30 million
we are working on getting as many grants
as we can but grants by themselves won't
pay for that those projects obviously
but back to what I was saying earlier
about connections this is a really we
don't have a lot of key east-west
north-south connections but certainly
the team Newport projects are key
east-west connections across town so
that's that Newport and then here's the
other Newport which we are under design
for right now and that's from April the
sunset some discuss so the project does
stop this was always intended that the
grant money we received so far has been
intended to stop at sunset there is some
discussion about what this other piece
here whether we should can continue with
that other piece to take it all the way
to Front Street we're not doing that in
this design but it's its word it's it's
been this the idea is out there so
that's that one and then this is a
misleading graphic I'm going to
apologize for its that the project
here the TR 28 is specifically I believe
it's a million dollars if I'm not
mistaken for the pinch point and so that
pinch point is this area right in here
roughly and so if you're not aware of
what's happening there so watch dot as
part of there they're turning the
shoulder into a another travel lane
along i-90 along this portion of i90 and
along with that work they'll be putting
in sound walls and when they build the
sound wall they'll be building the sound
wall in a location such that we will now
have room for bike lanes and sidewalks
in that very narrow part of West Lake
Sammamish so it's it's right in here
it's a it's a small section it's only I
want to say less than a thousand feet of
improvements but it's a real it
literally is a pinch point and so this
whole community over here is challenged
to get over to this part of town and get
to the State Park and all that so it's
it it's an important piece that will
that will make it will make a
significant improvement for mobile
especially non motorized mobility for
these folks there is another project
that is not in our six-year plan that is
another very expensive project I think
you see towards more towards the bottom
of the list that that anticipates design
and construction of this entire corridor
which would be a which would be a great
connection a great east-west connection
on the north side of i90 but that's
another expensive project and out there
where is the funding for the pinch point
coming for the pinch point that was that
was already put aside by council the
million dollars okay a specific source
of that I'm not sure if I can share with
you but I don't because because I don't
know but but that's million dollars and
that's specifically so I think it's a
good deal for the city the state is
doing the bulk of the work with by
moving that wall and giving us the extra
space they'll be provide
it's a gravel area basically when
they're done that we can come and come
back and do our design in our
construction for reconstructing that
portion of the roadway and the bike
lanes in the sidewalk so that's the
million dollars and we we believe we can
do that that piece for the million
dollars but not obviously not the bigger
the bigger chunk there and then we've
talked about this I think you were
mentioning I came up here we've been
talking about this it certainly predates
me say this is we are actually so here
and well we so the good news is we had
either 95 or close to hundred percent
plans here maybe eight eight or so years
ago I think something like that and
didn't have the funding to move forward
the construction so we have we're
currently dusting off those plans it's a
it's a fairly small engineering effort
to bring those up to current standards
look at stormwater regulations those
kinds of things but we'll have those
plans ready to bid this year so I think
it's about a four to six month effort is
what we're planning and we're just
getting started with that so we'd have
we would be ready with our plans for
this year that's I think of six million
six million roughly yeah six million
dollar project and so that's a that
needs to go back to council for funding
for that project but we'll be ready to
go with our plans here this fall and
that is and just for those of you that
don't know that realigns those are it
aligns the two sides of of Providence
points which they're currently not
aligned and then this is a project fits
in our list for a long time I actually
what I was out of town for these
discussions the most recent discussions
on this but I think we've moved this up
because that wall is not it's not going
to fix itself as they say and it's not
it needs some
it needs to repair and eat some repairs
sooner than later there was some talk I
think of a possible development along
this this area here hotel or something I
don't think that that we're gonna wait
for that to happen I think there are
repairs that we need to do now I'm not a
structural wall design engineer but I'm
being told that that's something that we
can't we can't neglect for much longer
so that's I don't know if that's a
transportation project per se but it is
it will allow us to keep black nugget
road operating safely by repairing that
wall and then here so this is the
project I think you were talking about
it so this is the as you know the
developer is putting in a signal and
making improvements on the north side of
Gilman and so that they are not doing
design or improvements on the south side
of Gilman and that's a that's a kind of
a complicated area that doesn't work
very well so we know that that needs
some thoughtful design to figure out how
those streets come together and how they
especially the non-motorized uses will
get through there safely so that's the
three trails crossing improvements and
then I just got a couple more the East
Lake Center next roundabout we have we
have a consultant study that recommends
removing say this right here removing
the the southbound the second southbound
lane on that roundabout and using it for
pedestrian and non motorized bicycle
uses so it won't impact the function of
the roundabout for vehicles but it will
give us a much stronger and safer
pedestrian connection through there and
then reduce to one lane a roundabout
remember on the southbound how there's a
kind of site it's a sign that kind of
goes to the side of it yeah
there's still two lanes yeah that's the
that's the bypass thing yeah it's that
slip lane it's so hard to merge back in
there is great it's gonna be gone it's
gonna be it's going to be the peds and
bikes are going to take back that right
so those are the projects in the next
six years there's I have a question we
haven't covered on number 18 which is
the camera system upgrade the ITF camera
system upgrades yeah
can I hear a little bit more about what
that is you can so that's our that's our
intelligent transportation camera
systems throughout the city and it helps
us manage our signals and our signal
system and also has other uses for
safety and a police sometimes use it for
different events and that kind of thing
and they're they're not an expert on
cameras and computer software but
basically they're ten year old that's a
ten year old camera ten year old system
and it's hard to they don't integrate
very well with any of the new equipment
so it's it's an upgrade to that entire
system and I think it also includes new
cameras or more cameras as well okay and
those cameras the purpose of it is
specifically to be able to help with
timing of traffic yes and and as I
mentioned if there's sometimes there's
times when emergency services have used
those if there's some kind of direct
yeah sure if there's some kind of a I
don't know what some protest or some
kind of event that's happening the city
the cameras are helpful for for our
Police Department for example to see
what's going on at a specific
intersection balance yeah a question yes
yeah I 90 crossing yes
we're holding off on the holiday and
12th Avenue thing waiting for the state
to decide what they're going to do with
the entrances to the park correct or
that
I I mean they're not moving their
entrance over there so that whole
intersex regime that's not my question
they'll question is more on the i-90
over cross it's that one right are we
holding off on that as well till we find
out what if anything the st3 terminal is
going to be the short answer is no not
as we proposed it here and the idea
behind that would be so again we know
Sound Transit's coming to us a claw we
know it's you know some twenty years out
or less but we also know that a crossing
in this vicinity would be very
advantageous be very beneficial for the
city and we believe that the more work
we can do on this and the more certain
we can be about where we want a crossing
to be and and that that will help inform
that sound transit discussion we
wouldn't do that we wouldn't move
forward this work without a bunch of
partners at the table so sound transit
would be in any kind of conversations
that we have with this way that's
crossing along with wash dot and and
businesses along going a whole whole
slew of folks it's and we're not just
doing it and you know CERN is that we're
dealing six years out in its twenty
years before we ever gonna see it turn
away and and and so I hate down build
something and find out that's right
we're sound transit although he doesn't
we're gonna tear it down so we can put
in a great train station that's that's
good input and so and maybe I didn't
describe this exactly accurately this
isn't I don't think that we're saying
that this would be the location of the
sound transit station we say that what
we're saying is there's a real advantage
to us to have a second an additional
crossing of i-90 in this area and we
know that sound transits coming as well
and there may be opportunities for us to
work together but I don't think we're
saying that this just to be clear we're
not saying and this is the location of
the sound transit station
yeah because we haven't gotten that far
players on the shame yes there's a lot
of moving pieces okay thank you so along
with the I TS camera system upgrade are
we considering any intelligent
signalling updates those systems are
also somewhere around 10 years old we so
not in this budget not currently but
it's it's a good question we've talked
about it some and and there's some
there's some newer technology and
signals there's adaptive signal
technology now from our preliminary
investigation to that it doesn't seem
like the cost would would be worth the
benefits so it's not in here now but
it's not it's not off the table it's not
we haven't what is that rough cost that
you would say it's not one so adaptive
signals sort of start start at five
million dollars and then up from there
an adapter issue is that we've got pinch
points there so and the other thing just
without Intel auto detail the adaptive
signals worked well in the shoulder
portions of a commute they can they can
make the corridors work more smoothly in
the areas on either side of the peaks
but in the peak when it's fully
congested and adaptive signals not like
a silver bullet that's going to make
traffic flow unfortunately it's not the
Silver Bullet that will make traffic
flow smoothly through town so so it's
not it to be clear it's not it's not off
the table it's not you don't see it here
it's not currently planned but we've
been talking about and there's yeah
there is one item that's number forty
one that's below our line but it's being
funded this year can you speak
specifically to what the front street
streetscape is going to be done this
year we can I can so
[Applause]
yes it's below-the-line streetscape if
it's the second project below the line
so it's below the line for funding in
the in the years starting at una 2019 we
do have funding as you'll see in 2018
there so it's not below the line in that
sense we do have we're currently working
with parks and planning the folks
downstairs to come up with a scope of
work we're looking at front street
between sunset and alder and making
improvements there this 156,000 that you
see here we don't think that's enough
money to do everything that needs to be
done in that block our idea would be
that we would complete that block and do
all the landscaping and the trees and
and everything that was envisioned in
that work that economic development did
for Front Street streetscape in that
vicinity of sunset to alder our
preliminary estimates are more than this
they're more like four to five hundred
thousand so we need to have some we need
to finalize what that work is we're in
the process of finalizing what that work
is and then probably coming back to
council for more money to do that
there's nothing in future years there's
currently nothing there's no additional
work for there were some other elements
in that that work that for that
streetscape work I know that there were
and those aren't currently in here
so what are the next steps for any
public that might be watching this where
the TI P goes from here if they want to
comment on their favorite or disliked
transportation project curve they are
that's a great question so probably the
best opportunities are the so this is
being discussed similar to be a similar
presentation to what I've shared with
you next Thursday night at the council
Infrastructure Committee which will be
here in this room so that's and that's
on the agenda for discussion with that
group next Thursday and then the the
that's a more that's a that's a less
formal conversation at infrastructure
and I know that mr. Ramos typically asks
for public comment at that meeting the
formal public hearing where your
comments are actually going to the
record are is June 4th in front of City
Council and you know that depends on the
the volume of comments I that could be
that could be a one meeting type deal if
there's a lot of people I've seen
council continue those hearings to a
second meeting so we'll see how that
goes but those are the those of this are
the key check-in points for the for the
public
anything else questions thank you
typically PPC either gives like some
things that you would like to see moved
up or down or backwards or and we we
write a letter that that he can take
that to Council that you've looked at it
and you've recommended things if you
choose not to if you're fine with the
way it is that's fine - I'm just letting
you know that you have the opportunity
to send a letter on with Kurt's tip2
Council if you choose to just giving you
that you don't have to the front and
sunset intersection I would opponent I
think when we start thinking about a
value add being able to concretely see
some actual work being done rather than
you know I'm not a big proponent of this
going Boulevard study this being fun it
when you look at them they're basically
apples to apples and cost one we
actually will be able to see in effect
from and one we're planning for a future
which you guys know we love to do up
here that's that's the point of what we
do however I worry about at some point
the plant but we're spending money to
implement a plan for something that's so
far in the future but by the time we get
there we're gonna have to have another
study of the current plan based on the
new information that we have I think
it's actually way too early on and start
talking about funding the Gilman
Boulevard improvements the way they are
right now I would slip those by a few
years because it's really not productive
for us to be talking about a hard
concrete plan and a study coming through
that being said it clearly councils
funded it until it's gonna happen but to
me I would rather see something that's
more concrete like number 12 the front
Street sunset intersection exactly like
Providence Point example yeah that's
been on here so long and now all of a
sudden this year we're having to spend a
ton seed that's about two hundred
thousand whatever amount of money to
make sure it's up to current standards
because there's been so much other
growth in that intersection we got to
figure out how we're going to make
intersection work I'm just happy to see
that hey maybe next year it'll finally
come to fruition I also don't know that
this camera system upgrade should really
be coming out of our transportation
budget I don't know that we're getting
getting the most benefit from it from a
transportation perspective I think that
might actually be something that really
falls under Health and Human Services as
far as it's really more for police and
emergency vehicles so I would wonder if
then that amount of money could actually
be spent on improving a corner and
making it making it an actual difference
in transportation so the other one that
looks like it's fairly inexpensive and
could have a big benefit for
non-motorized transportation as the East
Lake Sammamish Parkway around about
modifications yeah so that would be one
I could see moving up and getting a
benefit particularly for bikers going
through that area to improve their
safety so those are Tricia I mentioned
those are exactly the kinds of comments
that would be we would welcome those
comments from you know those who those
are helpful and in shaping this for sure
you know with us not getting approval
from citizens for a tax increase to
cover the different traffic I think it
helps to actually have concrete things
to show you have these big numbers
you're looking at things you know 90
million dollars for you know these
different things feels very abstract but
when you actually are interacting in a
community and you're like hey it's much
easier for me to turn onto the street
it's much easier for me to bike through
the street I think it really helps as
far as building kind of future credit in
a sense because you know I'm sure
there's gonna be another point in time
where taxpayers are gonna be asked to to
foot the bill for these massive projects
and it really helps to have what seem
like smaller projects it makes a big
difference in people's lives and so I
guess I would encourage having that kind
of these focusing on more smaller
improvements that make a difference in
everyday lives rather than maybe as big
picture some years or big picture some
years our corners and blocks yeah I
think what I hear you saying and we've
talked about this to some obviously is
is if there's low-hanging fruit if
there's smaller type things that you
know maybe they don't have a huge impact
but they but they do have some benefit
and they can be done relatively
inexpensively and relatively quickly I
think it's what you're saying yeah you
mentioned that corner you know the
tollis t-mobile yeah you know Costco has
some offices back there in Lake
Sammamish Parkway okay I asked like well
when is the state going to be finalizing
their decisions about where they want to
be moving the entrances because it's
like at some point we need to move on
that's a massive intersection that's
used with our community so it's like
alright you need a year we've entered in
this agreement that's fine but that's
why I asked about timeliness that we
don't want to have this happen to be
something eight years down the road and
we're still having that same interests
yes intersection that's good input thank
you so the other two that I would just
kind of put notes on not necessarily
move up but with the three trails
crossing I would really want to make
sure that whatever we're getting out of
the developer there at that light is is
able to be used by the money that we're
spending so that there isn't too much of
a disconnect between those two projects
with the three trails crossing
improvements the developer is obviously
making improvements to the north side of
the street I just want to make sure we
don't lose the benefits of those by
pushing the south side of the street
improvements way later okay yeah all
right yeah and then the second one I
have major concerns about the black
nugget road retaining wall and I would
just I think well 2.8 million dollars is
not chump change it's also a whole lot
less than we would have to spend if
something like flatus traffic happens it
won't that 2.8 a to my understanding is
that doesn't do anything like we build
that wall it's a it's a it's a it's a
path it's a really keeping it functional
yeah so I have major concerns with that
and would like to know kind of who
the city is in charge of that and kind
of what monitoring is happening there so
that we know whether or not that money
needs to be spent yesterday or three
years no right and I would encourage
council to meet its who to explore if
this is the cost of a patch what is a
rebuild what do we need and to really
encourage that being a way to you know a
place to divert funds great
I don't know Trish do you information I
figure out what we need to do yes okay
you want opinions we got him mm-hmm now
we're ready thank you very much for your
time and your and your input is great
thank you thank you very much
so are we taking any public comments
even though it's not a public hearing
okay just making sure
last but certainly not least not sure
what Chris is gonna tell us other that
we're gonna open it and continue it and
I feel like I'm starting to sound like a
broken record I think this is our third
time in a row does talk about this say
oh my word
there we go
I loved how wouldn't YouTube video was
up was like top of the line PPC Oldtown
yeah maybe no it was on the art drive
huh shoot I double-checked it it was on
the air drive it's not here
it's not here I know I was trying it
just in case
I think so yeah would ya I apologize
it's not just under there
no okay that's okay well yeah there may
be nothing to see anyway we'll see okay
it's the art drive and I checked it was
on the air drive you checked it
well it's not everyone it's not on the
website mm-hmm I can talk through it
okay could you do the presentation from
April to kind of point out any areas of
changes no just gonna continue anyway so
I'm not sure what okay well okay tell
you what I remember most of it and I
have a hard copy in my hand that might
work
I was just gonna say it I was just gonna
walk through it so fortunately you all
have I apologize fortunately you all
have seen this and two or three times
before this so just as a brief history
for the public this you all made a
recommendation to City Council back in
April of 2017
it went to council into three different
lands and Shore meetings and eventually
was remanded back to PPC because we felt
there were so many changes to the
original document that she recommended
that it needed to be Racine and we heard
again so the major changes that took
place were it was look at my look at my
notes it was abbreviated so there was
more history more background there were
some more maps and the policies were
just longer and their attendant there
was an objective or a discussion with
most of the policies a lot of that was
removed but having cross-referenced the
document that you originally recommended
and the new document we felt that the
policies that needed to be there were
still there and when I asked you all
this a few weeks a few meetings ago you
all concurred that that was the case
since then we've made a few changes we
talked about we were more specific on
the treasurers and we referenced the
comprehensive plan another big change
that took place was that we added an
action program and as you all looked
closely at the action program in our
last meeting and the meeting before and
we rearranged some things we added some
things I think probably the most
significant change that was made was
that we requested that City Council find
a consultant and/or staff to do a fiscal
study to determined funding the best
funding to implement the downtown
streetscape plan I think that was the
biggest piece that was in there one
thing that I wish I could show you
tonight although I can't is a map we
needed to include a map and we need to
determine what that map needs to be so
in our plan we need to have a land use
designation map we had we need to have
that one is there anything else that you
all want in it and there were two grey
fuzzy areas one both of those indicated
boundary discussions that need to take
place when was it the very south where
you had the tooth the jogs down there
South at the high school and you asked
me why that was why the jog was there
there is no
Sewer there and that is likely why that
jog was there in the first place now
it's all in the city so it I don't know
that it matters if it's there or not so
you can change that boundary and the
other one is up north route 10 we need
to look at not only confirm that that we
want the boundary to include the route
10 area the old route 10 but also we
need to figure out eventually what the
land use designation needs to be is it
going to be a retail can because right
now it's in a different designation than
CBD CBD is in a retail one and
destination retail is in mixed use
so we need to figure out discussions and
this is something to think about over
the next month and during the tour what
we want that land used to be because
that will determine the zoning as well
so they were gray areas on that map that
I submitted to you that you all got in
your packets so the zoning still needs
to be figured out but not the boundary
we've already decided on the boundary we
pretty much decided on the boundary part
of the tour is just to confirm it sure
sure right and the tour of wise but as a
body I thought we had basically to spend
on the boundary we just haven't decided
on the zoning correct and I think the
northern boundary was confirmed the
southern boundary was not because you
wanted more information so we need to
look at that as well we wanted to see
whether that includes the notch or
whether it goes all the way up to DAR
Street so we'll figure that out okay so
that needs to be discussed and then if
there are any other Maps that you all
went in there then we need to know that
as well but land use has to be there
there is one issue that you need to
think about that for the next meeting
where we talk about this is that we got
an email today that talked about the
fact that there are formula businesses
also known as chain stores such as a
Domino's or subway or lazyboy that are
coming into old town and the discussion
and the email was is there a way to mmm
either restrict that or control how many
come in or control what it looks like
ones that come it comes in different
cities do it different ways so I don't
know if that's something you all want to
consider including in the plan
you know proposed
I didn't print it up you know proposed
policy may say you know consider another
restrict the restriction counsel here
does he have an opinion on I don't know
do you have an opinion do you have an
opinion since we have you here you have
so the email that came through we had a
a resident talked about potentially
restricting or prohibiting more
prohibiting in-store change stores or
yeah franchises and it's the discussion
wasn't in Old Town we just were opening
it up to Old Town but the discussion
happened to be on Front Street where
this was happening and I know that there
are other cities that do it it's
required to go through double review and
they have to they restrict what they can
really do as a franchise there or there
are some areas that say you can only
have stores that are you know less than
75,000 square feet or 25,000 square feet
is there do you are there legal issues
that you would see sure as far as I'm
concerned that's just a straightforward
application of the city zoning power as
long as you have a rational reasonable
justifiable basis for imposing a
restriction like that whether it is
consistency with the surrounding areas
buffering concerns aesthetics can play a
significant role as long as you build a
significant or a reasonable legislative
record that shows that you are imposing
a restriction like that for a rational
reasonable basis typically you can't be
successfully a second guest so I think
that the devil in the details is really
how you justify it that does thank you
for so something to think about over the
next couple of weeks and just driver in
an honor and on our tour that that might
be something that you all want to
consider staff have an opinion about
that I think of like for instance the
Highlands was originally envisioned to
be something that
had more of a mom-and-pop field and the
Highlands ended up attracting a lot of
genes and the community has had
displeasure with it but on the other
hand you get what you get you know if
that too is moving in and that's he's
paying that's what you have so I think
it's a very interesting discussion
specifically for Old Town when we think
about keeping the character in the
nature and using this opportunity to
really push what we want it to be so it
would be nice if when we think about
what we want a staff does the same it
comes back with us with you know
depending on you know I understand the
question of what do you guys want but it
would be nice to see if you guys are
like we want to do this you know just an
old town we you know do we see this
being all the way through is a call all
the way you know into the core I'm
doubting you're gonna say that but you
know it would be nice to have staff have
a edging one way or the iron and being
that we just got this email this
afternoon we haven't formed an official
opinion but did do some looking into it
and there are some things that I found
that we're kind of interesting such as
you know the business has to do at least
51 51 percent of the business has to
interact with customers you know you
don't want necessarily if you're trying
to create a pedestrian-friendly downtown
that's going to bring people there a
dental office isn't always going to do
that or a some some big box isn't going
to be what you want there with that
interaction that's dream no see some
other examples of cities that have done
that and how they have restricted it
location wise
my other concern would be particularly
for the Old Town area and the fact that
they do not have a grocery store I would
not want to restrict a chain grocery
store from being able to come in there
if for some reason Front Street Market
property became open once again or
something like that in that area to
support that community okay okay I will
come back with examples
all right so I apologize that somehow
it's not on here but I think really
that's I what I had I was gonna go
through just the goals not the policies
see if you all had any heartburn but
being that we've already been through it
two meetings prior to this I was remiss
to miss the last meeting and when going
through what you guys had done I had a
little bit of a different take away that
was not popular so I wanted to voice
that to you and it was specifically
regarding the front street streetscape
plan okay
and everybody was like pretty gung-ho
about how do we get funding and how do
we move forward let's let's find this so
that we have it we can make it happen
i I felt like there are some changes
that are happening and that are still
happening that are very relevant to that
streetscape plan so for instance the
inclusion of of doing the old route town
boundary you know Connie had mentioned
maybe that should be the festival street
and I thought that was a very
interesting comment it doesn't
necessarily mean that we don't make
those changes to alder but I think that
it does actually change the way that we
could envision old towns kind of
facelift and so the idea of being like
we're hard pressed into this plan I was
I know I don't see it as being hard fake
I guess it's what I'm thinking and so
everyone was kind of like yeah let's
move forward and push this through and
do as much as we can and we're really
excited to implement it and I almost
kind of think that it there's a reason
that there's when we have the funds then
we kind of can figure out what we want
to do rather than this concept of this
is what we're doing and let's move
forward because it may not be the best
situation for us when we actually get to
doing it and I worry that we're going to
be focusing on something that we're not
even out able to implement this six or
eight years down the road there may be a
better plan then you know the design
works we've done is good but is that
going to be the right thing for when we
actually start breaking ground that make
sense it does when the plan was done
Gilman was not considered to be a part
of Old Town so the study didn't go up
that far north
so perhaps and there's there's not much
you can do as far to right as far as
right away and bike lanes go you know
this was really the plan deals mostly
with the sidewalks and the pedestrian
feel and the trees and not so much where
cars and bikes would go because there's
not much you can do there so it's part
of this as a result of stormwater
projects that have been happening but
point being most of this there probably
won't be better plans not that this
one's perfect but there won't be better
plans however there is still the
potential of moving the festival street
from alder to Gilman so maybe based on
what you're saying suggesting just
pulling those pits those two pieces out
of the plan for now until the fiscal
study is done for the rest of it is done
and then maybe evaluate those two
possibilities at a later date and then I
know that this is kind of a broken
record because I just happen to disagree
with it but the plan that we had seen
previously when we originally passed it
before was brought back to us of that
front street sunset way redesign of how
the all crossings I strongly disagreed
with with that as being a resource
allocation right and so I I think that
there are some things that that money
would be better spent in then for
instance that particular part of it so
right yeah so what wound up with that
was that Council just approved a I think
was about five thousand dollars just to
even do a feasibility study to see if
that's something that would even work
there in the first place so I think
knowing whether or not that would is
even really a feasible possibility he's
worth leaving in there so to Joy's point
I think you could kind of segment down
some of the ideas that were presented in
the front street streetscape plan as
separate concepts in that I wouldn't
want to push off the pedestrian
improvements and the addition of the
street trees back and things like that
that can make that a much more usable
area particularly because
as we get distance from the plan then
maybe somebody wants to have to study it
again I don't want that happy have to
happen but given the idea that we could
consider either a different area for a
festival street or a second one you know
the festival street I think that could
be a discussion that's worth having yeah
I think as we grow and I think what we
envision from the community I think that
I'm using old around 10 could be
something really fantastic mm-hmm so
much room there and they are to use it
for the car shows mm-hmm yeah so does
the first thing I said kind of worked in
leaving in the pedestrian pieces and the
crossing pieces but then pulling out the
potentially pulling out the alder pieces
that are already so far out it's not and
I wanted to lay doing the festival
Street we know I think a lot of people
are really excited about it
I love the potential of it I think that
but the disconnect is is that for things
that are already pushed out not making
that a priority necessarily for the
feasibility study okay financially I
don't know that does make sense so so
don't worry about doing when we do the
fiscal study don't worry about doing say
dogwood to Gilman right now because that
one's not even in yeah maybe look up
through alder or through dogwood for
those pieces yeah and then leave out the
rest we phase one he's faced one you
know but yeah that that that was my
takeaway that makes sense do you all can
and we can talk about it more later but
do you all concur before I go and make
me I should go either direction on them
I think my priority is the DES trian
zones okay I'd look to see the alder
Festival Street move forward but to me
that's secondary okay
funding issue is always yep yes
so one other thing may seem small I love
getting the feedback that we had from
the open houses and I don't know if
maybe these people were specifically
asked if we could share their their
thoughts but maybe in the future walking
out their names uh or their names all in
their names are autistic
it's just basically a photocopy of
they're filled out for okay they're
comments and so maybe they gave
permission and it's fine but maybe in
the future maybe showing that info a
little differently it's not a big big
thing but I just wanted to mention that
I did find that very valuable to not
only see how the room was set up and
kind of the images of the pictures of
putting the dots in the different areas
to give a sense of the data and then
also the individual comments was yeah
very nice especially I mean you get that
I I love that from that that dot
perspective I think that gives it really
helps to kind of see a cross-section of
how the group is feeling but also it was
nice that you gave people the
opportunity to just be like what are
your comments rather than a meeting to
align specifically to a thing I know I'm
gonna get on beat one of my dead horses
which someone made a comment about I
wish the school district had have had a
better attitude I wanted to change the
way they saw things that I was like yeah
that's how I feel often is that I wish
that they would see that there's a new a
new way to do things rather than
building schools how we built them
twenty and thirty years ago we can do it
better and so I appreciated that the way
you guys created that forum it was a
space that people felt free and
comfortable to be able to talk about the
community which is really what we always
want to see I really liked if you had
one wish what would you do that really
forces somebody to kind of think through
now this is what's important to me cuz
it does so our next steps we do have
public here but our next steps are on
May 24th we're doing the tour and we
will post like we did with Central
Issaquah our tour stops and
approximately what time we will be there
so that the public could let us know if
they're going to be joining us as well
and then on June 14th we will that is
the set date for the continuation of the
public hearing
and we will bring back any of these
changes we'll have discussion about the
boundaries and the land use final
discussion about policies and then
hopefully make a recommendation that day
so now I have to open it up for public
comment but since we don't have a quorum
we will continue it right and it has
continued anyway that's for I think
that's posted any paper to June 14th ok
so we want to take public comment from
anybody who is willing to give it today
and then we're also going to continue
the public hearing to June 4th and we'll
continue public public hearing on the
June 14th as well right now but the
public is here because it because it was
advertised as a public hearing so we
open it up to them ok I'm not sure what
word I guess Steve if you have some
comment we're willing to hear from you
although it doesn't count since there's
not a quorum it goes on to the record at
the very least I want to hear what Steve
has thank you I appreciate that
so I actually I'm gonna step back a step
process wise I don't understand the TTIP
discussion having a public forum but not
taking public input process wise that
just seems wrong and backwards to me I
think that should be revisited that said
moving that part of the discussion the
TI p the old town the plan going forward
we're looking at intersections in the
old town that are have failed and have
been failed for a long time and we're
talking about adding density to the area
and we're talking about a TI PE that
maybe just look in the front streets
sunset intersection isn't going to be
looked at until 24 24 even a broader
picture I think you need to look at
where and why we approved development
and
don't have a plan for improving
transportation and why that's not part
of the discussion I don't think you can
not link those things together
so that very much needs to be part of
the discussion there's so much I would
say about old town and another process
question I guess I came expecting to see
part of that discussion presented I'd
and I know it's no fault of staff or
anybody else that we're not able to view
that to me that I don't know that that
counts as a public discussion or a
public forum if that isn't reviewed
publicly for the one person I guess who
decided to stay for that
so process wise I think that needs to be
looked at further I'll reserve any
substantive comments on the Old Town
piece until having a more presentation
of it or a chance to review it I won't
take any more time tonight to do that so
thank you thank you any other comments
from the public
ahead of the continuation till what date
June 4th 14 14 14 yes at 6:30 p.m.
6:30 p.m. please come there will be a
raffle no no promises that case we will
adjourn the meeting at nine twelve
you