Development Commission - Special Meeting - 02 J · Tuesday, July 2, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.5

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Sep 28, 2017 Development Commission · May 30, 2019

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Lucy Sloman, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Land Development Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board Email to the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2020 – Melvin Morgan The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2020 – Kevin Price Development Commission members and City 2022 – Michael Brennan Council members from discussing the merit of 2022 – Richard Sowa specific land use development applications outside 2022 – Richard Sanford of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2023 – Brooke Shore however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2023 – Ben Rush Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2020 – Mark Rigos Membership 2020 – Nischitha Venkatesh The…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 5, 2019

packet pp.7–10

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Sep 28, 2017 Development Commission · May 30, 2019

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 06-05-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission 6:30 PM Council Chambers June 5, 2019 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

Issaquah Highlands Retail (High Street Collection) Site Development Permit, Application No. SDP18-00001; PRJ17-00027 Issaquah Highlands Medical Office Administrative Site Development Permit, (Q)* Application No. ASDP18-00007; PRJ17- Issaquah Highlands Self-Storage Administrative Site Development Permit, (Q)* Application No. ASDP18-00006; PRJ17

packet pp.23

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Open packet at p.23 ↗

988 segments .txt ↗

0:21 ↗ all right good evening ladies and

0:24 ↗ gentlemen I'd like to bring to order the

0:26 ↗ special meeting of the Development

0:28 ↗ Commission where we'll be discussing the

0:30 ↗ continuation of our June 5th meeting the

0:33 ↗ islands retail site development permit

0:36 ↗ basic wounds medical office

0:38 ↗ administrative site development permit

0:40 ↗ in the Issaquah Highlands self storage

0:42 ↗ administrative site development permit

0:46 ↗ but prior before we start that we have

0:49 ↗ some minutes to approve and so I'll just

0:52 ↗ ask the Commission if there are any

0:53 ↗ objections to approving the minutes of

0:55 ↗ June 5th there being none and I think by

1:01 ↗ unanimous consent the minutes are

1:02 ↗ approved so my recollection from when we

1:06 ↗ left off last was you were in continuing

1:09 ↗ to rebut and this time

1:11 ↗ it's that correct or did you finish that

1:13 ↗ we had concluded the redirected miss

1:15 ↗ time so I believe it's the city's

1:17 ↗ opportunity for cross-examination now

1:19 ↗ great I appreciate it thank you mr. Lowe

1:21 ↗ I thank you I'd like to briefly recall

1:24 ↗ Miss time to the stand right

1:31 ↗ [Music]

1:40 ↗ I'm this time can you please reaffirm

1:42 ↗ that you continue to be under oath I am

1:44 ↗ thank you

1:45 ↗ do you recall your testimony at the

1:48 ↗ previous proceeding that shelter had

1:52 ↗ prepared a plat application at the

1:55 ↗ direction of the city and I believe your

2:00 ↗ testimony also was that mr. Nevins

2:04 ↗ directed you to not file a binding site

2:08 ↗ plan or BSP application is that correct

2:11 ↗ I don't remember saying exactly that is

2:14 ↗ there somewhere that you want me to look

2:15 ↗ in the transcript sure could you please

2:17 ↗ turn to page 25 of the June 5th 2019

2:22 ↗ transcript and I can provide you a copy

2:27 ↗ if you'd like

3:02 ↗ h25 please bottom paragraph beginning

3:07 ↗ with we prepared did you please read

3:10 ↗ that first sentence aloud

3:12 ↗ we prepared a preliminary plat

3:14 ↗ application of the direction of the city

3:15 ↗ okay

3:16 ↗ and there's that comport with your

3:18 ↗ recollection do you really yes okay

3:21 ↗ could you then please turn to page 31 of

3:24 ↗ the same transcript and read aloud your

3:29 ↗ testimony

3:30 ↗ beginning with the fourth sentence under

3:34 ↗ your answer beginning with at that

3:38 ↗ meeting line 12

3:56 ↗ at that meeting as you've heard lots of

3:58 ↗ testimony on was where he encouraged us

4:01 ↗ not to do a binding site plan but just

4:03 ↗ to do a plat and described how vesting

4:05 ↗ would work for the plat and the plat and

4:08 ↗ the site development permits and the

4:10 ↗ building permits and I then have you

4:13 ↗ please turn to Exhibit C 44 which is

4:18 ↗ your meeting notes from and specifically

4:21 ↗ from the meeting of January 17 2017

4:58 ↗ which date of January 17 2017

5:20 ↗ [Applause]

5:27 ↗ okay and could you please turn to the

5:29 ↗ second page and read aloud the second

5:33 ↗ and third full bullet points from those

5:36 ↗ meeting notes

5:54 ↗ he said they really haven't done many

5:56 ↗ BSP's and Issaquah tall fred meyer is

5:59 ↗ probably the last one or maybe parcel 17

6:02 ↗ at talus suggested we look at that one

6:04 ↗ suggestion was that we look at the

6:07 ↗ submittal requirements for BSP and for s

6:10 ↗ dps and either cross out or add to them

6:12 ↗ and propose that to him he said that

6:15 ↗ he's not opposed to it and understands

6:17 ↗ why we want to do it okay thank you

6:19 ↗ so mr. Nivens reference in your meeting

6:22 ↗ notes that he is quote not opposed to it

6:25 ↗ and understands why we want to do it end

6:28 ↗ quote

6:29 ↗ is that what you were referring to in

6:32 ↗ your testimony when you said that the

6:34 ↗ city had erected shelter file a

6:39 ↗ preliminary platen in lieu of a BSP no

6:44 ↗ because these meeting meeting notes are

6:46 ↗ from an earlier meeting so this is from

6:50 ↗ January when we were first starting to

6:51 ↗ talk to him about doing a binding site

6:54 ↗ plan and and at that point it may have

6:59 ↗ been a binding site plan and a plat and

7:01 ↗ so the meeting where I that I was

7:03 ↗ referring to when I said that they

7:06 ↗ directed us to just do the plat was

7:08 ↗ actually at the collaboration meeting

7:10 ↗ that we had for the binding site plan

7:12 ↗ and plat applications did the did

7:17 ↗ shelter ever submit or attempt to submit

7:20 ↗ a binding site plan application for its

7:22 ↗ Issaquah Islands property well we had

7:25 ↗ the collaboration meeting which was on

7:27 ↗ both a binding site plan and a plat and

7:29 ↗ then it was following the direction that

7:32 ↗ we received at that collaboration

7:33 ↗ meeting about vesting and how the plat

7:39 ↗ would vest and then the SDPs would vest

7:42 ↗ and then the building permits would best

7:43 ↗ all back to the development agreement I

7:46 ↗ came out of that collaboration meeting

7:49 ↗ which was for a binding site plan

7:51 ↗ application and a plat application

7:53 ↗ ultimately we moved forward based on

7:56 ↗ that that direction that we received at

7:58 ↗ that meeting with the plat application

8:01 ↗ it's shelter attempts to physically

8:04 ↗ submit a BSP application at any time

8:06 ↗ well I'm not sure what you're referring

8:08 ↗ to the application if you start if

8:10 ↗ you're if you are referring to the

8:12 ↗ process starting with the collaborative

8:13 ↗ meeting then yes we did submit that we

8:15 ↗ did not pursue it but we never I've

8:17 ↗ never said that they they prohibited us

8:20 ↗ from pursuing a binding site plan

8:21 ↗ application and my second question is

8:24 ↗ did did shelter actually prepare a

8:26 ↗ formal binding site plan application for

8:29 ↗ the Sequoias property we prepared the

8:31 ↗ only the materials that were needed for

8:33 ↗ the collaboration meeting did that

8:35 ↗ include a filling out a BSP application

8:38 ↗ I don't recall what was included in that

8:41 ↗ but it's not a full semental package

8:43 ↗ thank you

8:44 ↗ do you recall your testimony concerning

8:46 ↗ the polygons single-family north

8:49 ↗ preliminary plan at the previous

8:50 ↗ proceedings yes I believe and I'm using

8:54 ↗ your words from page 27 of the June 5th

8:59 ↗ transcript that the polygons

9:01 ↗ single-family north platte was quite a

9:04 ↗ bit more complex and controversial than

9:08 ↗ shelters plat do you recall that

9:10 ↗ testimony what what in your view made

9:16 ↗ the polygon plat more controversial I

9:19 ↗ think I explained that the the biggest

9:22 ↗ thing that made it more controversial is

9:24 ↗ that there's an existing community of

9:26 ↗ West Highlands Park and that plat

9:28 ↗ contemplated closing one of the two

9:31 ↗ roads that accesses that plat and so

9:34 ↗ those residents as well as some others

9:37 ↗ did not favor that approach and so there

9:41 ↗ was lots of public input on on that so

9:46 ↗ you're taking an existing roadway that

9:48 ↗ cars drive on every day and turning it

9:50 ↗ into a park that's outside of the norm

9:54 ↗ of what a normal plat would do so were

9:57 ↗ the neighbors that you're referring to

9:59 ↗ were they opposed to the road closure or

10:02 ↗ were they proposed to some aspect of the

10:04 ↗ polygon plat itself

10:05 ↗ do you recall well I think that they

10:09 ↗ were one in the same from my perspective

10:12 ↗ because the city was unwilling the city

10:15 ↗ staff was unwilling to recommend that

10:17 ↗ the plot be approved unless the city was

10:20 ↗ also going to approve the conversion of

10:23 ↗ that road to a linear park and was that

10:28 ↗ conversion ultimately effectuated your

10:31 ↗ knowledge I don't know if it has

10:34 ↗ physically been converted do you know if

10:38 ↗ the City Council vacated the the road in

10:40 ↗ question I don't think it was a vacation

10:42 ↗ I think as the city still owns it

10:45 ↗ inverted excuse me you know if the

10:48 ↗ council took formal action to convert

10:49 ↗ that land I don't know do you know if

10:53 ↗ the the council's action was appealed

10:58 ↗ what action are you talking about the

11:01 ↗ approval of the plat or the conversion

11:03 ↗ of the the land and the manner that you

11:05 ↗ described I'm not sure I don't think so

11:08 ↗ okay were you in the hearing room to

11:11 ↗ listen to this Sloman previous testimony

11:14 ↗ yes I represent you that miss Loman

11:17 ↗ testified that the polygon plat was not

11:20 ↗ appealed do you have any reason to

11:22 ↗ disagree with that

11:23 ↗ no do you recall your testimony to the

11:28 ↗ effect that if Niven and lucious Wolman

11:33 ↗ stated that shelter was trying to slow

11:36 ↗ down the adoption of the replacement

11:37 ↗ regulations I believe in your previous

11:43 ↗ testimony you agreed with mr. Niven and

11:47 ↗ miss Loman in stating that shelter had

11:50 ↗ attempted to slow down the adoption of

11:52 ↗ the replacement regulations you recall

11:54 ↗ that testimony not sure what you're

11:58 ↗ asking so could you please turn to page

12:01 ↗ 45 and 46 of the June 5th transcript

12:13 ↗ okay

12:19 ↗ and could you please read aloud the

12:24 ↗ question and answer beginning with line

12:27 ↗ 13 on page 45

12:39 ↗ question let's talk a little bit about

12:41 ↗ the replacement regulations did you hear

12:43 ↗ testimony from Keith Nevin and mrs.

12:45 ↗ Lowman that shelter was trying to slow

12:47 ↗ down the adoption of the replacement

12:49 ↗ regulations answer yes question is that

12:54 ↗ true answer yes thank you do you recall

12:57 ↗ that testimony now yeah I was confused

13:01 ↗ about whether you were asking me if I

13:02 ↗ recalled something or if I agreed with

13:04 ↗ something so that was my confusion about

13:06 ↗ your question do you recall that

13:08 ↗ testimony after having reviewed it yes

13:11 ↗ thank you

13:13 ↗ what did shelter do to attempt to slow

13:16 ↗ down the adoption process for the

13:18 ↗ replacement regulations well I mean we

13:22 ↗ we asked counsel and we asked Landon

13:24 ↗ Shore to slow down and consider what

13:26 ↗ they were doing and how did you

13:28 ↗ communicate that request we wrote

13:32 ↗ letters we test or we made public

13:35 ↗ comment we testified at the hearings and

13:39 ↗ the approximate time frame in which

13:41 ↗ those requests were communicated was

13:44 ↗ when during the process of the

13:47 ↗ replacement regulation adoption

13:50 ↗ do you recall specifically what month of

13:53 ↗ what year that would have been the month

13:57 ↗ and year of any comment or of a specific

13:59 ↗ comment the period in which shelter was

14:01 ↗ submitting requests to the city seeking

14:05 ↗ to slow down the adoption of the

14:07 ↗ replacement regulations when did that

14:09 ↗ occur was it in September of 2017 was it

14:12 ↗ in August of 2017 do you know when that

14:15 ↗ occurred I mean without going back and

14:18 ↗ looking at all of our comment letters I

14:20 ↗ am not really sure we participated

14:22 ↗ throughout the process you want me to

14:28 ↗ look at a specific letter I'm happy to

14:29 ↗ or if you know if you don't if you don't

14:31 ↗ recall that's fine thank you

14:36 ↗ and then can you please turn to page 52

14:39 ↗ of your June 5th testimony and refer to

14:51 ↗ the question and answer beginning with

14:54 ↗ line 4 can you please read that aloud

15:07 ↗ question did you hear director Nivens

15:09 ↗ testimony suggests that shelter never

15:12 ↗ supported the originally proposed

15:14 ↗ replacement regulations yes her answer

15:18 ↗ yes question is that true answered no

15:22 ↗ question how did shelter support them

15:24 ↗ answer well I think he was referring to

15:28 ↗ the vesting language within the

15:30 ↗ replacement regulations and he said that

15:32 ↗ that he didn't think that we had ever

15:34 ↗ supported it we supported the initial

15:36 ↗ recommendation both with verbal comments

15:38 ↗ at public meetings either at land and

15:40 ↗ shore or at council and also in letters

15:46 ↗ thank you please continue until line 22

15:53 ↗ please question and the initial

15:56 ↗ recommendation just so we're clear in

15:58 ↗ the record what had that provided for

16:01 ↗ answer it provided for vesting in

16:03 ↗ preliminary land use applications and

16:05 ↗ land use applications in addition to the

16:07 ↗ building permit plat and development

16:09 ↗ agreements okay thank you so to clarify

16:13 ↗ your testimony in my understanding of it

16:15 ↗ shelter formerly publicly did support

16:18 ↗ the initial staff recommendation

16:20 ↗ regarding the replacement regulations

16:22 ↗ with the original vesting language is

16:25 ↗ that your testimony my testimony is that

16:28 ↗ we supported the nesting language with

16:32 ↗ the original vesting language that was

16:34 ↗ proposed by staff within the replacement

16:39 ↗ regulations do you recall when your

16:44 ↗ verbal comments at these public meetings

16:48 ↗ referenced in that testimony occurred I

16:53 ↗ believe it was in I believe it was in

17:00 ↗ November and maybe in December and I

17:02 ↗ know that there were letters both from

17:04 ↗ me and from mr. Mulaney which I believe

17:07 ↗ again were in that time frame November

17:09 ↗ in December of 2017 yes

17:12 ↗ Thank You mr. chairman I am

17:16 ↗ very mindful of the amount of time that

17:19 ↗ this is taken and mr. commissioner

17:22 ↗ Morgan's comments at the end of the most

17:25 ↗ recent preceding that were essentially

17:27 ↗ going over the same arguments and

17:29 ↗ evidence over and over again and I think

17:31 ↗ that we have essentially tilled this

17:33 ↗ ground enough so I would close with that

17:36 ↗ and think miss fine okay so nothing

17:43 ↗ further for me nothing further from the

17:45 ↗ applicant either so it looks like we

17:47 ↗ have we're ready to start our

17:49 ↗ deliberation I appreciate that so I

17:54 ↗ think we have some preliminary issues to

17:57 ↗ resolve first the first issue is is the

18:03 ↗ closing the record and making sure that

18:06 ↗ the city and the applicant are in

18:10 ↗ agreement that the record indicates the

18:12 ↗ record index accurately reflects the

18:15 ↗ submission of the evidence prior to this

18:16 ↗ evening so I think we had a couple

18:20 ↗ clarifying points on the record that we

18:21 ↗ wanted to address we haven't seen the

18:24 ↗ full public comment packet at this point

18:27 ↗ I know that there was an earlier

18:28 ↗ iterations there was at least one email

18:31 ↗ that needed to get added to the packet

18:33 ↗ and I don't know if that's been done and

18:36 ↗ so we want to make sure that that's

18:37 ↗ comprehensive before the record is

18:38 ↗ closed okay

18:48 ↗ I have a paper copy here but I'm not

18:52 ↗ fully trusting of this being what's been

18:56 ↗ electronically scanned into the onedrive

19:00 ↗ why don't I and you you haven't checked

19:02 ↗ the onedrive recently to see if that got

19:04 ↗ updated no I just don't know if that's

19:06 ↗ the most current or not it is the most

19:10 ↗ current so if it's if that's still

19:12 ↗ missing then it sounds like we need to

19:14 ↗ address what's missing from that comment

19:16 ↗ letter if it's if you last checked and

19:18 ↗ it was not still wrapped really we can

19:21 ↗ yeah we can check the onedrive I don't

19:23 ↗ know if it's it's been added to that or

19:24 ↗ not okay that wasn't clear okay let me

19:27 ↗ and that was the cover email to some was

19:30 ↗ it was it a prior letter from an earlier

19:32 ↗ proceeding was that is that the one you

19:34 ↗ were okay yeah let me see here if the

19:37 ↗ paper version I have reflects that I

19:41 ↗ don't think the paper version I have

19:42 ↗ does so we can definitely make note of

19:48 ↗ that real quick we can definitely get

19:50 ↗ that cleared up but after this this

19:55 ↗ evening if if it's still not reflected

19:57 ↗ correctly in the onedrive was it just

20:00 ↗ the one cover email - the one letter ORS

20:02 ↗ are multiple no I think it was just that

20:04 ↗ I'm so yeah no it was just it was should

20:09 ↗ have just been the cover letter for the

20:11 ↗ February 8 2018 letter from McCullough

20:15 ↗ Hill that was the email that had

20:17 ↗ attached a letter that wasn't part of

20:18 ↗ the record before yeah I have in my

20:22 ↗ index letter damn there's a David Morris

20:27 ↗ of Regency Center stated 320 2019 is

20:31 ↗ that something like might be the email

20:32 ↗ that it's attached to okay I thinking so

20:35 ↗ because that was the 2018 McCullough

20:38 ↗ Hill letter I think was on behalf of

20:41 ↗ Regency Center so we'll all make sure

20:43 ↗ that that's that's correct

20:44 ↗ thank you then the second issue that we

20:48 ↗ wanted to address this we've we've had a

20:50 ↗ court reporter and we thought

20:51 ↗ transcripts taken of all of the hearings

20:53 ↗ so far

20:55 ↗ I think some of the transcripts were

20:57 ↗ used and actually admitted as exhibits

21:01 ↗ in the record but not all of them but we

21:02 ↗ do want to make sure that the

21:03 ↗ transcripts for the hearing are part of

21:05 ↗ the record that's being transmitted for

21:07 ↗ this hearing we we were hoping to leave

21:10 ↗ with you at least for the purposes of

21:12 ↗ deliberation cuz I don't know that you

21:13 ↗ have a complete set our witness set

21:15 ↗ that's a blanks out of those transcripts

21:17 ↗ so that you all have a copy of them and

21:20 ↗ there are some minor like wording errors

21:26 ↗ within the transcripts that the parties

21:27 ↗ may want to address after this hearing

21:29 ↗ but that that set that we're giving you

21:30 ↗ should be the comprehensive set of the

21:32 ↗ transcripts for this entire proceeding

21:33 ↗ except for tonight except for tonight

21:35 ↗ yes we yeah we at this point we have

21:41 ↗ those portions of the transcript that

21:44 ↗ had been entered in as exhibits numbered

21:49 ↗ as exhibits it wasn't my expectation on

21:51 ↗ looking at the commissioners it was not

21:52 ↗ my expectation that the transcript would

21:55 ↗ become part of your record for the

21:57 ↗ deliberations but it certainly would be

21:59 ↗ part of the record moving up in the

22:01 ↗ event of an appeal from from this

22:04 ↗ proceeding and so I wanted to see I

22:08 ↗ guess give you the opportunity otherwise

22:09 ↗ the parties or sounds like they're

22:11 ↗ willing to offer the full transcription

22:13 ↗ that was my understanding as well that

22:14 ↗ we weren't going to need a cop Trent a

22:17 ↗ copy of the transcript but it would be

22:20 ↗ moved ahead is that correct yeah I don't

22:24 ↗ know that that would be something we

22:26 ↗ would need to conclude our business on

22:28 ↗ the deliberations and make a decision so

22:31 ↗ we remember everything that was said yes

22:33 ↗ so we don't really need it so Oh in vice

22:37 ↗ it'll be part of the record that goes

22:38 ↗ forward okay not needed for our

22:41 ↗ deliberations so what I need is a

22:45 ↗ clearer statement of how we can decide

22:48 ↗ to that the evidentiary record is closed

22:52 ↗ when when how do we do that when do we

22:54 ↗ do that

22:54 ↗ you just know the record is now closed

22:58 ↗ with with the appropriate additions that

23:00 ↗ you've mentioned yes okay so that that's

23:03 ↗ acceptable so we'll say that the

23:05 ↗ evidentiary record is closed with the

23:08 ↗ appropriate Corrections or additions

23:09 ↗ that might be needed and I apologize one

23:12 ↗ amendment I'm I'm what we'll do with all

23:14 ↗ of those comment letters is that we'll

23:15 ↗ make those the final exhibit s excuse me

23:21 ↗ city the last city exhibit whatever

23:23 ↗ number that will be C 67 will be all the

23:28 ↗ comment letters and they'll be always

23:29 ↗ sub sub labeled in the letter format in

23:33 ↗ which they've been shown as the exhibit

23:35 ↗ so I'll just I'll state that for the

23:37 ↗ record that will enter those as Exhibit

23:39 ↗ C 60 has gotten into finalizing the

23:40 ↗ record I apologize mr. Lao I didn't give

23:43 ↗ you a chance to indicate whether you

23:45 ↗ were satisfied with the completeness of

23:48 ↗ the record yes thank you with one

23:49 ↗ clarification first of all I concur

23:51 ↗ completely and miss Lau's statements

23:54 ↗ concerning the the transcript and its

23:58 ↗ role in your deliberations and the

24:00 ↗ extent to which that would be part of

24:02 ↗ the record on heel the only other

24:05 ↗ question that I would have is to verify

24:08 ↗ that the staff reports the the multiple

24:11 ↗ staff reports that were originally

24:12 ↗ distributed for these proceedings back

24:14 ↗ in September inclusive of their various

24:17 ↗ attachments are in fact part of the

24:18 ↗ record had believed that that was

24:20 ↗ indicated prior but I wanted to verify

24:23 ↗ that once more before the record is

24:24 ↗ formally closed okay yeah if it's

24:27 ↗ helpful I brought at least one extra

24:29 ↗ copy of the the paper index but Exhibit

24:33 ↗ C zero one includes multiple sub parts a

24:37 ↗ B and C and each of those are within

24:41 ↗ each you know 1 through 16 of each of

24:44 ↗ those a B and C which are each of the

24:46 ↗ respective applications with their

24:48 ↗ exhibits thank you and no no objection

24:50 ↗ to miss Carey's request okay so I spoke

24:54 ↗ too soon but now say the evidentiary

24:56 ↗ record is closed there correct so the

24:59 ↗ next next item

25:01 ↗ plumeria for us is the commissioners

25:03 ↗ authority in the decision we need to

25:06 ↗ make on whether we have the jurisdiction

25:09 ↗ to decide on these applications so I

25:13 ↗ would open

25:14 ↗ up for discussion well it seems to me

25:19 ↗ it's a it's a vesting question because

25:20 ↗ if if they are vested to the prior

25:25 ↗ regulations we have authority to be here

25:28 ↗ they're not vested that we have to be

25:31 ↗ here I think there were two questions on

25:37 ↗ authority that were wrapped up together

25:39 ↗ here one was whether we were the

25:43 ↗ appropriate authority for decision

25:46 ↗ making on the SPP process three permits

25:50 ↗ which is what was advanced by staff to

25:52 ↗ Commission which is typically our

25:54 ↗ business and so on that question I would

25:58 ↗ say that we would be the authority for

26:03 ↗ the decision make are the

26:04 ↗ decision-making authority for those

26:06 ↗ permits

26:06 ↗ and the question as to whether or not

26:08 ↗ was the appropriate process is really a

26:11 ↗ staff or directors decision

26:14 ↗ second-guessing the process

26:16 ↗ determination isn't the Commission's

26:18 ↗ authority so staff determination of the

26:20 ↗ directors determination that these were

26:22 ↗ processed three applications that were

26:23 ↗ before the Commission Development

26:25 ↗ Commission is what is in front of us and

26:28 ↗ so I would suggest that it is our

26:32 ↗ responsibility then to advance those

26:34 ↗ applications through the decision-making

26:38 ↗ process I would agree and I would also

26:41 ↗ like to indicate that it's the

26:45 ↗ responsibility of the planning

26:46 ↗ department development services to

26:48 ↗ prepare a staff report for our use

26:51 ↗ according to IMC 18:04 200 B and so that

26:55 ↗ is the authority under which we've been

26:58 ↗ proceeding and those are the regulations

27:00 ↗ under which we've been evaluating these

27:04 ↗ proceedings so that report of 917 2018

27:09 ↗ that staff report it's specifying

27:12 ↗ section 3 b1 that the applicable

27:15 ↗ standards are the replacement

27:16 ↗ regulations for chapter 18 19 B AIIMS

27:20 ↗ and under those requirements I believe

27:24 ↗ that we do have jurisdiction to hear the

27:28 ↗ proceedings that we've heard and

27:29 ↗ secondly I don't think we're bound

27:32 ↗ necessarily by whether we have

27:35 ↗ jurisdiction or don't have jurisdiction

27:37 ↗ in the vesting matter i MC 1819 be to 70

27:42 ↗ d three states that level three review

27:45 ↗ is required for land-use actions on

27:48 ↗ specific streets including ninth Avenue

27:50 ↗ north east and northeast Discovery Drive

27:53 ↗ which are adjacent to the property

27:54 ↗ that's been the subject of these

27:56 ↗ proceedings I am C 1803 o 40 states is

28:00 ↗ the responsibility the Development

28:02 ↗ Commission to review and make the

28:04 ↗ decision on level 3 permit applications

28:06 ↗ and therefore I think that we do have

28:09 ↗ the responsibility for evaluating these

28:11 ↗ three permit applications before us so

28:17 ↗ is that the sense of the group we have

28:18 ↗ we have the jurisdiction to make the

28:20 ↗ decision on issuing a decision decision

28:24 ↗ on these applications we don't

28:26 ↗ necessarily have to make a decision on

28:29 ↗ the visting well I guess the question is

28:33 ↗ whether we have jurisdiction to make a

28:35 ↗ decision on okay the regulations it was

28:38 ↗ applicable okay that was which is the

28:41 ↗ point of the majority of the testimony

28:44 ↗ we've heard for the last night yes it

28:45 ↗ wasn't I thinking on that question I

28:49 ↗ think the good arguments on both sides

28:51 ↗ but it seems the code is clear that the

28:56 ↗ decision on determining the regulations

28:59 ↗ or the vesting of an application is

29:02 ↗ responsibility that velan services

29:04 ↗ director yeah in 1801 o 500c

29:22 ↗ that's a signal group

29:35 ↗ yeah again I guess to emphasize the

29:37 ↗ Commission doesn't have the authority to

29:41 ↗ second on that point and guess the

29:44 ↗ directors decision it's not within the

29:46 ↗ scope of our okay I think we're all in

29:50 ↗ agreement on that so then we move on to

29:57 ↗ the discussion of the application

30:00 ↗ [Applause]

30:10 ↗ so we've heard the city in their

30:13 ↗ position do we have questions for the

30:15 ↗ city regarding its position I guess

30:22 ↗ maybe the the one question about the

30:29 ↗ requirement on the FA are if the city

30:37 ↗ needs to wanted to change their

30:39 ↗ recommendation or we would just change

30:43 ↗ that with regard to the Self Storage

30:46 ↗ proposal meeting the FA are right and

30:55 ↗ what we're referring to here is that a

30:56 ↗ neutral staff report very incorrect did

30:59 ↗ that held the storage building the

31:02 ↗ storage application together with the

31:04 ↗ others in being at variance with the

31:09 ↗ structured parking requirement of 50% is

31:13 ↗ that correct

31:14 ↗ and according to testimony by the

31:17 ↗ applicant at least that did not apply if

31:20 ↗ it was the minimum that they are I'm

31:25 ↗ sorry and the structured parking issue

31:28 ↗ is also I think a little different from

31:31 ↗ the original staff report recommendation

31:35 ↗ because I think the structured parking

31:38 ↗ issue does that apply to all of the that

31:45 ↗ does apply then to all three of the

31:47 ↗ permit applications correct it's at

31:49 ↗ variance in all okay right but storage

31:53 ↗ building was not at variance with the

31:56 ↗ Farr the second question is do we if we

32:00 ↗ can make a decision that disagrees with

32:02 ↗ what the city recommends city states

32:05 ↗ that they don't believe it met the FA

32:07 ↗ our requirements but we do I don't

32:11 ↗ necessarily have to go back to staff

32:12 ↗ they have them revise their we can't

32:16 ↗ and speak to that in the in our findings

32:18 ↗ in our decision in our motion okay so

32:25 ↗ since we're in agreement that at least

32:28 ↗ the self storage wasn't out of

32:31 ↗ compliance it's in compliance it was in

32:39 ↗ compliance okay other questions or

32:45 ↗ issues with city's position well I guess

32:52 ↗ and maybe the broadest inclusions here

33:00 ↗ this has been the first of all the

33:03 ↗ regulations that are applicable based on

33:06 ↗ the determination by the department drug

33:08 ↗ development services director is that

33:10 ↗ the replacement regulations would apply

33:13 ↗ to these level three decisions that are

33:15 ↗ in front of us that's what's in front of

33:17 ↗ the Commission so given that set of

33:24 ↗ circumstances we heard both the city and

33:27 ↗ the applicant in testimony say that the

33:31 ↗ applications before the Commission under

33:33 ↗ the replacement regulations would not

33:36 ↗ comply if they don't comply with the

33:38 ↗ regulation so with the replacement

33:40 ↗ regulations I want to just go back and

33:44 ↗ confirm that that is in fact conclusions

33:47 ↗ that we either collectively heard or

33:49 ↗ that they could restate that that is

33:51 ↗ their their assessment as well because

33:56 ↗ that we heard I don't how many times

33:59 ↗ during testimony that replacement

34:02 ↗ regulation these these applications we

34:04 ↗ not comply we're not designed to comply

34:06 ↗ with the replacement regulation so

34:09 ↗ not quite sure how to proceed with that

34:12 ↗ question but it is a and it would be be

34:15 ↗ good to hear from the city and the

34:17 ↗ applicant confirming that that is in

34:19 ↗ fact you are what your assessment was

34:21 ↗ that's let's ask them now let's let the

34:24 ↗ applicant go first is that your

34:25 ↗ assessment

34:52 ↗ the applicant agrees as we have from

34:58 ↗ September when we first appeared here

35:00 ↗ that they reallocations before you or

35:04 ↗ that the staff has put before you do not

35:06 ↗ comply with the replacement regulations

35:08 ↗ we do not necessarily agree with the

35:13 ↗ reasons in the staff report for the

35:15 ↗ non-compliance but we do agree they do

35:17 ↗ not comply okay thank you and mr.

35:22 ↗ chairman that the city concurs that the

35:24 ↗ applications do not comply we understand

35:27 ↗ there is some disagreement regarding the

35:30 ↗ extent to which compliance might be

35:34 ↗ achieved with respect to one or more of

35:36 ↗ the individual applications but the

35:38 ↗ city's position I think it is consistent

35:40 ↗ with the applicants that the

35:42 ↗ applications should be denied under the

35:45 ↗ replacement regulations because they do

35:47 ↗ not satisfy the replacement regulations

35:49 ↗ okay thank you there other questions for

35:57 ↗ the applicant

36:00 ↗ the applicants position how about

36:02 ↗ questions for the city's position

36:13 ↗ I think when we get into each of the

36:16 ↗ application so we can maybe talk more

36:18 ↗ specifically about the reasons for

36:23 ↗ non-compliance some of them are

36:27 ↗ substantive like the FA are questions

36:30 ↗ some of them are more about completeness

36:34 ↗ of application materials and other

36:35 ↗ things so there's a there's a variety I

36:37 ↗ guess of issues with the applications

36:41 ↗ before us so I don't have any questions

36:46 ↗ but maybe other commissioners do I think

36:49 ↗ we should also keep in mind that

36:51 ↗ although these three areas have been

36:54 ↗ identified by city staff to be at

36:56 ↗ variance with the replacement

36:59 ↗ regulations that there are probably

37:02 ↗ others and the materials that were

37:04 ↗ submitted by the applicants that would

37:06 ↗ be at variance with those requirements

37:08 ↗ as well in the SIDS in particular and

37:12 ↗ I'm thinking of the develop the urban

37:16 ↗ design and architecture guidelines for

37:18 ↗ example but we haven't explored those at

37:21 ↗ all in these proceedings so in the

37:24 ↗ discussion that should probably be

37:25 ↗ acknowledged that there may be numerous

37:28 ↗ other Ariens areas of variance and we're

37:31 ↗ focusing only on these three primary

37:33 ↗ ones that were called out in the staff

37:36 ↗ report good point I think I'd want us to

37:41 ↗ be careful not assume that there'd be

37:43 ↗ numerous variances just that we don't

37:46 ↗ know because we haven't been presented

37:48 ↗ with all the materials and the

37:52 ↗ regulations to say where does it meet

37:55 ↗ all these different standards it's like

37:56 ↗ we hit the three that don't apply that's

37:59 ↗ enough turn it down

38:07 ↗ I guess if in other words if for some

38:09 ↗ reason something came back and they said

38:12 ↗ well it meets these requirements there

38:14 ↗ could be others that it did not need and

38:16 ↗ would have to absolutely true right or

38:19 ↗ the process again right because our

38:21 ↗ focus has been limited to these it may

38:23 ↗ not be restricted to these only the

38:26 ↗ areas that we would have to look at to

38:28 ↗ evaluate these permits you know in in

38:31 ↗ their entirety this was not a typical

38:36 ↗ proceeding for us at the beginning I

38:38 ↗ think and we didn't spend time going

38:40 ↗ through the details like we would

38:44 ↗ typically go through on a project review

38:45 ↗ so

38:54 ↗ so is there further discussion

39:19 ↗ I guess that points slightly so in the

39:23 ↗ original like the AAS administrator site

39:29 ↗ development permit for the medical

39:31 ↗ office this would be on page 127 of 307

39:37 ↗ at page five of the report it talks

39:40 ↗ about non-compliance with the

39:42 ↗ replacement regulations the staff report

39:44 ↗ says there is to be a SDP application

39:47 ↗ does not demonstrate compliance with

39:49 ↗ applicable central is development design

39:52 ↗ standards including without limitation

39:54 ↗ the structured parking requirements but

39:57 ↗ we didn't see any other forget testimony

40:00 ↗ of all the other potential areas right

40:02 ↗ they make it described as if there would

40:05 ↗ could be others but we're not really I

40:06 ↗ don't think a pining on we're not

40:09 ↗ agreeing necessarily that there are

40:11 ↗ other variances from the code as we

40:14 ↗ didn't get a chance to review any

40:16 ↗ advanced

40:26 ↗ right in the majority of the testimony

40:28 ↗ and evidence presented in this hearing

40:30 ↗ was about a dish about an issue that is

40:33 ↗ not within the purview of the Commission

40:34 ↗ it's a question about investigate the

40:37 ↗ question about meeting the central

40:39 ↗ Issaquah design standards and related

40:43 ↗ code requirements and was not the focus

40:46 ↗ of the testimony or of the evidence that

40:48 ↗ was presented in front of the Commission

40:50 ↗ so again we're now we could draw all

40:53 ↗ kinds of conclusions but they may not be

40:55 ↗ we don't have a lot of facts to turn to

40:59 ↗ outside of the limited information

41:01 ↗ provided in some of the plans that were

41:03 ↗ submitted limited plans and the staff

41:06 ↗ report so I guess we just need to make

41:11 ↗ sure that as we're coming to our

41:13 ↗ conclusions I mean that's clear on the

41:15 ↗ record - that are in the decision that

41:17 ↗ again we're basing our determination on

41:20 ↗ the information that was presented in

41:23 ↗ somewhat limited form with regard to the

41:25 ↗ determination or the scope of the

41:27 ↗ decision in front of the Commission

41:29 ↗ within our authority so you can probably

41:34 ↗ track through each permit and make a

41:36 ↗ determination at this point on whatever

41:38 ↗ evidence we want to talk about so let's

41:45 ↗ do that we have any recommendations for

41:48 ↗ a motion or do we want to look at let's

41:54 ↗ look at the site development permanent

41:57 ↗ number 18 zero zero zero zero one for

41:59 ↗ the Highlands retail project number prj

42:03 ↗ 17-0 zero zero two seven is there a

42:07 ↗ motion yes mr. chair based on the

42:10 ↗ testimony and evidence in the record I

42:12 ↗ move that the development commission

42:13 ↗ deny site development permit number

42:16 ↗ eighteen dash zero zero zero zero one

42:19 ↗ for the SK Highlands retail project

42:21 ↗ number prj a 17-0 zero zero two seven

42:26 ↗ based on number one the project failure

42:29 ↗ to meet structured parking requirements

42:31 ↗ under central Issaquah design

42:32 ↗ development and design standards or to

42:36 ↗ the project failed

42:37 ↗ establish a minimum fer 1.0 as required

42:40 ↗ in IMC eighteen point one nine B point

42:44 ↗ one four zero C and three the project

42:48 ↗ failure to include an on-site plaza

42:50 ↗ space at a ratio of 25 square feet per a

42:52 ↗ thousand square feet of new

42:53 ↗ non-residential development is required

42:56 ↗ in IMC eighteen point one nine be point

43:00 ↗ 2 to 0 F second discussion

43:12 ↗ this one question was that it had been

43:14 ↗ brought up in the staff report about

43:16 ↗ non-compliance for cities submittal

43:18 ↗ requirements but I don't know that

43:20 ↗ that's necessarily part of our decision

43:25 ↗ tonight in terms of whether things were

43:27 ↗ submitted correctly or well I did just

43:31 ↗ speak it speaks to the question about

43:34 ↗ what information the limited information

43:36 ↗ I was presented to the Commission for

43:37 ↗ our determination or a decision we don't

43:40 ↗ generally do a completeness check as

43:43 ↗ part of our decision-making so for an

43:45 ↗ application and staff has done that as

43:48 ↗ part of the process the permit process

43:49 ↗ so that's part of their conclusion but

43:53 ↗ the the three issues that you raised are

43:58 ↗ significant non conformance requirements

44:01 ↗ or conditions in this application that I

44:05 ↗ think warrants

44:11 ↗ wait agree with that and I believe that

44:14 ↗ those three has these high-level

44:16 ↗ requirements will apply to the other

44:18 ↗ permits as well I believe that they

44:21 ↗ provide enough information on which we

44:24 ↗ can proceed to make a decision even

44:27 ↗ though we're not referring to the

44:28 ↗ semental requirements and are not we're

44:30 ↗ not referring to other potential

44:31 ↗ variances that may exist I think it's

44:35 ↗ important for us to recognize that we

44:37 ↗ believe we have enough information here

44:39 ↗ to proceed on decisions for these

44:41 ↗ permits so hearing no further discussion

44:47 ↗ all those in favor of supporting the

44:51 ↗ motion please indicate by saying aye aye

44:55 ↗ opposed no looks like the motion carries

45:00 ↗ [Applause]

45:08 ↗ mr. chair like to present a motion on an

45:13 ↗ application based on the testimony and

45:15 ↗ evidence in the record I move that the

45:17 ↗ development commission deny

45:18 ↗ administrative site development permit

45:21 ↗ number one eight dash zero zero zero

45:23 ↗ zero seven for the use of Highlands

45:25 ↗ medical office building project number

45:28 ↗ PR j17 - zero zero zero two three based

45:32 ↗ on the project's number one the

45:34 ↗ project's fairly repeat the structured

45:36 ↗ parking requirements under the central

45:38 ↗ Issaquah development design and design

45:41 ↗ standards

45:41 ↗ number two the project's failure failure

45:44 ↗ to establish a minimum fa r of 1 as

45:47 ↗ required by IMC 18.1 9b point one four

45:52 ↗ zero C and number three the project's

45:56 ↗ failure to include on-site plazas space

45:58 ↗ at a ratio of 25 square feet per 1,000

46:01 ↗ square feet of new non-residential

46:04 ↗ development as required in IMC eighteen

46:07 ↗ point one nine B point two two zero f

46:11 ↗ that could

46:13 ↗ motions been made and seconded sir

46:16 ↗ discussion further discussion hearing

46:22 ↗ none all those in favor of approving the

46:26 ↗ motion say aye aye those opposed say nay

46:30 ↗ motion carries

46:37 ↗ mr. chairman like to move based on the

46:39 ↗ testimony and evidence in the record I

46:42 ↗ move that the development Commission

46:44 ↗ deny administrative site development

46:46 ↗ permit number 18 zero zero zero zero 6

46:50 ↗ where the Issaquah Highland self storage

46:53 ↗ project number prj 1700 0 to 8 based on

47:00 ↗ the following the project's failure to

47:02 ↗ meet structured parking requirements

47:04 ↗ under central Issaquah development and

47:06 ↗ design standards and the project's

47:08 ↗ failure to include on-site plaza space

47:11 ↗ at a ratio of 25 square feet or a

47:13 ↗ thousand square feet of new

47:15 ↗ non-residential development as required

47:17 ↗ in IMC 1819 B to 20 F second motions

47:25 ↗ been made and seconded is there

47:27 ↗ discussion all those favor in favor of

47:33 ↗ agreement with the motion please

47:34 ↗ indicate by saying aye all those opposed

47:38 ↗ motion carries all

47:46 ↗ mr. chair I moved the Development

47:48 ↗ Commission direct its legal counsel for

47:50 ↗ this here in raelia to prepare findings

47:53 ↗ and conclusions for review and approval

47:55 ↗ by the development commission chair and

47:57 ↗ system with the development Commission's

47:59 ↗ decision to deny site development permit

48:01 ↗ number 18 - zero zero zero zero one for

48:05 ↗ those Akua Highlands retail project

48:07 ↗ administrative site development permit

48:09 ↗ number eighteen - zero zero zero zero

48:11 ↗ seven for this COIs Highlands medical

48:14 ↗ office building and administrative site

48:16 ↗ development permit number eighteen -

48:18 ↗ zero zero zero zero six for this aqua

48:21 ↗ Highlands self storage project which

48:24 ↗ shall indent identify number one the

48:26 ↗ Commission's determinations on

48:28 ↗ jurisdiction to review the subject

48:30 ↗ applications and the vesting issue

48:32 ↗ number two standards and criteria

48:35 ↗ applied by the Development Commission in

48:38 ↗ reaching this decision and number three

48:43 ↗ the potential scope lack of the full

48:48 ↗ scope of material regarding approval

48:53 ↗ that is not included

48:59 ↗ second it's their discussion and the

49:04 ↗ third one I added to make I guess the

49:07 ↗ point is to make clear we didn't see all

49:09 ↗ the court Tigers my criteria to review

49:13 ↗ yeah so brief background information on

49:16 ↗ that discussion right

49:19 ↗ what was it wasn't included right in our

49:22 ↗ record right

49:28 ↗ further discussion hearing none all

49:32 ↗ those in favor of agreeing moving the

49:35 ↗ motion say aye aye

49:36 ↗ all those opposed motion carries

49:40 ↗ looks like we have redeemed the

49:42 ↗ responsibility of the council the

49:46 ↗ Commission we've given some tasks I'm

49:51 ↗ hesitant to say this but I'm pretty

49:53 ↗ confident that we're done and I would

49:56 ↗ like to express my appreciation for the

50:01 ↗ applicant and the city for their

50:03 ↗ professionalism and hope we can move on

50:08 ↗ from here any further discussions from

50:11 ↗ the city No thank you very much for your

50:13 ↗ time commissioners that's a duly noted

50:15 ↗ and much appreciated it's been a long

50:16 ↗ tedious time-consuming process and I

50:19 ↗ really do appreciate your efforts thank

50:20 ↗ you thank you and I want to express our

50:26 ↗ genuine gratitude for your patience and

50:29 ↗ perhaps even kindness over the last nine

50:32 ↗ months and tolerating all this and I I'm

50:36 ↗ impressed with the way you've handled

50:37 ↗ things this evening so thank you I would

50:40 ↗ like to just clarify however I'm you

50:42 ↗ guys know how you do your procedures and

50:45 ↗ it's new to us so the last motion I

50:48 ↗ believe is directing is layout to

50:51 ↗ prepare it and then the chair is going

50:54 ↗ to sign it we don't have to wait for the

50:56 ↗ next hearing and if if that's the

50:59 ↗ process could you give us a rough

51:00 ↗ estimate of when that will happen please

51:02 ↗ a couple weeks I'll do my best to try

51:05 ↗ and get that out I understand the time

51:07 ↗ crunch everyone's on so I will try to

51:09 ↗ make it a priority in the next couple

51:10 ↗ weeks to have that done and work with

51:13 ↗ the chair to get that finalized

51:15 ↗ initiative okay thank you

51:16 ↗ and we'll acknowledge that we're working

51:18 ↗ on the lawyer time and not engineering

51:21 ↗ time and so a couple of weeks maybe

51:24 ↗ not exactly what well thank you very

51:31 ↗ much and I mr. chair I'd also like to

51:33 ↗ reiterate to your comments too about all

51:37 ↗ the attorneys that are here for both the

51:39 ↗ city for the applicant and for the

51:42 ↗ Commission all the professionalism and

51:45 ↗ the times professionalism in in all the

51:50 ↗ presentations we sat through a lot of

51:52 ↗ testimony over a long period of time

51:54 ↗ very knowledgeable people very well done

51:58 ↗ and thank you for your actually our

52:04 ↗ counsel so thank you and thank you mr.

52:06 ↗ chair for getting us to do this and

52:09 ↗ doing all the things you needed to rule

52:12 ↗ on yeah so that's what I'm going to

52:16 ↗ shock my wife I'm gonna be home before

52:18 ↗ 10:30 we're adjourned

52:28 ↗ we're different

52:37 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (15)

Administration/Staff: Richard Sowa

Keith Niven

Econ. & Dev. Srcs. Dir. Mel Morgan

Lucy Sloman

Land Development Mgr. Michael Brennan Kevin Price Others Present: Richard Sanford Jeffrey Dunbar

City Attorney’s Office Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Tia Heim

Shelter Holdings Ben Rush Zachary Lell

City Attorney’s Office Brooke Shore Ray Liaw

Van Ness Feldman

LLP Mark Rigos

Alternate Jacquie Quarré

Foster Pepper PLLC Arthur Schulte

Alternate Patrick Schneider

Foster Pepper PLLC Nischitha Venkatesh

Alternate 1