Development Commission - Special Meeting · Thursday, August 15, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

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 April 24, 2019

packet pp.5–9

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 04-24-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission SPECIAL MEETING 7:00 PM Council Chambers April 24, 2019 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

Minutes of May 1, 2019

packet pp.11–17

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

Staff Presentation Sloman explained that tonight’s issue is a quasi-judicial matter, and explained procedural due process and substantive due process. She displayed questions intended to determine whether or not Commissioners can be fair and impartial in their deliberations. All Councilmembers answered “no.” She asked whether any Commissioners have had ex parte communications on this issue. All Councilmembers answered “no.” There were no challenges to participation by any Commissioners present. [RUSH arrived at this time.]

Minutes of May 29, 2019

packet pp.19

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Jun 5, 2019

Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES c) 05-29-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission 6:30 PM Pickering Room, City Hall NW May 29, 2019 MINUTES 1775 12th Ave NW

Minutes of July 2, 2019

packet pp.21–24

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Jun 5, 2019

Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES d) 07-02-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

1852 segments .txt ↗

0:11 ↗ just put the minutes in you're sort of

0:14 ↗ doing those by acclimation now anyway

0:16 ↗ you don't matter how many people vote on

0:26 ↗ evening ladies and gentlemen I would

0:27 ↗ like to welcome you to the special

0:29 ↗ meeting of the discussion of a Highland

0:32 ↗ Street collection at Osaka Highlands

0:34 ↗ plenary plat community conference we

0:36 ↗ have some administrative things to do

0:38 ↗ first we have some minutes from previous

0:40 ↗ meetings that we have to approve so I'll

0:42 ↗ go ahead and do that hopefully

0:44 ↗ commissioners you've all had a chance to

0:46 ↗ read the minutes are there any

0:48 ↗ Corrections okay hearing no Corrections

0:53 ↗ the minutes are approved as submitted so

0:56 ↗ before we're going to I'm going to talk

1:00 ↗ a little bit we have a community

1:02 ↗ conference for the High Street

1:05 ↗ collection plenary plat and I just want

1:08 ↗ to explain that the purpose of the

1:09 ↗ community conference is to generate

1:10 ↗ discussion to raise issues and to

1:13 ↗ propose creative options on the proposed

1:15 ↗ preliminary plant this meeting is

1:18 ↗ attended to provide a means by which the

1:19 ↗ applicant staff the Commission and the

1:22 ↗ public can work together in a productive

1:24 ↗ and creative manner to initially review

1:26 ↗ the proposals compliance with

1:28 ↗ comprehensive plan and the is a qualm

1:30 ↗ municipal code the structure of

1:33 ↗ tonight's community conferences that we

1:35 ↗ will first hear a presentation from the

1:36 ↗ staff regarding the preliminary plan

1:38 ↗ application then we'll hear a

1:40 ↗ presentation from the applicant

1:42 ↗ regarding this application and after

1:44 ↗ that we'll open the meeting to public

1:46 ↗ comments and finally the Commission will

1:48 ↗ have the opportunity to ask questions of

1:49 ↗ the staff and the applicant as well as

1:51 ↗ to provide comments and so when I open

1:56 ↗ the session for public comment I'm going

1:59 ↗ to ask that if you would you would sign

2:02 ↗ in that's not a requirement but if you

2:04 ↗ want to be included as a part of your

2:09 ↗ record I'm sorry I just went brain-dead

2:11 ↗ for a minute

2:12 ↗ party of record we'd like you to sign in

2:14 ↗ and give us an email address and we'll

2:17 ↗ be able to keep you included in the

2:18 ↗ discussion that goes on

2:21 ↗ so there any questions or comments from

2:22 ↗ the commissioners okay then let's turn

2:26 ↗ it over to the staff this woman for

2:29 ↗ staff presentation good evening I'm Lucy

2:49 ↗ slum and land development manager and

2:51 ↗ I'm making the presentation this evening

2:54 ↗ introducing the community conference I

2:58 ↗ don't really need to go through this but

3:00 ↗ it's essentially what Richard said that

3:03 ↗ we're having an informal meeting to

3:05 ↗ gather information from the applicant

3:07 ↗ staff community and Commission this

3:12 ↗ slide is my sort of standard slide about

3:14 ↗ the difference between a preliminary

3:16 ↗ plat and a site development permit I

3:18 ↗ know there's some unusual aspects of

3:21 ↗ this one but I because the Commission

3:24 ↗ primarily focuses on site development

3:27 ↗ permits and doesn't do preliminary plats

3:29 ↗ I just wanted to provide a little sort

3:32 ↗ of standard context that we give as you

3:36 ↗ know a site development permit the

3:39 ↗ property lines have already been

3:40 ↗ established and you're really studying

3:42 ↗ in detail the design of vehicular and

3:46 ↗ pedestrian areas the circulation the

3:48 ↗ parks the plazas building elements and

3:51 ↗ landscape with a preliminary plat we're

3:54 ↗ primarily looking at the subdivision of

3:57 ↗ land making sure that the parcels Lots

4:00 ↗ and tracks are appropriately sized

4:02 ↗ located and shaped for their purposes

4:04 ↗ and we are not typically reviewing

4:07 ↗ what's on the land except to make sure

4:10 ↗ it works for the size so for instance is

4:12 ↗ attract wide enough to accommodate the

4:14 ↗ road that's planned for it in terms of

4:19 ↗ the context the property under review is

4:23 ↗ is the yellow piece here to the east is

4:26 ↗ Grand Ridge Plaza to the south is the

4:30 ↗ Swedish

4:31 ↗ development agreement area as well as

4:33 ↗ their hospital and medical office

4:35 ↗ building to the west is West Highland

4:39 ↗ Park which is a residential area sort of

4:42 ↗ nestled into the reverse L of shelters

4:46 ↗ property is an area called West Ridge

4:48 ↗ which is all residential a combination

4:51 ↗ of townhouse condominium projects and

4:56 ↗ single-family plots to the northwest is

5:01 ↗ lakeside gravel which also has their own

5:04 ↗ development agreement and to the north

5:07 ↗ is Highlands Park and Ride the

5:09 ↗ main way into the project is Highlands

5:13 ↗ Drive which at Discovery Drive becomes a

5:16 ↗ couplet with ninth Avenue just to give

5:21 ↗ you some images to sort of help set the

5:24 ↗ context this is the property under

5:29 ↗ review here this is a series of

5:32 ↗ photographs the first one is looking

5:35 ↗ across the northern part of the property

5:36 ↗ you can see it's relatively flat with

5:40 ↗ Hills to the west

5:42 ↗ the second photo is looking east and

5:47 ↗ towards Highlands Drive and some of the

5:50 ↗ residential as well as sort of where as

5:54 ↗ quo Highlands begins to step up into the

5:56 ↗ foothills photograph three is along the

6:01 ↗ southern end of the property and

6:04 ↗ photograph number four was taken up in

6:07 ↗ Pine Crest which is a neighborhood

6:09 ↗ that's I don't know 75 feet above where

6:13 ↗ grande ridge Plaza is and so the yellow

6:17 ↗ triangles kind of marked the extent of

6:21 ↗ the property it's about a third of a

6:22 ↗ mile long a little more so that kind of

6:25 ↗ gives you the larger context the plat

6:30 ↗ consists of almost 21 and a half acres

6:34 ↗ there are five blocks and two Lots per

6:37 ↗ block this just gives you a sense of

6:40 ↗ each of those Lots and blocks

6:44 ↗ blocks and lots there the total this

6:49 ↗ this chart that is provided on the plat

6:53 ↗ distributes the zoning cap among the

6:59 ↗ various Lots it does not distribute it

7:01 ↗ to the individual Lots I circled the

7:06 ↗ residential only because while they do

7:09 ↗ have three residential units of

7:13 ↗ entitlement they cannot be distributed

7:17 ↗ one per lot because it won't meet the

7:19 ↗ minimum density so at some point those

7:23 ↗ will probably have to be consolidated

7:24 ↗ into a single location and just for

7:29 ↗ context the commercial equals about 65%

7:32 ↗ of s quoi Highlands total commercial

7:36 ↗ entitlement and the retail is around 50%

7:40 ↗ of the total entitlement a big part of

7:46 ↗ the plat obviously is the streets that

7:49 ↗ create the various blocks many of the

7:53 ↗ streets have existed for a long time for

7:56 ↗ instance High Street and ninth Avenue

7:59 ↗ have been present for 10 or 15 years

8:02 ↗ some of the other streets that are shown

8:06 ↗ in gray such as 8th Avenue deer Lane and

8:11 ↗ 6th Avenue are being built by the West

8:15 ↗ Ridge project in cooperation with

8:18 ↗ shelter and so those do quite a bit

8:21 ↗ towards completing the street grid in

8:24 ↗ the area there are two streets that will

8:27 ↗ through the shelter property that will

8:30 ↗ be entirely built by them one is federal

8:35 ↗ and the other is 8th 8th is there's

8:39 ↗ quite a bit of a thority built but this

8:41 ↗ one particular connection has not been

8:44 ↗ made at this time almost all of the

8:46 ↗ streets are have a road classification

8:49 ↗ of sub-collector one

8:52 ↗ except for Discovery Drive the reason

8:56 ↗ Discovery Drive is shown in blue is that

8:59 ↗ although Discovery Drive is present it

9:02 ↗ was built by Microsoft as a sort of

9:04 ↗ phase one of the roadway and when they

9:08 ↗ went away and the use and development of

9:12 ↗ that area changed we didn't know whether

9:15 ↗ that roadway how that roadway would have

9:17 ↗ to be completed the traffic study that

9:21 ↗ that the applicant is provided shows

9:24 ↗ that it starts with a higher level Road

9:28 ↗ classification for the first block which

9:30 ↗ is a minor arterial then steps down to a

9:33 ↗ collector arterial and then to a

9:36 ↗ neighborhood collector so each block as

9:38 ↗ traffic peels off the road gets smaller

9:40 ↗ but as I'll show you in a second the

9:43 ↗ north side of portions of the north side

9:45 ↗ of the road are not complete so this is

9:49 ↗ a series of images of various roadways

9:52 ↗ for instance if we start at the North

9:55 ↗ High Street is already built streets

10:01 ↗ like deer Lane have just been

10:02 ↗ constructed that's this road here sixth

10:06 ↗ Avenue is another one that's just been

10:08 ↗ constructed Discovery Drive on the east

10:12 ↗ side as it's shown in this image here is

10:16 ↗ has sidewalk street trees curb and

10:20 ↗ gutter it appears to be complete I don't

10:22 ↗ know whether it needs to be widened

10:24 ↗ that's part of what we'll review in

10:26 ↗ detail with the plat but when we get to

10:30 ↗ this western portion you can see that

10:33 ↗ there is no sidewalk there's no curb

10:35 ↗ there's no gutter it just has a fog line

10:37 ↗ and a drainage ditch that was the way it

10:40 ↗ was left in its kind of interim state

10:45 ↗ eighth Avenue in this image you can see

10:49 ↗ that we're looking north and you can see

10:53 ↗ that it just ends this is the location

10:57 ↗ where that one block of

11:00 ↗ during my mouse disappeared

11:02 ↗ eighth Avenue needs to be built and then

11:05 ↗ at this point we're eighth intersects

11:08 ↗ with Ellis polygon has built this block

11:12 ↗ they are in the process of building this

11:16 ↗ block so when out in the field right now

11:19 ↗ it is mostly finished south of Ellis and

11:22 ↗ not really built north of Ellis but the

11:26 ↗ permits have been issued and so we

11:29 ↗ anticipate its completion when you look

11:33 ↗ at Ellis from up in Pinecrest and look

11:36 ↗ down on it you can see that it looks

11:38 ↗ mostly complete it's quite wide until

11:43 ↗ you get just past ninth Avenue this part

11:46 ↗ of the image is ninth Avenue and then

11:48 ↗ because of the way Microsoft built the

11:52 ↗ entry of Ellis anticipating their campus

11:55 ↗ with almost three million square feet of

11:58 ↗ commercial it was built as a really

12:00 ↗ massive roadway and so as part of the

12:05 ↗ coordination between shelter and polygon

12:08 ↗ Ellis has been designed to neck down

12:11 ↗ from that what much wider Road into a

12:14 ↗ more traditional

12:16 ↗ just two-lane road with parking and

12:19 ↗ finally ninth Avenue is complete as I

12:23 ↗ mentioned I circle the circle on here

12:26 ↗ it's a little hard to see I imagine but

12:28 ↗ there's a bicyclist there that side of

12:30 ↗ the road was designated as a multi

12:33 ↗ multi-use trail even though it looks

12:35 ↗ more like a standard sidewalk and you do

12:37 ↗ see bicyclists coming up from the valley

12:40 ↗ floor robust bicyclists coming up from

12:43 ↗ the valley floor pedestrian system is

12:48 ↗ almost completely associated with the

12:51 ↗ roadways sorry I know it's much more the

12:56 ↗ colors are much brighter on my screen so

12:58 ↗ I'm always checking to see how well it

12:59 ↗ comes across on yours most of the

13:02 ↗ streets such that are in this darker

13:05 ↗ blue

13:06 ↗ have our planned or have been built with

13:08 ↗ sidewalks on both sides

13:10 ↗ however for instance streets like High

13:16 ↗ Street has a sidewalk on the south side

13:19 ↗ bike lanes on both sides in the future

13:23 ↗ when lake side develops we anticipate a

13:26 ↗ sidewalk on the north side but at the

13:29 ↗ time it is still a gravel pit and we

13:31 ↗ really don't want people walking close

13:33 ↗ to that additionally this section of

13:38 ↗ ninth Avenue when Microsoft's soft was

13:42 ↗ looking at developing the hundred and

13:46 ↗ fifty acres for their campus this block

13:48 ↗ was planned to be infrastructure it was

13:52 ↗ not going to have a building on it so it

13:54 ↗ was not built with a sidewalk on the

13:56 ↗ east side so it has a sidewalk on the

14:00 ↗ west side to serve this property but not

14:03 ↗ one on the east side and discovery will

14:10 ↗ have a bike lane along the north side of

14:13 ↗ the block there is one trail that is

14:18 ↗ proposed with the plat and it will

14:20 ↗ connect to a trail system that goes all

14:23 ↗ the way along the western edge of what

14:26 ↗ was called development area for of

14:28 ↗ esquel Highlands and so that will

14:31 ↗ connect to other trails

14:33 ↗ in the area and provide a kind of

14:37 ↗ continuous route through much of this

14:40 ↗ portion of esquel Highlands in terms of

14:45 ↗ next steps we will prepare a community

14:50 ↗ conference response memo this is much

14:54 ↗ like the briefing response memos that

14:56 ↗ you've seen with site development

14:59 ↗ permits staff and applicant if they

15:02 ↗ choose to will work on preparing

15:05 ↗ responses to any comments questions and

15:07 ↗ concerns before you are six emails that

15:12 ↗ were received in the last 24 hours in

15:15 ↗ looking at my phone a moment ago I see

15:17 ↗ additional ones have come in

15:19 ↗ we have had no opportunity to do much

15:22 ↗ with those and so the response memo will

15:26 ↗ incorporate those comments into the

15:29 ↗ various topics and respond to them in

15:31 ↗ that way once that response memo has

15:37 ↗ been prepared by staff and the applicant

15:40 ↗ if they choose we will make it available

15:42 ↗ to parties of record in the commission

15:44 ↗ for a two-week comment period if there

15:49 ↗ are additional comments that have from

15:53 ↗ the parties of record or the Commission

15:55 ↗ that you feel that we're not

15:56 ↗ appropriately reflected in the memo and

16:00 ↗ that makes sense relative to the code

16:02 ↗ that we're looking at we will

16:05 ↗ incorporate those subsequently we will

16:08 ↗ prepare a staff report to go to the

16:11 ↗ Hearing Examiner that responds memo will

16:14 ↗ be an attachment to the Hearing Examiner

16:17 ↗ staff report and the Hearing Examiner

16:21 ↗ will that will be part of the various

16:24 ↗ materials that that he or she considers

16:27 ↗ in reviewing the plat

16:33 ↗ that's all I happen

16:37 ↗ that's question any questions right now

16:38 ↗ or do you want to wait till the

16:40 ↗ applicant is okay turn the time over to

16:44 ↗ the applicant now thank you miss Loman

17:13 ↗ microphone would be good Thank You Lucy

17:20 ↗ good evening my name is Gary young and

17:23 ↗ for the benefit of the record and also

17:26 ↗ for these those that have not yet that I

17:29 ↗ have not yet met I am the co-founder of

17:33 ↗ shelter Holdings with my partner Jeff

17:35 ↗ Cao and with our families we're the

17:38 ↗ owners of the former Microsoft property

17:40 ↗ and and that is the subject of tonight's

17:43 ↗ community meeting and conference shelter

17:47 ↗ holdings is a local family owned real

17:50 ↗ estate business we over the last thirty

17:52 ↗ five plus years have been building

17:54 ↗ residential mixed-use commercial

17:57 ↗ projects throughout Oregon and

17:59 ↗ Washington and including some here in

18:02 ↗ Issaquah we also have an ongoing

18:05 ↗ presence the past 20 years working with

18:10 ↗ a number of the local nonprofit

18:12 ↗ organizations here in Issaquah some of

18:15 ↗ those would include life enrichment

18:16 ↗ options the escuela school foundation

18:20 ↗ Eastside baby corner and the Issaquah

18:24 ↗ history museums Jeff and I acquired the

18:28 ↗ Microsoft property some six years ago

18:31 ↗ and began developing plans with the

18:34 ↗ community and the city and many design

18:38 ↗ professionals there have been different

18:42 ↗ iterations of those plans over this

18:45 ↗ period of time however since 2016 we

18:49 ↗ have been pursuing the commercial and

18:51 ↗ the retail development allowed under the

18:55 ↗ Issaquah Highlands development agreement

18:57 ↗ the plat that is the subject of the

18:59 ↗ hearing tonight is part of that effort

19:02 ↗ through the course of these efforts we

19:06 ↗ heard from the community about the

19:08 ↗ desire for more commercial and retail

19:10 ↗ uses consistent with the existing

19:13 ↗ Issaquah Highlands community and

19:15 ↗ consistent with the character of the

19:18 ↗ design guidelines

19:19 ↗ maryska Highlands

19:21 ↗ the application before us tonight is

19:25 ↗ another step in this process as we look

19:28 ↗ forward to updating you and working

19:30 ↗ towards adding the retail and the

19:32 ↗ commercial opportunities here in

19:35 ↗ Issaquah Highlands with that I'll now

19:37 ↗ turn over our presentation to TIA Haim

19:40 ↗ and then followed by Jackie on my right

19:43 ↗ and then Eric Evans so thank you very

19:45 ↗ much for having us tonight for those

19:54 ↗ that don't know me I'm TIA Haim and I am

19:56 ↗ part of the development team at shelter

19:58 ↗ Holdings for those had to sit through

20:00 ↗ our previous hearings I promise you

20:02 ↗ won't listen to as much of me tonight as

20:04 ↗ you did in the past past hearing before

20:08 ↗ Eric gets up here to walk you through

20:10 ↗ our application there are a number of

20:12 ↗ corrections to the information that's

20:14 ↗ been provided by the city that and

20:16 ↗ objections that we need to make for the

20:18 ↗ record so although we are always happy

20:21 ↗ to present information about our

20:23 ↗ proposed projects and to hear from the

20:25 ↗ community we want to state for the

20:27 ↗ record that the city is processing our

20:28 ↗ application pursuant to the wrong

20:31 ↗ regulations the city has acknowledged on

20:36 ↗ many times that this plat is vested to

20:38 ↗ the development agreement and that

20:40 ↗ includes the appendix L which is the

20:43 ↗ processing portion of the development

20:46 ↗ agreement our plateau plication should

20:48 ↗ be being processed under those

20:49 ↗ regulations not the new new replacement

20:54 ↗ regulations of IMC 1819 be if our plat

20:57 ↗ was processed under the correct

20:59 ↗ regulations the application wouldn't be

21:01 ↗ before this commission and wouldn't go

21:03 ↗ before the Hearing Examiner we received

21:08 ↗ a draft of the staff report that miss

21:10 ↗ Loman provided for this conference on

21:12 ↗ Monday the 5th of August after close of

21:16 ↗ business and we're asked to provide any

21:18 ↗ input that we had by 10:00 a.m.

21:20 ↗ Wednesday the 7th what we complied with

21:22 ↗ this very tight turnaround and provided

21:25 ↗ both a red line and an email that

21:26 ↗ explained the corrections that were

21:28 ↗ needed virtually none of those were made

21:31 ↗ in the staff report that was provided to

21:34 ↗ you

21:34 ↗ and to the public so this puts us as

21:37 ↗ applicant in a very awkward position

21:39 ↗ where we're having to make those

21:41 ↗ Corrections and point out those items in

21:44 ↗ this public forum this is particularly

21:47 ↗ problematic because there are many legal

21:50 ↗ and factual errors and omissions in the

21:53 ↗ staff report so what we're going to do

21:56 ↗ is provide for the record a copy of the

21:58 ↗ comments on the draft staff report that

22:01 ↗ we've provided to the city which show

22:03 ↗ those Corrections that were needed

22:05 ↗ so what Jackie is handing out now is

22:09 ↗ both the red line that we provided a

22:12 ↗ comparison between our version and the

22:15 ↗ version that you received as part of

22:16 ↗ your packet and the email that went to

22:19 ↗ miss Loman most fundamental problem with

22:25 ↗ the city's staff report is that it not

22:28 ↗ only applies the wrong regulations for

22:30 ↗ process it also applies the incorrect

22:33 ↗ regulations to the application itself as

22:38 ↗ I said the city's acknowledge on many

22:40 ↗ occasions that the plat is vested to the

22:42 ↗ development agreement yet the city's

22:44 ↗ memo applies the replacement regulations

22:47 ↗ of 1819 B and provides no explanation as

22:50 ↗ to why they're applying the replacement

22:52 ↗ regulations to a vested application our

22:56 ↗ platter application vested prior to the

22:58 ↗ existence of 1819 B so there's no way

23:02 ↗ that 1819 B can apply to a vested

23:05 ↗ application another issue that we have

23:10 ↗ with the materials provided is that the

23:12 ↗ that they're a bit incomplete and a bit

23:16 ↗ random in nature so I'll give you a

23:18 ↗ couple of examples of that one is the

23:22 ↗ project narratives so items 2a and 2b of

23:25 ↗ the materials that were provided with

23:27 ↗ the staff report appear to be the same

23:29 ↗ thing the same version of the project

23:31 ↗ narrative the city staff report

23:35 ↗ inaccurately states that we made a

23:36 ↗ separate submit all on 8 28 17 we did

23:40 ↗ not the 8 28 17 documents are actually

23:44 ↗ the same as the

23:45 ↗ a 117 submittal but there was an issue

23:48 ↗ with the way that the city accepts

23:51 ↗ documents through its online system my

23:53 ↗ building permit com

23:55 ↗ and there weren't appropriate categories

23:57 ↗ to upload all of the items so we had

23:59 ↗ tried to deliver a physical copy to the

24:03 ↗ city which they rejected and told us to

24:06 ↗ upload the documents online put them in

24:10 ↗ incorrect categories and that they would

24:12 ↗ fix them so it again kind of a silly

24:16 ↗ correction but it leads to everything

24:18 ↗ being presented in an odd way it also

24:21 ↗ leads to the next problem with with item

24:23 ↗ to see to see is labeled as a three five

24:26 ↗ seventeen submittal I assume that that's

24:30 ↗ a typo and it actually meant to be

24:31 ↗ labeled as a three five nineteen

24:34 ↗ submittal but regardless the three 519

24:37 ↗ it's the middle which was the most

24:39 ↗ recent submit all of our platen

24:41 ↗ materials we included a supplemental

24:45 ↗ plat narrative at that point and again

24:50 ↗ this for some reason the city chose not

24:52 ↗ to provide that to you so we're going to

24:53 ↗ submit a copy for the record tonight I

24:57 ↗ think it's also relevant to point out

25:00 ↗ that the materials that we saw on the

25:02 ↗ city's PowerPoint tonight we're largely

25:04 ↗ new to us those were not really our

25:07 ↗ materials those were things that city

25:09 ↗ staff I guess prepared and never shared

25:12 ↗ with us prior to this meeting which is

25:15 ↗ just a bit unusual from our perspective

25:19 ↗ another one of the Corrections that we

25:21 ↗ provided to mrs. Lowman for the staff

25:23 ↗ report was the chronology of events

25:24 ↗ related to processing of this plat she

25:27 ↗ elected not to share those with you but

25:29 ↗ we think it's important to give you a

25:30 ↗ full and complete picture of the

25:31 ↗ chronology of how this plat application

25:33 ↗ has been developed and reviewed before

25:35 ↗ today and exactly how long this has been

25:38 ↗ in process we began this plotting

25:41 ↗ process with the city in early 2017 the

25:45 ↗ application was submitted and deemed

25:47 ↗ complete over two years ago on August

25:50 ↗ 1st 2017 of the seven hundred and

25:53 ↗ forty-four days that this plat has been

25:56 ↗ in process

25:57 ↗ approximately 602 of those days or over

26:01 ↗ 80% of the time we were waiting for the

26:04 ↗ city to provide something that we needed

26:06 ↗ to keep this plat application moving

26:09 ↗ forward we were required to wait 228

26:13 ↗ days before we received our first set of

26:16 ↗ comments on the plat application the

26:18 ↗ city staff completely ignored the

26:20 ↗ processing timeframes that the city had

26:22 ↗ promised to follow when it entered into

26:24 ↗ the development agreement full and

26:26 ↗ accurate timeline for processing of this

26:28 ↗ plat is provided in the redline version

26:31 ↗ of the staff report that we submitted

26:33 ↗ for the record throughout this process

26:36 ↗ the city's treated this plateau

26:38 ↗ plication and our SDP and ASDP

26:40 ↗ applications which are pending separate

26:43 ↗ from this application differently from

26:47 ↗ applications that are similarly situated

26:49 ↗ there's no valid legal reason for

26:51 ↗ applications to be treated any

26:52 ↗ differently there are many examples of

26:55 ↗ this but to name a few the city has

26:57 ↗ processed our applications more slowly

26:59 ↗ than other applications in the highlands

27:01 ↗ they've recognized that another

27:03 ↗ applicant polygons vesting included

27:05 ↗ vesting to process but then took the

27:08 ↗ opposite position with respect to our

27:10 ↗ application and has determined that best

27:13 ↗ are vesting doesn't include vesting to

27:15 ↗ process they required more detailed

27:17 ↗ information be included in our

27:20 ↗ application materials than is typical

27:22 ↗ and then in the staff report wrote that

27:25 ↗ we had provided a high level of detail

27:27 ↗ that was beyond typical of plat review

27:29 ↗ which is true but then admitted that the

27:31 ↗ city hasn't reviewed any of that that

27:33 ↗ material that they required despite

27:35 ↗ having had it for two years

27:37 ↗ additionally the staff report provided

27:40 ↗ doesn't include a recommendation nor

27:42 ↗ does it include any proposed conditions

27:45 ↗ based on past practice at community

27:47 ↗ conferences it's my understanding that

27:49 ↗ recommendations and proposed conditions

27:51 ↗ are typically included for this type of

27:53 ↗ conference we have no way of knowing if

27:57 ↗ the city is recommending approval or if

27:59 ↗ they intend to impose any conditions on

28:01 ↗ our platter plication which seems odd at

28:04 ↗ this stage of the game when we're trying

28:05 ↗ to have a conversation about how it

28:07 ↗ moves forward

28:09 ↗ at the initial pre-application

28:11 ↗ collaborative and collaborative meetings

28:13 ↗ for this plat application the city

28:15 ↗ indicated that that this is a very

28:17 ↗ simple plat which is true and that they

28:20 ↗ didn't anticipate much review nor do

28:23 ↗ they suspect many conditions so perhaps

28:26 ↗ they've returned to that way of thinking

28:27 ↗ we simply don't know at this point I

28:31 ↗ will turn it over to our legal counsel

28:33 ↗ Jacqui Kerr a to make a few brief

28:35 ↗ comments and then we'll let Eric walk

28:37 ↗ you through the application thank you

28:40 ↗ thank you I'm Jacky carrieth Foster

28:43 ↗ pepper here on behalf of shelter this

28:44 ↗ evening I've had the opportunity to meet

28:46 ↗ some of the commissioners and past

28:48 ↗ hearings before for those of you that I

28:49 ↗ haven't met it's nice to meet you this

28:51 ↗ evening I'll keep my section very very

28:53 ↗ brief Tia hit on a number of the factual

28:58 ↗ and to an extent legal problems with the

29:00 ↗ staff memo that we received in advance

29:02 ↗ of this we've identified and provided

29:05 ↗ for the record this evening what we view

29:08 ↗ to be an accurate version of a lot of

29:09 ↗ those facts and are expecting that those

29:12 ↗ facts are incorporated in the revised

29:14 ↗ community memo that's supposed to come

29:16 ↗ out after this we're happy to continue

29:19 ↗ to provide comments in that process but

29:21 ↗ do you expect that there are actually

29:22 ↗ revisions in response to the corrections

29:24 ↗ that were making the city has told us on

29:27 ↗ multiple occasions as Tia mentioned a

29:29 ↗ moment ago that shelters plat

29:30 ↗ application is vested to the development

29:32 ↗ standards under the development

29:34 ↗ agreement we're submitting tonight

29:36 ↗ another document just for the record on

29:38 ↗ this which is an April 4th letter from

29:41 ↗ 2018 from the director Keith Niven to us

29:46 ↗ memorializing this fact it's actually

29:48 ↗ been something that's been raised a

29:49 ↗ number of times this application is

29:50 ↗ vested but this is one of the earlier

29:52 ↗ acknowledgments of that

30:04 ↗ [Applause]

30:08 ↗ the development agreement also includes

30:11 ↗ in the development standards appendix L

30:15 ↗ which is another part the process that

30:17 ↗ shelter is vested to and again as Tia

30:20 ↗ pointed out we've been treated

30:21 ↗ differently in that respect that we

30:23 ↗ actually wouldn't be in front of you

30:24 ↗ this evening we would be going through a

30:26 ↗ separate process if the city were

30:27 ↗ treating our application as vested to

30:29 ↗ process as they had told us in the past

30:31 ↗ that we would be the staff report as Tia

30:35 ↗ and I have both touched on does make a

30:37 ↗ number of inaccurate statements but one

30:39 ↗ that I would like to focus on and that's

30:41 ↗ most concerning this evening is the fact

30:44 ↗ that staff is going about and trying to

30:46 ↗ change a vesting determination in that

30:48 ↗ staff report that the director already

30:49 ↗ made and the code is clear that the

30:52 ↗ director is the only person who can make

30:54 ↗ an interpretation on vesting in the city

30:56 ↗ he has done that and it can't be

30:57 ↗ overruled by subsequent staff reports in

31:00 ↗ this proceeding or you know others staff

31:03 ↗ can't unilaterally decide that our

31:05 ↗ application vests only to some

31:07 ↗ regulations not to others as you'll see

31:09 ↗ in the staff report there were a number

31:11 ↗ of instances where the replacement

31:14 ↗ regulations the substantive regulations

31:15 ↗ are being applied to our plot

31:17 ↗ application even though we've been told

31:18 ↗ time and again that they do not apply

31:21 ↗ again the director gets to make the call

31:23 ↗ staff cannot overrule that and even in a

31:27 ↗ community conference such as this one

31:28 ↗ and it also states a number of times

31:30 ↗ that there's a disagreement over the

31:32 ↗ materials submitted for the plat

31:34 ↗ application there's no valid reason for

31:37 ↗ any disagreement over the application

31:39 ↗ materials that were submitted we

31:41 ↗ submitted the preliminary plat

31:43 ↗ application it was deemed complete we

31:45 ↗ submitted supplemental materials along

31:46 ↗ the way in large part in response to

31:49 ↗ concerns from the city about wanting to

31:51 ↗ know how our site development permit

31:53 ↗ applications actually fit with the plat

31:56 ↗ application that's dividing out the lots

31:58 ↗ to make those possible that's very

32:01 ↗ standard and the development review

32:03 ↗ process for any sort of plot application

32:05 ↗ or a site development permit application

32:07 ↗ for that matter to continue to

32:09 ↗ supplement your application with the

32:11 ↗ best and most current information but

32:15 ↗ for some reason the city is refusing to

32:17 ↗ show the

32:17 ↗ building footprints and the updated plat

32:20 ↗ materials that we've submitted along the

32:21 ↗ way tonight as you saw in the PowerPoint

32:24 ↗ that was presented they weren't using

32:25 ↗ the most current one and this has been a

32:28 ↗ consistent problem along the way the

32:31 ↗ notice of application that they

32:32 ↗ submitted to the public at least did

32:35 ↗ include our full plat with the building

32:38 ↗ footprints and with the accurate

32:40 ↗ allowable development shown and so we

32:41 ↗ want to make sure that that also gets

32:43 ↗ into the record it's something we had

32:45 ↗ requested in response to the staff

32:46 ↗ report but it didn't get included

32:59 ↗ [Applause]

33:06 ↗ so again you know we've we provided a

33:09 ↗ number of supplemental materials tonight

33:11 ↗ I'll keep that section of this evening's

33:13 ↗ presentation short we do expect that the

33:16 ↗ materials that we've been provided are

33:17 ↗ incorporated into the record and would

33:19 ↗ expect that the changes that we've been

33:21 ↗ requesting are actually made so that

33:23 ↗ there is an accurate record in front of

33:24 ↗ the Hearing Examiner as this moves

33:26 ↗ forward but with that I would like to

33:28 ↗ turn it over to Eric from shelter who's

33:30 ↗ going to dive into our plantation and

33:33 ↗ just talk about what the community is

33:34 ↗ hopefully I'm here to hear about wait

33:41 ↗ for the benefit record my name is Eric

33:43 ↗ Evans and I'm also with shelter holdings

33:45 ↗ and a member of the high street

33:46 ↗ development team I'm happy to be here as

33:51 ↗ Gary mentioned and many of you probably

33:54 ↗ know we've held a lot of community

33:56 ↗ meetings we've been engaged with the

33:59 ↗ communities all these six years since we

34:01 ↗ bought the property so it's great to be

34:03 ↗ here and to be moving forward the

34:06 ↗ applications TM mentioned and Jack

34:08 ↗ evented went in and August 1st so

34:09 ↗ anything you can do to help us along the

34:11 ↗ way is very much appreciated

34:13 ↗ I think Lucy did a good job organizing

34:19 ↗ where we are and so I won't spend a

34:21 ↗ whole lot of time on terms of the

34:23 ↗ vicinity map as she mentioned the

34:27 ↗ property is a little over 21 acres

34:32 ↗ what's unusual in a property like this

34:35 ↗ is it's one tax lot it's one parcel the

34:40 ↗ good thing about that is we get one tax

34:41 ↗ bill so it's pretty easy to put your

34:44 ↗ taxes but when you think about making an

34:47 ↗ investment when you think about building

34:49 ↗ a medical office building or you think

34:51 ↗ about a commercial use for retail use

34:53 ↗ those types of entities want to have

34:56 ↗ their own lot that's specific to their

34:59 ↗ type of use so what we have today

35:03 ↗ in front of you is an action to do just

35:06 ↗ that is to cut up this lot into ten Lots

35:09 ↗ so that we can plan the property in the

35:13 ↗ orderly fashion consistent with the

35:15 ↗ design guidelines of visco Highlands the

35:17 ↗ Geary reference that have been governing

35:20 ↗ Misco Islands for decades as Lucy

35:26 ↗ mentioned the plan also lets us

35:30 ↗ recognize some of the infrastructure

35:32 ↗ that's currently underway I'm being

35:34 ↗ completed as well as future improvements

35:40 ↗ like the extension of North East 8th

35:42 ↗ that Lucy talked about and as well as

35:47 ↗ deer lane and sixth Avenue that will get

35:50 ↗ improved with the plant applications the

35:54 ↗ kind of fragmented pragmatic reason or

35:59 ↗ planning reason for doing this type of

36:00 ↗ planning action is it lets us create

36:03 ↗ lots and plan the infrastructure so that

36:06 ↗ we understand exactly how that medical

36:08 ↗ building might be serviced how that

36:09 ↗ commercial building how that retail

36:11 ↗ building of that storage building might

36:13 ↗ be serviced and on its own property with

36:16 ↗ boundaries and all of the particular

36:19 ↗ review that would be done later or done

36:21 ↗ with the other applications the SDP the

36:24 ↗ SDP and building permits in this case to

36:28 ↗ the plat lets us answer a question about

36:31 ↗ uses and intensity the original

36:34 ↗ development greement allocated of

36:35 ↗ significant amount of development uses

36:39 ↗ for our property the plat application

36:42 ↗ lets us answer how much intensity on

36:45 ↗ which portions of the property so it

36:48 ↗ creates a table for each of the blocks

36:51 ↗ and lots about how much commercial

36:54 ↗ retail use we would anticipate on each

36:57 ↗ specific portion of the property in and

37:02 ↗ it also allows us to

37:05 ↗ kind of mmm sorry it also as we move

37:09 ↗ forward with the plaid and site

37:11 ↗ development application of the retail

37:13 ↗ medical office which are also reflected

37:14 ↗ on the plat it lets us talk to the

37:16 ↗ tenants about road standards layouts

37:21 ↗ where they might find access all those

37:23 ↗ kind of good things well lets us kind of

37:27 ↗ plan it on a block by block basis and

37:30 ↗ its kind of the first step for bringing

37:31 ↗ those uses we've been discussing all

37:32 ↗ these years with the community and those

37:35 ↗ restaurant uses those retail the

37:37 ↗ entertainment uses the medical uses and

37:39 ↗ the storage uses obviously there's a lot

37:44 ↗ of foundation the background work to

37:46 ↗ subdivide the Lots Lucy touched on it a

37:49 ↗ little bit all of the allow development

37:52 ↗ contemplated as part of this plat was

37:57 ↗ under the original Issaquah has

37:58 ↗ development agreement and as such was

38:01 ↗ studied under the environmental impact

38:02 ↗ statements for a highlands in addition

38:06 ↗ we completed a fairly extensive

38:08 ↗ transportation analysis that allowed us

38:11 ↗ to look at the transportation network on

38:13 ↗ a lot by lot basis based on these types

38:16 ↗ of allocation of uses so we could be

38:18 ↗ sure that each one of these properties

38:20 ↗ the 20s blocks worked similarly it

38:25 ↗ allows us to look at the street sections

38:27 ↗ at a but I think Lucy touched on it a

38:29 ↗ little bit that the road standards as we

38:31 ↗ move through the property is also

38:33 ↗ influenced by the intensity of uses so

38:36 ↗ it allows us to study the transportation

38:39 ↗ connections the abutments associate with

38:43 ↗ a plat in addition it allows us to look

38:46 ↗ at which road should be extended like we

38:48 ↗ talked about in in north Dane

38:50 ↗ northeast eighth it also allows us our

38:53 ↗ transportation consultants if you look

38:54 ↗ at the study to make recommendations on

38:57 ↗ what roads shouldn't be extended so if

39:00 ↗ you look at if you're into traffic which

39:02 ↗ I'm sure hopefully some of you are

39:04 ↗ there's a recommendation from our

39:06 ↗ transportation consultant who says it's

39:08 ↗ not a good idea to extend Park Drive

39:10 ↗ through the property into the rust Ridge

39:14 ↗ townhome

39:15 ↗ property and if it is required that it

39:18 ↗ should only be a pedestrian or bicycle

39:20 ↗ connection as opposed to a road

39:22 ↗ connection so the plat lets us kind of

39:24 ↗ make those kind of determinations our

39:26 ↗ recommendations it also as Lucy

39:28 ↗ mentioned allows us to plan the trails

39:31 ↗ where they connect to existing property

39:33 ↗ where we create those portions of the

39:35 ↗ property simultaneously we also as Tia

39:40 ↗ and Jackie mentioned we want to make

39:42 ↗ clear all the information was current so

39:44 ↗ it allows us to show the building

39:46 ↗ footprint so make sure that we're

39:47 ↗ planning the infrastructure

39:48 ↗ appropriately to serve those particular

39:50 ↗ buildings our future buildings and make

39:58 ↗ adequate provisions for them why I find

40:03 ↗ all this stuff interesting I do admit

40:05 ↗ creating lot lines isn't the most

40:06 ↗ exciting thing and mmm my daughter says

40:10 ↗ it's kind of dry and it's probably true

40:12 ↗ with that said you might ask school what

40:16 ↗ are we looking to receive in terms of

40:17 ↗ feedback from you all the lots that

40:19 ↗ we're creating here consistent with code

40:21 ↗ they're made adequate provisions for

40:23 ↗ water they might have adequate

40:24 ↗ provisions for sewer traffic all those

40:27 ↗ components so it's a fair question as

40:30 ↗ what are we looking for from my

40:32 ↗ perspective I guess in our view or my

40:38 ↗ view limited it's an opportunity for us

40:41 ↗ to share the information of how this is

40:43 ↗ evolving we hope you'll stay engaged in

40:46 ↗ the process as we move forward and

40:48 ↗ continue to participate in the site

40:52 ↗ developer minutes the building permits

40:53 ↗ and all the actions that follow needless

40:57 ↗ to say we're anxious to move forward as

41:00 ↗ we've hoping that development will help

41:05 ↗ us along markets to change stock

41:09 ↗ market's change so appreciate kind of

41:12 ↗ expediting us along we're happy to

41:15 ↗ answer questions we're happy to stay

41:16 ↗ late if anybody has questions and look

41:19 ↗ forward to moving forward

41:23 ↗ and that thank you thank you now well I

41:31 ↗ would like to invite the public to make

41:34 ↗ comment if they so choose as I stated

41:38 ↗ earlier we'd like to remind those in

41:41 ↗ attendance that if you want to meet

41:44 ↗ maintain a personal record urban I'm

41:47 ↗ still brain dead on that please sign in

41:49 ↗ and give us an email you don't have to

41:51 ↗ sign in to speak we'd like to hear what

41:53 ↗ you have to say would like your comments

41:56 ↗ to pertain to the High Street collection

41:57 ↗ plenary plat application and not other

41:59 ↗ development applications that have been

42:01 ↗ submitted by the same applicant or on

42:03 ↗ any other development proposal for that

42:05 ↗ matter or does anybody from the public

42:08 ↗ wish to speak

42:10 ↗ no no I'll jump up at once anything

42:14 ↗ right please that's fine

42:30 ↗ hello my name is Mike Zalewski I am a

42:33 ↗ resident of West Highlands Park and I'm

42:36 ↗ not exactly sure what I can talk about

42:38 ↗ here but it sounds like it should be

42:40 ↗ plat oriented if I'm right Lucy

42:44 ↗ so I'm a guessing at a different venue

42:46 ↗ possibly we'll be able to provide our

42:48 ↗ inputs for what your proposals are for

42:51 ↗ each parcel of lands I'll hold off on

42:54 ↗ that so in terms of just general general

42:57 ↗ generalities and the plat information I

43:01 ↗ would just like to have a good

43:04 ↗ conversation on both sides

43:06 ↗ my main concern would be the discovery

43:08 ↗ drive corridor to just make sure we do

43:12 ↗ take into account everything that's

43:15 ↗ going on there and that we have the

43:16 ↗ hospital and that they're still going to

43:18 ↗ be building some buildings there and of

43:20 ↗ course I live on the end of the road

43:22 ↗ there and West Ridge South also has

43:25 ↗ access that way the one intersection for

43:29 ↗ eighths eighth Street or eighth Avenue

43:31 ↗ that one is currently a stoplight so it

43:35 ↗ would be good to think about some

43:39 ↗ alternatives there because that is such

43:41 ↗ a close intersection to where you turn

43:43 ↗ in from Highlands Drive and I could see

43:46 ↗ that as maybe potentially leading to a

43:48 ↗ backup situation so if there's any

43:50 ↗ alternatives for a better traffic flow

43:52 ↗ we might as well consider those now than

43:56 ↗ later yeah otherwise that I don't the

43:59 ↗ neck down idea sounds great but yeah

44:02 ↗ let's just make sure that

44:04 ↗ there's adequate room on all sides for

44:06 ↗ pedestrians and bicyclists that would

44:09 ↗ probably be all I have thank you thank

44:11 ↗ you

44:18 ↗ other comments from the public

44:22 ↗ well hearing seeing none we'll move on

44:25 ↗ to comments from the commissioners for

44:27 ↗ questions for the staff and applicant

44:36 ↗ mr. chairman have question for staff

44:39 ↗ please regarding maximum block size

44:43 ↗ certain maximum block size rain so in

44:49 ↗ the staff report

44:50 ↗ we are directed that the standards to

44:54 ↗ look at a comprehensive plan

44:55 ↗ a chapter of the IMC 1819 b replacement

45:01 ↗ regulations and as applicable chapter

45:04 ↗ 1819 a imc SIDS and the IMC so in terms

45:10 ↗ of the SIDS being referenced there I'm

45:13 ↗ thinking of chapter 18 of the SIDS which

45:16 ↗ is the architecture and urban design

45:18 ↗ manual and in that manual there

45:22 ↗ specification discussion maximum block

45:25 ↗ size so I'm wondering if that applies in

45:28 ↗ this case chapter 18 does not apply

45:32 ↗ because their architectural review

45:34 ↗ committee has purview over projects and

45:38 ↗ in Highlands and much of what's in

45:41 ↗ 18 is taken care of by them so a chapter

45:45 ↗ 18 is excluded okay thank you

45:50 ↗ I'm sorry I guess I'm confused so so

45:53 ↗ SIDS applies but not completely would

46:00 ↗ you like me to look up the provision

46:02 ↗ just yeah I could you know mentions that

46:05 ↗ SIDS applies but then well it's the

46:10 ↗ central is cause standards apply where

46:13 ↗ there are not provisions within 1819 B

46:28 ↗ so I have some copies provision eighteen

46:43 ↗ nineteen be 120 which refers to the

46:46 ↗ Architectural Review Committee states

46:49 ↗ that in the second sentence that the

46:52 ↗ architecture and urban design manual

46:54 ↗ located in it says chapter sixteen which

46:57 ↗ may be the chapter it was at the time

46:59 ↗ does not apply within iske Highlands

47:17 ↗ so okay so I mean on page 5 of 10 to the

47:22 ↗ staff report so it says review the

47:24 ↗ proposals on compliance with the comp

47:26 ↗ plan as chapter replacement regulations

47:30 ↗ and as applicable

47:31 ↗ after 18 SIDS in the IMC so I guess

47:35 ↗ what's saying to the extent that SIDS

47:37 ↗ would apply it would but this is saying

47:40 ↗ that SIDS doesn't apply here so the way

47:43 ↗ the replacement regulations are written

47:45 ↗ you would start with those and where

47:48 ↗ elements are covered in 1819 B then

47:53 ↗ that's the provision that you would use

47:54 ↗ if there were missing elements for

47:58 ↗ instance there's no parking standards in

48:00 ↗ here then you would go to the parking

48:02 ↗ chapter of central is qua standards

48:05 ↗ which I believe is 8 and 16 and you

48:09 ↗ would use that then if there was

48:12 ↗ provisions that are not in the central

48:15 ↗ is Clause standards then you would go to

48:17 ↗ the S qualm Municipal Code so for

48:19 ↗ instance critical area standards in 1810

48:22 ↗ that's the only place they're located in

48:25 ↗ our codes so this is why we're rewriting

48:28 ↗ Title 18 and so it's that sort of

48:31 ↗ incremental stepping through the codes

48:34 ↗ based on starting with 1819 be right and

48:40 ↗ then block size is one of those items

48:42 ↗ that's covered a first step

48:46 ↗ instead of sins actually the there are

48:54 ↗ not block size standards in 1819 B it is

48:59 ↗ in the urban design guidelines it is a

49:02 ↗ performance standard not a prescriptive

49:04 ↗ standard so central is Squa

49:06 ↗ uses prescriptive standards but is qilin

49:10 ↗ juices performance standards okay

49:14 ↗ I did that for the final I guess yeah so

49:18 ↗ so follow-on to that Lucy you just

49:19 ↗ mentioned the the urban design

49:21 ↗ guidelines on page 32 of 154 in section

49:25 ↗ half it refers to those ago Highlands

49:27 ↗ urban design guidelines is that what

49:29 ↗ you're referring to there that there's a

49:31 ↗ set there is this separate document and

49:33 ↗ that still does pertain yes

49:36 ↗ so 1819 B has two attachments one is the

49:43 ↗ urban that it Highlands

49:45 ↗ development agreements urban design

49:47 ↗ guidelines it's exactly the same

49:48 ↗ document that was in the development

49:51 ↗ agreement and then the other attachment

49:54 ↗ is the principles goals and commitments

49:57 ↗ and that's the same as the development

50:01 ↗ agreement it takes a master's degree to

50:06 ↗ do this so you heard my objections

50:22 ↗ earlier but I think there's some

50:24 ↗ significant confusion we've been told

50:26 ↗ that we are vested to the development

50:28 ↗ standards and the development agreement

50:29 ↗ on this application and so your question

50:31 ↗ is justified in terms of what are we

50:34 ↗ looking at in terms of the regulations

50:36 ↗ the SIDS don't apply to our applications

50:39 ↗ the development standards are what

50:40 ↗ applies to our applications that's what

50:42 ↗ the city has told us in the past so I

50:44 ↗ guess to add on as a clarifying question

50:47 ↗ you know we're thoroughly confused as to

50:50 ↗ why the staff report tonight is saying

50:52 ↗ and applying the replacement regulations

50:54 ↗ to our applications that they're not

50:56 ↗ supposed to apply and why you are being

50:57 ↗ asked to consider those in your review

51:00 ↗ tonight I don't know if that's something

51:02 ↗ that the city is prepared to provide an

51:04 ↗ answer for tonight but it's one that we

51:06 ↗ haven't received an answer to

51:14 ↗ so I think Lucy you just referred to

51:17 ↗ itsuko Highlands guiding principles also

51:20 ↗ on page 32 of 154 it's section e yes

51:25 ↗ there's a statement there under

51:27 ↗ principle number two the the purpose of

51:32 ↗ pedestrian-friendly designed to give

51:34 ↗ circulation priority to pedestrian scale

51:37 ↗ proximities activities and orientation

51:39 ↗ yes I wonder I have I guess a question

51:45 ↗ about blacks some of these blacks sir it

51:48 ↗ seems to me over 500 feet long is that

51:50 ↗ really giving priority to pedestrian and

51:54 ↗ bicycle circulation and I guess that's a

51:58 ↗ question for the applicant

52:12 ↗ well I think that you I think what Lucy

52:18 ↗ was saying in response to your earlier

52:20 ↗ question is that the Issaquah Highlands

52:22 ↗ regulations which are under the

52:24 ↗ development agreement don't have a

52:26 ↗ minimum block size so from from that

52:29 ↗ standpoint there is no minimum block

52:31 ↗ size to to apply there but to speak to

52:34 ↗ your concern about pedestrian

52:36 ↗ connections those are something that

52:39 ↗ will be made through the projects as

52:41 ↗ they move forward so what you're seeing

52:43 ↗ with the plat is where the

52:45 ↗ infrastructure goes and where the so

52:48 ↗ where the streets go through you can

52:51 ↗ also see the building footprints on the

52:52 ↗ plat and so you can see that there are

52:54 ↗ opportunities for and and we plan to

52:57 ↗ implement pedestrian connections through

52:59 ↗ those blocks because you're right it

53:01 ↗ wouldn't make sense to have these big

53:02 ↗ blocks that are just solid building

53:06 ↗ there needs to be connection and and

53:09 ↗ really this plat serves a really

53:10 ↗ important function in connecting

53:13 ↗ particularly the Swedish property to

53:15 ↗ Grand Ridge Plaza right now it's a

53:17 ↗ little bit of an awkward walk to get

53:19 ↗ from one to the other and as you fill

53:21 ↗ that in particularly with both the

53:25 ↗ ground floor uses that will be in our

53:27 ↗ medical office building and then also

53:29 ↗ our retail uses that are up towards the

53:31 ↗ north end of our property it provides a

53:34 ↗ more comfortable way for people to get

53:36 ↗ from one area to the other so okay so

53:39 ↗ you kind of have the thought that there

53:41 ↗ will be through block passages of some

53:43 ↗ kind there may be at leas or other

53:46 ↗ plazas ways of supporting mixed-use

53:51 ↗ mobility that is not Auto yes there will

53:56 ↗ be pedestrian connections throughout

53:57 ↗ they may be similar to a parking lot or

54:00 ↗ at the sidewalk that went in from a the

54:02 ↗ artillery

54:05 ↗ yeah so in some cases they're they're

54:08 ↗ pedestrian pathways that are through

54:11 ↗ parking lots it just depends on what

54:15 ↗ which block you're talking about I would

54:18 ↗ add

54:20 ↗ you're right that that is one of the

54:23 ↗ things that we're looking at it is a

54:26 ↗ performance standard and so we're

54:27 ↗ interested in the community perspective

54:29 ↗ because it isn't a prescriptive standard

54:32 ↗ where to meet the principle of

54:35 ↗ pedestrian scale where those additional

54:41 ↗ kinds of through blocked passages that

54:44 ↗ isn't a that is I'm using that as a

54:47 ↗ general term not a particular standard

54:51 ↗ where those where the Commission sees

54:54 ↗ that as a necessity to meet that

54:56 ↗ principle and I think we've got proposed

55:00 ↗ in our materials we've proposed that

55:02 ↗ there would be a through block

55:03 ↗ passageway on each block but that they

55:07 ↗ needed the locations need to be

55:09 ↗ determined through site development plan

55:12 ↗ review because it wouldn't make sense to

55:13 ↗ prescribe this is exactly where it has

55:15 ↗ to go necessarily at this point in time

55:19 ↗ the one exception to that is the the one

55:21 ↗ on block II which is closest to the West

55:25 ↗ Highland Park neighborhood and that is

55:27 ↗ in that location so that it lines up

55:29 ↗ with the trail that polygons building

55:31 ↗ and makes that connection to Discovery

55:32 ↗ Drive it kind of weight a kind of a

55:37 ↗ really good question so Lucy you showed

55:39 ↗ on the graphics particularly the kind of

55:43 ↗ bike pedestrian connections and they

55:44 ↗ were kind of different forms

55:46 ↗ you had multi-use trail we had bike

55:50 ↗ lanes we had I'm just pedestrian

55:54 ↗ sidewalks so there was kind of a mix of

55:57 ↗ things and I guess I'm curious about the

55:59 ↗ connectivity between those and how that

56:02 ↗ works because it's important as you're

56:05 ↗ transitioning from one area to the other

56:07 ↗ if you're either biking walking or

56:09 ↗ driving that the the experience is

56:13 ↗ intentional and and it and it makes

56:16 ↗ sense so if you're moving from the

56:19 ↗ multi-use trail and then you're gonna

56:21 ↗ move into a bike lane that's or a share

56:24 ↗ lane

56:26 ↗ how that happens and so I think how that

56:28 ↗ how that connectivity and consistency

56:32 ↗ and that connectivity happens in the

56:34 ↗ plat not only for pedestrians but how

56:36 ↗ bicyclists kind of the full multimodal

56:39 ↗ solution lays out because it seemed a

56:41 ↗ little choppy to me and the graphics and

56:43 ↗ I know that was a really high level

56:44 ↗ graphic but I think that thinking that

56:47 ↗ through is going to be important to how

56:49 ↗ this all integrates and develops into

56:51 ↗ the future that's right in many

56:57 ↗ neighborhoods of Issaquah Highlands the

57:01 ↗ assumption in the street standards is

57:06 ↗ that bikes and cars are moving at a

57:08 ↗ similar pace and therefore they are

57:10 ↗ sharing the road which would be that

57:13 ↗ sub-collector standard that was quite

57:16 ↗ prevalent but there are other more

57:20 ↗ significant roads where bike separate

57:25 ↗ bike facilities are shown Discovery

57:29 ↗ Drive is a good example of that it's not

57:31 ↗ only the question of the multi-use trail

57:35 ↗ it it sort of ends at Discovery Drive

57:39 ↗ there it picks up further south down

57:42 ↗ near Swedish but for a bicyclists that

57:46 ↗ chooses that it's either heading east or

57:49 ↗ west on Discovery Drive they are sharing

57:53 ↗ the road with an ambulance and so you

57:57 ↗ know thinking about how to design those

57:59 ↗ bike facilities to ensure that both

58:03 ↗ those uses can share the road prizm

58:07 ↗ between curbs is going to be an

58:09 ↗ important part of the details

58:14 ↗ going back to process a little bit so

58:17 ↗ the only thing that will fall under our

58:19 ↗ purview is the preliminary plat

58:21 ↗ application all other design review will

58:24 ↗ go to the Highlands AR C or whatever

58:27 ↗ they call our DRC can you I want to make

58:31 ↗ sure I'm answering the question you're

58:33 ↗ asking

58:33 ↗ Kevin when you say all other design

58:36 ↗ review well I guess you know the the

58:43 ↗ site development permit I guess what's

58:45 ↗ under our purview would be the best way

58:47 ↗ to ask it so the site development

58:50 ↗ permits have already come through

58:53 ↗ typically the purview of the

58:56 ↗ architectural review committee is fairly

58:59 ↗ light with land use permits they do look

59:01 ↗ at them to ensure that the site planning

59:05 ↗ is going to be set up well for the

59:10 ↗ requirements that they have the example

59:14 ↗ I would give is that in the West Ridge

59:16 ↗ South single-family plat when the

59:22 ↗ architectural review committee looked at

59:24 ↗ that against the architectural standards

59:28 ↗ they the lots were very regular and for

59:31 ↗ that neighborhood type there was

59:33 ↗ supposed to be more diversity so they

59:35 ↗ required some tweaks to the lot

59:39 ↗ arrangement so that it would facilitate

59:41 ↗ that when the home designs come in but

59:45 ↗ so it's a fairly high level when you get

59:48 ↗ to the actual building design or

59:50 ↗ landscape design it's much more detailed

59:52 ↗ in terms of architecture its style

59:56 ↗ materials colors windows doors a lot of

1:00:01 ↗ the things that you're used to looking

1:00:03 ↗ at through the design manual are handled

1:00:08 ↗ by the architectural review committee

1:00:09 ↗ okay or clarity is that you just when

1:00:13 ↗ you refer to architect review you're

1:00:14 ↗ referring to IH das at the Builder AR C

1:00:17 ↗ or the retailer C there is both a

1:00:20 ↗ builder so I don't I know been you you

1:00:24 ↗ know a hundred times more about the AR C

1:00:27 ↗ than I do

1:00:27 ↗ there is a AR see that the IHC a manages

1:00:34 ↗ for looking at all of this new

1:00:39 ↗ construction

1:00:40 ↗ I am NOT well versed in the names of all

1:00:43 ↗ the different a RCS that that

1:00:45 ↗ as qua Highlands has for all the

1:00:48 ↗ different kind of lifecycle of a

1:00:50 ↗ building but yes there are specialized

1:00:53 ↗ ones just for these projects

1:01:05 ↗ has there been a discussion regarding

1:01:07 ↗ the phasing of these blocks obviously

1:01:10 ↗ it's a large site in various building

1:01:13 ↗ components but are you allowed or can

1:01:17 ↗ you speak to you know the the timeframes

1:01:20 ↗ like when these blocks will be developed

1:01:22 ↗ or an idea I part of me is kind of

1:01:27 ↗ envisioning uses kind of standing by

1:01:28 ↗ themselves for parts of the properties

1:01:32 ↗ we would love to be able to give you a

1:01:34 ↗ time frame unfortunately the way that

1:01:37 ↗ our permit applications have been being

1:01:39 ↗ processed leaves us in a position where

1:01:42 ↗ we have we have no way to know that as

1:01:46 ↗ Eric alluded to there is strong interest

1:01:49 ↗ both from the community but also from

1:01:51 ↗ tenants in some of the uses that were

1:01:53 ↗ were proposing so we are anxious to move

1:01:58 ↗ them forward and would likely do that in

1:02:02 ↗ a phased manner but we're anxious to

1:02:04 ↗ move all of the the uses that we've

1:02:06 ↗ proposed at this point understood thank

1:02:09 ↗ you and I just want to echo what Michael

1:02:11 ↗ mentioned earlier I think you'll be

1:02:13 ↗ important to understand the relationship

1:02:15 ↗ of the connections between the streets

1:02:16 ↗ not only the streets though the blocks

1:02:18 ↗ in between them as well I mean if I'm

1:02:20 ↗ standing on block D for example I mean

1:02:23 ↗ how what what takes me over to Block E

1:02:25 ↗ right how do I get there do I take the

1:02:27 ↗ sidewalk

1:02:28 ↗ will there be passed but that stream

1:02:29 ↗ paths gravel paved 88 accessible

1:02:33 ↗ obviously to so just just a comment on

1:02:35 ↗ that

1:02:35 ↗ oh another question sorry well I'm at it

1:02:39 ↗ I saw mentioned earlier about a SEPA

1:02:42 ↗ that was I guess reviewed and whether

1:02:47 ↗ was 1995 or something is that is that be

1:02:51 ↗ invested is that you're proceeding with

1:02:53 ↗ that Seba application is there a new

1:02:55 ↗ SEPA that has to be completed with this

1:02:58 ↗ or that's a hundred I'd I think that's

1:03:01 ↗ another item in which we don't agree I'm

1:03:03 ↗ sorry wait so if the city is in

1:03:10 ↗ disagreement that there's a new SEPA

1:03:12 ↗ process that applies to us are

1:03:15 ↗ understanding has always been and what

1:03:16 ↗ the city has told us is that SEPA has

1:03:17 ↗ been completed for this project under

1:03:19 ↗ the Asuka Highlands development

1:03:20 ↗ agreement if there is a change in that

1:03:23 ↗ position now that would be news to us

1:03:26 ↗ yeah so I mean as you guys probably know

1:03:28 ↗ that Issaquah Highlands development when

1:03:30 ↗ when they did the development agreement

1:03:32 ↗ they plant the whole development from

1:03:33 ↗ the very GetGo they did an environmental

1:03:35 ↗ impact statement that evaluated the

1:03:37 ↗ maximum build-out under that development

1:03:39 ↗ agreement and so all of the development

1:03:42 ↗ that has happened in Issaquah highlands

1:03:44 ↗ falls under that environmental review

1:03:46 ↗ and then there are are certain aspects

1:03:49 ↗ that are sort of examined in in a more

1:03:51 ↗ project specific way as as specific

1:03:54 ↗ projects move forward but absolutely as

1:03:56 ↗ a vested application which until tonight

1:03:59 ↗ I honestly did not think that the city

1:04:01 ↗ was trying to change that investing

1:04:02 ↗ determination but as a vested project we

1:04:06 ↗ definitely fall under that environmental

1:04:09 ↗ review thank you is it is it possible to

1:04:14 ↗ pull up the most recent map that shows

1:04:18 ↗ everything I'm thinking that the one

1:04:20 ↗ that was that I think core design did -

1:04:24 ↗ a 19 that shows some of the other things

1:04:29 ↗ gonna be nursing to talk about all the

1:04:31 ↗ different connections and roads and make

1:04:33 ↗ sure we understand them

1:04:39 ↗ [Applause]

1:04:47 ↗ to name this one shows the West region

1:05:00 ↗ [Applause]

1:05:10 ↗ a couple questions about this the do you

1:05:18 ↗ understand is is dear ravenel someone

1:05:24 ↗ reference to it but I'm still not sure

1:05:25 ↗ is it the very bottom here and what does

1:05:28 ↗ that connect into and what part would

1:05:30 ↗ you build out so I think it's I think

1:05:33 ↗ deer Lane is the portion that's sort of

1:05:38 ↗ on the backside of our blocks D and E

1:05:41 ↗ and was constructed by polygon Lucy

1:05:46 ↗ correct me if I'm getting that wrong but

1:05:47 ↗ I think that's the part that's named

1:05:48 ↗ deer Lane now and so that's that Street

1:05:52 ↗ is already built so they they got an

1:05:56 ↗ easement for the other half that was

1:05:58 ↗ located on our property and constructed

1:06:00 ↗ that street completely and then that

1:06:03 ↗ connects into that's a road that will go

1:06:06 ↗ through West Ridge north so I just want

1:06:11 ↗ to help any spatially challenged

1:06:14 ↗ commissioners that the maps that North

1:06:17 ↗ keeps rotating on various maps so I I

1:06:21 ↗ just want to give you a heads up at the

1:06:23 ↗ moment North is to the left

1:06:25 ↗ deer Lane is I don't know that yeah yeah

1:06:32 ↗ and then the road that's coming off of

1:06:34 ↗ that at the bottom of this map is called

1:06:38 ↗ West Ridge Way and it heads north all

1:06:42 ↗ the way up to High Street had a new road

1:06:45 ↗ that will go through West Ridge north

1:06:47 ↗ right it's going to replace a portion of

1:06:50 ↗ High Street that will be taken made into

1:06:52 ↗ trail exactly and it is being

1:06:55 ↗ constructed by polygon so the connection

1:06:58 ↗ would be from up at High Street and

1:07:02 ↗ ninth you would come down High Street

1:07:06 ↗ through West Ridge North and that

1:07:09 ↗ eventually connect into deer Lane and

1:07:11 ↗ take a left there and that would all

1:07:13 ↗ right so there would be a Josh so you

1:07:15 ↗ kind of had that corner that road would

1:07:17 ↗ make be an L and then six would be the

1:07:21 ↗ first place where you can continue to

1:07:23 ↗ the south

1:07:24 ↗ okay and then and then that road would

1:07:26 ↗ not be extended further west deer

1:07:30 ↗ language deer Lane no I mean not in this

1:07:33 ↗ proposal or polygons proposals is there

1:07:36 ↗ I'm curious what is what is west of if

1:07:40 ↗ you extend the deer Lane West at what

1:07:43 ↗ point do you get over to the I don't

1:07:45 ↗ know if it's the road next to so the

1:07:49 ↗ project the neighborhood just to the

1:07:52 ↗ west polygons property is called West

1:07:55 ↗ Highlands Park it's fully developed

1:07:58 ↗ there there is a road right on I can't

1:08:02 ↗ pull up GIS at the time at this moment

1:08:04 ↗ but there is kind of an a leave owner

1:08:08 ↗ type road right along that seam between

1:08:12 ↗ West Ridge and West Highlands Park and I

1:08:19 ↗ don't think anyone's plan to connect

1:08:21 ↗ interconnect that because discovery

1:08:24 ↗ drive connects just to the south of

1:08:26 ↗ there as well as Ellis where it's kind

1:08:30 ↗ of curving down the hill it also

1:08:34 ↗ connects so there's also significant

1:08:38 ↗ grade change there and so we're we're

1:08:41 ↗ polygons proposing that trail connection

1:08:44 ↗ and we're continuing it it kind of sits

1:08:47 ↗ on the top of before the grade drops off

1:08:50 ↗ and then the alley is right below that

1:08:52 ↗ the existing rally where is the so

1:08:55 ↗ there's the road that would connect the

1:08:58 ↗ West Ridge Road would connect into deer

1:09:00 ↗ lane and then where's the trail so the

1:09:03 ↗ trail connection is all the way I to

1:09:07 ↗ there okay yeah at the far west edge of

1:09:11 ↗ our property okay so the trail that

1:09:13 ↗ comes from the south down by westward

1:09:17 ↗ south I guess it is coming up there that

1:09:20 ↗ road you can connect into this trail and

1:09:22 ↗ then keep going on to the old high

1:09:25 ↗ street trail can we switch back because

1:09:28 ↗ I think I need to be on GIS to better

1:09:30 ↗ explain this

1:09:54 ↗ Oh

1:10:04 ↗ Oh

1:10:29 ↗ so I think what you're identifying is

1:10:31 ↗ something that well let me let me start

1:10:34 ↗ with your first question so this

1:10:38 ↗ property line right here does that show

1:10:40 ↗ up up there so this is that sort of a

1:10:43 ↗ leave owner that runs between Ellis and

1:10:48 ↗ Discovery Drive in West Highland Park

1:10:51 ↗ Tia you know really accurately described

1:10:54 ↗ that there's a lot of topographic change

1:10:56 ↗ and there's quite a few easements and

1:10:58 ↗ things utility like significant

1:11:00 ↗ utilities that run through there so the

1:11:03 ↗ trail is you can't build buildings on it

1:11:06 ↗ most likely so the trail is a good use

1:11:14 ↗ of that area and provides in that trail

1:11:17 ↗ would be sort of at the top of that hill

1:11:19 ↗ above the wound or sort of area connect

1:11:22 ↗ I don't know topographically where

1:11:24 ↗ there's as the West the one to the north

1:11:26 ↗ of it is almost down it's maybe a four

1:11:29 ↗ foot wall up to the trail and then

1:11:32 ↗ another wall up to the project so it's

1:11:36 ↗ about halfway in between okay but there

1:11:39 ↗ would be trail from essentially from

1:11:40 ↗ Discovery Drive up to High Street yes

1:11:43 ↗ that would go along the very west edge

1:11:46 ↗ of a shelter property the trail they

1:11:51 ↗ proposed is in here polygon is proposed

1:11:55 ↗ one is part of what's called block Ford

1:11:57 ↗ and then it connects up through here and

1:12:02 ↗ then half the road up to right around

1:12:06 ↗ this corner is where the multi-use trail

1:12:09 ↗ and kind of linear park that polygon is

1:12:12 ↗ building so High Street would come from

1:12:15 ↗ ninth and turn in mm-hmm

1:12:18 ↗ here and that road would not continue to

1:12:21 ↗ the west anymore right and then the the

1:12:24 ↗ so the trail you would add essentially

1:12:26 ↗ we would end up be able to do a walking

1:12:28 ↗ trail down through the old high street

1:12:31 ↗ straight south all the way down around

1:12:33 ↗ the southside of Swedish and connect

1:12:35 ↗ back in and everything so so yes and

1:12:39 ↗ shelter is is completing the piece on

1:12:43 ↗ their property you know most the trail

1:12:46 ↗ that's around Swedish starts right here

1:12:50 ↗ the one around West Ridge South starts

1:12:54 ↗ about here so we have two roadways one

1:12:58 ↗ of which is fairly quiet in a West Ridge

1:13:02 ↗ South we did not know that the trails

1:13:06 ↗ were going West Ridge South came in so

1:13:08 ↗ far in advance of the other West Ridge

1:13:10 ↗ properties that we didn't know this

1:13:12 ↗ trail opportunity would be there I think

1:13:15 ↗ at some point in the future the city may

1:13:17 ↗ explore building a trail along here on

1:13:21 ↗ the west side of that road to complete

1:13:25 ↗ that you know provide a trail connection

1:13:28 ↗ but right now it would be either by a

1:13:30 ↗ sidewalk or roadway to make that kind of

1:13:33 ↗ okay great thank you and then if we

1:13:36 ↗ could go back to your plat map again if

1:13:38 ↗ you don't mind

1:13:52 ↗ [Applause]

1:14:00 ↗ that doesn't show up very well does it

1:14:02 ↗ no okay let's try

1:14:25 ↗ so another question then so the the

1:14:27 ↗ question about Park Drive not being

1:14:29 ↗ extended it looks like from the West

1:14:32 ↗ Ridge north lap map it shows a road

1:14:37 ↗ connection that we're connecting to

1:14:38 ↗ federal Drive yes yeah but nothing that

1:14:43 ↗ would connect into Park Drive so there

1:14:45 ↗ even if you extended Park Drive it would

1:14:48 ↗ just run into somebody's backyard it

1:14:50 ↗ looks like well I think that this again

1:14:53 ↗ because these have been pending for so

1:14:55 ↗ long the the West Ridge single-family

1:14:58 ↗ plat was changed right as they came into

1:15:01 ↗ hearing which I think because they were

1:15:04 ↗ treated as vested to process they went

1:15:05 ↗ in front of you VDC instead of you guys

1:15:07 ↗ and so the the city at the last minute

1:15:11 ↗ asked them to make a connection there

1:15:13 ↗ it's one connection for federal drive a

1:15:17 ↗ connection at Park and so the way they

1:15:19 ↗ made some modified version of a wound

1:15:22 ↗ URF was my understanding although I

1:15:24 ↗ think it's a little bit more Street like

1:15:25 ↗ than than a typical whoa nerf

1:15:28 ↗ but it is set up that it could be

1:15:30 ↗ limited so that only bicycle and

1:15:33 ↗ pedestrian comes through which it was

1:15:35 ↗ really what our recommendation from our

1:15:37 ↗ transportation consultant was that it

1:15:40 ↗ doesn't make sense to have a commercial

1:15:42 ↗ piece transition mid block like that

1:15:44 ↗ into essentially somebody's side yard it

1:15:48 ↗ would make a lot more sense to have that

1:15:50 ↗ be the bicycle and pedestrian connection

1:15:53 ↗ okay so we need it from a permit

1:15:55 ↗ circulation standpoint right so it would

1:15:57 ↗ I guess back to Richard's question that

1:16:00 ↗ would still there would be a known some

1:16:03 ↗ kind of trail bike path whatever that

1:16:05 ↗ would break up that block there yeah

1:16:07 ↗ absolutely okay that would match up with

1:16:09 ↗ the road thank you and then one question

1:16:11 ↗ I guess it just out of curiosity on lot

1:16:13 ↗ one and block a that border between lot

1:16:17 ↗ 1 and y 2 has a jog to and I'm just

1:16:19 ↗ curious why if you start with the blanks

1:16:22 ↗ light wide the jog and oh if you look at

1:16:27 ↗ so if you look at this one it explains

1:16:30 ↗ it a little bit better when we are

1:16:33 ↗ laying out the retail development and

1:16:36 ↗ where the various uses go it makes sense

1:16:39 ↗ to have a building there for several

1:16:42 ↗ reasons one as you come down Park Drive

1:16:47 ↗ it gives sort of a focal point to the

1:16:50 ↗ fact that that is then a retail

1:16:52 ↗ development we also saw that as an

1:16:55 ↗ opportunity to make the option of having

1:17:00 ↗ a what do they call it Festival Street

1:17:03 ↗ so if you have your shopping center

1:17:06 ↗ there if you're doing an event you could

1:17:08 ↗ sort of close off that street access if

1:17:12 ↗ you were having an event and make it

1:17:13 ↗ more of a common community space

1:17:16 ↗ temporarily that building location there

1:17:20 ↗ too was one that as we talked early on

1:17:23 ↗ with the community when I sat down with

1:17:26 ↗ Jeff Walker he was really adamant that

1:17:28 ↗ on your retail stuff you should have a

1:17:30 ↗ second story on some of it and so we

1:17:32 ↗ actually changed the application in

1:17:34 ↗ response to his his suggestion that you

1:17:39 ↗ could have some of the second story

1:17:41 ↗ maybe a second story restaurant or a

1:17:43 ↗ deck that looks out because there are

1:17:45 ↗ really great views from there so that

1:17:46 ↗ was an ideal spot for that as well

1:17:48 ↗ because of the way that the grade goes

1:17:50 ↗ there and so the connection connecting

1:17:54 ↗ trail then would jog around would follow

1:17:56 ↗ that property line and jog around down

1:18:00 ↗ to West Ridge North yeah I'm not sure

1:18:03 ↗ we'd follow exactly the property line

1:18:04 ↗ but yes there would be the so on the

1:18:06 ↗ site development plan we had proposed

1:18:09 ↗ sort of that whole back side or west

1:18:12 ↗ side of block a had some pretty

1:18:14 ↗ extensive landscaping and pedestrian

1:18:18 ↗ connection because we felt like that

1:18:19 ↗ built a good buffer between residential

1:18:21 ↗ because you really truly have somebody's

1:18:23 ↗ single-family backyards backing up

1:18:26 ↗ against that so where exactly and how

1:18:28 ↗ that connection gets made it's kind of

1:18:32 ↗ hard to explain without having that you

1:18:34 ↗ know kind of us but I guess I'm wanted

1:18:36 ↗ one respect the cars that come down park

1:18:38 ↗ into that center there if they came

1:18:40 ↗ through there their lights aren't going

1:18:42 ↗ straight into somebody's backyard then

1:18:44 ↗ that's your building there

1:18:45 ↗ okay I think that's all the questions I

1:18:55 ↗ have oh sorry

1:18:58 ↗ so federal Drive comes down and at this

1:19:02 ↗ point it doesn't connect into you

1:19:05 ↗ wouldn't be able to connect into West

1:19:07 ↗ Ridge because you don't have the

1:19:10 ↗ property that connects there right with

1:19:12 ↗ that actually polygon has built or is

1:19:15 ↗ permitted to build federal all the way

1:19:17 ↗ up to shelters property so the roads on

1:19:22 ↗ either side the stub from ninth and Road

1:19:26 ↗ up from West Ridgeway are already

1:19:30 ↗ permitted okay great Thank You TIA has

1:19:37 ↗ there been a has Fire Department been

1:19:39 ↗ engaged in terms of which access points

1:19:41 ↗ they need in terms of which we would

1:19:43 ↗ nurse they need to access or their

1:19:45 ↗ circulation around the properties I know

1:19:50 ↗ that with respect to the site

1:19:51 ↗ development permit applications that

1:19:54 ↗ that yes fire was consulted I don't know

1:19:57 ↗ if independently on the plat Lucy might

1:20:00 ↗ be able to answer that they have okay

1:20:04 ↗ all right one more question lot line

1:20:07 ↗ adjustments I presume that if you came

1:20:10 ↗ in and said we were looking to develop

1:20:11 ↗ this block you can do lot line

1:20:13 ↗ adjustments to do that right not only

1:20:16 ↗ lot line adjustments but short plats if

1:20:19 ↗ if there was further subdivision that's

1:20:23 ↗ a relatively simple process okay thank

1:20:26 ↗ you

1:20:31 ↗ question on a different subject the

1:20:34 ↗ hands show looks like on-site detention

1:20:39 ↗ facilities maybe those are temporary but

1:20:41 ↗ as far as the tension structures with a

1:20:45 ↗ structures bull grade or were there be

1:20:47 ↗ will there be detention ponds and

1:20:50 ↗ facilities integrated as part of the

1:20:51 ↗ development we don't anticipate having

1:20:54 ↗ any open ponds open times okay the

1:20:58 ↗ reason I raise the questions if you did

1:20:59 ↗ I was curious about how that would be

1:21:01 ↗ leverage in the development so okay

1:21:04 ↗ structured following question about

1:21:09 ↗ water detention on page 83 of 154 it

1:21:14 ↗ says fee in lieu of detention may be

1:21:16 ↗ paid to the city for impervious areas

1:21:19 ↗ not detained by a detention facility

1:21:21 ↗ this fee will be calculated at sixty two

1:21:24 ↗ point eight cents for impervious square

1:21:27 ↗ foot my question is what was used to

1:21:30 ↗ develop that yardstick is there an IMC

1:21:34 ↗ reference for that and the second part

1:21:36 ↗ of the question how much the impervious

1:21:39 ↗ area do you assume is going to be

1:21:42 ↗ generating water that's not detained

1:21:47 ↗ now you're getting outside of my ability

1:21:50 ↗ to answer that question I can tell you

1:21:52 ↗ that the that the numbers and that

1:21:54 ↗ calculation came from Doug schlep at the

1:21:56 ↗ city so he's probably the right one to

1:21:58 ↗ answer as to how that calculation was

1:22:02 ↗ was created and I think they've used it

1:22:05 ↗ for another project or two in Issaquah

1:22:07 ↗ Highlands as far as impervious surface I

1:22:11 ↗ would need to get my engineer to answer

1:22:13 ↗ that for you and we're happy to do that

1:22:14 ↗ I have a question that maybe Lucy for

1:22:18 ↗ that process because I write the same

1:22:20 ↗ question I read that or the question

1:22:21 ↗ that so if if you're not detaining the

1:22:24 ↗ water you can just pay a fee well the

1:22:26 ↗ water still I guess is there so does the

1:22:29 ↗ city then use those fees to create more

1:22:31 ↗ storm water detention it can handle that

1:22:35 ↗ is that the idea or so this is in the

1:22:38 ↗ applicants materials and so I don't know

1:22:40 ↗ exactly what the basis is I'm

1:22:42 ↗ I'm not saying that it's wrong I just I

1:22:46 ↗ don't I don't know exactly where that

1:22:49 ↗ number came from I do know that in as

1:22:53 ↗ Tia said that there the city has done an

1:22:57 ↗ evaluation of the system up there there

1:23:01 ↗ was expect excess capacity in what is

1:23:05 ↗ called the flows better splitter which

1:23:07 ↗ is this giant facility up near West

1:23:10 ↗ Ridge South I don't know

1:23:12 ↗ I don't currently know whether there is

1:23:14 ↗ excess capacity at this time and so that

1:23:19 ↗ would be something when we dig into the

1:23:22 ↗ more detailed review of the preliminary

1:23:24 ↗ plot that we would assess

1:23:34 ↗ more comments

1:23:42 ↗ you want to are more questions or just

1:23:46 ↗ go through comments we might have about

1:23:48 ↗ it yes there are no more questions and

1:23:50 ↗ maybe some final comments or at least

1:23:53 ↗ some common I guess my comm is that

1:23:55 ↗ terms of the layout of the plan that all

1:23:58 ↗ seems to make sense to me the not

1:24:01 ↗ extending Park Drive the extension of

1:24:03 ↗ federal and well some of these roads are

1:24:05 ↗ already in place and that the ones you'd

1:24:07 ↗ be connecting the eighth and I think six

1:24:10 ↗ deer laying all all of that the layout

1:24:14 ↗ seems to make sense to me and I think

1:24:19 ↗ the fact that if if we do get a

1:24:22 ↗ pedestrian path that goes High Street

1:24:24 ↗ all the way around it's going to be a

1:24:26 ↗ big benefit to this whole area its

1:24:30 ↗ otherwise I didn't see anything

1:24:31 ↗ it's it out to me otherwise that I would

1:24:35 ↗ think and say this doesn't work similar

1:24:42 ↗ way in as far as the the layout yeah I

1:24:46 ↗ don't see anything that looks no

1:24:49 ↗ inconsistent with with what you would

1:24:51 ↗ want to see in this sort of a mixed use

1:24:53 ↗ area I think as I mentioned earlier the

1:24:56 ↗ attention to how the connections work

1:25:00 ↗ the form of the pedestrian experience

1:25:02 ↗ you know bicycles transitioning from a

1:25:06 ↗ more busy arterial Street to onto the

1:25:10 ↗ trails etc that is gonna be really

1:25:12 ↗ important to the experience that you

1:25:14 ↗ create here so obviously that happens as

1:25:16 ↗ more development proposals advance but I

1:25:19 ↗ think that'll be important also we heard

1:25:22 ↗ some differences in materials here and I

1:25:25 ↗ don't know that that's for us to resolve

1:25:27 ↗ but on how to reconcile the differences

1:25:29 ↗ as its advances is going to be something

1:25:32 ↗ that you the applicant and the city are

1:25:34 ↗ going to need to continue to continue to

1:25:36 ↗ work on eventually will get to the end

1:25:39 ↗ of this and hopefully we'll see some

1:25:41 ↗ development happen before long but I

1:25:45 ↗ think as far as overall as far as the

1:25:47 ↗ plat layout is concerned out see

1:25:49 ↗ anything that

1:25:50 ↗ and serves me

1:25:56 ↗ so from a comment perspective I guess

1:25:59 ↗ being pretty naive about all this just

1:26:02 ↗ curious there seem to be a fairly

1:26:04 ↗ significant pushback from some portion

1:26:07 ↗ of the community small portion of the

1:26:08 ↗ community about some of the developments

1:26:10 ↗ some of the proposed development and I'm

1:26:13 ↗ just wondering where in the process

1:26:14 ↗ those those decisions get made or how

1:26:17 ↗ how the community has the opportunity to

1:26:19 ↗ have that dialogue and that then

1:26:22 ↗ obviously the continued difference of

1:26:26 ↗ opinion on which regulations are going

1:26:28 ↗ to control what the requirements are and

1:26:30 ↗ when when that decision gets made or how

1:26:32 ↗ that decision gets made so I'd be

1:26:34 ↗ curious from the city on answering those

1:26:37 ↗ two questions unless you don't want to

1:26:39 ↗ you don't have to sign in well I I think

1:26:45 ↗ that that will be up to the Hearing

1:26:47 ↗ Examiner because I sort out from a

1:26:49 ↗ technical and legal perspective in terms

1:26:54 ↗ of public comment those you know those

1:27:00 ↗ the land use permits the site

1:27:02 ↗ development permits have already gone

1:27:06 ↗ through the process the storage building

1:27:13 ↗ and I haven't read all of these in

1:27:15 ↗ detail but I know the storage building

1:27:17 ↗ is one of the things that has been

1:27:18 ↗ regularly commented on it was an aloud

1:27:22 ↗ use under the development agreement it's

1:27:23 ↗ allowed use under the replacement

1:27:25 ↗ regulations so I'm I'm not liking a

1:27:32 ↗ storage building is probably not going

1:27:34 ↗ to change that if that's a use that a

1:27:37 ↗ property owner selects so that's the

1:27:41 ↗ purview that's purview of the developers

1:27:43 ↗ to be able to make those decisions as

1:27:44 ↗ long as it's consistent with if it's not

1:27:47 ↗ allowed to use it's an all-around use

1:27:48 ↗ right so but we will look at those

1:27:53 ↗ comments in more detail and provide

1:27:58 ↗ answers to those questions even if they

1:28:01 ↗ aren't directly related to the plat just

1:28:03 ↗ as we do with any set of

1:28:06 ↗ comments we get from the public that may

1:28:10 ↗ misunderstand what's being covered we

1:28:13 ↗ want to answer those questions and so we

1:28:16 ↗ would do that within the memo and they

1:28:18 ↗ they would you know obviously that memo

1:28:21 ↗ as we said is going to go back out to

1:28:22 ↗ parties of record and by making comment

1:28:25 ↗ those people become parties of record

1:28:27 ↗ and so they would receive that and have

1:28:29 ↗ an opportunity to ask further questions

1:28:32 ↗ or hopefully get their questions

1:28:35 ↗ answered I guess in essence we you could

1:28:40 ↗ tell somewhere from the public that all

1:28:42 ↗ three of the applications including the

1:28:45 ↗ storage facility were denied by the

1:28:50 ↗ Development Commission to get to that

1:28:52 ↗ step to go to the Hearing Examiner and

1:28:54 ↗ so forth so if it was going it would

1:28:56 ↗ have to come up again I would presume

1:28:58 ↗ well maybe it wouldn't come up before us

1:29:01 ↗ I it would have to come up again in a

1:29:04 ↗ new format it get something like that

1:29:07 ↗ approved I presume I think some of the

1:29:10 ↗ it's a good question some of the

1:29:13 ↗ confusion is so some of you sat through

1:29:16 ↗ the hearings on the STP and ASDP

1:29:18 ↗ applications and major determination on

1:29:21 ↗ those those have been appealed

1:29:23 ↗ determination has been appealed with the

1:29:24 ↗ Hearing Examiner so that vesting issue

1:29:26 ↗ is going to be in front of him on the

1:29:28 ↗ SDP and ASDP applications where we are

1:29:33 ↗ thoroughly confused as of this evening

1:29:34 ↗ as we've been told that our platen which

1:29:37 ↗ is obviously related to them that's

1:29:38 ↗ laying out you know the property

1:29:40 ↗ boundaries for the plateau application a

1:29:41 ↗ separate application has always been

1:29:43 ↗ vested and the new replacement

1:29:45 ↗ regulations as does state law recognize

1:29:48 ↗ the plats vest so there shouldn't be any

1:29:50 ↗ dispute that we are vested in terms of

1:29:53 ↗ the plat to the development standards

1:29:54 ↗ and the development agreement the

1:29:56 ↗ back-and-forth that you're hearing on

1:29:57 ↗ that this evening is thoroughly

1:29:59 ↗ astounding to us and is the first time

1:30:01 ↗ particularly on issues like SEPA that

1:30:02 ↗ we've ever encountered the city taking a

1:30:05 ↗ different position than what they've

1:30:06 ↗ told us in the past with how those are

1:30:08 ↗ going to apply so it's it is a good

1:30:12 ↗ question it's one that we also have and

1:30:14 ↗ that we've been asking particularly

1:30:16 ↗ because recently the city has been

1:30:17 ↗ saying

1:30:18 ↗ to some standards but not all which

1:30:20 ↗ again is not consistent with state law

1:30:22 ↗ not consistent with their code and we

1:30:24 ↗ haven't got an answer from them at all

1:30:26 ↗ on why that would be the case so we are

1:30:29 ↗ also hoping to get some sort of answer

1:30:31 ↗ in this process to that particularly

1:30:32 ↗ before our application goes in front of

1:30:34 ↗ the Hearing Examiner because we didn't

1:30:35 ↗ think that would be an issue further

1:30:41 ↗ comments I have to say I'm used to until

1:30:46 ↗ 10 o'clock so so I appreciate I

1:30:51 ↗ appreciate everybody's at I wish

1:30:52 ↗ unfortunately both not affordable I wish

1:30:55 ↗ would add more participation from the

1:30:57 ↗ public because I think that clearly this

1:31:00 ↗ is a great opportunity for people to

1:31:01 ↗ provide input and have some discussion

1:31:03 ↗ and input into what's going on but that

1:31:06 ↗ being the case we take what we get and

1:31:08 ↗ we appreciate everybody's attendance and

1:31:10 ↗ we probably ought to adjourn thank you

1:31:13 ↗ [Applause]

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 (13)

Administration/Staff: Richard Sowa

Lucy Sloman

Land Development Mgr. Mel Morgan

Michael Brennan Applicant Team: Kevin Price Eric Evans

Shelter Holdings Richard Sanford Tia Heim

Shelter Holdings Ben Rush Jacquie Quarré

Foster Pepper PLLC Arthur Schulte

Alternate Gary Young

Shelter Holdings Brooke Shore Commissioners Not Present/Unexcused: Others Present: Mark Rigos

Alternate Zachary Lell

City Attorney’s Office Nischitha Venkatesh

Alternate Ray Liaw

Van Ness Feldman LLP 1