Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, August 27, 2015 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Mar 5, 2015

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Contacts Created in 1983, this commission serves as a policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah’s Staff Liaison future growth through continued review and improvement to the Trish Heinonen, Planning City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related land use Manager documents. Email

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Meeting Minutes from April 23, 2015

packet pp.5–8

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Mar 5, 2015

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

Meeting Minutes from July 9, 2015

packet pp.9–13

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Land Use Code Amendments

Christopher Wright, Project Oversight Manager Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager · packet pp.15–42

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 23, 2015

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

Our recent years have been focused on the State required Periodic Update of the Comprehensive Plan and the application to PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council) for Regional Growth Center designation of Central Issaquah’s Urban Core, and now we turn our focus back to the Land Use Code. One of the City’s policies is to keep the Land Use Code up to date, effective, clear and user-friendly for applicants and staff.

675 segments .txt ↗

0:29 ↗ I wasn't sure if they changed it. No. Good evening and welcome

0:35 ↗ to the August 27th meeting of the Planning Policy Commission. As usual,

0:41 ↗ the first thing on our menu is approval of the minutes and

0:47 ↗ we're going to go back to April the 23rd. And do I

0:53 ↗ have a motion to approve the minutes for April 23rd? Also move.

0:59 ↗ Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? Do you

1:04 ↗ remember? That's when we had the long discussion on firewood.

1:10 ↗ Seeing no discussion, I call for the vote. All those

1:16 ↗ in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Aye. Opposed?

1:21 ↗ Motion carries. Now we'll go to the July 9th meeting

1:27 ↗ of the Planning Policy Commission. Same deal. Do I have

1:33 ↗ a motion to approve the minutes? Does anybody I

1:38 ↗ want to provide, Ray, would you like to propose? You were here. I'm

1:44 ↗ sorry, I can't hear you. The minutes for the meeting on July the

1:50 ↗ 9th. I needed a motion to approve the minutes. Sure. Do I have

1:56 ↗ a second? I'll second. Is there any discussion? As usual, our recorder has

2:01 ↗ done an excellent job, so I'll call for the question. All those in

2:07 ↗ favor of approving the minutes, say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. I wouldn't

2:13 ↗ abstain for the record, just because I wasn't here. OK. We still have

2:19 ↗ a quorum, so they are still approved. Tonight we're going to-- Do you

2:25 ↗ have to abstain when you're not here? Or does it matter? You just--

2:31 ↗ We have enough people here to have maybe-- Right. OK. Tonight we're going

2:37 ↗ to talk about the land use code amendments, the changes that have been

2:43 ↗ made. And Trisha's going to give us an overview so that we have

2:49 ↗ the discussion so that our next meeting will be an open forum so that

2:55 ↗ we can have discussion from the community. So, great. Take it away. The goals

3:01 ↗ for tonight are to understand the overview and magnitude or not of the round one

3:06 ↗ amendments. As you see in your packet, we've got a lot of amendments we're hoping

3:11 ↗ to do by the end of the year. And we broke them into two groups,

3:16 ↗ the first being round one that you're seeing before you tonight. There's one section that

3:22 ↗ isn't ready for tonight that we'll have for the public hearing, and that is the

3:28 ↗ comprehensive plan amendment for the central plan. Because we were designated a regional center by

3:33 ↗ Puget Sound Regional Council in June, right after we updated our comp plan, the periodic

3:39 ↗ review that you all did, there's pieces of it that aren't consistent because they were

3:45 ↗ both running at the same time. And so the purpose of that is to, of

3:51 ↗ the amendment to the central plan is to become consistent with the comprehensive plan so

3:56 ↗ that both plans are the same and to recognize that now we are a regional

4:00 ↗ growth center in the urban core. Whereas in the plan now we talk about proposing

4:05 ↗ to be one and the things we would do if we were going to be

4:10 ↗ one. So now we're getting all that language corrected to actually say that we are

4:15 ↗ one. So that'll be coming, that'll be in your packet next time for the public

4:19 ↗ hearing, but I just wanted to let you know that's coming. The other pieces of

4:23 ↗ tonight, you may have noticed as you were reading through, most of them have nothing

4:28 ↗ to do with each other. Often we bring you packages sort of in bundles that

4:32 ↗ sort of work together. None of these really work together at all. They're different either

4:37 ↗ they were required by the state, they were required by the feds. It was something

4:42 ↗ that we noticed that was inconsistent. And so it was sort of this collection of

4:46 ↗ things that have been niggling on us for a while that we're finally able to

4:51 ↗ get to now that the comp plan is adopted and the central plan regional center

4:55 ↗ is designated. So that's why this first group fell to this time. Um, what we

5:00 ↗ want to know from you is, are there questions that you have or thoughts that

5:04 ↗ you want to share before the public hearing? So if we need to do a

5:09 ↗ little research before the public hearing, we'll be able to do that to make the

5:13 ↗ public hearing easier for you to work through when the public is able to comment

5:18 ↗ on things. So be thinking about are there gaps or holes in the information? that

5:22 ↗ make it not an ability for you to make a decision at the public hearing.

5:28 ↗ So we'd like to know that. And plus, we wanna talk a little bit just

5:33 ↗ to share with you what round the amendments for round two. Okay, any questions about

5:38 ↗ tonight's goals? okay and also we have christopher wright here who most of

5:44 ↗ you probably know from um from his long and varied uh career here with me

5:49 ↗ um he is he's one of the geniuses behind the code amendments i didn't bring

5:53 ↗ all the geniuses we will bring them all for the public hearing but if i

5:58 ↗ had to you know you've flown one friend is christopher i wanted him here in

6:03 ↗ case you guys got into the deep weeds on some of these he's he's the

6:07 ↗ guy so that's why christopher's here And plus he's so entertaining, so he just makes

6:12 ↗ meetings more fun. So the First Amendment, vesting. Vesting is a

6:18 ↗ big deal to us in the development world. I put a little sort

6:23 ↗ of a Wikipedia description of it for you all. It is that time

6:29 ↗ when a permit comes in, permit application, when it's deemed fully complete. At

6:35 ↗ that moment, those codes that it has been approved on, that's what entitlement

6:41 ↗ the applicant gets. And I have it actually wrong. Oh no, I did correct

6:46 ↗ it. But we had an audit last year from our insurance association and they said

6:52 ↗ everything was great with the code, but they asked us to update this section because

6:58 ↗ of the new case law that had happened in Kirkland last year. And so that's

7:03 ↗ what we did. So that's what this amendment is, is cleaning up our vesting provisions.

7:11 ↗ The second one, no relationship to vesting, is master site plans. We've used master site

7:17 ↗ plans since I was a young planner here. And they tend to be on large

7:22 ↗ pieces of property and they tend to be an overview of the vision and goals

7:27 ↗ of the big site. And they talk about utilities and roads and the big picture.

7:33 ↗ And then building by building comes in within the master site plan. and we wanted

7:38 ↗ to clean we've been using it for so many years and now there's fewer and

7:42 ↗ fewer sites that have large pieces of land and so we wanted to start fine-tuning

7:47 ↗ this tool because it's just not as useful to us anymore because our city has

7:52 ↗ changed so much so this one It changes some of the approval criteria to get

7:57 ↗ rid of the opportunity to do clearing and grading before the whole Master Site Plan

8:02 ↗ is approved and also to remove the provision that you can do an initial building

8:08 ↗ before the entire Master Site Plan is approved. and it also clarifies how many acres

8:14 ↗ one needs before one has to apply for a master site plan it used to

8:18 ↗ just say 15 acres and now it's those acres have to be developable to kick

8:23 ↗ in the requirement for a master site plan so those are some cleanups we wanted

8:28 ↗ to do with master site plan applications if you have questions as i go through

8:33 ↗ it's easy enough for us to stop and answer your questions in the middle or

8:37 ↗ at the end whatsoever What's ever easiest for you? And I might kind of chime

8:42 ↗ in as you're going through these. Sure, chime away. Yeah, so the couple of amendments

8:47 ↗ related to Master Site Plans, I think as Trish was alluding to, Master Site Plan

8:52 ↗ as a type of application is kind of getting phased out generally. Master Site Plans

8:58 ↗ are not done in the urban villages where there's development agreements. Master Site Plans also

9:03 ↗ aren't done in central Issaquah. So they're still in the code on the valley floor

9:08 ↗ and a few pockets around the city. But we weren't-- so in the next couple

9:12 ↗ of years, we may get rid of them altogether from the code. But we weren't

9:17 ↗ quite ready to do that full analysis yet. But there's some minor changes to the

9:22 ↗ master site plan code that we did want to make. And as Trish mentioned, one

9:26 ↗ of them was getting rid of the ability for an applicant to get a early

9:31 ↗ clearing and grading permit. prior to the master site plan being approved. 'Cause that was

9:36 ↗ admittedly a little awkward when we could administratively approve a construction permit before the city

9:42 ↗ council has even had a chance to hear and decide that master site plan. So

9:47 ↗ one of the things we're doing is getting rid of that option. The other part,

9:52 ↗ as far as the, developable area required for Master Site Plan. As Trish mentioned, mostly

9:58 ↗ what Master Site Plans were used for was for large sites with multiple buildings that

10:04 ↗ are going to be phased in over time. The examples I think in the packet

10:10 ↗ were the Commons over on Gilman Boulevard Pickering Place. you know, big shopping centers or

10:15 ↗ office complexes. And we're just not seeing that quite so much anymore, especially with what's

10:21 ↗ left over. And so it was not intended for sites that basically are just one

10:26 ↗ building in a parking lot that is going through a site development permit anyway. There's

10:31 ↗ not much value in doing a master site plan on top of it. So we're

10:37 ↗ trying to address both of those things. All right. Good. Good summary. Are there questions

10:42 ↗ on that one? certainly you can ask questions

10:48 ↗ at the end - that's fine this was a really interesting one we were working

10:54 ↗ with an applicant that does that makes assisted living facilities and one of the sites

11:00 ↗ they were looking at was single-family estates where they're currently not allowed and we try

11:05 ↗ to be collaborative and we said well you know it's it's in all the other

11:11 ↗ residential zones but If you can show us some information, some data that you've collected

11:17 ↗ that show that it's either, that it has less environmental impacts, less traffic trips than

11:22 ↗ the existing residential subdivision on the same property, we'll look at it. We'll bring it

11:28 ↗ through the process to see if anyone agrees that that's a good use of that

11:33 ↗ land. They did some studies and they found that it is less environmental impact. There's

11:38 ↗ a lot more ability to set aside the land than if you actually planted it

11:43 ↗ in all the homes that you could get on that. And what we looked at,

11:48 ↗ and then we have a map in the, the packet that shows there are nine

11:54 ↗ sites that would fit in this criteria and six of them are along Tibbetts Creek

11:58 ↗ that have the same attributes as what we had studied that have fewer traffic trips

12:03 ↗ and were able to preserve a lot more land than if you could actually put

12:08 ↗ the houses in that area the other sites that were not on Tibbetts Creek we

12:13 ↗ didn't do any analysis for those so we're not sure if it's exactly the same

12:17 ↗ environmental impact if it says if it's as much less i don't know if that's

12:21 ↗ the right sentence if it's as much less as it is on tibbets creek because

12:25 ↗ of the creek and the buffer that are there but we thought it made enough

12:29 ↗ sense and had a fewer impacts that it was okay to bring forward for you

12:33 ↗ all to to discuss and think about So that's this one. The other criteria is

12:38 ↗ that it has to be on a major street and those are listed in the

12:42 ↗ land use code because we knew that because you'd have sort of more of a

12:47 ↗ concentration of people and employees, we didn't want someone to be able to drive, have

12:51 ↗ everybody driving through a neighborhood to get to that. So that's why there's only the

12:55 ↗ nine spots and they're all on the major streets. Yeah, we're giving a surge of

13:01 ↗ applications for assisted care facilities, as you might imagine, kind of a sign of the

13:06 ↗ times. Not that any of you are anywhere near close to needing such a

13:12 ↗ thing. But as we evaluate, as we get all these inquiries, people interested in doing

13:17 ↗ these, we have been looking at the whole city and figuring out where all they

13:23 ↗ fit. And they are currently allowed in just about every single family, multifamily, and commercial

13:29 ↗ zone. They hadn't been allowed in single family estates. But as we looked at

13:35 ↗ what areas of the cities are zoned, single family estates, we saw there

13:41 ↗ were some large parcels on major streets, whether it's Esther 900 or Newport

13:47 ↗ Way or East Lake Sammamish Parkway that could be suitable sites for this.

13:52 ↗ So that's what we've tried to do with this one. Another one that's

13:58 ↗ totally not related to anything, the feds have updated their wireless communication facilities

14:04 ↗ regulations. and they wanted everybody to be in tune with them. And

14:10 ↗ so we're finally getting around to updating ours to be consistent with the

14:16 ↗ October 2014 provisions. And I know there's a lot of words in this

14:22 ↗ one because it's kind of a technical nature, but it's mostly having to

14:28 ↗ do with co-locations and how you process them and how they get approved.

14:34 ↗ Excuse me. Really quickly, the numbers and specifics as to this, were those also

14:40 ↗ taken from federal regulations or were those something that we came up with independently? The

14:45 ↗ numbers? In terms of what constitutes a substantial change under the federal law. That's coming

14:51 ↗ from the feds and also like the review time frames you might have seen in

14:56 ↗ there are coming from the fed also. Okay. Right. Thank you, Christopher. I didn't even

15:02 ↗ have to look. This one is a good one, I thought. While we were, this

15:08 ↗ is about affordable housing definitions and impact fee exemptions. When we were getting ready for

15:13 ↗ the July council work session on affordable housing, we noticed that all the different impact

15:19 ↗ fees that we have defined affordable housing a little differently and exempt them a little

15:24 ↗ differently from development because we adopted them in different years. And so we looked at

15:30 ↗ them in total and changed them all so they all say the same thing and

15:36 ↗ they all are defined as the same thing and they're all, the exemptions are all

15:40 ↗ the same way. And so we were, it was important to us and we told

15:45 ↗ council that we would get this going as soon as possible so that they were

15:49 ↗ all in line and all were the same. We worked with Arch on this to

15:53 ↗ be sure that everything was up to date, current, and just perfectly consistent. So we

15:58 ↗ were very happy about this one. Are there any questions about this one?

16:05 ↗ Storage of firewood. I know this was a favorite that we talked about

16:11 ↗ a couple of months ago, was it now? Council also reviewed this and

16:17 ↗ they sent it back. So we are back with point two to see if

16:23 ↗ this one works. And so we're looking forward to our discussion on this one. It's

16:28 ↗ a lot shorter than the one you previously saw a few months ago, but we'll

16:34 ↗ see if this one is a go or if there's tweaking to be done. This

16:39 ↗ is a perennial favorite. But we think that this one is pretty clear.

16:45 ↗ It's pretty basic. It seems pretty simple. But we'll see what you think.

16:51 ↗ Are there questions on storage of firewood? Yeah. I think if we're going

16:56 ↗ to do this, if I recall, the main issue had to do with

17:02 ↗ the gentleman that was selling it and had stacks and stacks and stacks

17:08 ↗ and piles. uh to the point where essentially i don't think this regulation

17:13 ↗ would do much he'd essentially fill his back and side yard with neatly stacked piles

17:19 ↗ of firewood but it would do nothing to impact the other major impacts of this

17:25 ↗ home-based business which as i recall were quite disruptive to the neighbors including the use

17:30 ↗ of a log splitter and multiple trips for which there was no viable way

17:36 ↗ of enforcing the home based against the home based business. So I mean if we're

17:42 ↗ going to do something, I think it has to actually address the issue. I mean

17:47 ↗ this really doesn't address the issue. There was, you know, there were concerns that were

17:52 ↗ expressed here in the planning policy commission. And then when we took the amendment on

17:58 ↗ to land insurers, Trish mentioned there were even more concerns. Most of the concerns about

18:03 ↗ the amendment before had to do with with the cap, the limit we were putting

18:09 ↗ on the amount of firewood that could be stored. - I think it was six

18:14 ↗ corns. - Yeah, I think it was four or five. So they were concerned about

18:19 ↗ the cap we were putting on the amount of wood. Also with the fact that

18:25 ↗ the home occupation aspect of it. Because I think, you know, there are a couple

18:30 ↗ of other people in this city that may be occasionally selling firewood from their home

18:34 ↗ that are not causing problems for their neighbors. And so we are, the biggest problem

18:39 ↗ with that, with a particular person we were dealing with is there was, the code

18:44 ↗ was just silent on it altogether. We didn't have anything that we could point to

18:49 ↗ to say, you're violating this. And the biggest problem there really seems to be just

18:54 ↗ as you might recall the pictures, just piles and piles of wood all in his

19:00 ↗ front yard. And so kind of the compromise to at least give us something that

19:05 ↗ we can point to to say, here, you're in violation of this. And really what

19:10 ↗ differentiates his situation from others in the city is that if the wood is neatly

19:16 ↗ stacked in the side and rear yard, then that alleviates a lot

19:22 ↗ of the concerns. I recall the two other big issues were the number of trips

19:28 ↗ with wood, which I know there was an issue as to, well, how do you

19:34 ↗ determine whether these trips are related to business versus personal use? I would say maybe

19:40 ↗ one way to modify that would include outgoing trips. Blocking the road, too. There was

19:46 ↗ blocking of the traffic. because of his way he was parking his vehicles

19:51 ↗ to load and unload um as this came up to the council i mean was

19:57 ↗ there any um further elucidation on the on the discussion of this i mean i

20:03 ↗ understand necessarily the amount of firewood may have been an issue but was there discussion

20:09 ↗ of the possibility of an amount of firewood per square footage something that could be

20:15 ↗ modified based on maybe the square footage of the residents or the square footage of

20:19 ↗ the overall lot? Not that discussion in particular. Like I said, they struggled with it,

20:24 ↗ just like you did. How to be fair to everybody and not just me about

20:28 ↗ this. And I do think as far as the number of truck trips in and

20:33 ↗ out and the amount of cutting that's going on, I would think that if all

20:38 ↗ of the wood needs to be stacked in the side in the rear yard, And

20:43 ↗ it just won't be so easy for trucks to just come in and out

20:48 ↗ and dump it and pick it up and go. So it's an indirect way

20:54 ↗ to address the problem. - So shot number one and see if maybe this

21:00 ↗ will resolve the issues. I would also, I mean, at the very least, like

21:06 ↗ to see a limitation on the number of outbound trips. so that someone

21:12 ↗ can't say it's for personal use. - It's just that's a monitoring thing that we

21:17 ↗ wouldn't be prepared necessarily to enforce that. - What about a limitation on the hours

21:22 ↗ of the use of a log splitter? Something like that would be fairly simple to

21:28 ↗ enforce if you get a complaint and you reject. - Yeah, yeah. CHRISTIE WOOD: So

21:34 ↗ aren't some of those issues covered in other areas, like noise in the

21:39 ↗ city and business-- and don't we have some kind of paper that

21:45 ↗ basically tells you what you can and cannot do if you're a business

21:51 ↗ in the city that you cannot do some of this whatever? And so

21:56 ↗ wouldn't that be in addition to this particular thing? So some of those

22:02 ↗ issues would already be taken care of. Right. Right. Right. Remember, though, he was claiming

22:07 ↗ that it was just for personal use and that he didn't have a business. And

22:12 ↗ so we had trouble with that piece of it, too. Well, if he's selling something,

22:17 ↗ he has a business. Right. Well, we couldn't prove that, though. And the noise issue,

22:22 ↗ there's a noise ordinance that has hour limitations. Yeah, yeah. I'm familiar with the noise

22:26 ↗ ordinance. I'm just wondering if imposing an additional limitation just for the use of log

22:31 ↗ splitters and limiting that in particular to certain hours because of other environmental issues. I

22:37 ↗ mean, it's got, it's running an engine, it's got smell to it. It's of a

22:42 ↗ louder nature than standard noise, whether that would be an additional measure that could be

22:48 ↗ taken that would specifically limit this kind of home-based business. - Maybe, like I said,

22:54 ↗ one of the concerns that council had was the implications, you know, citywide and not

22:59 ↗ just for that one person. So is council only concerned with the aesthetic

23:05 ↗ appearance? It seems the way it's written now, you'll have to pardon me because I

23:10 ↗ wasn't a part of the original discussion, it only addresses an aesthetic component. Is that

23:15 ↗ their only concern is, which to me is somewhat similar to what an HOA would

23:19 ↗ do and that doesn't exist in city limits or in these neighborhoods and it's kind

23:24 ↗ of a personal choice, unless they're rewriting code to have it also, as mentioned, deal

23:29 ↗ with, as you would a moving vehicle, like a truck or a boat or something?

23:34 ↗ Are they rewriting that to include firewood and similar to a boat? Basically, yeah. It

23:39 ↗ would be treated similar to boats and RVs that need to be stored in the

23:44 ↗ side or rear yard. Because this is a serious problem for the city is complaints

23:50 ↗ of aesthetic wood damage. in people's yards? This is a, because to me the complaint

23:55 ↗ read more that was focused on safety for the community being on a one lane

24:00 ↗ road, but this only addresses an aesthetic need. So I'm kind of confused as to

24:05 ↗ how this actually achieves the goal, unless the issue is that the community is overwhelmed

24:10 ↗ by the unsightliness of wooden people's yards. Is that what we're addressing? I'm kind of

24:15 ↗ confused because it seems like the one issue isn't being dealt with and what so

24:19 ↗ the council's concern is purely aesthetic. So then that is a something that's written in

24:23 ↗ quite a bit about. That's a big part of it. I mean, the other things

24:28 ↗ that they're concerned about is harder to address. CHRIS RODGERS: Wasn't there some-- I mean,

24:32 ↗ they were in violation of certain things. I mean, I can't remember exactly what they

24:36 ↗ were in violation of. But you just didn't have the teeth to enforce it, right?

24:40 ↗ And so you were trying to create something to enforce. MIKE BOYLE: Right. Well, we're

24:44 ↗ hoping to get out of this code amendment. Like I said, it's something in black

24:48 ↗ and white that we can point to and say, you're in violation of that. Because

24:52 ↗ the issue with that, was he selling it? Was it a business? Or was he

24:55 ↗ just giving it to his friends and his in-laws and his-- That was the part

25:00 ↗ we couldn't prove. The road stuff also is a private road that we can't enforce

25:05 ↗ any use or-- blockage of because it's private. So there are a lot of issues

25:11 ↗ involved. And like I said, the easiest, clearest one is the aesthetics. Christopher, besides this

25:17 ↗ particular gentleman that was mentioned in the previous meeting, has there been a preponderance of

25:22 ↗ people complaining about unsightly wood in the community in various neighborhoods? No. And I think

25:28 ↗ that's because people don't have huge piles in their front yard. I think for the

25:33 ↗ most part, people are doing this already. So it hasn't been a problem.

25:38 ↗ But in one case, it is. And this should fix it.

25:44 ↗ CHRISTIE WOOD: Any other questions? OK. That's a lively one.

25:50 ↗ The last one is a housekeeping amendment to clarify local newspaper and expanding the

25:56 ↗ definition so that when there are new newspapers like we have with the Iskwaw

26:02 ↗ Reporter that we're allowed to use those because they are local and it allows

26:07 ↗ us more options for outreach and public notices. So this is sort of a

26:13 ↗ housekeeping. You couldn't use the local before? We did. It said, as you might have

26:19 ↗ seen, it says the press, and I think one of them says the Bellevue Journal

26:24 ↗ and the PI. So we thought we'd clean that up a little bit and add

26:30 ↗ the reporter and then say any other that are in general circulation in case we

26:35 ↗ get new ones, we won't be tied just to whatever the old name is. Okay.

26:44 ↗ So that's all seven of them. And so from now, for the rest of the

26:49 ↗ next steps on this round one, we get to have discussions and all your questions

26:54 ↗ tonight and see if we have any homework we need to do before the public

26:59 ↗ hearing, which is September 10th. And then we hope at that time that you'll have

27:04 ↗ enough information and you'll be comfortable with the recommendation that night. We'll wait and see

27:09 ↗ how that goes. and then council will refer it to committee on the 21st and

27:15 ↗ on the 23rd it will be reviewed by the council Land and Shore Committee and

27:20 ↗ hopefully we're hoping for an October 5th action by the council so that's round one

27:26 ↗ and then round two is coming up fast You'll be emailed like you always are,

27:32 ↗ and we'll make sure you get the mailed copies, those of you that get the

27:37 ↗ mailers, by the 24th of September. And then October 1st is when you have your

27:41 ↗ review and the public hearing. And sadly, we couldn't find a date in there to

27:46 ↗ give you sort of a pre-review like we're doing tonight. So you'll have your public

27:50 ↗ hearing and your review all in one night. And then if you're comfortable, you'll be

27:56 ↗ able to recommend it to the council. We'll wait and see how you feel and

28:01 ↗ how much information has come out then. And that one would go to council for

28:06 ↗ October 19th, review by the Land and Shore Committee on November 5th, and hopefully council

28:12 ↗ action in December. So we're... We're tearing through some now that we're done with the

28:17 ↗ comp plan and the regional growth center, we're on the books for some code amendments.

28:22 ↗ So we'll see how they roll out. A lot of work going on. Are there

28:27 ↗ questions on the schedule? I think that's the end. Not on the schedule. I'd like

28:32 ↗ to go back a little bit. I mean, if we're going to lock down this

28:37 ↗ 1807-205 firewood issue, at least as far as the stacking, I mean,

28:43 ↗ the only thing i see is uh elevated isn't defined i mean

28:48 ↗ if we put at least three inches or four inches on there

28:54 ↗ i think it leaves the guy no wiggle room he may put

29:00 ↗ it on some plywood on the ground and call that elevated okay

29:05 ↗ and my understanding was that the elevated issue was to prevent rats

29:11 ↗ from nesting within the stacks right correct okay good one other comments

29:16 ↗ on that one you go back to site plans master site plans

29:24 ↗ I know that it's obvious that there aren't going to be very

29:29 ↗ many. And you go through a long list of criteria that have

29:35 ↗ to be met in order for it to-- which are great. In

29:41 ↗ my previous history of working with real estate and developers, is there

29:47 ↗ a time frame? I know you talk about if it's not approved

29:53 ↗ completely before something happens or a date Is there a date that the

29:59 ↗ city has? Once you get the plans for review, is it three weeks till you--

30:04 ↗ do you have a certain number of days to make a decision on this so

30:09 ↗ that developers know? I mean, it could go forever. CHRISTIE WOOD: A decision on the

30:14 ↗ master site plan? We have timelines that we have to review permits by. Right? This

30:20 ↗ would be -- I'll let Christopher take that since he's the permit guy. Once it's

30:25 ↗ approved or when we're reviewing it? When you're reviewing it, if there's a change that

30:31 ↗ happens during the review process and the developer has already put in $40,000 to get

30:36 ↗ it to that state, and you make a change and it's approved, it's not grandfathered

30:41 ↗ in anymore. It's gone. Is there a date? You know, that you have to have

30:47 ↗ an answer back in 120 days, or-- I don't know what the permit says. Is

30:53 ↗ that part of this? CHRIS JERRAM: No. No, not really. There's a couple things. One

30:58 ↗ thing that is part of this is when something is vested, right, when it's a

31:03 ↗ -- that's another amendment that we're looking at is at what point it's a complete

31:08 ↗ application. When we're reviewing an application -- I think that's what I mean more than

31:14 ↗ the master cycle. Right. Yes. That is an important point in time when the application

31:19 ↗ is officially deemed complete. They've submitted everything that's on our submitter requirements. It's in the

31:24 ↗ code that we require. That does a couple of things. One, it vests them to

31:28 ↗ whatever codes are in place at that time. But it also does start the clock.

31:32 ↗ OK, well, there has to be some-- Exactly. And that's a big part of that,

31:38 ↗ is it starts the clock and we have-- by law, we have 120 days to

31:43 ↗ review a land use application. That's time that it's in our hands, not time that

31:48 ↗ we're waiting for additional information or revisions or anything. So that's the significance of that

31:53 ↗ complete application. Just as long as that's in there. So-- oh, go ahead. I have

31:58 ↗ some questions about the vesting amendment. So number one is that I'm

32:04 ↗ familiar with this court case and it's a new statute. Do we

32:10 ↗ have to align our code to align with that statute? The advice

32:16 ↗ we got from our attorney is we could do more Then

32:22 ↗ that, but it would be risky for us. And so he recommended that we

32:27 ↗ do exactly in the line because then we're covered, the applicant's covered, because the

32:33 ↗ rules are the same wherever they go. Okay. Because I know in that court

32:39 ↗ case, you know, the developer had a permit, just not a building permit. A building

32:44 ↗ permit, right. So it was like a shoreline development permit, which I'm not, you know,

32:50 ↗ totally familiar with that and what that means and how much work the developer had

32:55 ↗ to go through to get to that point. But, you know, I... I work for

33:01 ↗ a private engineering firm, and I know how much work goes into getting all those

33:06 ↗ plans together and the permits. And so it could be very substantial. It could be

33:11 ↗ like $100,000 just to get to that point. And then the city says, oh, we're

33:16 ↗ going to change our mind. So, you know, there's part of me that feels very

33:22 ↗ uncomfortable, but I understand that it's a statute now. I'm no lawyer. Maybe you can

33:26 ↗ help me out with this. So, you know, if we need to align ourselves with

33:30 ↗ the state statute, then we have to. But, I don't know, there's something to me

33:34 ↗ that just feels uncomfortable because that just, I guess it kind of focuses or shifts

33:38 ↗ the power more to the city because you have to have a building permit. Well,

33:43 ↗ not so much a building permit. If you look through here, you can have a

33:47 ↗ plot, but... a preliminary plat. Like say if you were just to buy

33:53 ↗ a piece of property and you can demolish it, you don't need a

33:59 ↗ plat, but you just need a, you wouldn't need to subdivide. A plat

34:04 ↗ would be for subdividing. So you just wanted to tear down and rebuild

34:10 ↗ to the existing zoning standards. You would need to get a preliminary. -

34:16 ↗ Well, the quick and easy answer is that having a complete preliminary plat

34:22 ↗ application or a short plat, you know, that may vest you to the development standards

34:27 ↗ that are encoded at the time. A land use application having a complete, let's say,

34:33 ↗ site development permit, will vest you to the land use code that's in effect at

34:38 ↗ the time. A complete building permit will vest you to the building codes that are

34:42 ↗ in effect at that time. So it kind of evolves as the project goes through

34:47 ↗ the process. And what we're doing here is defining what that complete application is. And

34:52 ↗ we don't want to put too much in the code either, because every application has

34:56 ↗ a list of submittal requirements, all these different things they need to submit. We don't

35:01 ↗ want to codify all of those. because we do change them. We're always changing submitter

35:05 ↗ requirements and, oh, we should ask for a landscape plan at this point, or we

35:10 ↗ need to see the survey at this point. So we don't have too much detail

35:15 ↗ in there, but we want to have enough to make sure that it's real clear

35:20 ↗ when the application is complete. Yeah. Going to that, in terms of the expiration of

35:26 ↗ the vesting and the permit or the approval, it might do well just for

35:32 ↗ people on smaller projects that aren't necessarily working on a master site plan, but

35:38 ↗ to reference the IMC provisions as far as the expiration of those so that it's

35:44 ↗ easily referenceable to know how long you have on your permit so they can see

35:50 ↗ it there and know exactly where they have to look to I'm pretty sure

35:55 ↗ it's all pretty much in the same code section. I mean, if it is. Yeah,

36:00 ↗ I think it is. We can check it, but I'm pretty sure it's all in

36:04 ↗ the same couple pages. Yeah, and that's my only concern there. I mean, I have

36:08 ↗ no problem with-- I mean, municipalities are subdivisions of the state, technically. I did have

36:13 ↗ a quick question on the vested rights. There's a specific mention in both parts A

36:19 ↗ and C about the development services director and/or his designee. I was curious if there

36:24 ↗ was actual any kind of something in the code of who that designate is, does

36:30 ↗ it have to be another city employee or is that able to be a vendor

36:35 ↗ that they so choose to represent them? - No, that's actually a defined term and

36:40 ↗ actually you have the code. I'm not, I think it, I mean, it would have

36:45 ↗ to be-- I would have to be a city employee. And actually, we'll have to

36:50 ↗ change that because it would still say planning manager. And that's a good catch that

36:54 ↗ we'd have to-- oh, I'm caught-- that we have to change or update the definition.

36:59 ↗ Now that we reorganized, we have a different name. So that's why that was changed.

37:05 ↗ But it's usually somebody in the staff. It's either, it's most always the director, but

37:10 ↗ if it happens to be like the SEPA official, or it might be whoever the

37:16 ↗ planner is that's actually doing the project, or it might be the mayor's, you know,

37:21 ↗ the assistant city manager, it might, you know, depending on the project, that person might

37:26 ↗ change just by the virtue of what it's entailed. If it's a smaller one. it's

37:32 ↗ probably going to be the director. If it's a real high level one that has

37:37 ↗ bits and pieces that are more controversial, it might be the city administrator. I mean,

37:42 ↗ it could be, I think it depends on the level of complexity, if you will,

37:47 ↗ that would be that he would designate it to. But otherwise, it would always be

37:53 ↗ the director. That's helpful. That was one of my question was is basically if there

37:58 ↗ was language to specify the limitations of that designate. Right.

38:05 ↗ But you're right, we need to get the language right actually in

38:10 ↗ the definitions to change the, now that the name is changed. Any

38:16 ↗ other questions on that one or other ones? I have a question

38:22 ↗ about the estate parcels. The single family estates? The family estates, exactly.

38:27 ↗ So I had watched the Development Council meeting where this was initially

38:33 ↗ discussed and several questions were brought forward by residents. Um, the nursery, uh,

38:39 ↗ was worried about lighting to greenhouses, uh, specifically also, um, lighting of parking lots by

38:45 ↗ residents. I haven't seen anything that was addressing those issues. Right. And those are development

38:51 ↗ issues, whereas this is a policy issue. So those will get resolved in the, with

38:56 ↗ the development commission. part of what we're reviewing is the impact of the community. And

39:01 ↗ so to me that was important to kind of see how that they they were

39:06 ↗ responding and addressing to see, you know, we're we're looking at if it if it

39:10 ↗ should still be if we should allow this rezoning. And so I was curious if

39:14 ↗ there was any answers to those questions. Right. And this isn't really, this isn't a

39:20 ↗ rezone per se. It's a change to the permitted land use table. So it's not

39:25 ↗ actually a change of the land of all the SFE of the parcel to allow

39:30 ↗ that specific one. It's more general that would apply to all the single family. But

39:35 ↗ that's sort of the difference between what the development commission looks at. They look at

39:40 ↗ actual and site plans and bulldozers and buildings. So they have the nitty gritty

39:45 ↗ about the lighting, the landscaping, the parking, the dumpsters. Whereas you all have the other

39:51 ↗ hat that looks at the policies, the philosophy and the intent of what happens in

39:57 ↗ the zones and are they uses compatible and those kinds of bigger picture thoughts. And

40:03 ↗ I know some of you wear both hats. You're on the Development Commission and on

40:09 ↗ the... Planning Policy Commission or on the Urban Village Commission as well as this one

40:14 ↗ where you do get to wear both hats. But we wouldn't be able to resolve

40:19 ↗ the lighting or the parking or the dumpsters in this group because that's not our

40:25 ↗ purview. Our purview is more the philosophy and policy of the zones and the uses

40:31 ↗ and how that would be looked at citywide. so i would say that does have

40:36 ↗ a lighting code which specifically defines illumination levels acceptable illumination levels uh based on what's

40:41 ↗ adjacent to it you know whether if it's adjacent to critical areas or if it's

40:47 ↗ adjacent to other types of uses so there's a real specific lighting code that will

40:52 ↗ apply there that is the same across the city was that taken into account um

40:57 ↗ when looking when the city was saying that this would be less of an impact

41:03 ↗ than having it turned into the maximum density building within the area? Was that

41:09 ↗ accounted for with density? The application hasn't gotten to the point of having a

41:14 ↗ lighting plan, but like I said, with a lighting code, the amount of spillover

41:20 ↗ that's allowed in any particular area is the same, whether it's a residential use

41:26 ↗ or commercial use or multifamily. Right, right.

41:32 ↗ Does that help at all? Are there other questions on that one

41:38 ↗ or any other ones? No? See, head shaking. Do you have any

41:43 ↗ questions for us for homework? I think you've done your homework. Oh,

41:49 ↗ thank you. That's so nice. Do you have any inclination to ask

41:55 ↗ for informal public comment tonight? You don't have to. It's just a

42:01 ↗ meeting. But since we're always so happy to have public here, are

42:07 ↗ you so inclined? I'm very interested. I figure that anybody who's willing to come

42:13 ↗ to this meeting to have some input on some issue that we're discussing. And I

42:18 ↗ know they might not be able to come during the public hearing. So I don't

42:22 ↗ have a problem with that. And they may be a heck of a lot smarter

42:27 ↗ than us and have better ideas. So I'm all for it. There is always that

42:32 ↗ opportunity. Yes. Well, then shall I go sit down and we can open it up?

42:37 ↗ I will. open it up for public comment. We are

42:43 ↗ extremely happy to have people join us this evening. The

42:48 ↗ place is just jam-packed. And would anybody like to make

42:54 ↗ any comments on specifically what we're discussing tonight in the

43:00 ↗ way changes to the comp plan and the land use

43:06 ↗ issues? As long as they didn't come up tonight. No,

43:11 ↗ I know, but-- OK. None? Nobody? Okay, come on

43:17 ↗ up to the microphone and tell us your name and

43:23 ↗ your address. Hi there. My name is Todd Alexander. I'm

43:28 ↗ at 7804 Renton, Issaquah Road, Southeast. In discussion about the

43:33 ↗ zoning for the project that would be to the south

43:39 ↗ of us, that's the memory care facility. The concerns we

43:44 ↗ have... I don't believe that the Planning Commission is painting a

43:50 ↗ true picture as to what we have here. There's 22 acre

43:56 ↗ total and we have Tibbetts Valley that runs right through it.

44:02 ↗ So we have about 10 acres, I would say, on the

44:07 ↗ west side of Tibbetts Valley. And they're talking about putting in

44:13 ↗ 90 beds in a facility that's 34,000 square feet. And

44:19 ↗ It's zoned right now to accommodate for one home per

44:24 ↗ acre, I believe. 35,000 square feet close. Approximately, give or

44:30 ↗ take. There could be maybe six homes on that side

44:36 ↗ of Tibbets Valley. If you say, well, there's approximately four

44:41 ↗ or five people per home, that'd be 24 people versus

44:47 ↗ 90 beds and employees and visitors. that would come

44:53 ↗ to that facility. And when we started out this

44:58 ↗ discussion, the first thing that was mentioned was traffic

45:04 ↗ trips versus residential. Well, my concern is that there's

45:09 ↗ going to be, there will be tremendous more traffic

45:15 ↗ trips in a situation like this versus residential. That's

45:21 ↗ my big concern. Also, I just don't think, you know, if

45:27 ↗ you're looking at comparing what could be there versus, you know, homes versus this, we're

45:32 ↗ not comparing apples to oranges because, again, the other side of Tibbets Valley or

45:38 ↗ Tibbets Creek rather cannot be accessed without a bridge across it. So therefore you cannot

45:44 ↗ put 20, I think it was mentioned by someone in the planning commission, would you

45:50 ↗ rather have this or would you rather have 22 homes? Well you can't have 22

45:55 ↗ homes. I mean with setbacks, with the creek setback, wetland setback, you cannot have 22

46:01 ↗ homes. So to say, would you rather have 22 versus 34,000 square foot facility

46:07 ↗ that has 90 beds? Well, I would rather have the nine homes that right now

46:12 ↗ the zoning would allow for nine to six, depending on setbacks and so forth. So

46:18 ↗ this is a major impact to us. Obviously, we live right next door to the

46:24 ↗ facility that would be going in. And there's a big concern that it doesn't adhere

46:29 ↗ to what we when we purchased our property, And when we, you know, wanted

46:35 ↗ to move to Issaquah, we felt like, hey, this is, you know, zoning

46:41 ↗ is in place. The property will be used as it's deemed, as it's

46:46 ↗ been described to us, and there wouldn't be a change like this. So

46:52 ↗ we have to make our concerns. And I hope I did some of

46:58 ↗ that. Thank you. It certainly opens up a question. If you just read

47:03 ↗ the code as it's written, it seems reasonable. But not knowing

47:09 ↗ specifically the piece of property that you're talking about, that adds questions. And so

47:15 ↗ Christopher, would you like to answer that? CHRISTOPHER BORGESON: Sure. And we're looking at

47:21 ↗ this citywide also, right? So we're not just looking at this one proposal at

47:27 ↗ this one site. But at that one site, the-- one of the things we

47:32 ↗ were looking at as you mentioned was how many single family houses could be built

47:37 ↗ there at one unit for every 35 000 square feet and taking into account all

47:43 ↗ the critical areas and buffers which could not be built on you know there are

47:48 ↗ patches of buildable area throughout the site and we came up with a number of

47:53 ↗ about 24 i think between 18 and 24 houses that could be there there's 22

47:58 ↗ acres 20 22 acres, right. And is it not zoned right now to accommodate one,

48:03 ↗ approximately an acre per home? Right, 35,000 square feet. Okay, so then you take a

48:08 ↗ creek that goes right through the middle of it, you would subtract the 120, is

48:14 ↗ it 120 foot setback from either side of that creek? So that reduces down, and

48:19 ↗ that creek obviously runs the longest length of the property. So if you subtract that

48:25 ↗ setback, and then other areas that are wetland, Certainly, you come far short of allowing

48:30 ↗ yourself 22 homes, or you're saying 23 homes in a 22-acre parcel. The units could

48:36 ↗ be clustered in the developable area. Well, that would go into a different impact, right?

48:42 ↗ That would no longer be low occupant. So low density housing, that would fall into

48:47 ↗ something else. CHRIS JERRAM: It would be the same density, it's just they would be

48:51 ↗ clustered in the buildable area rather than spread out. So what would the density be

48:55 ↗ then? CHRIS JERRAM: The density would be the same. It's like 1.24 dwelling units per

49:00 ↗ acre. Would there be some minimum lot standards, though, to adhere to, not just density?

49:04 ↗ CHRIS JERRAM: There's a cluster provision that allows the units to be together. In the

49:09 ↗ single family estate zone? CHRIS JERRAM: I'm pretty sure. I mean, if it was me,

49:14 ↗ a single family estate zone doesn't sound like it should allow for a cluster.

49:20 ↗ No, it doesn't. And I don't think that was something that was an option

49:26 ↗ for us when we built. Well, I can understand your concern. 35,000 square feet,

49:32 ↗ 90 beds in a residential area? Yeah, clustering is allowed

49:38 ↗ in the single-family estate zone as long as the lot is at least

49:43 ↗ two acres, which obviously this is. So what would cluster quantify? Again, if

49:49 ↗ the density calculation would allow 20, let's say 20 units on that lot,

49:55 ↗ it would allow the 20 units to be all built in the buildable

50:01 ↗ area rather than spread out throughout the lot. - Okay, well I suggest it probably

50:06 ↗ wouldn't. I would say, depending, we would have to certainly look at all the setbacks

50:10 ↗ and subtract all the wetlands and all, you know, creek setback and so on and

50:15 ↗ so forth. But I think it would be far less than that. - 'Cause I

50:19 ↗ kind of agree. When I think of an estate, I think of a big parcel

50:24 ↗ with lots of grass and so if you would cluster it, then I kind of

50:28 ↗ think that wouldn't be an estate anymore, you know? Yeah, I think the state refers

50:34 ↗ to the density. And so, again, with the cluster provision that's been part of

50:39 ↗ the code for a long time, it would still, that whole 22-acre site would

50:45 ↗ not be exceeding the 1.24 dwelling units per acre. Right, right. So there

50:50 ↗ would just be more open space set aside. Similar-- I mean, the assisted

50:56 ↗ care facility, what that's doing is it is essentially clustering the development all

51:02 ↗ within two or three acres of the site. Which is-- So that the

51:08 ↗ whole rest of the site will remain permanent open space. Yeah. OK. So

51:14 ↗ have you actually drawn this up? Have you made a drawing of-- Oh,

51:20 ↗ yeah. They have plans. OK. Have you seen the-- Yeah, I've seen the

51:26 ↗ plans. So maybe as a follow up, you can

51:32 ↗ talk more specifically with Trish and Chris. And if there

51:38 ↗ is a possibility of making any changes. or specific things to

51:44 ↗ add or subtract that maybe, you know, you can look as the city planner and

51:49 ↗ say, yes, it meets these qualifications, but maybe there is something else that maybe they're

51:55 ↗ missing. And then if you bring it back at the public hearing, we can discuss

52:01 ↗ any changes that are made in that. Is that reasonable? - Yeah, you know,

52:07 ↗ I would point out there's kind of two, this happened in a two different levels.

52:12 ↗ One is before you is deciding whether or not that use should be permitted in

52:17 ↗ that zone, right? And that's what we're asking you. The proposed development will be going

52:22 ↗ through the Development Commission, and we'll have lots of opportunities to-- - That's true, but

52:28 ↗ you still have the philosophy of how much you can do and where you can

52:33 ↗ put it and that kind of stuff. And there just might be some other little

52:38 ↗ quirk that we are all missing that could add to relieve some of the fears

52:43 ↗ that we have. some of the neighbors might have. Well, it's a

52:49 ↗ concern. It certainly sounds like you have multiple interests in these type of

52:55 ↗ use, land uses. And as Issaquah, as we all know, is growing up

53:01 ↗ and the land is becoming harder and harder to come by. And right

53:07 ↗ now, Sammamish has got more lawsuits in place right now for builders who are trying

53:12 ↗ to get things done and who were promised one thing or another by the city

53:16 ↗ and now they're in lawsuit because there's wetland issues and there you know there's a

53:21 ↗ lot of developments now that are on hold on the plateau because a lot of

53:25 ↗ people are saying we've had enough of this you know there's no more land in

53:30 ↗ is a go on the plateau it's it's becoming very crowded. And we understand that,

53:35 ↗ you know, everyone wants to use their land. We just want to see it used

53:41 ↗ in the way that we thought it would be used when we purchased ours. And

53:46 ↗ the way we had to conform to it. And we hope that things aren't skewed

53:52 ↗ a certain way just because we're running out of land. Well, unfortunately, things can change

53:57 ↗ sometimes for the better. Well, right now, we look up at a crane we've looked

54:03 ↗ at it for a number of months and up on talus hill if you ever

54:08 ↗ drive by there you'll see a big crane and a big house you know senior

54:12 ↗ housing and they have the same kind of facility on that hill and uh right

54:17 ↗ now you know it's sort of like we're feeling like we're putting in you know

54:21 ↗ we're being put into a commercial space i mean when i see these kind of

54:26 ↗ developments in this kind of housing or use of land. It's around apartment complexes.

54:32 ↗ It's around commercial settings. It's not in a state residential. And there's

54:37 ↗ my point. So thank you very much for your time. Certainly opens

54:43 ↗ up a few questions of one of the things we we always

54:49 ↗ at least I think and hope that is the plot is

54:55 ↗ It's one thing to make decisions in a room, but you've

55:01 ↗ got to be out there and talk to the citizens of

55:06 ↗ the community and get all kinds of input from everybody. Sometimes

55:12 ↗ you win, sometimes you lose, but it has to be for

55:17 ↗ the common good. Are there any other questions, any more comments?

55:26 ↗ I'm Mary Moore, 7804 Renton-Isaacua Road, Southeast. I talked earlier, I think

55:32 ↗ at the last meeting. And one thing I wanted to add after

55:38 ↗ my husband talked was when we moved into Tibbetts Valley in 2000,

55:44 ↗ we hired a consultant to take a look at a piece of

55:50 ↗ property that we purchased. And when they hired an engineer to to

55:56 ↗ lay out the homes, it was pretty clear the zoning was single family estates and

56:00 ↗ we could only put in four houses on five acres. There was, you know, and

56:05 ↗ when you don't have a lot of money and you're trying to make any money

56:09 ↗ you can back, you're like, was there any way we can try to fit more

56:13 ↗ houses on here? And there was no cluster discussion whatsoever. The engineer that we hired

56:18 ↗ said, no, this is single family estates. You can only put in four homes and

56:22 ↗ that's it. So I was kind of surprised to hear that they're talking about this

56:28 ↗ cluster in the single family estate zoning has been around for a while because we

56:34 ↗ did this in 2000 and that's what it was zoned. And another issue I want

56:40 ↗ to bring up that when TALUS was going in, we were part of the neighborhood

56:46 ↗ and part of the discussion for that neighborhood and I

56:51 ↗ remember a lot of talk about our side of the road and

56:57 ↗ that that side of SR 900, the east side, would remain single-family

57:03 ↗ estates and create the wildlife corridor. I think there's some TALUS open

57:08 ↗ space. That was part of the negotiation for TALUS to do all

57:14 ↗ they're doing on they would have to to make some changes around

57:20 ↗ the area so it just wasn't, we were inundated with people and houses.

57:25 ↗ And we just saw a bear out in the pasture this morning. So

57:31 ↗ there's wildlife. The creek is spawning salmon in November. I don't know how

57:37 ↗ much of an impact that has, but it definitely, I consider a very

57:42 ↗ critical area and a part of Issaquah you just don't see anymore. I grew up

57:48 ↗ here. I don't know how many people were born here, but the change is amazing.

57:53 ↗ And I feel like you all have the responsibility to understand that and try to

57:59 ↗ find a balance and say, yes, we can have growth and we understand that and

58:04 ↗ it can grow in good ways. And there's a point where you have to stop

58:10 ↗ and say, okay, let's... slow down a little bit here. And I just want

58:15 ↗ you to consider that. There's a good time for growth and change. And downtown's become

58:21 ↗ great. And this area down here has been great. And there's a lot of good

58:26 ↗ things. But I just want you to slow down and think about the effect a

58:32 ↗ zoning change has. Because if this facility goes in, And then let's

58:38 ↗ say in a couple years they move out or they sell and

58:43 ↗ make their millions, millions, millions, who's going to move in and what's

58:49 ↗ going to happen there? I need to think about that because this

58:55 ↗ is where I live. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Anybody

59:00 ↗ else? Yeah. I'm Todd Sargent. Address is 2100, 112th Avenue Northeast of

59:06 ↗ Bellevue. I used to be the chairman

59:11 ↗ of the Planning Policy Commission back in the late '90s.

59:17 ↗ So as an alumni, I congratulate you on looking at

59:22 ↗ keeping the comprehensive plan a living document. So thank you

59:28 ↗ for that, for looking at things that inevitably will change,

59:33 ↗ especially since we're now designated a regional center. So

59:39 ↗ again, thank you for taking the time to review these code amendments for

59:45 ↗ the comprehensive plan. With that, on a positive note, unless there's no more

59:50 ↗ comments? We're not an attaboy. Thank you very much. But it is the

59:56 ↗ city that's bringing it to us. We're just making sure they're doing it

1:00:02 ↗ right, or at least trying to see any holes that they missed. But

1:00:07 ↗ thank you. I'm going to close the meeting at--

1:00:13 ↗ 7:32. As far as you all know that are here, I'm

1:00:18 ↗ always looking for a quorum. And it's on September 10th? I

1:00:24 ↗ think so. I'm probably sending out a notice pretty quick so

1:00:30 ↗ we can start getting your hours. Thank you. I'm a definite

1:00:36 ↗ maybe. Can I ask you a question? Sure. It's because I

1:00:41 ↗ wasn't-- I don't know the background and all this stuff. That's

1:00:47 ↗ why I don't say too much.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.