Planning Policy & Urban Village Development Joint Commission – Special Meeting · Tuesday, August 1, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3–5

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2018 – Joy Lewis land use documents. 2018 – Jon Stob 2018 – Carl Swedberg Membership 2018 – Lindsey Walsh The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2019 – Joan Probala seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2020 – Ron Faul several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2020 – Troy Rahmig members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire Alternate Members April 30 of the year listed. For more information, 2018 – Victoria Hunt see IMC 18.03. 2018 – AJ McGauley 2018 – Althea Saldanha 2018 – Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of December 6, 2016

packet pp.7–12

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH URBAN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

End of Development Agreements

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.13–16

▶ Watch from 0:34 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

The City has a number of Urban Village Development Agreements in place in various areas of the City. Development Agreements are a State authorized tools where contracts can be jointly established between a property owner (aka Master Developer) and City. The Development Agreements do not automatically expire, but may be terminated by either party after a certain Build-out date. For Issaquah Highlands that date is September 2017 and for Talus it is May 2017. The Master Developer for Issaquah Highlands, Port Blakely Communities (PBC) has asked to terminate the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement. The City will ask to terminate the Talus Development Agreement. In addition, two other Urban Villages adjacent to Issaquah Highlands, TOD (Transit Oriented Development, containing zHome and the YWCA Family Village) and WSDOT TDR (Washington State Department of Transportation Transfer of…

5. OTHER BUSINESS

Central Park SDP Update

Topics: Parks

1829 segments .txt ↗

0:11 ↗ all right bring it Barry all right all

0:15 ↗ of your word 6:35 Commission meeting

0:27 ↗ which thanked Lucy would you like to go

0:32 ↗ over commission membership which is

0:34 ↗ technically the first agenda item that

0:36 ↗ we often do well I want to introduce Ben

0:38 ↗ Rusch who's a new member of the UB DC

0:41 ↗ this is his first meeting in 2017 his

0:46 ↗ first meeting ever and it's first inning

0:48 ↗ in 2017 thank you for clarifying I don't

0:53 ↗ think we can do the minutes because we

0:54 ↗ don't have a quorum from the UB DC we

0:56 ↗ only have three members okay we'll see

0:58 ↗ if any more okay so this evening we are

1:06 ↗ starting the process of ending to

1:09 ↗ development agreements I'll go through

1:11 ↗ that in a minute but you'll notice that

1:12 ↗ both the U V DC and PPC are here it's a

1:16 ↗ joint meeting the U V DC has been

1:20 ↗ working with the development agreements

1:22 ↗ for 20 years and so it seemed important

1:27 ↗ that they were sort of the lead on

1:30 ↗ unwinding these but because PPC will be

1:34 ↗ getting whatever product comes out of it

1:36 ↗ it it we decided that having joint

1:39 ↗ meetings and going through it together

1:41 ↗ would be a good way to get the best

1:44 ↗ result having both parties participating

1:46 ↗ so that's why we're here tonight and

1:58 ↗ so I'm going to run through a version of

2:01 ↗ the memo that you all received and this

2:05 ↗ is a very informal meeting so feel free

2:07 ↗ to interrupt me as we're going through

2:08 ↗ if you have questions no need to wait

2:11 ↗ till the end so development agreements

2:16 ↗ these are authorized by the states and

2:21 ↗ they are contract between a property

2:24 ↗ owner and city they do not automatically

2:28 ↗ expire at least the ones we have written

2:30 ↗ in its quad do not automatically expire

2:32 ↗ there is a build-out period in which the

2:36 ↗ regulations are set unless both parties

2:38 ↗ agree to change the regulations and

2:41 ↗ after the build-out period they can

2:44 ↗ continue indefinitely or one party could

2:48 ↗ ask to terminate the development

2:50 ↗ agreement in this case port Blakely

2:52 ↗ communities who is the master developer

2:55 ↗ of Issaquah Highlands has asked to

2:57 ↗ terminate the iske Highlands development

2:59 ↗ agreement the city has instigated

3:01 ↗ terminating the talus development

3:04 ↗ agreement and the city is also

3:06 ↗ recommending the termination of two

3:09 ↗ other development agreements which you

3:11 ↗ can see on here the little pink area

3:15 ↗ right here next to the park-and-ride and

3:18 ↗ just north of Regal Cinemas is the Tod

3:22 ↗ transit oriented development development

3:26 ↗ agreement which is where the YWCA family

3:29 ↗ village and Z home is located and then

3:33 ↗ the wash that TDR development agreement

3:37 ↗ are the green parcels down here and Pine

3:41 ↗ Crest which I'm circling and Sun Ridge

3:43 ↗ which I'm circling are essentially built

3:46 ↗ out so because we're already going

3:48 ↗ through this work on it Highlands

3:51 ↗ we're recommending doing that but we

3:53 ↗ will leave we're recommending leaving

3:55 ↗ the development agreement in place for

3:57 ↗ Bellevue college

4:00 ↗ any questions what's the there is no

4:05 ↗ expiration period of what is the

4:07 ↗ lifespan of the Gulf College I think

4:10 ↗ it's that's a good question let me just

4:13 ↗ look at that

4:14 ↗ I think it's 2040 as my memory it's

4:17 ↗ longer than 2040 okay so it's longer

4:21 ↗ than the one for the residential

4:22 ↗ portions they got a longer opportunity

4:26 ↗ to build out and part of that was

4:27 ↗ recognizing that if you were actually

4:29 ↗ going to build a college campus it was

4:31 ↗ likely going to take longer than 15

4:33 ↗ years to do that so that was part of the

4:36 ↗ negotiation of them buying the property

4:38 ↗ in the first place so yes it is 2040 for

4:41 ↗ Bellevue college and 2025 for the

4:44 ↗ residential areas and since they're

4:47 ↗ complete that's why we were making that

4:49 ↗ recommendation so what is the process

4:53 ↗ the development agreements have a little

4:55 ↗ bit of process but it's essentially like

4:57 ↗ a rezone so we are required by the

5:01 ↗ development agreement to hold a public

5:03 ↗ hearing which we will do we will have a

5:07 ↗ notification process just like we would

5:10 ↗ with a rezone and we began this in the

5:13 ↗ spring of 2017 as far as funds right in

5:16 ↗ my eye so I keep stepping further and

5:18 ↗ further to the no it's the high window

5:23 ↗ actually so the screens closed but it's

5:25 ↗ coming right through the little slot

5:28 ↗ anyway cleaning so we started the

5:32 ↗ process in the spring with presentations

5:34 ↗ to this clean Highlands community the

5:36 ↗ Taos community the City Council and the

5:39 ↗ administration so what our staffs goals

5:44 ↗ there may be other goals but these are

5:47 ↗ the ones that we've identified the first

5:48 ↗ one was to retain the character of each

5:50 ↗ urban village second was to create as

5:54 ↗ few non-conforming situations as

5:56 ↗ possible by non-conforming we mean that

5:59 ↗ if something is legally built under one

6:01 ↗ set of rules and the rules change and

6:04 ↗ the building or setbacks or use no

6:07 ↗ longer conforms with the new rules it's

6:10 ↗ considered a legally non-conforming

6:12 ↗ menus now sometimes you can't help but

6:14 ↗ create those but it's our goal to try

6:17 ↗ and avoid that we'd like to have rules

6:21 ↗ that are more consistent with the rest

6:22 ↗ of the city mainly just to make it

6:24 ↗ easier for the public for the homeowners

6:27 ↗ associations for staff to just not have

6:30 ↗ to manage so many different sets of

6:32 ↗ rules but we're will we're going to do

6:34 ↗ that where we don't think it'll have a

6:36 ↗ significant impact on the character of

6:38 ↗ the urban villages and then the fourth

6:41 ↗ goal is to consolidate the Tod and

6:45 ↗ washed-out TDR areas into the Issaquah

6:49 ↗ Highlands which generally makes sense

6:53 ↗ because they were based on that

6:55 ↗ development agreement that their

6:56 ↗ architectural review committees review

6:58 ↗ the project so there's already a lot of

7:01 ↗ interrelatedness between the two so here

7:08 ↗ are some of the things that we're

7:10 ↗ planning on doing first of all we're

7:11 ↗ looking for places where there's city

7:13 ↗ policies guidelines and standards that

7:16 ↗ are universal things that don't affect

7:19 ↗ character that are that could be

7:21 ↗ consistent from one area of the city to

7:24 ↗ another we're looking at unique goals

7:27 ↗ and guidelines that apply that we feel

7:31 ↗ are part of what created the character

7:33 ↗ of that urban village and retaining

7:36 ↗ those retaining certain development

7:39 ↗ standards that we think are again unique

7:42 ↗ to that urban village so it could be

7:43 ↗ setbacks

7:44 ↗ it could be heights it could be other

7:48 ↗ development standards

7:50 ↗ now both talus and even more so for

7:54 ↗ istrico Highlands had very broad range

7:57 ↗ of uses so for example in iskele

8:01 ↗ Highlands it might say almost every

8:03 ↗ single parcel in Issaquah Highland says

8:05 ↗ the allowed uses are retail commercial

8:09 ↗ residential recreation when you bought

8:13 ↗ your when you bought a piece of land you

8:15 ↗ couldn't do anything with that land

8:17 ↗ unless you also bought entitlement so

8:20 ↗ you bought a piece of land and then you

8:22 ↗ bought 30 residential you

8:25 ↗ for fifty thousand square feet of

8:28 ↗ commercial or twenty thousand square

8:30 ↗ feet of retail so even though all those

8:33 ↗ uses were allowed the entitlement really

8:36 ↗ told you what you could do but then when

8:39 ↗ you go and you look at the range of uses

8:42 ↗ that are associated with that a lot of

8:44 ↗ them are again much broader than what's

8:46 ↗ been developed so we're looking at

8:48 ↗ narrowing that down to a smaller range

8:51 ↗ that will we feel will maintain the

8:54 ↗ consistent character

8:56 ↗ we're also establishing a private

8:59 ↗ community facilities zone the way

9:02 ↗ communities facilities are in the rest

9:05 ↗ of the city it's generally a public

9:07 ↗ agency city fire department school

9:11 ↗ district are probably the three most

9:13 ↗ common ones we're thinking of the

9:16 ↗ homeowners association as almost like a

9:19 ↗ public agency for the urban villages so

9:23 ↗ that where they own property whether

9:25 ↗ it's a park an open space a community

9:31 ↗ center any of those kinds of facilities

9:33 ↗ that that should have a sort of a

9:35 ↗ similar zone on it because that's kind

9:38 ↗ of held by everyone and that will help

9:42 ↗ the zoning uses and the way people look

9:46 ↗ at the map convey the way that land is

9:49 ↗ intended to be used how's that currently

9:51 ↗ known the urban village okay so just the

9:54 ↗ same yeah it's everything's owned the

9:56 ↗ same and these are this is land that

10:00 ↗ publicly used or some of its like kind

10:02 ↗ of in my public mix and I know there's a

10:05 ↗ large chunks of parturient

10:07 ↗ my reason I was smiling and looking at

10:09 ↗ Jennifer as she's been doing a very very

10:11 ↗ in-depth evaluation of every single

10:15 ↗ parcel to see the uses that are allowed

10:17 ↗ on each piece of property and the

10:20 ↗ implants so sometimes it's access

10:23 ↗ utilities open space recreation so

10:27 ↗ that's a pretty broad mix of stuff that

10:29 ↗ right in there okay but it's not usually

10:31 ↗ buildings sure unless it was like a

10:35 ↗ picnic shelters

10:37 ↗ but I mean that's part of what we're

10:40 ↗ still sort of digging through to make

10:42 ↗ sure before we put because when you look

10:44 ↗ at the city zones and that's that I'm

10:46 ↗ getting into the weeds but it will be a

10:48 ↗ good introduction for next week or next

10:50 ↗ meeting there it's not just a CF zone

10:53 ↗ its CF RR EC for recreation and CF OS

10:58 ↗ for open space CF s for facilities and

11:01 ↗ so to be able to decide whether it

11:04 ↗ should have

11:04 ↗ OS rec or facilities we have to know

11:08 ↗ what is not just what it's used for now

11:10 ↗ but what it's entitled to be to make

11:13 ↗ sure we're not removing a right so we

11:17 ↗ created a new CF zone are we going to

11:19 ↗ take existing TF zones and apply them

11:21 ↗ we're talking about using a new zone

11:26 ↗ it's going to have exactly the same

11:28 ↗ letters except it's just going to have a

11:30 ↗ P to indicate that it's private ok so

11:33 ↗ that we knew CF p zone that will okay

11:36 ↗ that's the thought right now sure and

11:40 ↗ then the last piece is a lot of the

11:45 ↗ central law standards started in urban

11:48 ↗ villages and then have gone into central

11:51 ↗ is claw and so where those standards are

11:55 ↗ similar or the same we would use those

11:58 ↗ rather than retain say separate parking

12:01 ↗ standards for the urban village and

12:03 ↗ central is cloth so here's the chart

12:09 ↗ that you received in your packet we kind

12:14 ↗ of divided yep so on that side if we're

12:16 ↗ going to kind of unify Highlands and in

12:20 ↗ central Issaquah so what comes out of

12:23 ↗ the moratorium process will also then

12:25 ↗ impact islands right so in these four

12:32 ↗ sort of pots that we are starting with

12:36 ↗ there's a group of things that would be

12:38 ↗ terminated because we don't feel those

12:41 ↗ things are needed anymore so the main

12:44 ↗ body is the main contract capital

12:47 ↗ facilities is certain kinds of

12:51 ↗ infrastructure and equipment that was

12:54 ↗ required as part of the development

12:56 ↗ agreement many of them had a master

12:59 ↗ transportation financing agreement in

13:02 ↗ terms of major roadways or building an

13:05 ↗ intersection or improving roads to the

13:08 ↗ project those have all been completed

13:10 ↗ fiscal highland had Quarry standards if

13:14 ↗ you've been around long enough it used

13:15 ↗ to be a quarry where Grand Central Plaza

13:21 ↗ is Grand Ridge and obviously no more

13:28 ↗ chlorines going on there then there are

13:31 ↗ its qualm Municipal Code or IMC

13:34 ↗ standards that we think are these are

13:38 ↗ the kind of universal standards that

13:40 ↗ were identifying so affordable housing

13:43 ↗ critical areas Environmental Policy Act

13:46 ↗ which is a state set of regulations

13:50 ↗ sustainability all of our utilities how

13:53 ↗ utilities are designed and built and

13:55 ↗ then impact fees so all of that would

13:57 ↗ use the city standards in the IMC

14:02 ↗ central Issaquah would be quite a few of

14:05 ↗ the standards and the whole central is

14:08 ↗ clock code would be available where

14:11 ↗ there weren't standards written just for

14:14 ↗ the urban villages so you can see there

14:15 ↗ quite a few and then the right-hand

14:19 ↗ column are the pieces that we're

14:20 ↗ proposing to take standards from the

14:24 ↗ development agreements and move them

14:27 ↗ into their own section to retain the

14:30 ↗ character so the goals and objectives

14:32 ↗ and urban design guidelines that those

14:36 ↗ appendices now would just still be

14:39 ↗ available for reviewing future permits

14:41 ↗ land use standards I've listed some down

14:44 ↗ at the bottom in thinking about this

14:49 ↗ there were things like parks plazas and

14:52 ↗ trails that had standards in the

14:56 ↗ development agreements that really don't

14:58 ↗ have an equivalent standard in either

15:01 ↗ central Issaquah or them

15:03 ↗ no code so we're proposing carrying kind

15:07 ↗ of a streamlined version of those

15:08 ↗ forward to cover either redevelopment or

15:13 ↗ development or changes in the urban

15:16 ↗ villages vous nurse if you're familiar

15:20 ↗ with those as sort of a shared

15:21 ↗ pedestrian vehicular area the centralist

15:29 ↗ law standards because it's got some more

15:31 ↗ density those usually have a separate

15:34 ↗ walkway even if it's on one constant

15:36 ↗ plane so where we've proposed a lunar

15:40 ↗ set of lunar standards that we've been

15:42 ↗ working with Eastside Fire and Rescue

15:44 ↗ and Public Works engineering on and then

15:48 ↗ the processing piece that we're carrying

15:51 ↗ forward that we're proposing to carry

15:53 ↗ forward our major modifications so for

15:56 ↗ those of you who haven't worked with the

15:57 ↗ development agreements before there were

16:00 ↗ a bunch of change

16:01 ↗ modifications kind of like

16:02 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

16:04 ↗ in the IMC world and centralized qua

16:07 ↗ world there were modifications that

16:11 ↗ staff could make and and that had to be

16:14 ↗ agreed to between the master developer

16:17 ↗ and staff but then there were certain

16:19 ↗ kinds of changes that you couldn't do

16:21 ↗ without going to council and so quite a

16:24 ↗ few of those were proposing to carry

16:26 ↗ forward going higher adding density

16:35 ↗ changes of use can't remember them all

16:38 ↗ but anyway there are things that again

16:40 ↗ we think would be a change the character

16:42 ↗ and a significant enough change that it

16:44 ↗ should be a council decision with public

16:47 ↗ input so any questions here before I

16:51 ↗ move forward yeah I don't know if it's

16:53 ↗ due I'm asking but I'm wondering if

16:57 ↗ there's oh thank you yeah for each for

17:01 ↗ each column that there's a way to for

17:03 ↗ those bullets to identify or strict or

17:07 ↗ less strict or something like that to

17:09 ↗ ensure without

17:12 ↗ knowing inner saying what what's from A

17:15 ↗ to B so it was this way in the

17:17 ↗ development agreement and now we're

17:19 ↗ adopting this utilities regulation from

17:24 ↗ the Municipal Code does that mean what's

17:26 ↗ the significant change about it as an

17:29 ↗ example okay there are we have so based

17:38 ↗ on Lindsay's question I had already

17:39 ↗ planned a question she'd emailed in

17:42 ↗ today asking for more better

17:47 ↗ understanding so first of all we'll send

17:50 ↗ links out with the next packet to

17:52 ↗ development agreement centralist claw

17:55 ↗ and I MC we have to some extent

18:00 ↗ maintained a list of some of the changes

18:04 ↗ that some of the things that would go

18:06 ↗ away I'm not sure that we could do it

18:11 ↗ I mean I think we can give you a sense

18:13 ↗ of whether we think this is a change or

18:15 ↗ what is being dropped but I I don't know

18:19 ↗ that we can even if as soon as I was

18:23 ↗ thinking the question I recognize that

18:25 ↗ it's very subjective and you know very

18:27 ↗ qualitative not quantitative so it would

18:29 ↗ it be helpful maybe if staff provided

18:32 ↗ the rationale for the recommendation so

18:34 ↗ in other words you know like for

18:36 ↗ utilities you know it's that what was

18:39 ↗ adopted and those development agreements

18:41 ↗ is either 15 or 20 years old and so the

18:45 ↗ rationale for somehow trying to you know

18:48 ↗ keep that alive for any longer that's

18:50 ↗ that's an easy conversation to have

18:51 ↗ right best management practices have in

18:54 ↗ the industry have just evolved over two

18:56 ↗ decades right so I think in some ways we

18:59 ↗ could do that that's that's a fairly

19:01 ↗ easy exercise because I think we know

19:03 ↗ the rationale for why we're proposing to

19:06 ↗ either keep in place to go to Issaquah

19:09 ↗ municipal code or to go to central is a

19:12 ↗ clause so that might be helpful for the

19:14 ↗ Commission's to see that thought process

19:17 ↗ and I don't know that that's really

19:18 ↗ unpacking this too far I think we could

19:20 ↗ probably do that would that be helpful

19:22 ↗ certainly that's what

19:24 ↗ excuse me certainly that type of thing

19:25 ↗ it would be very insightful and okay

19:28 ↗ we're going to an updated code makes

19:30 ↗ complete sense

19:31 ↗ I think commission members and probably

19:34 ↗ residents of any of the affected areas

19:35 ↗ would probably want to know it's

19:38 ↗ something you know lighting for example

19:40 ↗ I remember many lighting discussions

19:43 ↗ towel is here and others and if things

19:45 ↗ got opened up because we're adopting

19:46 ↗ things for central Issaquah standards

19:49 ↗ which might have very different

19:50 ↗ standards than a hillside standards that

19:53 ↗ would be important to say okay we you

19:54 ↗ know we've changed it this is what it

19:55 ↗ looks like

19:57 ↗ sure thank you or or kind of the same

20:05 ↗ question I know that you had meetings

20:09 ↗ with Allison and a residents up in

20:13 ↗ Highland did any of what they said go

20:16 ↗ into where you what these things where

20:21 ↗ you decided to keep or not keep did any

20:23 ↗ of that or is that down the road of you

20:27 ↗ know I think so as I said to taro and we

20:31 ↗ were visiting before this started the

20:33 ↗ city has a lot of experience starting

20:36 ↗ development agreements we're learning

20:38 ↗ about how to unwind them and so I think

20:41 ↗ one of the things that has been so

20:43 ↗ helpful about going out into the

20:45 ↗ community is the kinds of things people

20:46 ↗ ask about that you know if I have a home

20:51 ↗ occupation will I still be able to do

20:53 ↗ that if I have will fence standards you

20:57 ↗ know I mean it's sometimes very little

20:59 ↗ things that people were asking about but

21:00 ↗ they were really good questions in terms

21:02 ↗ of how do these things compare is this

21:06 ↗ significantly different and so I don't

21:09 ↗ think that there was any direct result

21:14 ↗ it was more making helping us make sure

21:16 ↗ that we were thinking through the kinds

21:18 ↗ of things that people were concerned

21:20 ↗ about and understanding if there was um

21:24 ↗ if something you know whether it was

21:27 ↗ going to be a significant change or not

21:29 ↗ you did listen to them and that's what

21:31 ↗ I'm getting yet yes we do try and listen

21:32 ↗ to the public when they say so I think

21:34 ↗ one of the biggest things that I

21:35 ↗ remember from the Highland meetings

21:37 ↗ specifically was there were a couple

21:39 ↗ different questions about land uses for

21:42 ↗ the properties that had not developed

21:44 ↗ yet so as Lucy mentioned on the previous

21:47 ↗ slide one of the things that we did was

21:49 ↗ take the existing land uses and come up

21:52 ↗ with kind of more of a subset a smaller

21:55 ↗ range we will spend a lot of time I'm

21:58 ↗ using my crystal ball we will spend a

22:00 ↗ lot of time talking about what's being

22:01 ↗ allowed to move forward and it will you

22:06 ↗ know it it affects not only the the

22:09 ↗ properties are undeveloped right now but

22:11 ↗ also as things might potentially

22:13 ↗ redevelop over time so those will be

22:15 ↗ very specific lists for one for talus

22:19 ↗ and one for the highlands which I think

22:20 ↗ we'll spend a lot of time on okay so

22:27 ↗ speaking of land uses typically when you

22:33 ↗ do zoning you know you for instance have

22:38 ↗ single-family 5,000 square foot lot and

22:41 ↗ if you were going to go out and develop

22:43 ↗ it you would say I have an acre property

22:46 ↗ and I'm allowed to have 5,000 square

22:48 ↗ foot Lots and that goes into it eight

22:51 ↗ times and therefore I can have eight

22:52 ↗ watts it's a little bit different at a

22:58 ↗ Highlands because part of an talus

23:01 ↗ to some extent the particularly

23:06 ↗ disciplines the master developer did

23:08 ↗ pretty small parcels sold to lots of

23:11 ↗ different people targeting different

23:14 ↗ kinds of product so you might have a

23:17 ↗ very expensive division of very

23:20 ↗ expensive houses across the street from

23:23 ↗ division of more modest houses next to a

23:26 ↗ series of townhouses next to a mixed-use

23:29 ↗ product and if we were going to do

23:32 ↗ traditional zoning we would have to

23:33 ↗ calculate the lot size on every single

23:37 ↗ one of those Lots and try and figure out

23:38 ↗ are we going to have some that are a

23:40 ↗ little smaller

23:42 ↗ conforming or are we going to pick the

23:45 ↗ smallest one and then some of the big

23:47 ↗ ones could subdivide so instead of

23:50 ↗ trying to do all that math what we came

23:55 ↗ up with with a little different version

23:57 ↗ since what we're trying to do is keep

24:00 ↗ the character that's there so if you

24:04 ↗ think about a single-family neighborhood

24:06 ↗ the zoning on it would have all the

24:10 ↗ development standards for single-family

24:11 ↗ heights setbacks uses but instead of

24:16 ↗ having a density size such as five

24:20 ↗ thousand square foot lot we just say if

24:23 ↗ you have a single-family lot your

24:26 ↗ entitlement is one house if you can if

24:29 ↗ you subdivide your lot you can subdivide

24:31 ↗ your lot but you have no entitlement to

24:33 ↗ put on that lot so it doesn't really

24:37 ↗ encourage further subdivision for a

24:42 ↗ multi-family parcel you would actually

24:44 ↗ be given a specific number so if you if

24:50 ↗ you've purchased 135 units of

24:54 ↗ entitlement residential units of

24:57 ↗ entitlement you would have 135 in your

25:00 ↗ overlay likewise if you had commercial

25:04 ↗ property if you had 90,000 square feet

25:07 ↗ that of entitlement that you purchased

25:10 ↗ you would get that on your property so

25:13 ↗ if you had used all of it you would be

25:17 ↗ done if you haven't used all of it then

25:20 ↗ you might be able to build a later phase

25:22 ↗ but you wouldn't get more entitlement

25:24 ↗ than you have right now and then what

25:27 ↗ would be the mechanism for creating new

25:28 ↗ entitlement in the future so that's

25:33 ↗ going to be a discussion item of whether

25:35 ↗ we want to do that probably the

25:37 ↗ mechanism that we've identified so far

25:39 ↗ is iskele Highlands is a TDR transfer of

25:44 ↗ development rights receiving site and so

25:46 ↗ if the community and council wanted to

25:51 ↗ keep that level of sort of flexibility

25:54 ↗ available

25:55 ↗ you could allow someone to you know if a

26:00 ↗ multifamily project was going to

26:01 ↗ redevelop and they wanted to have ten

26:03 ↗ more units they could buy ten transfer

26:06 ↗ of development rights and be able to

26:08 ↗ increase the density of their project so

26:11 ↗ what we talked about was both change of

26:13 ↗ uses and increase in density would be

26:16 ↗ analogous to a rezone which is a council

26:18 ↗ process so like let's say so right now

26:20 ↗ you own a piece of property the zoning

26:22 ↗ is multifamily and you have 200 units on

26:25 ↗ it if I wanted to instead build

26:27 ↗ commercial or retail I would have to get

26:30 ↗ the council to approve that so that

26:31 ↗ would be an application that would go

26:32 ↗ through process and ultimately would be

26:35 ↗ a council decision that's what we're

26:37 ↗ proposing at this point but that is one

26:39 ↗ of the things we get to talk about

26:40 ↗ through this process parks or open space

26:46 ↗ they would have certain development

26:49 ↗ standards or uses that are allowed but

26:52 ↗ they would have zero entitlement because

26:54 ↗ we're not building a use on there and

26:58 ↗ then we've already talked about changes

27:01 ↗ in the future

27:03 ↗ so unbuilt properties this is Dallas and

27:08 ↗ it's Highlands there are a number of

27:12 ↗ properties that are in the process at

27:17 ↗ Dallas there is this property which is

27:21 ↗ kind of colloquially called emmerich

27:23 ↗ here's the entrance and you can see the

27:26 ↗ ponds it's got a steep slope through the

27:29 ↗ middle and there's no opportunity for a

27:32 ↗ road connection so even though the part

27:34 ↗ of talus it would connect to sr 900

27:40 ↗ there are two pieces of property that

27:43 ↗ the city either own or will own this is

27:47 ↗ looks like a piece of park property and

27:50 ↗ it might remain a piece of park property

27:52 ↗ but it right now has entitlement for six

27:56 ↗ thousand square feet of retail and so we

27:59 ↗ would retain that but then there would

28:01 ↗ be a council decision if that was ever

28:03 ↗ to move forward same with a about a

28:07 ↗ quarter acre piece of property

28:09 ↗ at the base of the reservoir in Tallis

28:13 ↗ it is where the sort of construction

28:17 ↗ trailers are and it is entitled for tend

28:21 ↗ Welling units and then the last is a

28:25 ↗ large piece of property down here which

28:27 ↗ is entitled for five hundred and ten

28:31 ↗ thousand square feet of commercial they

28:34 ↗ have asked for this to be converted to

28:38 ↗ residential entitlement right now there

28:42 ↗ hasn't been a position from staff on

28:44 ↗ that and so that's just a question out

28:49 ↗ there for discussion at esquel Island

28:54 ↗ some of the pieces that are on here are

28:56 ↗ in motion but I kept them on here just

28:59 ↗ for discussions sake track D was just

29:03 ↗ the city owned sat and as part of the

29:07 ↗ West Ridge that's this area out here

29:10 ↗ development it was identified for ten

29:12 ↗ single-family homes

29:15 ↗ Westridge the 223 represents the

29:20 ↗ transfer of development rights some

29:23 ↗ affordable housing and remaining

29:25 ↗ entitlement that they have they already

29:27 ↗ have a townhouse project that has been

29:30 ↗ approved in that area and they're going

29:33 ↗ to be submitting soon on another

29:35 ↗ townhouse and a single-family plat so we

29:39 ↗ expect those to move through the process

29:42 ↗ this year and so those will consume

29:44 ↗ presumably most of that 223 it will

29:47 ↗ consume all of it the homeowners

29:54 ↗ association of its core islands owns

29:57 ↗ this property kind of across the street

29:59 ↗ from sip and cafe law dro they're

30:02 ↗ looking at building offices there this

30:07 ↗ parcel behind Marshalls is it's owned by

30:11 ↗ Sumitomo but Trammell Crowe residential

30:15 ↗ is looking at developing it and we have

30:17 ↗ received a land use permit for 135 units

30:21 ↗ which is there in title

30:22 ↗ entire entitlement this parcel here

30:28 ↗ behind Dix is what many of you who have

30:31 ↗ heard about city surf they have an

30:34 ↗ entitlement of 90,000 they're proposing

30:36 ↗ on using 10,000 and then shelter

30:41 ↗ properties owns a sort of reverse el and

30:44 ↗ they own about 1.8 million square feet

30:47 ↗ of retail and commercial what happens

30:53 ↗ for example would walk 20 if they build

30:56 ↗ something that doesn't fully consume

30:57 ↗ that what happens that excess

30:59 ↗ entitlement can they use it elsewhere

31:00 ↗ that's one of our questions so far is

31:04 ↗ whether I mean when the master

31:07 ↗ developers were active what would happen

31:11 ↗ is often they would sell it and once you

31:14 ↗ developed it anything you didn't use

31:16 ↗ reverted to them so the construct that

31:18 ↗ we've developed though that entitlement

31:20 ↗ is with that parcel so because it's an

31:23 ↗ overlay that goes with that property so

31:25 ↗ let's assume city surf only builds

31:28 ↗ 10,000 square feet and in 20 years

31:30 ↗ though somebody else wants to buy that

31:33 ↗ and then build a 90 thousand square foot

31:35 ↗ hotel that could be done under the

31:38 ↗ existing construct that we put together

31:40 ↗ so so I don't know that it transfers I

31:43 ↗ think it runs with that property right

31:46 ↗ I'm not I'm not suggesting that it does

31:48 ↗ but those are the kinds of questions

31:49 ↗ that we need to sort out is whether it's

31:52 ↗ transferable whether you know does it

31:54 ↗ disappear after a number of years is it

31:57 ↗ there until some kind of other City

32:01 ↗ process we're going to question here's

32:06 ↗ looking at the thanks the shelter

32:09 ↗ holdings operating the reverse out if we

32:14 ↗ are

32:17 ↗ apply new standards see IP standards to

32:21 ↗ that well they build that out will it be

32:25 ↗ built out to the highlands dinner or

32:27 ↗ would it be built out to the proposed

32:29 ↗ CIP standard if we made a decision in

32:35 ↗ this committee to approve your

32:36 ↗ recommendations I don't I don't entirely

32:41 ↗ know they are proposing to submit a plat

32:47 ↗ preliminary plat and final plat each of

32:49 ↗ those vests you for a period of time I

32:52 ↗ think that the question is what does it

32:56 ↗ vest you to I know it vets you to

32:58 ↗ certain entitlement and development

33:00 ↗ standards I don't know if it invest it

33:02 ↗ bests you to everything that's a

33:05 ↗ question that we haven't gotten to the

33:07 ↗ city attorney - I'm there sitting here

33:09 ↗ so I'm sure they have an opinion as well

33:10 ↗ so I think I mean if I heard your

33:12 ↗ question wide right Ron I think it's

33:14 ↗ it's kind of a kind of a Frankenstein

33:17 ↗ it's a little bit of both so so so and

33:21 ↗ then it's hard because we're actually

33:22 ↗ now starting to talk about what code

33:24 ↗ would actually come with this so some of

33:27 ↗ the things that chart that Lucy showed

33:28 ↗ earlier said there's certain things that

33:31 ↗ we're proposing either be standard city

33:33 ↗ code or central Issaquah but then

33:35 ↗ there's a whole bunch of stuff that's

33:37 ↗ going to be specific to the properties

33:39 ↗ in the highlands and to Tallis so for

33:41 ↗ example you know building heights and

33:43 ↗ setbacks and land uses will all be

33:46 ↗ specific to each of the post villages

33:49 ↗ but something like parking and lighting

33:52 ↗ might be central Issaquah right so it's

33:55 ↗ going to be it's going to be a

33:56 ↗ combination of some of this and some of

33:58 ↗ that at the end of the day at least

34:00 ↗ that's what we're proposing so that

34:02 ↗ we're not duplicating a whole set of

34:04 ↗ standards for the highlands and for

34:06 ↗ talus and then have one for central

34:08 ↗ Issaquah and one for central is you know

34:11 ↗ central Issaquah and then one for Old

34:13 ↗ Town I mean you end up with like 12 sets

34:15 ↗ of standards and it's low confusing so

34:17 ↗ so one of the things again part of the

34:20 ↗ proposal that's on the table is is there

34:23 ↗ standards and this will get I think to

34:25 ↗ what Karl asked for is there standards

34:27 ↗ we can use in the highlands and Talas

34:30 ↗ that from somewhere else in the city

34:33 ↗ that doesn't cause us to create a new

34:36 ↗ one if there is then that's something

34:38 ↗ that we may want to propose as being a

34:40 ↗ starting point if through the

34:43 ↗ conversation we have here you know it's

34:45 ↗ decided no that's a bad choice then we

34:47 ↗ can always either one develop a set of

34:50 ↗ standards for a particular subject that

34:53 ↗ might be village related or go with

34:55 ↗ maybe overall Issaquah not Central

34:59 ↗ Issaquah or I mean those are our choices

35:01 ↗ I think I mean I think one of the things

35:03 ↗ that Lucy said early and I want to take

35:05 ↗ you back to that is we're trying to

35:07 ↗ consolidate our codes and our rules as

35:09 ↗ much as we can

35:10 ↗ that's a I think we see that as a

35:12 ↗ positive outcome because right now we

35:14 ↗ have rules for the Highlands rules for

35:15 ↗ Tallis rules for centralized acquire

35:18 ↗ rules for Old Town and rules for the

35:20 ↗ rest of the city and that's a lot of

35:22 ↗ different rules to try and get right and

35:24 ↗ keep track of so so what would be the

35:29 ↗ public benefit of going with moving

35:34 ↗ forward with the CIP now these

35:37 ↗ properties are going to be developed

35:39 ↗ then maybe to the CIP standards so is

35:42 ↗ there a public benefit for us to do that

35:46 ↗ because it sounds like they may have the

35:49 ↗ option of being built out of character

35:51 ↗ using different standards that may not

35:54 ↗ be it might change the character of the

35:58 ↗ buildings as opposed to the environments

36:00 ↗ of being so the centralist clause

36:03 ↗ standards that we are proposing are ones

36:06 ↗ that are very similar or the same as the

36:11 ↗ ones that are in the urban villages now

36:14 ↗ and so those were not that's why we're

36:19 ↗ retaining certain standards just for the

36:22 ↗ urban villages because we feel those are

36:24 ↗ the standards that are essential to

36:28 ↗ retaining the character so this is a

36:33 ↗ administrative optimization

36:35 ↗ as opposed to a public benefit I

36:38 ↗ disagree I that isn't what I thought was

36:40 ↗ a questions plan I think it's a balance

36:42 ↗ I mean I think what we're trying to do

36:44 ↗ is so our perspective and this is part

36:48 ↗ of the conversation is you know Issaquah

36:51 ↗ has very unique and identifiable

36:53 ↗ neighborhoods and I think one of the

36:55 ↗ things that we're not trying to do with

36:57 ↗ this process is turn Issaquah Highlands

37:00 ↗ and talus into central Issaquah we

37:03 ↗ believe that there's value to

37:06 ↗ maintaining the distinction between the

37:09 ↗ neighborhoods and so how do you do that

37:11 ↗ and and bring forward some codes that

37:14 ↗ allow those differences to continue

37:17 ↗ without having completely three

37:20 ↗ different sets of standards so so we've

37:22 ↗ I think so we've gone through the mental

37:24 ↗ exercise of saying okay what what is is

37:29 ↗ close enough and some of those we think

37:32 ↗ are close enough to what's in the

37:34 ↗ development agreement now to say you

37:35 ↗ know what let's go ahead and pick these

37:37 ↗ things and we'll go through that

37:39 ↗ conversation I think maybe next time but

37:42 ↗ then what Lucy said earlier and and for

37:45 ↗ those of you who haven't used the

37:47 ↗ development agreements very much you

37:49 ↗ know taking the existing urban design

37:55 ↗ guidelines for Issaquah Highlands and

37:58 ↗ just adopting it by code that is that's

38:01 ↗ 64 pages in and of itself that talks

38:04 ↗ about neighborhood types and landscaping

38:06 ↗ and so that character piece one of the

38:09 ↗ things that we started to do was to say

38:11 ↗ well maybe we could summarize those you

38:14 ↗ know and then it started to be what wait

38:15 ↗ we don't we as staff don't want to pick

38:17 ↗ and choose what might be important to

38:19 ↗ the community let's just take the

38:21 ↗ existing character piece which we think

38:23 ↗ are the design guidelines and just

38:26 ↗ basically attach them to the ordinance

38:28 ↗ which creates the new code and so it'll

38:31 ↗ stay as they are for all time until

38:35 ↗ somebody wants to change them in the

38:37 ↗ future so that's that was a starting

38:39 ↗ space because I think we saw the value

38:41 ↗ of not you we think that the folks that

38:45 ↗ live in talat like tablets we think the

38:47 ↗ people that live in the highlands

38:49 ↗ the islands and maintaining those

38:51 ↗ distinctions as part of this process is

38:54 ↗ an important outcome so so whether we've

38:58 ↗ constructed this the right way or it

39:00 ↗ needs to maybe get tweaked a little bit

39:03 ↗ I think as an outcome hopefully we can

39:05 ↗ point to our outcome and say yes this

39:07 ↗ will keep those neighborhoods feeling

39:10 ↗ distinct and different because I think

39:11 ↗ there's some value to that and and one

39:14 ↗ thing I would add Ron is that while

39:17 ↗ we're seeing some value for staff we see

39:21 ↗ that value in terms of simplifying the

39:24 ↗ rules as being even more important to

39:26 ↗ the public because right now we get

39:29 ↗ calls people have a hard time figuring

39:31 ↗ out what you know am I in the Municipal

39:35 ↗ Code am I going to central Issaquah do I

39:38 ↗ need to find a development agreement

39:39 ↗ online that whole that's that's just

39:42 ↗ it's a quad that it's not something that

39:44 ↗ happens in other cities it isn't doesn't

39:47 ↗ make it particularly easy for the public

39:49 ↗ to know which set of rules if I want to

39:51 ↗ build a deck which set of rules do I use

39:53 ↗ well you start here and then you go

39:54 ↗ there you know you need a guide dog to

39:57 ↗ get through it all so I think what so I

40:00 ↗ think we think that that's not only

40:02 ↗ advantageous to staff but even more

40:04 ↗ advantageous to the public yeah I think

40:07 ↗ towards the end it would be helpful to

40:09 ↗ know pros and cons of both options that

40:14 ↗ way we can please Mike and when you say

40:19 ↗ both options can you tell me what

40:20 ↗ options you're talking about so the

40:23 ↗ option of keeping the development

40:26 ↗ agreement in place for the properties

40:28 ↗ that are unbuilt versus going to the CIP

40:35 ↗ I think it's probably a more complicated

40:38 ↗ question than what is provided in the

40:41 ↗ packet but having the understanding of

40:44 ↗ what are the pros and cons would help me

40:45 ↗ make a decision

40:46 ↗ okay thank you so I think I ran through

40:54 ↗ all of that okay

40:56 ↗ this was a slide we put together when we

40:58 ↗ presented to Council this spring and

41:00 ↗ thought it might be a helpful thing to

41:02 ↗ discuss with the Commission's why some

41:07 ↗ of the urban villages might not want

41:08 ↗ this so one thing that we're proposing

41:11 ↗ is to use the current critical area

41:15 ↗ standards it's been 20 years and best

41:21 ↗ available science has changed a lot and

41:24 ↗ so the buffers for streams and wetlands

41:29 ↗ have increased which means that some

41:33 ↗ properties that are near those streams

41:37 ↗ and wetlands may be in may become

41:41 ↗ non-conforming now I think the thing I

41:44 ↗ want to say is this has happened for all

41:49 ↗ eternity in the city of his quad you can

41:52 ↗ imagine that homes that were built in

41:55 ↗ the early days of Issaquah near the

41:58 ↗ creeks on the creeks virtually in the

42:00 ↗ creeks have gone through this and so it

42:03 ↗ does not mean that a home that is now

42:08 ↗ non-conforming because the critical area

42:10 ↗ can never change nothing can happen but

42:13 ↗ there are some more restrictions on what

42:16 ↗ can happen with a single-family home if

42:18 ↗ they want to add a deck they may have

42:22 ↗ fewer options about where that deck

42:24 ↗ could go second is I think some of them

42:28 ↗ might be helpful as waiting for this

42:30 ↗ process is to maybe quantify I mean it

42:33 ↗ is I mean better that whatever you have

42:36 ↗ so we are we're we're trying to do that

42:38 ↗ but States made it really hard and the

42:41 ↗ reason is that up until the last change

42:44 ↗ which happened a year or two ago buffers

42:46 ↗ were specific

42:48 ↗ they are no longer a specific number it

42:51 ↗ is an evaluation based on a number of

42:53 ↗ criteria in terms of the habitat value

42:57 ↗ the quality or classification of the

43:01 ↗ critical area so there's this whole list

43:03 ↗ and so the buck you do not know the

43:05 ↗ buffer until you've gone through that

43:07 ↗ evaluation so so how does if I'm a

43:10 ↗ homeowner who's near ish Creek

43:13 ↗ how do I know if I'm at risk of being

43:17 ↗ impacted and or even then more

43:18 ↗ importantly after we make a decision how

43:21 ↗ do they know if they've been impacted so

43:23 ↗ that when sometimes them to build the

43:25 ↗ deck secures from now they have they're

43:27 ↗ even aware of like any change so one

43:30 ↗ thing that we have talked about doing

43:32 ↗ and we're attempting I'm looking at

43:34 ↗ Jennifer kosygin's

43:35 ↗ she's our kind of been coordinating a

43:38 ↗ lot with the GIS staff we're trying to

43:42 ↗ look at the buffers before the last

43:45 ↗ change to see what how many of how much

43:48 ↗ that affected homes outside of the

43:51 ↗ established critical area tracts with

43:54 ↗ the idea being the old numbers are a

43:56 ↗ good approximation of the new it not be

43:59 ↗ an approximation but it would at least

44:00 ↗ give us a starting point but when a

44:04 ↗ homeowner wanted to do something they

44:07 ↗ might have to go out and hire someone to

44:10 ↗ do an evaluation can you can you

44:18 ↗ quantify how many homeowners will then

44:20 ↗ need to do that evaluation I made this

44:24 ↗ movie this is more of as he keep a

44:25 ↗ question so what does this mean that if

44:27 ↗ I'm a homeowner that's not near a

44:30 ↗ creek and I want to build the deck do I

44:31 ↗ still need to go and pay someone to do

44:32 ↗ an evaluation but we would have to I

44:35 ↗ mean I understand your question because

44:37 ↗ it's how do how does staff for instance

44:39 ↗ even know to let someone know that they

44:41 ↗ need to do this exactly it's a good

44:43 ↗ question it you know frankly we did not

44:48 ↗ want to go to this new system because

44:50 ↗ it's unpredictable and it's

44:52 ↗ unpredictable for everyone but this is

44:55 ↗ but this particular thing is a state law

44:57 ↗ so doesn't it apply whether or not

45:00 ↗ you're using

45:02 ↗ an agreement or Issaquah municipal

45:04 ↗ standards aren't they both so SEPA state

45:07 ↗ law the critical area standards are

45:09 ↗ administered by a state agency they

45:12 ↗ require that each city adopt new

45:16 ↗ regulations to implement this new

45:21 ↗ approach so going back to the web Ron

45:24 ↗ poser with we have two options kind of a

45:26 ↗ keep or a change don't both of those

45:29 ↗ need to meet the critical area

45:32 ↗ requirements since they're both under

45:34 ↗ state law so so staff I mean so you guys

45:38 ↗ think there's an option in front of you

45:41 ↗ and you may and you may ultimately

45:43 ↗ recommend that we set in stone standards

45:47 ↗ that are twenty years old for wetlands

45:49 ↗ because that's that's great right right

45:51 ↗ you know staffs not going to support

45:52 ↗ that and we're going to tell you all the

45:53 ↗ reasons why we think that's a bad idea

45:54 ↗ and and and the fact that it happens all

45:58 ↗ through the rest of the city so what

46:00 ↗ part of this conversation is us

46:02 ↗ hopefully convincing you that we've kind

46:04 ↗ of put it in the right spot and if you

46:07 ↗ guys altima don't agree you guys can

46:09 ↗ always recommend something else but I

46:11 ↗ think staffs going to say that there's a

46:13 ↗ lot of reasons why we would not say

46:16 ↗ preserve the existing wetland regulation

46:18 ↗ on the other hand we do recognize that

46:21 ↗ we need to help the Commission's the

46:25 ↗ council staff and homeowners understand

46:27 ↗ the possible magnitude of no I I get

46:31 ↗ that and I'm from everything I've seen

46:33 ↗ so far I think this is this is all that

46:35 ↗ this is all what should should be

46:36 ↗ happening I think my question is more

46:38 ↗ I'm wondering why we're highlighting the

46:40 ↗ change in critical area requirements if

46:43 ↗ regardless of what we do we still have

46:46 ↗ to meet the state critical area

46:48 ↗ requirements I think we were just trying

46:50 ↗ to let you guys know that there might be

46:52 ↗ a number of people that might see this

46:55 ↗ as being a bad evolution for them

46:57 ↗ personally based on their own housing

47:00 ↗ situation right so it's it's not it's

47:03 ↗ not that that we don't have some things

47:06 ↗ that we need to do it's just that there

47:08 ↗ might be a number of people that say we

47:09 ↗ shouldn't do this well and and I so I

47:12 ↗ think that we're trying

47:14 ↗ as best we can with with a lot of

47:17 ↗ complexity to highlight we're trying to

47:20 ↗ be transparent about potential outcomes

47:23 ↗ of this so we may not have a choice but

47:28 ↗ we wouldn't we're trying to avoid the

47:30 ↗ surprise I think and I think that's what

47:32 ↗ I think maybe that that's I'm trying to

47:33 ↗ drive I feel like whether or not we want

47:35 ↗ to use a centralized across street light

47:37 ↗ requirement or a difference rely

47:38 ↗ requirement is something the city has

47:40 ↗ complete control over whether or not we

47:42 ↗ meet the new state critical air

47:44 ↗ requirements we have to do that

47:47 ↗ regardless of what we want to do is I

47:49 ↗ think it might be helpful especially

47:50 ↗ when in doing Public Engagement to

47:53 ↗ differentiate between look we need to

47:55 ↗ meet these critical area requirements

47:56 ↗ could state law and then we just are

47:58 ↗ bringing up to code that versus oh we're

48:01 ↗ suggesting doing this and it's something

48:03 ↗ that's discretion of the city and we

48:05 ↗ would like to have community feedback on

48:07 ↗ where we land and then differentiate

48:08 ↗ between those two things sure and I

48:10 ↗ think that's part of what Carl asked for

48:13 ↗ earlier which is why are you

48:15 ↗ recommending this and it's going to be

48:17 ↗ okay yes state law right so stormwater

48:19 ↗ is going to be the same way sure I mean

48:21 ↗ so n PDS all the properties in the

48:24 ↗ villages are going to have to meet the

48:26 ↗ new stormwater code yeah yeah that's a

48:29 ↗ great point if you cover that in Carl's

48:31 ↗ request I think that's I guess let's

48:33 ↗ exact form I think we're gonna get there

48:34 ↗ okay cool

48:35 ↗ thank you and while we're on actually on

48:37 ↗ that topic sure the question kind of

48:39 ↗ bounced off of his let's say you have

48:42 ↗ parcel a and it's actually now in a

48:45 ↗ critical area because of the policy

48:46 ↗ changes were considering here tonight

48:48 ↗ that house has a driveway and that

48:52 ↗ homeowner 20 years from now wants to

48:54 ↗ redo the driveway how does what we're

48:56 ↗ deciding here tonight affect that few if

48:59 ↗ they have an existing deck and they need

49:02 ↗ to replace a deck how does our policy

49:05 ↗ decision affect that and let's say they

49:08 ↗ have a fire and have a total destruction

49:10 ↗ of the house and the whole property is

49:12 ↗ within a critical zone would they have

49:15 ↗ the ability to rebuild right now under

49:18 ↗ code yes that one I know I don't

49:22 ↗ remember on the driveways and decks

49:23 ↗ there's a certain amount of maintenance

49:25 ↗ that's allowed so what we can do is a

49:27 ↗ typical

49:28 ↗ is you know as long as you're not

49:30 ↗ increasing your nonconformity you can do

49:32 ↗ maintenance and replacement right so

49:34 ↗ you've got a deck you can replace your

49:36 ↗ deck when it's time to replace your deck

49:37 ↗ you've got a driveway you want to

49:39 ↗ replace it great you want to add ten

49:41 ↗ percent to your driveway so now now

49:43 ↗ you've got a harder thing to do now

49:45 ↗ you've got to do you've got to have a

49:46 ↗ wetland maybe a wetland person say of

49:49 ↗ whether that's going to impact the

49:50 ↗ wetland you know so you got to go

49:52 ↗ through it's an extra hoop it's not an

49:54 ↗ automatic no it's you have to go through

49:57 ↗ some extra steps to maybe get what

49:59 ↗ you're asking for but it might it might

50:01 ↗ ultimately end up and no you know

50:03 ↗ where's somebody who's you know AJ who

50:05 ↗ doesn't have a critical area in his

50:06 ↗ backyard you know he just doubled the

50:08 ↗ size of his deck and he's super happy so

50:12 ↗ I know that's the difference it's right

50:13 ↗ it's about process and it could result

50:16 ↗ in no but it doesn't automatically

50:19 ↗ result in though there's a there's a

50:21 ↗ process in city code if you're you know

50:24 ↗ wanting to expand something in a

50:26 ↗ critical area so we'll put a summary or

50:29 ↗ and also provide maybe the code so that

50:32 ↗ someone who wants to read about what the

50:34 ↗ implications of this might be because

50:37 ↗ that's that's a completely valid

50:39 ↗ question thank you yeah so a second

50:45 ↗ bullet is as we've mentioned some of the

50:49 ↗ unbuilt properties are asking for

50:51 ↗ changes so people may not like what

50:53 ↗ they're at the change that they're

50:54 ↗ asking for that would be for instance

50:57 ↗ going back to the unbuilt page the like

51:00 ↗ the backwards L beam developed

51:02 ↗ differently all right building you don't

51:04 ↗ want price payback for mixed use mixed

51:07 ↗ use entitlement and then the parcel 17b

51:11 ↗ it talas has asked for their commercial

51:14 ↗ to become residential so we could in

51:17 ↗ theory say yes that request via this

51:20 ↗ process by what comes that would be

51:22 ↗ their new years as opposed to the old

51:24 ↗ use yes I mean we'll have an

51:27 ↗ administration recommendation as part of

51:30 ↗ that process and there will be a

51:31 ↗ commission recommendation at the end of

51:33 ↗ the day the council makes the decision

51:34 ↗ right right but and and you know just to

51:37 ↗ cue this up so you guys know why there's

51:39 ↗ people sitting in the back of the room

51:40 ↗ at least some

51:41 ↗ those property owners will be talking

51:43 ↗ you guys as part of this process to help

51:45 ↗ you guys understand maybe why they would

51:47 ↗ like for you to consider a different

51:49 ↗ land use than what's currently on their

51:51 ↗ undeveloped property yeah well they're

52:02 ↗ only a couple of properties where

52:03 ↗ they've asked for something different

52:04 ↗ most people are as far as we know so far

52:09 ↗ are fine with the entitlement they have

52:12 ↗ what they want to make sure is they

52:13 ↗ understand the rules like changes in

52:15 ↗ uses or other things to make sure that

52:18 ↗ doesn't conflict with what they want to

52:20 ↗ do there's only a couple of properties

52:22 ↗ that have asked for changes in the

52:24 ↗ allowed use from what they purchased so

52:29 ↗ some rules and processes will change as

52:32 ↗ we try to do this consolidation we think

52:34 ↗ that's a benefit but that's a

52:36 ↗ possibility tree protection will change

52:43 ↗ right now when you develop an urban

52:46 ↗ village hundreds if not thousands of

52:49 ↗ acres have been set aside and protected

52:51 ↗ with both Dallas and its clients and as

52:55 ↗ part of the trade-off of that the areas

52:59 ↗ that were being developed were allowed

53:01 ↗ to be completely cleared however the

53:04 ↗ development agreement anticipated that

53:07 ↗ as you get to the build-out period end

53:09 ↗ of the build-out period let's say

53:11 ↗ everyone's happy with the development

53:13 ↗ agreement and no one wants to terminate

53:14 ↗ it and it continues after the build-out

53:17 ↗ period there were tree protection

53:19 ↗ regulations that were included in the

53:21 ↗ development agreement so it was

53:23 ↗ anticipated that tree protection would

53:25 ↗ become part of the urban villages we're

53:29 ↗ proposing not and I don't ask me what

53:32 ↗ the difference is because I don't

53:33 ↗ actually know it off the top of my head

53:34 ↗ but we're proposing using existing city

53:40 ↗ standards not the ones in the

53:41 ↗ development agreement but tree

53:44 ↗ protection is going to go in and that's

53:46 ↗ that's been different than what's been

53:47 ↗ allowed sorry and when you were

53:51 ↗ referring to tree per

53:52 ↗ action CIP allows clear-cutting also

53:57 ↗ provided their they pay into the tree

53:59 ↗ fund so what you're proposing is that it

54:03 ↗ would be the same standard as what is in

54:05 ↗ a development early development

54:07 ↗ agreement there wouldn't really be a

54:09 ↗ tree protection so um

54:14 ↗ central Issaquah when you're developing

54:16 ↗ a piece of property allows you to remove

54:20 ↗ more trees than the city does I'm not

54:24 ↗ sure that I would say it allows you to

54:26 ↗ clear-cut but going forward as a

54:30 ↗ single-family home owner for instance

54:32 ↗ you're only allowed to remove a certain

54:34 ↗ number of trees each year and that would

54:37 ↗ be in place so given that most

54:39 ↗ properties are developed they would not

54:42 ↗ have the ability to come in and remove

54:44 ↗ all their trees but that's just I mean

54:49 ↗ that's a point of discussion so most of

54:51 ↗ the undeveloped properties Lucy that

54:53 ↗ squeaky pens and Remi nuts

54:55 ↗ so most of the properties that are

54:59 ↗ undeveloped in the villages are already

55:01 ↗ cleared so the tree retention issue is

55:05 ↗ probably not it's really what happens

55:08 ↗ after so so most of you know what we

55:12 ↗ were taught what we're talking about is

55:13 ↗ the trees that are there now and whether

55:16 ↗ or not and under what rules a property

55:19 ↗ owner could remove trees as properties

55:22 ↗ age and and but it's not so much about

55:26 ↗ the undeveloped stuff now because

55:27 ↗ they're not forested yeah I realize it's

55:31 ↗ probably with you almost a new

55:32 ↗ discussion

55:36 ↗ and then just general uncertainty you

55:38 ↗ know it's always hard when things are

55:40 ↗ changing and not knowing exactly how

55:41 ↗ they'll change in what the implications

55:43 ↗ are so next steps we have three meetings

55:50 ↗ with you guys to discuss this the next

55:54 ↗ meeting is two weeks from tonight next

55:57 ↗ week we will get out a draft of the

56:00 ↗ proposed code we will provide some

56:05 ↗ information on you know links to

56:08 ↗ existing codes some more detailed

56:11 ↗ information to answer some of the

56:13 ↗ questions

56:14 ↗ let let commissioners dig in a little

56:17 ↗ bit more on what's there now and what's

56:21 ↗ coming in so we'll provide that next

56:24 ↗ week and then we meet a month after that

56:27 ↗ to try and finalize a draft that for

56:31 ↗ recommendation and then we'll be moving

56:34 ↗ it through the sort of standard process

56:36 ↗ from there

56:48 ↗ so if you want we could take public

56:50 ↗ testimony and then we have one last item

56:56 ↗ on small item on the agenda sign-in

57:02 ↗ sheet al-qaeda she is up there if I'm so

57:06 ↗ and thank you for that reminder Jennifer

57:08 ↗ so the sign-in sheet is up there if you

57:11 ↗ want to speak please sign in if you want

57:14 ↗ to just be kept in the loop

57:17 ↗ sign in and just mark that you want to

57:20 ↗ be kept in the loop and that way we'll

57:22 ↗ have email addresses lissa can I ask a

57:30 ↗ question sure

57:31 ↗ is there any engagement with the school

57:37 ↗ district in this particular conversation

57:39 ↗ I'm just trying to connect the dots

57:41 ↗ between this discussion that we're

57:44 ↗ having this year and then the CFS rezone

57:46 ↗ and the not sedona island island reasons

57:52 ↗ in order to incorporate so the the

57:55 ↗ annexation parcels not in the

57:58 ↗ development agreements of this

57:59 ↗ conversation yes I get there I get that

58:03 ↗ they're strictly speaking independent

58:05 ↗ but I'm warning whether or not we had we

58:07 ↗ were engaging with the school district

58:09 ↗ if they have any thoughts on how we

58:10 ↗ should be zoning these two lands that

58:12 ↗ might be helpful for them so right now

58:16 ↗ we're just dealing with the properties

58:18 ↗ within the urban villages there is a

58:21 ↗ school Grand Ridge Elementary is high

58:23 ↗ school it would get a cff zone sure and

58:26 ↗ whatever that is is what it is there are

58:30 ↗ I mean there are lots of discussions

58:32 ↗ going on with the school district about

58:34 ↗ all kinds of things so so AJ maybe this

58:37 ↗ might help but I don't think this was

58:39 ↗ what you're asking so part of the land

58:41 ↗ use part of the land use package that we

58:44 ↗ talked about like so for example for

58:46 ↗ both of these gentleman's properties

58:48 ↗ that are undeveloped right now you know

58:50 ↗ that have commercial entitlement you

58:53 ↗ know would we allow schools there when

58:55 ↗ you look at the

58:57 ↗ a cadre of potential and uses that were

59:01 ↗ suggesting schools show up there so so

59:04 ↗ that's a conversation for those parcels

59:07 ↗ within Telus and the Highlands and

59:09 ↗ whether or not they could accommodate

59:10 ↗ schools the other one the annexation

59:13 ↗ parcel because it's not covered by a

59:15 ↗ development agreement it's a different

59:17 ↗ thing

59:17 ↗ yeah I get that the end of what we do

59:19 ↗ with the annexation is independent of

59:21 ↗ this I'm thinking in the context of the

59:23 ↗ median excision not not the need but the

59:27 ↗ impetus panning in annotations in or in

59:28 ↗ the building school there whether or not

59:30 ↗ we should also be trying ell facilitate

59:32 ↗ the school district to be able to build

59:34 ↗ schools soon another spot so by

59:37 ↗ potentially identifying schools as an

59:40 ↗ allowed land use within some of these

59:43 ↗ undeveloped properties in the Highlands

59:45 ↗ and talus I think we would be doing that

59:46 ↗ okay yeah yeah and that does one more

59:48 ↗ question whether or not we're making

59:50 ↗ clear taken into account and making sure

59:52 ↗ the school district is having their

59:54 ↗ voice heard among many other people's

59:56 ↗ voices right and actually sorry question

1:00:01 ↗ for the Bellevue college parcel isn't

1:00:04 ↗ ours our plans to change that to

1:00:07 ↗ something other than Bobi home so not

1:00:11 ↗ unless you've talked to the new

1:00:12 ↗ president which we haven't yet so I

1:00:15 ↗ don't know I mean so right now they have

1:00:17 ↗ a new president and whether or not

1:00:21 ↗ they're planning something on that

1:00:24 ↗ property I have no idea we're trying to

1:00:26 ↗ get a meeting with him sometime soon

1:00:29 ↗ that's not my to-do list so I have not

1:00:33 ↗ heard anything from Bellevue college

1:00:35 ↗ that they're even recognizing they did

1:00:38 ↗ answer an email they recognize that

1:00:40 ↗ their white land use sign is probably

1:00:43 ↗ outdated and needs to come down and no

1:00:45 ↗ they said they would take care of that

1:00:47 ↗ so we appreciated that attention to

1:00:49 ↗ detail so but I don't haven't heard of

1:00:52 ↗ any land use plans for the college

1:00:54 ↗ property right recently

1:01:01 ↗ Lucy before we move to public comment

1:01:04 ↗ can I just invite any the commissioners

1:01:07 ↗ are there any questions or comments

1:01:09 ↗ before we do that obviously people have

1:01:11 ↗ been open but I want mature please I

1:01:13 ↗ can't

1:01:14 ↗ sure right question and you know Ron and

1:01:25 ↗ I end up needing Kirk Jo none of the

1:01:28 ↗ knowledge okay so are you ready yeah

1:01:37 ↗ let's go ahead I public comment so the

1:01:40 ↗ first person who signed up is Eric Evan

1:01:43 ↗ mr. Evans

1:01:46 ↗ thank you

1:01:48 ↗ so the benefit of record my name is Eric

1:01:50 ↗ Evans one 1/64 south east 5th street W

1:01:53 ↗ Washington I'm with shelter Holdings

1:01:55 ↗ we're the elbow or the L that was

1:01:58 ↗ mentioned here we are we own land across

1:02:04 ↗ the street from Swedish obviously and

1:02:05 ↗ across the street from the Regency grand

1:02:08 ↗ red shopping center we're also the

1:02:10 ↗ owners of this COIs Terrace just down

1:02:12 ↗ the street a nice apartment community we

1:02:16 ↗ own and are developing a variety of

1:02:18 ↗ mixed-use market-rate mixed income

1:02:21 ↗ communities throughout the Pacific

1:02:23 ↗ Northwest and

1:02:27 ↗ sorry yeah so we we are committed to the

1:02:35 ↗ vision and guiding principles of

1:02:38 ↗ Issaquah Highlands from our perspective

1:02:40 ↗ and we've been investing in this coffer

1:02:43 ↗ over 30 years the development greement

1:02:46 ↗ has worked great it's been a wonderful

1:02:49 ↗ tool to facilitate a lot investment

1:02:52 ↗ predictability certainty I work in a lot

1:02:56 ↗ of cities up and down the west coast I

1:02:58 ↗ can't think of a development agreement

1:03:01 ↗ that I worked in where people have

1:03:03 ↗ continued to participate in the project

1:03:06 ↗ for over 20 years so the development

1:03:09 ↗ agreement first cost really a remarkable

1:03:11 ↗ document for our part we're focused on

1:03:15 ↗ delivering the mix of commercial and

1:03:18 ↗ retail uses that were contemplated in

1:03:20 ↗ the development agreement I can also say

1:03:22 ↗ that when we talk to employers when we

1:03:25 ↗ talk to the type of retail that we hear

1:03:29 ↗ from the community they these business

1:03:33 ↗ owners recognize the value of the

1:03:35 ↗ development agreement it provides a good

1:03:38 ↗ deal of certainty for them when we step

1:03:43 ↗ out of the development agreement

1:03:45 ↗ framework and we start thinking about

1:03:48 ↗ new zoning we think it's worthwhile to

1:03:51 ↗ share with you some of the feedback and

1:03:54 ↗ the work that we've been doing as many

1:03:56 ↗ of you know some of you have attended

1:03:58 ↗ some of our focus groups we've had a

1:04:01 ↗ series of three neighborhood meetings

1:04:03 ↗ and six focus groups we've commissioned

1:04:06 ↗ a market study with a number of market

1:04:09 ↗ professionals on the office residential

1:04:12 ↗ medical office retail and residential

1:04:16 ↗ markets up in iske Highlands and we

1:04:18 ↗ shared some of those results with the

1:04:20 ↗ community

1:04:26 ↗ these studies when we got them indicated

1:04:30 ↗ that there was a very nice complimentary

1:04:32 ↗ market for retail next to the Regency

1:04:36 ↗ shopping center that could support that

1:04:39 ↗ 380,000 square feet and keep it vibrant

1:04:42 ↗ there was a nice nice strong market a

1:04:45 ↗ medical office that can can support the

1:04:48 ↗ Swedish and Reliance campus and kind of

1:04:52 ↗ work with some of the visions for the

1:04:54 ↗ innovative partnership zone for sports

1:04:58 ↗ medicine that the city is trying to

1:05:00 ↗ bring so not a nice piece there when we

1:05:05 ↗ look at housing you can imagine that's

1:05:08 ↗ pretty obvious this is a real strong

1:05:10 ↗ market for housing right now is a

1:05:11 ↗ tremendous demand and I think so some a

1:05:18 ↗ lot of good moments but for the office

1:05:20 ↗ market that's much more limited there's

1:05:23 ↗ not as much strong demand for office and

1:05:25 ↗ Keith can share his experience and

1:05:27 ↗ trying to bring office users to Issaquah

1:05:30 ↗ as the economic development but that

1:05:31 ↗ part of the market analysis is the

1:05:34 ↗ weakest part when we talk to the medical

1:05:40 ↗ office users and the employer players

1:05:43 ↗ and we talk about bringing that sports

1:05:45 ↗ medicine component to esquel Highlands

1:05:48 ↗ they very much value the Swedish but

1:05:51 ↗ what we do hear from them is that they

1:05:55 ↗ ask us questions like where are our

1:05:56 ↗ employees going to live and so when you

1:06:00 ↗ think about attracting these types of

1:06:02 ↗ users and creating that medical office

1:06:05 ↗ sports medical campus we think it's

1:06:08 ↗ worthwhile for you when we step out of

1:06:09 ↗ the development agreement to consider

1:06:11 ↗ some complimentary housing that can

1:06:13 ↗ support these commercial uses of that

1:06:17 ↗ medical campus I think it can be a very

1:06:19 ↗ powerful tool to help bring those uses

1:06:21 ↗ here similarly when we think about

1:06:25 ↗ retail and when we ask the residents

1:06:28 ↗ about what kind of retail they wanted up

1:06:30 ↗ in this kalila pnes we heard a lot about

1:06:34 ↗ uses that were very vibrant that were

1:06:37 ↗ lifestyle components really nice

1:06:40 ↗ restaurants places to sip wine at night

1:06:42 ↗ to spend a couple hours out watch the

1:06:45 ↗ sunset we heard about nice trophy

1:06:48 ↗ grocery stores that would be a nice

1:06:50 ↗ complementary a different choice than

1:06:51 ↗ Safeway

1:06:52 ↗ but still wouldn't undermine Safeway we

1:06:55 ↗ heard about health clubs a wide variety

1:06:58 ↗ of nice retail that is more of an

1:07:03 ↗ entertainment more of a specialty when

1:07:06 ↗ we went out to those types of tenants

1:07:08 ↗ and we talked to them what they said was

1:07:11 ↗ is Squa house is great but for them what

1:07:14 ↗ helps them is a 24-hour presence when

1:07:17 ↗ when you think about a business owner

1:07:20 ↗ opening a restaurant it's nice to have a

1:07:22 ↗ captive audience above so to the extent

1:07:24 ↗ that we can fold a little bit of

1:07:25 ↗ commingled housing to support them it'll

1:07:28 ↗ help us attract the type of retail that

1:07:30 ↗ the neighborhood that the community

1:07:32 ↗ wants and this little more destination

1:07:35 ↗ lasting when when we talk to the

1:07:38 ↗ residents I can say they love it up

1:07:41 ↗ there they absolutely love being there

1:07:43 ↗ but I did hear and a number of us did in

1:07:46 ↗ the focus groups a concern that they may

1:07:50 ↗ not be able to stay that as we all get

1:07:53 ↗ older the opportunity to stay in the

1:07:55 ↗ community is a concern there aren't a

1:07:58 ↗ lot of senior housing options nearby and

1:08:01 ↗ a lot of the residents wanted the

1:08:03 ↗ opportunity to stay close by to be able

1:08:05 ↗ to walk across the street to the

1:08:07 ↗ hospital so I think you know and through

1:08:11 ↗ this process I think there is some value

1:08:12 ↗ to thinking about allowing that type of

1:08:15 ↗ use within this process of rethinking

1:08:18 ↗ when we step out of a development

1:08:20 ↗ agreement into a new zoning you know I

1:08:25 ↗ think as a vertical mixed-use component

1:08:28 ↗ a little bit of housing to support these

1:08:31 ↗ uses can be a very powerful tool to be

1:08:34 ↗ clear we're focused on delivering the

1:08:36 ↗ commercial and retail we intend to own

1:08:39 ↗ it we tend to hold it long term and I

1:08:42 ↗ think it'll be lovely but when we start

1:08:45 ↗ thinking about a new framework that's a

1:08:47 ↗ consideration that you'd ask that you

1:08:49 ↗ consider in terms

1:08:50 ↗ adding that allowed use we're looking

1:08:55 ↗ forward to working with all of you happy

1:08:57 ↗ to answer questions it looks to be a an

1:09:00 ↗ interesting and a fairly complex process

1:09:03 ↗ and happy to answer questions and

1:09:05 ↗ continue to wake esquel Holland's great

1:09:11 ↗ thanks to the droves

1:09:13 ↗ yeah I next is Ken Bellamy good evening

1:09:23 ↗ my name is Ken Bellamy

1:09:25 ↗ 7900 southeast 28th bursar island

1:09:29 ↗ I represent Dallas Corporate Center and

1:09:31 ↗ which is the nine acre parcel at the

1:09:33 ↗ entrance to tell us that you saw

1:09:36 ↗ referred to before right at the

1:09:37 ↗ intersection of Calais Drive and SR 900

1:09:42 ↗ just a bit of background on that we have

1:09:45 ↗ an approved site development permit on

1:09:48 ↗ that property and have had for the last

1:09:51 ↗ 10 years we have worked with Keith and a

1:09:56 ↗ number of other real estate brokerage

1:09:59 ↗ firms trying to find a user to occupy

1:10:02 ↗ that space and we've been unsuccessful

1:10:04 ↗ and so with the termination of the

1:10:07 ↗ development agreement we thought we'd

1:10:09 ↗ like the opportunity to discuss some

1:10:11 ↗ change of use for something that's more

1:10:13 ↗ consistent with the with the community

1:10:16 ↗ that's there the residential community

1:10:18 ↗ and also more something that has a

1:10:22 ↗ shorter development time frame to it

1:10:24 ↗ that's really all I had tonight if

1:10:27 ↗ there's any other questions happy to

1:10:29 ↗ answer them but like to discuss it with

1:10:31 ↗ you in more detail as you work through

1:10:33 ↗ this process not typically I'll defer to

1:10:43 ↗ Lucy own rules but typically we haven't

1:10:44 ↗ engaged in public comment in a

1:10:46 ↗ bi-directional conversation so no thank

1:10:51 ↗ you thank you mr. Bellamy so that's all

1:10:55 ↗ that have signed up does anybody else

1:10:58 ↗ want to

1:11:00 ↗ speak this evening

1:11:14 ↗ me and my squeaky pen or backhoe the

1:11:17 ↗ squeaky pen is back so that means public

1:11:18 ↗ comment is now closed I took that is

1:11:20 ↗ enough correct yes thank you need

1:11:26 ↗ something to fiddle with so yes I had a

1:11:35 ↗ lot of people walk in my office and

1:11:37 ↗ today I should have gotten one for you

1:11:39 ↗ so that that's the end of our

1:11:42 ↗ presentation on this piece if you have

1:11:44 ↗ questions you want to ask me the

1:11:48 ↗ applicants will hear it and then we can

1:11:50 ↗ talk with them separately in terms of

1:11:53 ↗ how we may want to proceed this was

1:11:56 ↗ intended mostly just to be a primer for

1:11:58 ↗ you guys right to kind of point you in

1:12:01 ↗ the direction that we've been pointed at

1:12:03 ↗ for a bit of time now I think you know

1:12:07 ↗ the next meeting we're definitely going

1:12:09 ↗ to jump into the fray and I'm not sure

1:12:13 ↗ how that's going to go down

1:12:15 ↗ I'm sure Lucy has a plan so so I'll just

1:12:20 ↗ I mean there were some questions about

1:12:22 ↗ how the meetings might be structured I

1:12:25 ↗ mean typically we would send you the

1:12:28 ↗ code you would read the code we think

1:12:30 ↗ it's going to be about 30 pages which

1:12:32 ↗ sounds like a lot but really isn't that

1:12:34 ↗ much and that we would have a meeting to

1:12:38 ↗ talk through it we make edits and then

1:12:43 ↗ we would finalize it for the next

1:12:45 ↗ meeting when we're asking for you to

1:12:47 ↗ make a recommendation but one of the

1:12:50 ↗ things that I'm hearing that I'm not

1:12:52 ↗ sure that we would review with you next

1:12:54 ↗ time but we would certainly answer

1:12:56 ↗ questions is it sounds like we're going

1:12:58 ↗ to be putting together a tool to help

1:13:00 ↗ you understand a little better what the

1:13:02 ↗ original sources are and why we making

1:13:05 ↗ the recommendations that we are in terms

1:13:07 ↗ of where things go to so that's

1:13:10 ↗ something I'll be busy with this weekend

1:13:12 ↗ and and so we're certainly available to

1:13:17 ↗ answer questions next time based on that

1:13:20 ↗ and one thing I just want to share if

1:13:23 ↗ you have questions while you're

1:13:26 ↗ reviewing it

1:13:28 ↗ you're getting your questions ahead of

1:13:30 ↗ time we're great we chose to answer a

1:13:33 ↗ lot of your questions down or whether

1:13:35 ↗ we've answered all of them Lindsey but

1:13:37 ↗ it's really helpful if you have

1:13:40 ↗ questions along the way to send them to

1:13:42 ↗ us we may not choose to answer them

1:13:44 ↗ ahead of time but it means we're much

1:13:46 ↗ better prepared to have a discussion I'm

1:13:49 ↗ always impressed with how much you think

1:13:51 ↗ we know that we can come in and answer

1:13:54 ↗ immediately but getting a little

1:13:56 ↗ heads-up is helpful in terms of us

1:13:58 ↗ having a more thoughtful conversation so

1:14:05 ↗ Lizzie I also in addition to talking

1:14:09 ↗ about how how you came about the idea of

1:14:11 ↗ these particular code changes the

1:14:16 ↗ applicants in these cases when they're

1:14:19 ↗ looking at potential changes how does

1:14:22 ↗ that play into whatever we approve or

1:14:27 ↗ recommend or anything like that or is it

1:14:31 ↗ just kind of a side idea so that's

1:14:36 ↗ that's a really good question so I think

1:14:38 ↗ the way we're thinking that this is

1:14:39 ↗ going to come to you is in the same way

1:14:44 ↗ that there is a zoning map for the city

1:14:47 ↗ and then that zoning map leads to a

1:14:50 ↗ piece of code that says it can be three

1:14:56 ↗ stories and have 10-foot setbacks there

1:14:59 ↗ will be a map that has those overlays so

1:15:03 ↗ there'll be a color and that color

1:15:04 ↗ single-family and you know that means

1:15:06 ↗ one house and this color means its

1:15:09 ↗ retail only or this color means its

1:15:11 ↗ mixed-use non residential or mixed-use

1:15:14 ↗ residential so there will be some kind

1:15:17 ↗ of map that we will have as well as code

1:15:22 ↗ that should tell you something about how

1:15:24 ↗ those uses can be developed on that land

1:15:27 ↗ and I'm sure they'll be looking at it as

1:15:30 ↗ closely as you guys are so if the

1:15:33 ↗ typical way to do a rezone is to go

1:15:38 ↗ through the city council process

1:15:40 ↗ if we're read coloring those areas

1:15:46 ↗ aren't we basically rezoning it without

1:15:50 ↗ it going to City Council oh no it goes

1:15:51 ↗ to City Council so your recommendation

1:15:54 ↗ will go to City Council yes but it will

1:15:57 ↗ be a recommendation of this is how the

1:16:01 ↗ development agreement should be modified

1:16:05 ↗ so that we can bring it into the city

1:16:06 ↗ right oh and then we're also changing

1:16:09 ↗ these properties I I think any can agree

1:16:12 ↗ with Lindsey I think from a process

1:16:13 ↗ standpoint we're really helpful to

1:16:15 ↗ bifurcate those and I think it might be

1:16:17 ↗ really helpful to go through this

1:16:20 ↗ collapsing the development agreement

1:16:21 ↗ into more generic city codes process

1:16:24 ↗ complete that and then separately look

1:16:28 ↗ at potentially rezoning some of the

1:16:30 ↗ undeveloped parcels into something so

1:16:32 ↗ it's very can we can we break goodnesses

1:16:33 ↗ yes

1:16:34 ↗ so absolutely so so the the ending of

1:16:37 ↗ the development agreement and the code

1:16:38 ↗ and all that can be one recommendation

1:16:41 ↗ and then these two gentlemen and their

1:16:43 ↗ asks could ultimately be recommendation

1:16:47 ↗ two and or three depending on what you

1:16:49 ↗ guys want to do with that but they're

1:16:50 ↗ not sequential I think that over there

1:16:52 ↗ asking for all we're doing them

1:16:54 ↗ concurrently and then I think I think it

1:16:57 ↗ would make I think to make the

1:16:58 ↗ conversation will be much clearer

1:17:00 ↗ especially for people other than the

1:17:03 ↗ Commission and the gentleman with the

1:17:06 ↗ request I think I think we'll be clear

1:17:08 ↗ for the average person to separate that

1:17:10 ↗ why do you guys want to do that

1:17:13 ↗ concurrently rather than to do there's

1:17:17 ↗ no zoning in the interim so as soon as

1:17:19 ↗ we end the development agreement those

1:17:20 ↗ parcels have no zoning what I know but I

1:17:23 ↗ think couldn't we do it with the

1:17:25 ↗ existing zones and then take up the idea

1:17:29 ↗ of rezoning yes the existing zone is

1:17:32 ↗ urban village see a development

1:17:34 ↗ agreement here he goes away so they can

1:17:36 ↗ always ask for a rezone there they're

1:17:39 ↗ choosing they would like to do it with

1:17:41 ↗ this process I mean you're from now air

1:17:44 ↗ can come in and make a application for

1:17:47 ↗ the zone on his property to change from

1:17:50 ↗ mix use non-residential to just mix you

1:17:53 ↗ with

1:17:54 ↗ residential right I mean so he can do

1:17:56 ↗ that anytime he can do that every year

1:17:57 ↗ for the next 20 years if he wants to so

1:17:59 ↗ so that can always happen I think what

1:18:02 ↗ they've asked for because this process

1:18:03 ↗ is moving now and because we have to

1:18:06 ↗ pick a zone for their property they

1:18:08 ↗ would like to influence that decision

1:18:10 ↗ and get us to pick something other than

1:18:12 ↗ what what they currently own which right

1:18:16 ↗ now as we going back to step one what we

1:18:19 ↗ tried to do was say we're bringing

1:18:21 ↗ forward a construct that will generally

1:18:24 ↗ keep the villages the way they are which

1:18:27 ↗ would mean the existing zoning on all

1:18:29 ↗ the properties what they would like to

1:18:31 ↗ ask for is two exceptions one for talus

1:18:33 ↗ and one for the Highlands and that's

1:18:36 ↗ part of the conversation that we get to

1:18:38 ↗ have and you guys could say no we want

1:18:40 ↗ to keep that separately you guys do that

1:18:41 ↗ a year from now or whenever or we could

1:18:44 ↗ have that conversation I would say if

1:18:46 ↗ you want to at least allow that to play

1:18:48 ↗ out maybe in the next meeting to see

1:18:50 ↗ what it feels like and maybe what we can

1:18:52 ↗ do on the agenda and this is a

1:18:53 ↗ suggestion for the chair sitting in vice

1:18:56 ↗ chair are you the chair no yeah so he is

1:18:59 ↗ sitting in a survive as year so what we

1:19:03 ↗ can what we could do is actually have

1:19:05 ↗ three agenda items so we could talk

1:19:07 ↗ about you know das and then we could

1:19:10 ↗ talk about talus commercial and then we

1:19:12 ↗ could talk about Highlands commercial

1:19:16 ↗ retail and so there's a specific place

1:19:18 ↗ in the agenda for those conversations

1:19:20 ↗ and that may be more productive and

1:19:24 ↗ allow the Commission's to get to a

1:19:26 ↗ cleaner and I think it would be

1:19:27 ↗ important for public input on those

1:19:30 ↗ because those are obviously very big

1:19:32 ↗ spaces that have a big effect on a lot

1:19:36 ↗ of residents and it would be easier to

1:19:38 ↗ communicate to the residents that where

1:19:40 ↗ they would have a public hearing or

1:19:42 ↗ input additionally and I just forgot it

1:19:49 ↗ was okay hey you were on a roll it was

1:19:52 ↗ outcome we're doing really good I think

1:19:54 ↗ that was I think that's a great

1:19:55 ↗ suggestion Lindsay yeah and all I go

1:19:58 ↗ that for Lindsay I'm I don't want to

1:19:59 ↗ punt on the second half the decision I

1:20:02 ↗ just want to make sure that they're that

1:20:03 ↗ they're clear discussions yeah yeah we

1:20:05 ↗ can maybe we maybe tackle it in a single

1:20:07 ↗ mission meeting I just want those to be

1:20:08 ↗ independent right and I think that is in

1:20:11 ↗ terms of agenda items I think that's

1:20:13 ↗ great because what that means is that we

1:20:15 ↗ can do sort of public comment with each

1:20:17 ↗ piece yeah and focus comments that if

1:20:22 ↗ there's more comments on one piece than

1:20:24 ↗ another then we'll be able to hear

1:20:27 ↗ specifically on those pieces so I think

1:20:29 ↗ that's great and I want to just be clear

1:20:31 ↗ you know we sit in my little office and

1:20:33 ↗ make up these optimistic schedules where

1:20:35 ↗ you guys like talk about things once and

1:20:38 ↗ then approve it so if you need more than

1:20:40 ↗ this if you need more than three touches

1:20:42 ↗ on this I don't think anybody turns into

1:20:45 ↗ a pumpkin so so just because Lucy said

1:20:48 ↗ we're going to have three meetings and

1:20:49 ↗ then you're going to be done if we need

1:20:51 ↗ an extra meeting or two we can we can

1:20:55 ↗ fit that into the schedule so we split

1:20:57 ↗ up a presenter okay I remember my

1:21:01 ↗ question was when if separate from this

1:21:06 ↗ somebody wanted to go through a rezone

1:21:08 ↗ of an undeveloped land plot they make an

1:21:13 ↗ application does that go through any

1:21:15 ↗ Commission before it goes which

1:21:18 ↗ Commission does that go to that goes to

1:21:20 ↗ I believe pose a PPC okay so you know as

1:21:27 ↗ a tangent you know as just to just be

1:21:31 ↗ transparent you know the city

1:21:33 ↗ administration's going to need to figure

1:21:35 ↗ out what we do with you VDC right now

1:21:37 ↗ they're meeting once in a blue moon as

1:21:39 ↗ we get rid of keep getting rid of the

1:21:41 ↗ villages what's left is rallies and so

1:21:45 ↗ you know I think Swedish in like sign I

1:21:48 ↗ know so yeah since there's no action on

1:21:54 ↗ either with those they tend to forget

1:21:55 ↗ about them sorry so we'll have to figure

1:21:57 ↗ out if we if we ultimately collapse you

1:22:01 ↗ VDC into DC or do something like that I

1:22:04 ↗ don't know what the answer is but we

1:22:06 ↗ need to figure out what to do with with

1:22:08 ↗ you guys because you may not ever be

1:22:09 ↗ meeting yeah I think when we've

1:22:12 ↗ discussed these three different

1:22:14 ↗ with helpful to understand the pros and

1:22:17 ↗ cons for the public benefit in the

1:22:20 ↗ frozen column developer the landowner

1:22:24 ↗ the developers gone yet to land oh yeah

1:22:26 ↗ yeah I want to see the whole story I

1:22:28 ↗ just you don't care about just what I

1:22:32 ↗ think I'm kidding okay so that's it on

1:22:43 ↗ this topic okay so one just brief update

1:22:51 ↗ again for transparency last year the

1:22:56 ↗ Commission know why is showing that

1:23:03 ↗ there we go

1:23:05 ↗ last year the Commission did an

1:23:07 ↗ adjustment to the site development

1:23:10 ↗ permit for Central Park to accommodate

1:23:14 ↗ changes to the pad the play area the

1:23:16 ↗ parking lot this the top image here is a

1:23:21 ↗ snippet from that at the time that we

1:23:26 ↗ presented to you we mentioned that this

1:23:28 ↗ was a phased implementation and there

1:23:33 ↗ was a suggestion and discussion around

1:23:36 ↗ parking and how that might be

1:23:38 ↗ accommodated with the first days so I

1:23:40 ↗ just wanted to give the Commission an

1:23:42 ↗ update on how phase 1 was approved so

1:23:46 ↗ this area down here is obviously this

1:23:49 ↗ area here they are moving forward with

1:23:53 ↗ the changes to the pad and the lighting

1:23:56 ↗ and I'm sorry Lucy where's where Central

1:23:58 ↗ Park I'm sorry

1:23:59 ↗ this is urban village Development

1:24:01 ↗ Commission so I'm assuming you're in the

1:24:03 ↗ no apologies is qilin okay and right

1:24:07 ↗ next to Grand Ridge Elementary if you

1:24:08 ↗ know where that is just east of there

1:24:10 ↗ okay thank you thank you

1:24:12 ↗ and actually in this image North is not

1:24:16 ↗ up so to make it even harder

1:24:19 ↗ North is on this side so this is East

1:24:23 ↗ and West but the two images are oriented

1:24:27 ↗ the same I did I did get that much right

1:24:29 ↗ so the full build-out plan is what's

1:24:34 ↗ shown on the top what's shown on the

1:24:36 ↗ bottom they are leaving the existing

1:24:39 ↗ parking lot as is but reusing as a

1:24:43 ↗ commission and public suggested and

1:24:46 ↗ discussed there is a paved area that was

1:24:49 ↗ right here on the original plan this

1:24:52 ↗ paved area is being developed as

1:24:54 ↗ additional parking being striped so that

1:24:58 ↗ to try and make phase one work and look

1:25:03 ↗ at ways to be economical and yet achieve

1:25:06 ↗ the goal to face one so that was just an

1:25:09 ↗ update on how that played out and I

1:25:12 ↗ believe it's under construction now okay

1:25:16 ↗ and that really is the end so that's

1:25:23 ↗ that's the end and we have a confirm

1:25:26 ↗ time end date or date ends on to the

1:25:28 ↗ next so the next meeting is the 15th

1:25:30 ↗ which would be the next typical you VDC

1:25:33 ↗ meeting um and we'll look at weather

1:25:38 ↗ 6:30 or 7:00 works better with other

1:25:40 ↗ events that are happening I don't know

1:25:42 ↗ if you guys have feedback on that and

1:25:44 ↗ packet will be out next week anything

1:25:48 ↗ else from the either Commission thank

1:25:53 ↗ you all in we adjourn

1:25:57 ↗ you

1:26:07 ↗ you

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.