Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, September 14, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jul 13, 2017

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 August 24, 2017

packet pp.5–9

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jul 13, 2017

▶ Watch from 0:54 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

Minutes of August 31, 2017

packet pp.11–19

▶ Watch from 20:31 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Introduction and Discussion: Vertical Mixed Use in Central Issaquah and Proposed Amendments

Jen Davis Hayes, Economic Development Manager

Topics: Land Use

Public Hearing: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments

Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Meeting Materials · packet pp.21–88

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

A. Vertical Mixed Use Amendment: In September 2016, the Issaquah City Council enacted a six-month moratorium on certain types of development. The council has since extended temporary moratorium until December 31, 2017.

3382 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ oh so when you're ready all right now

0:18 ↗ here we go

0:19 ↗ we're on air good evening and welcome to

0:22 ↗ the December 14th September 14th meeting

0:29 ↗ of the Planning Policy Commission we're

0:31 ↗ going to have a double I like hearing

0:35 ↗ tonight on two important recommendations

0:38 ↗ from the city on where our future is

0:41 ↗ going to be but first we have a since we

0:45 ↗ have a quorum we need a we need to

0:49 ↗ approve the minute do I have a like to

0:54 ↗ make a motion to approve the minutes but

0:56 ↗ we're gonna do it individually so move

0:58 ↗ the minutes of August 24th is that what

1:03 ↗ you're gonna okay do I have a second

1:05 ↗ second all those in favor say aye

1:08 ↗ on e I need a motion to approve the

1:12 ↗ minutes for August 31st so moved that

1:16 ↗ good second any discussion any any

1:19 ↗ errors changes okay all those in favor

1:22 ↗ say aye aye opposed so with that we will

1:26 ↗ go right into Jen and her presentation

1:32 ↗ on vertical mix you sub to use vertical

1:36 ↗ mix use in central Issaquah hi good

1:40 ↗ evening my name is Jen Davis Hayes and I

1:42 ↗ work in the economic development

1:45 ↗ department here at the city is an

1:47 ↗ Economic Development Manager I just

1:48 ↗ wanted to make one note this is not the

1:49 ↗ public hearing tonight we actually will

1:51 ↗ be back to PPC on the 28th so in two

1:55 ↗ weeks to hold the public hearing so

1:56 ↗ tonight's really more of a discussion

1:58 ↗ point and then we'll come back with the

2:00 ↗ code language and other and the final

2:03 ↗ recommendations there is it going to be

2:05 ↗ public of course questions answers your

2:08 ↗ comments oh okay okay great

2:10 ↗ so many some of you may know that the

2:14 ↗ vertical mixed-use is one of the six

2:16 ↗ items that was asked by a council to

2:19 ↗ look at for the development moratorium

2:22 ↗ but this project has actually started

2:25 ↗ before the moratorium started in Sept

2:26 ↗ member back in March or April of 2016

2:32 ↗ counsel after looking at what's at the

2:35 ↗ development that was happening in the

2:36 ↗ central Issaquah area wasn't seeing the

2:39 ↗ types of projects that that you see in

2:42 ↗ this that are represented in the central

2:43 ↗ s call plan vision a lot of times we

2:46 ↗ were seeing single story developments

2:49 ↗ and instead of maybe being and they had

2:51 ↗ a lot of surface parking lot but they

2:52 ↗ had the building to the front of the the

2:54 ↗ property which is what we wanted but it

2:56 ↗ was still not achieving the density or

2:58 ↗ the or the better land use that we

3:01 ↗ wanted to see we also saw residential

3:04 ↗ developments happening but again without

3:06 ↗ the commercial ground-floor being

3:09 ↗ available so the council asked us to

3:11 ↗ look at the why that was not happening

3:15 ↗ the market and that's kind of started

3:16 ↗ the journey so we have gone through that

3:19 ↗ and I tonight will go through quickly

3:21 ↗ what those findings are and then the

3:23 ↗ next stage of the looking at what we can

3:28 ↗ do to ensure that when development

3:31 ↗ happens that the the form of the

3:34 ↗ buildings will be built in order to

3:35 ↗ ensure the vibrancy that we expect to

3:38 ↗ see in central Sakai so any questions

3:40 ↗ before I start about that okay so in

3:45 ↗ general this is where we're at as far as

3:47 ↗ the recommendations regarding the

3:50 ↗ moratorium so we were at the full

3:53 ↗ council for the work session in August

3:55 ↗ and we presented the recommendations

3:57 ↗ from Crandall Ram Beulah is a consultant

4:00 ↗ firm we hired to look at again the

4:01 ↗ regulation or what types of regulations

4:03 ↗ need to be in place to ensure we get

4:05 ↗ what we want we were at Landon store

4:07 ↗ last week we're here this week we'll be

4:09 ↗ here in two weeks again with the public

4:11 ↗ hearing and then back to Landon Shore

4:13 ↗ and final council and again this is part

4:17 ↗ of the moratorium so with the this is on

4:19 ↗ the schedule for what what we had

4:21 ↗ planned out at least readjust and

4:24 ↗ planned out so and so tonight we're

4:27 ↗ gonna talk up again and we're gonna

4:28 ↗ provide you some information about what

4:30 ↗ the regular the recommendations are and

4:32 ↗ get any feedback you have about that the

4:34 ↗ recommendations are not written in code

4:37 ↗ yet but we are real close to get in

4:39 ↗ there so the first slide has a lot of

4:44 ↗ words but basically as I mentioned the

4:47 ↗ council first asked us why aren't we

4:49 ↗ getting what we want in this market and

4:52 ↗ so we hired the firm called eco

4:54 ↗ Northwest and they are a data analysis

4:57 ↗ firm they created a financial model to

5:00 ↗ look at they've been putting our

5:02 ↗ information about our current

5:03 ↗ development regulations they looked at

5:05 ↗ the market

5:05 ↗ well what costs were there to build what

5:09 ↗ rents people were getting in the

5:11 ↗ commercial and residential markets and

5:12 ↗ looked at that and this these are the

5:15 ↗ findings from that and we also I should

5:17 ↗ also mention we also interviewed other

5:20 ↗ cities to find out how they proceeded

5:24 ↗ with getting vertical mixed-use and a

5:25 ↗ more vibrant community and we also

5:27 ↗ touched base base with some developers

5:30 ↗ once we had some that data to see if it

5:32 ↗ was ringing true to that so in general

5:35 ↗ basically vertical mixed-use feasibility

5:38 ↗ is challenging because of there's a

5:41 ↗ uncertainty so again as I just mentioned

5:43 ↗ none of this building type has been

5:45 ↗ built to this point so being the pioneer

5:47 ↗ the first one is always more risky and

5:49 ↗ if the market doesn't feel like there's

5:52 ↗ a market there it's hesitant to do that

5:54 ↗ the cost the cost to build something

5:57 ↗ where you have two different basically

5:58 ↗ users and two different needs it's not

6:02 ↗ just one straight up apartment off over

6:04 ↗ apartment you have commercial space that

6:06 ↗ has some different infrastructure needs

6:07 ↗ and also leasing environment make it

6:10 ↗ again something that if you're not in

6:11 ↗ that if the market is improving already

6:13 ↗ it's a challenge to move forward but but

6:16 ↗ the market dynamics are moving in the

6:19 ↗ right direction and so they estimated

6:21 ↗ between five and ten years it would

6:22 ↗ actually come to the point where it the

6:26 ↗ market is here to build that

6:27 ↗ automatically without having any

6:29 ↗ incentives or involvement with the city

6:32 ↗ and so one of the things they didn't

6:37 ↗ mention when they did the analysis is

6:38 ↗ that when we look at it when we wants to

6:40 ↗ see a vertical mixed-use building with

6:42 ↗ potentially residential above or office

6:44 ↗ maybe in the ground floor retail really

6:47 ↗ it's you're looking at the residential

6:49 ↗ when you're looking at what the what the

6:50 ↗ rents and and everything are because the

6:52 ↗ amount of ground-floor retail that's on

6:55 ↗ the bottom is is much smaller and so

6:57 ↗ again a lot of it was relying on what

6:59 ↗ the current residential market was

7:01 ↗ getting for market rates and then they

7:05 ↗ said they you know looked at again what

7:07 ↗ other cities have done and so property

7:10 ↗ tax exemption either through multifamily

7:12 ↗ tax exemption that's okay or fee waivers

7:16 ↗ or some density bonus calibration with

7:20 ↗ ARP density bonus they discovered that

7:22 ↗ actually it was a disincentive because

7:24 ↗ in order to go up higher it actually

7:26 ↗ costs more to get those extra floors and

7:28 ↗ it didn't weigh out and what you would

7:30 ↗ receive in rental so they had some some

7:34 ↗ ideas on ways that if the if the city

7:38 ↗ wanted to influence the market and

7:40 ↗ encourage that to happen those are some

7:43 ↗ of the things I could that they could do

7:45 ↗ I'm going to stop now and and you had

7:49 ↗ you did have the presentation that the

7:51 ↗ eco Northwest presented to the City

7:54 ↗ Council last September lots of data

7:58 ↗ slides I didn't want to go through all

8:00 ↗ of those because it is it could take

8:02 ↗ another and I could take an hour just

8:03 ↗ itself but just a high levels to help

8:06 ↗ you understand where we've been but if

8:08 ↗ you have any questions about the hug and

8:09 ↗ the high level of weather is that this

8:11 ↗ is out that led us to where we're going

8:13 ↗ please let me know I have some questions

8:22 ↗ I understand that this is where the city

8:27 ↗ wants to go in the way of high-rise and

8:31 ↗ very similar to some of the other cities

8:33 ↗ that have developed some nice

8:38 ↗ family oriented developments in the city

8:41 ↗ I know that's what we're going looking

8:43 ↗ at but when you look at Kirkland they

8:48 ↗ already have a base they already have

8:51 ↗ things they have bigger buildings they

8:55 ↗ have the waterfront they have all of

8:56 ↗ this going on and so there's there

8:59 ↗ drawing people in to fill up these

9:01 ↗ buildings and one of the things that you

9:04 ↗ said it would be market driven well

9:07 ↗ we're not going to be market driven

9:10 ↗ unless we have something that people

9:13 ↗ want to come here for and so although

9:17 ↗ the analysis is great but it doesn't

9:22 ↗ look at that side what what is the city

9:25 ↗ doing to brand us as a recreation center

9:30 ↗ or those kinds of things where you're

9:33 ↗ going to get maybe younger people to

9:36 ↗ come in fill up those and enjoy the the

9:39 ↗ retail what is actually going on and

9:42 ↗ that's it because it's the way I look at

9:44 ↗ it it's two phases sure so I won't get

9:47 ↗ too into detail but we are actually

9:48 ↗ preparing an RFP right now for because

9:51 ↗ the City Council did provide some money

9:53 ↗ for branding and for the community this

9:56 ↗ year and LTAC our lodging tax advisory

9:59 ↗ council also matched that money and so

10:01 ↗ that will begin in the fourth quarter as

10:04 ↗ far as doing I'm getting a consultant on

10:06 ↗ board and starting the process so that a

10:10 ↗ broader point of if it's recreational

10:12 ↗ branding which will you know we all kind

10:14 ↗ of think that's our strength that is

10:16 ↗ happening I think there's other things

10:17 ↗ that they did see that people like

10:19 ↗ because again the recreation

10:21 ↗ opportunities also the school district

10:22 ↗ as we know is a really strong school

10:24 ↗ district and that was another strength

10:26 ↗ that people are currently coming here

10:28 ↗ for and so and we are you know we're

10:31 ↗ growing in the the ages that people are

10:36 ↗ that are moving into Issaquah so it's

10:38 ↗ not just families themselves but you

10:40 ↗ know what Atlas the new apartment

10:42 ↗ building we're seeing some younger

10:45 ↗ residents I hear you five to ten years

10:50 ↗ from now and I'm concerned that things

10:55 ↗ are going to be built not to the

10:58 ↗ specifications that that you are looking

11:01 ↗ at and we're stuck so don't get that

11:06 ↗ right

11:07 ↗ so you that's a very good transition

11:09 ↗ point because because the council really

11:12 ↗ was torn with this because they again we

11:15 ↗ all believe in this community we believe

11:17 ↗ that we that the vision that the central

11:18 ↗ square plan that's laid out is a really

11:21 ↗ great vision but they don't want to lose

11:23 ↗ the opportunity and I think that again

11:25 ↗ that's one of the was one of the points

11:27 ↗ of this study is that when things get

11:28 ↗ built they're there for 50 years right

11:30 ↗ and so what what can we do to ensure it

11:33 ↗ doesn't so that so our next consultant

11:36 ↗ looked at okay one of the things we need

11:37 ↗ to do if we want to if we want to ensure

11:39 ↗ that the building forms get built in the

11:42 ↗ right way I'm not sure how we're gonna

11:50 ↗ run this because it sort of is free for

11:52 ↗ all that's wrong I'm curious about how

11:59 ↗ the concept of 90% parking okay he's

12:05 ↗ going to work with retail on the ground

12:07 ↗ floor and housing above it where is this

12:13 ↗ parking gonna go I can't go down at

12:16 ↗ least in Issaquah though of retails on

12:20 ↗ the ground floor then is parking the

12:22 ↗ next two or three floors up and then

12:24 ↗ there's apartments or is it on the roof

12:30 ↗ or in a separate building a block away

12:33 ↗ or what what's the concept it seems to

12:37 ↗ me you're trying to put everything into

12:38 ↗ something that's not going to happen

12:41 ↗ okay so Carl do you mind if I go through

12:43 ↗ the recommendations and then answer that

12:44 ↗ we'll get to the parking because I don't

12:46 ↗ we haven't mentioned about parking yet

12:48 ↗ because week I will definitely I will

12:50 ↗ definitely address how we got to that

12:51 ↗ analysis for that number is that okay

12:55 ↗ just because right now the audience

12:57 ↗ doesn't know you know people haven't

12:58 ↗ heard about that yet okay yeah we

13:02 ↗ stopped send you first started talking

13:04 ↗ about mix juice so okay all right I'm

13:08 ↗ looking at mix juice on a ground floor

13:09 ↗ yeah I guess apartments above it or or

13:15 ↗ office yes so mix multiple uses yes yes

13:18 ↗ and the idea with on the ground floor

13:20 ↗ commercials that have this a vibrant you

13:22 ↗ know that's yeah okay okay yeah I'm just

13:25 ↗ trying to figure out how you're gonna

13:26 ↗ get people there and that goes to the

13:29 ↗ park in which we're going to talk about

13:30 ↗ okay okay alright so I will then jump to

13:34 ↗ so so the council really did struggle

13:36 ↗ with seeing this data and how do we what

13:39 ↗ do we do it again to make sure that we

13:42 ↗ don't lose the opportunity and so the

13:44 ↗ consulting firm Crandall ran Beulah

13:46 ↗ who's already working on the

13:47 ↗ architectural and urban design manuals I

13:50 ↗ believe you may have seen we hired them

13:53 ↗ to look at and did do the analysis of

13:55 ↗ what looking at what our code currently

13:57 ↗ is and what if we want to ensure that we

14:00 ↗ get this vibrance density in our urban

14:03 ↗ center how do we get that and so the the

14:07 ↗ fourth things here that they recommended

14:09 ↗ are to require ground floor commercial

14:12 ↗ frontages in specific areas and we'll

14:13 ↗ look at that and we'll look at each of

14:14 ↗ these in more detail changing the base

14:17 ↗ height and and then increasing the FA

14:21 ↗ are and decreasing the percentage of

14:24 ↗ surface parking or increasing surface

14:26 ↗ our structured parking so one of the

14:30 ↗ things that they mentioned is that so

14:32 ↗ the the all the pieces that go into

14:36 ↗ making a building form that allows for

14:39 ↗ the vibrancy are not just gonna be

14:40 ↗ addressed by those four things but there

14:43 ↗ are things that they've included in an

14:45 ↗ architectural and urban design manual

14:46 ↗ that will address also the verben

14:49 ↗ vertical mixed-use building so don't

14:51 ↗ feel like well what about you know like

14:53 ↗ for instance you know building edges and

14:55 ↗ and setbacks and excetera like what

14:59 ↗ about those things so those are

15:00 ↗ important as well especially as you know

15:02 ↗ you've all been in a

15:04 ↗ in a vibrant center where you just it

15:06 ↗ just feels right and you've been in

15:07 ↗ other places where you just don't feel

15:09 ↗ like people want to be and so they just

15:11 ↗ we just want to remind you that a lot of

15:13 ↗ the things are being addressed that will

15:14 ↗ help create what we want that's already

15:17 ↗ in them for in the design manuals so

15:21 ↗ first our first thing was where because

15:24 ↗ as you know central is cause a really

15:26 ↗ large area and we first focused on the

15:30 ↗ urban core because that's where the

15:31 ↗ highest density is and that's where we

15:32 ↗ have a lot of our amenities where we

15:34 ↗ have services we have Parks and Rec and

15:38 ↗ we have the ability to to build the most

15:42 ↗ dense in the central supply area as well

15:43 ↗ as we know when light rail comes this is

15:45 ↗ about around where the area will be what

15:48 ↗ the concept that krendl remember they

15:51 ↗ looked at is and so Northwest Mall on

15:56 ↗ the left side of the screen that exists

15:58 ↗ currently and in our planning documents

16:00 ↗ for the central Sukhois plan there's an

16:02 ↗ extension that goes and this may not be

16:04 ↗ exactly where it goes but it pretty much

16:06 ↗ goes over and hits into seventh and they

16:10 ↗ saw that as an opportunity to create and

16:12 ↗ I think in the central sac well-painted

16:13 ↗ also mentioned is an opportunity to

16:15 ↗ create something along that where it's

16:17 ↗ more pedestrian friendly and you're able

16:21 ↗ to create a walking retail area and the

16:27 ↗ the green areas are looking at you know

16:29 ↗ where the current wetlands are and where

16:32 ↗ our potential plasmic ago again this is

16:34 ↗ very high-level kind of thinking what

16:36 ↗ what were we looking at these these two

16:38 ↗ areas are in the Gilman and the Tibbets

16:42 ↗ valley districts of the central squat

16:43 ↗ area and we see the opportunities for

16:46 ↗ the redevelopment in these areas as key

16:50 ↗ to our central Issaquah plan quick

16:53 ↗ questions so on the intersection of

16:55 ↗ Newport Way and Maple Street it was in a

16:58 ↗ conversation I don't remember with who

17:00 ↗ but the portion that says wetland they

17:04 ↗ were talking about actually rezoning

17:06 ↗ that from building so is that wetland

17:10 ↗ area is that going to be a permanent

17:12 ↗ wetland or is that possibly going to be

17:16 ↗ transitioned to

17:17 ↗ your building site our plan is not to

17:19 ↗ transition it into a building site ok so

17:25 ↗ again so then the concept would be that

17:27 ↗ so the black lines are where we require

17:30 ↗ ground-floor commercial space to be

17:33 ↗ built ok so the building's themselves

17:35 ↗ would be larger in these larger areas

17:37 ↗ but between so we're looking at three

17:40 ↗ different property owners so between

17:42 ↗ Gillman and the end of where the Sports

17:45 ↗ Authority soon-to-be Hobby Lobby

17:46 ↗ building is on 12th on the eastern side

17:51 ↗ the western side has a development

17:52 ↗ agreement so we can't put any

17:53 ↗ regulations on there because they

17:55 ↗ already have an agreement and then on

17:57 ↗ the north side of what they're looking

17:59 ↗ at as mall and so the green that goes

18:01 ↗ along law there's a white which is the

18:02 ↗ street than the green and the concept is

18:05 ↗ to do like a promenade to have like a

18:07 ↗ linear park and have a again a wider

18:09 ↗ area where people feel like they can

18:11 ↗ walk and have the ability to to enjoy

18:15 ↗ the area without cars whizzing by it at

18:17 ↗ 40 to 50 miles per hour and then also

18:21 ↗ between on Maple Street Northwest

18:23 ↗ between mall and Gillman one of the

18:27 ↗ things that a Crandall Aram Beulah did

18:30 ↗ talk to us about is that vertical

18:32 ↗ mixed-use is is most successful where

18:35 ↗ you have between five and fifteen

18:37 ↗ thousand trips a day trips a day passing

18:40 ↗ by so for instance Gilman I think it's

18:42 ↗ closer to twenty-seven s or so because

18:45 ↗ you really need the ability to put you

18:48 ↗ know have that in front parking and have

18:50 ↗ people who are on the sidewalk at a cafe

18:52 ↗ or wanting to stroll not feel like

18:54 ↗ they're you know in danger by cars

18:57 ↗ whizzing by so when we looked at these

19:00 ↗ streets and the potential streets that's

19:01 ↗ what that met that that criteria

19:05 ↗ I think questions about the the general

19:09 ↗ area we're looking at and and again the

19:14 ↗ the reason the a couple of the criterias

19:16 ↗ we looked at is again the the connection

19:18 ↗ to the amenities that already exists so

19:19 ↗ we already have again transit center

19:22 ↗ services jobs we have a quite a few

19:25 ↗ number of office buildings in here that

19:27 ↗ have professional jobs that are

19:29 ↗ available to people

19:30 ↗ and again the potential for growth so

19:34 ↗ the rally area has a development

19:37 ↗ agreement right yes okay so anything

19:39 ↗ that's over near the park and ride isn't

19:43 ↗ potentially an option yeah so basically

19:46 ↗ from 12th to the to the west northwest

19:51 ↗ maple to Northwest Gilman that those

19:54 ↗ that block area I would say probably 80%

19:57 ↗ of that is Raleigh there's some of the

19:59 ↗ properties not and and then on the other

20:01 ↗ side of SR 900 they have a big swath and

20:04 ↗ if you look at zoning maps every you'll

20:06 ↗ see like the coral color that is the

20:09 ↗ urban core color of zoning within those

20:12 ↗ that blocks I just mentioned that you

20:13 ↗ know would be the property that is

20:15 ↗ somebody owned by somebody else besides

20:17 ↗ Raleigh okay there's 12 Street be

20:21 ↗ removed no it's there maybe it's just

20:24 ↗ hard to see so it's right here okay yeah

20:31 ↗ so what in the rally agreement do you

20:36 ↗ know what they can built in there if

20:39 ↗ they they could build something very

20:41 ↗ similar to what we're proposing as far

20:43 ↗ as vertical mixed-use yes

20:45 ↗ so they're there you mean their concepts

20:47 ↗ are various I think similar to what's in

20:48 ↗ the central of plan as far as

20:50 ↗ density and types of building types so

20:53 ↗ do we have a sense that that will happen

20:56 ↗ either before the market is going to

21:00 ↗ dictate this type of development or

21:02 ↗ longer-term the Raleigh or this I'm

21:06 ↗ sorry alley

21:07 ↗ you know they have focused on what's

21:09 ↗ called Hilah neighborhood or district

21:11 ↗ which is on the other side of SR 900 so

21:13 ↗ that's where they built the hotels and

21:15 ↗ office so depending on you know how

21:18 ↗ quickly but I don't anticipate in the

21:21 ↗ next five to ten years seeing something

21:23 ↗ redeveloped here but that could change I

21:25 ↗ might I don't want to speak for them

21:28 ↗ yeah so I just wanted to mention this to

21:32 ↗ the street grid here that's outlined

21:34 ↗ again it's just for high level planning

21:37 ↗ to kind of figure out how things could

21:41 ↗ fit within here

21:42 ↗ and again we know that there are

21:44 ↗ wetlands that are within the town and

21:47 ↗ country and common shopping center areas

21:49 ↗ and so Ron mentioned you know that big

21:51 ↗ parcel is actually that is not in green

21:53 ↗ here on this one but that's actually

21:54 ↗ part of the Commons shopping center

21:57 ↗ property so we we want to make sure that

22:01 ↗ we when this does get redeveloped that

22:05 ↗ we ensure that take advantage of those

22:07 ↗ opportunities of those green amenities

22:09 ↗ and create more of a many versus just a

22:11 ↗ place over there that's around something

22:14 ↗ else

22:14 ↗ so the actual all these green little

22:18 ↗ parks and everything are not exactly

22:20 ↗ what you'll see in the redevelopment we

22:23 ↗ really wanted to for the commons area

22:26 ↗ for instance right now the central de

22:29 ↗ quoi plan talks about that they exact

22:31 ↗ Road actually for both of these the

22:34 ↗ exact road placement will be determine

22:36 ↗ when redevelopment occurs and we have

22:38 ↗ had one meeting with the Commons

22:40 ↗ ownership about an interest in looking

22:43 ↗ at that future potential for them where

22:45 ↗ it would be better defined so we we

22:52 ↗ basically are recommending to implement

22:54 ↗ again the vertical mix requirement use

22:56 ↗ requirements which we're going to be

22:57 ↗ talking about next along in that area

22:59 ↗ are there any concerns with that I just

23:02 ↗ have a clarification question on the

23:04 ↗ last slide so what what do you propose

23:09 ↗ as far as or improving or adding

23:13 ↗ amenities to the wetlands areas so

23:15 ↗ there's nothing proposed right now but

23:16 ↗ we want to make sure we call that out to

23:18 ↗ ensure that when it does get when it

23:20 ↗ does get into the point of redevelop and

23:22 ↗ either through a development agreement

23:24 ↗ or some other way that it's not

23:25 ↗ forgotten about okay so amenities such

23:29 ↗ as Nicole walkway or yeah

23:31 ↗ yeah we haven't gotten to those details

23:32 ↗ now okay now ours are our focus has

23:34 ↗ really been more building type right and

23:36 ↗ so again the street the street grids

23:38 ↗ aren't part of our recommendation but

23:41 ↗ again we don't want to lose the

23:42 ↗ opportunity the ideas that were

23:44 ↗ developed during this time but there

23:46 ↗ hasn't been research you know into

23:48 ↗ exactly do these things make sense so so

23:54 ↗ we talked about where

23:56 ↗ and then now what so when you think

24:00 ↗ about vertical we need to go at

24:01 ↗ commercial on the ground floor again all

24:05 ↗ you have been into very vibrant areas

24:08 ↗ what you think about typically or food

24:11 ↗ and beverage and retail services right

24:13 ↗ the consultants believe that you know if

24:15 ↗ we're gonna create a vertical mixed use

24:16 ↗ area that that's important that we

24:18 ↗ specify those uses only allowed in these

24:22 ↗ areas we had again through the analysis

24:27 ↗ we've had done previously recognized and

24:30 ↗ our interviews with other cities I

24:32 ↗ recognize that that may not be we're not

24:35 ↗ maybe not there yet for the market and

24:37 ↗ so what we decided to recommend instead

24:40 ↗ was to allow all the uses that are

24:45 ↗ allowed in urban core currently - the

24:47 ↗ outdoor storage and drive-thru type of

24:49 ↗ things that don't really make sense for

24:52 ↗ a vertical mixed-use building but

24:54 ↗ require those types of the food and

24:57 ↗ service the food and beverage rather and

24:59 ↗ the retail service to be within 60 feet

25:02 ↗ of the corner so from the corner to 60

25:05 ↗ feet of the building to 60 feet in has

25:07 ↗ to has to have that type of use that

25:09 ↗ make sense and we got these figures from

25:12 ↗ currently the in the I think it's like

25:15 ↗ for the building activity for the street

25:17 ↗ walls are required to ensure that

25:19 ↗ there's activity within the first 60

25:21 ↗ feet of the corner from the building so

25:24 ↗ we took that from what's already

25:24 ↗ existing in the central Issaquah plan

25:26 ↗ and the reasons why we did that is that

25:29 ↗ we didn't want the other uses so outside

25:33 ↗ of the retail and service and

25:35 ↗ restaurants such as art galleries a

25:37 ↗ drugstore schools that they would not be

25:40 ↗ allowed then in our in a commercial area

25:42 ↗ on the ground floor and so we we thought

25:45 ↗ it was too restrictive of just saying

25:48 ↗ only food and beverage and retail

25:50 ↗ services we also looked at what Redmond

25:53 ↗ Kirkland other cities are doing and none

25:56 ↗ of them are that strict Kirkland does in

25:59 ↗ a very small area they're established

26:01 ↗ downtown as you mentioned required more

26:04 ↗ specific uses but that's again

26:07 ↗ in a very small area and then beyond

26:08 ↗ like one block away they they allow more

26:11 ↗ office and other art galleries etc and

26:14 ↗ then you know one of the things that

26:17 ↗ again this is going to be something we

26:19 ↗ want we want to see happen and we want

26:21 ↗ to make sure it's successful we do not

26:22 ↗ want to see a building built and have

26:24 ↗ vacant storefront for very long because

26:27 ↗ they can't find their restaurant or that

26:29 ↗ retail service to go there and it was

26:32 ↗ you know as we know retail services are

26:33 ↗ changing in this world and so to be so

26:36 ↗ restrictive we thought was not a good

26:38 ↗ idea yes so so we paid consultants to do

26:44 ↗ the analysis I'm concerned that we're

26:46 ↗ over writing without without providing a

26:50 ↗ justification as to why they recommended

26:53 ↗ that and and saying you know yeah they

26:57 ↗ said that so that's I mean we're paying

26:59 ↗ them to to make recommendations yeah so

27:02 ↗ you know that's true we also paid eco

27:04 ↗ Northwest to make recommendations and

27:06 ↗ they didn't they showed something

27:08 ↗ different so I think that the the

27:10 ↗ consultants of the quran' dover

27:11 ↗ ambulance Alton's we were looking around

27:14 ↗ the building type and form and the use

27:16 ↗ was a was not a primary focus they

27:19 ↗ didn't do any analysis as far as our

27:21 ↗ market i think they they believed in our

27:23 ↗ strong market and they believe that

27:25 ↗ that's a possibility but they didn't

27:26 ↗ have any when I asked them like where

27:28 ↗ did you know is our study you're looking

27:30 ↗ at or is there something that you can

27:31 ↗ show that actually would justify this

27:34 ↗ and again they just felt that this was

27:36 ↗ something that could be possible for an

27:38 ↗ 18 hour day kind of use and I think we

27:41 ↗ again being in our community talking to

27:44 ↗ other communities in the area and seeing

27:45 ↗ how they have grown because not all the

27:47 ↗ cities you see now that our vibrant

27:48 ↗ started that way there's a transition

27:50 ↗ time and so and even currently again in

27:53 ↗ Redmond they do not restrict it so so

27:56 ↗ tightly along Cleveland Street where

27:59 ↗ they do require mixed-use so that was

28:02 ↗ the reason for us to change the the

28:04 ↗ recommendation a bit you follow-up

28:06 ↗ question or comment you know this this

28:09 ↗ the trend of this conversation really

28:11 ↗ concerns me because you know we pay we

28:15 ↗ pay a lot of money to consultants to

28:17 ↗ give us recommendations

28:19 ↗ if they're not doing a good job then we

28:21 ↗ need to replace them or they're not

28:23 ↗ giving us what we need we need to

28:25 ↗ replace them we don't pay that pay for

28:27 ↗ what for for recommendations we're not

28:29 ↗ using so so I don't understand I don't

28:32 ↗ understand the override you know there

28:35 ↗ has to be a justification of why there's

28:37 ↗ an override and you know just the staff

28:39 ↗ saying you know we don't think that this

28:41 ↗ is going to work

28:42 ↗ it seems really concerning to me so

28:44 ↗ again the consultants these consultants

28:46 ↗ were hired to do more of the building

28:47 ↗ development recommendations and then

28:50 ↗ they suggested this as far as the uses

28:53 ↗ that wasn't the use wasn't part of their

28:55 ↗ original scope and and that you know

29:00 ↗ again we had another consultant that

29:02 ↗ provided some additional information and

29:03 ↗ we used that knowledge to develop our

29:07 ↗ recommendations so maybe think we think

29:15 ↗ they're strong consultants and they gave

29:16 ↗ us really good other recommendations

29:18 ↗ this one we just thought would we

29:19 ↗ understand our community if they're a

29:21 ↗ little better and have some other data

29:23 ↗ that they didn't take into account

29:27 ↗ could you please recap again yes just

29:30 ↗ two different stories the original

29:34 ↗ vision that you have the intention for

29:36 ↗ the mixed-use with the retail or

29:39 ↗ mixed-use and what that picture would

29:42 ↗ look like which you aspirationally would

29:44 ↗ like to see and then what is it that you

29:48 ↗ think would be reality and would the

29:51 ↗ reality eventually change into your

29:54 ↗ aspirational villain that is vision or

29:56 ↗ is are we actually building to what we

29:59 ↗ think is a reality because if we built a

30:01 ↗ reality there might be walls obstruction

30:04 ↗ things that would obstruct they would

30:09 ↗ not necessarily come out as a may be

30:10 ↗ appropriate for retail space right might

30:14 ↗ be walls concrete walls as opposed to

30:16 ↗ last walls yeah and so that's a great

30:19 ↗ point run so when we look when we're

30:21 ↗ looking at these requirements of

30:23 ↗ recommendations it's a very again it's a

30:25 ↗ very small you know four things the

30:28 ↗ central Issaquah plant already accounts

30:29 ↗ for that where the the transparency

30:32 ↗ the ground-floor for commercial is

30:33 ↗ already addressed and I'm not a planner

30:35 ↗ so I can't tell code at the top of my

30:36 ↗ head but it's you know 60% or you know

30:38 ↗ whatever percent so those things that

30:40 ↗ you need to touch because they're

30:41 ↗ already in the code and then again the

30:44 ↗ urban the architectural and urban design

30:47 ↗ manual are addressing all those same

30:48 ↗ things so so we don't need for for this

30:51 ↗ project to looking at a building so

30:53 ↗ we're really looking at this building

30:54 ↗ that we're going to build what it's

30:56 ↗ important to have in this building in

30:58 ↗ order to make it successful to be

31:00 ↗ vertical mixed-use and where were the

31:02 ↗ requirements that will ensure it will be

31:03 ↗ as opposed to you could build a

31:05 ↗ one-story building or you can build a

31:06 ↗ three-story building what you're saying

31:08 ↗ is we're going to future-proof the

31:10 ↗ development what actually lands in there

31:14 ↗ in its beginning stages may not be what

31:17 ↗ we see in our vision but it will

31:19 ↗ eventually long term the actual uses yes

31:22 ↗ yes that would be that's our definitely

31:23 ↗ go and I think again other cities have

31:26 ↗ seen that transition where you know the

31:28 ↗ businesses have come in and as as more

31:30 ↗ neighbourhood you think about the number

31:32 ↗ of residents that live in the central

31:34 ↗ district well area right now especially

31:36 ↗ urban core I think it's 707 zero yeah

31:40 ↗ okay that's right so it's 750 units is

31:43 ↗ it within central is cost so so we're

31:45 ↗ we're talking about these spaces we're

31:46 ↗ talking about neighborhoods serving

31:48 ↗ space it doesn't mean that people won't

31:49 ↗ come from other areas but there's not a

31:51 ↗ neighborhood yet there yet so for

31:53 ↗ somebody to build a restaurant that

31:55 ↗ needs date you know lunchtime and dinner

31:56 ↗ and maybe even breakfast it's it's a you

32:00 ↗ know I think is a little before a time

32:01 ↗ now does not mean that something could

32:04 ↗ go there today and not be successful but

32:05 ↗ we want to make sure that we provide the

32:09 ↗ the breadth of choices without getting

32:11 ↗ too far flung of what we want to see

32:14 ↗ there so but to have again to have that

32:16 ↗ where an art gallery or drugstore

32:17 ↗ couldn't come in if we only restricted

32:19 ↗ it to the two retail and food service

32:25 ↗ that's that's something we think would

32:27 ↗ be a missed opportunity and as planners

32:28 ↗ they would be sitting there saying sorry

32:30 ↗ it's against our code to do that and

32:31 ↗ that's I don't think right for a vibrant

32:34 ↗ community okay

32:36 ↗ thank you yeah any other comments on

32:39 ↗ this topic next is fun height and FA are

32:46 ↗ so when the consultants the consultants

32:49 ↗ did an analysis howl when you're saying

32:51 ↗ how did they get to this ninety percent

32:52 ↗ so they did an analysis of looking at

32:54 ↗ what we can build currently under the

32:57 ↗ central plan urban core area and what

33:00 ↗ they think is necessary and so that's

33:02 ↗ kind of how we got to these detailed

33:05 ↗ recommendations and what they discovered

33:08 ↗ is that we can build developer could

33:10 ↗ build something very Auto centric right

33:13 ↗ because because of our minute lower

33:14 ↗ lower FA RS and our low requirements so

33:18 ↗ what they were recommending is that we

33:22 ↗ want to require that the ground floor

33:24 ↗ that is built for the commercial use is

33:27 ↗ between 15 and 20 feet so currently it's

33:31 ↗ 15 feet on our pedestrian ways I don't

33:37 ↗ know that's the exact course streets

33:38 ↗ okay and so we want to give a little bit

33:41 ↗ more more height because a lot of times

33:43 ↗ and if you you may notice and some of

33:45 ↗ the newer buildings that commercial

33:46 ↗ space needs that more that higher

33:48 ↗ ceiling so we wanted to raise that up

33:50 ↗ but we wanted to look at instead of

33:53 ↗ saying okay now you can you can go to 48

34:00 ↗ feet as your base we wanted the analysis

34:04 ↗ shows that you really need to have six

34:05 ↗ storeys in order to make this work and

34:07 ↗ so six storeys turns out to be about 85

34:10 ↗ feet and then with the bonus density you

34:13 ↗ can do up to ten store floors which is a

34:15 ↗ hundred and thirty-five feet and so they

34:20 ↗ can do their analysis they did you know

34:23 ↗ running through numbers this is in line

34:26 ↗ with other developments they've seen in

34:27 ↗ vertical mixed use areas and areas that

34:30 ↗ we want to see redeveloped but so it's

34:35 ↗ the the I guess I should define here so

34:39 ↗ the base for the height does not mean

34:41 ↗ the minimum it actually means the hot

34:45 ↗ the

34:46 ↗ some that you can do before you go into

34:47 ↗ bonus density so it's a little so you

34:51 ↗ but right now in the urban core you can

34:54 ↗ only build 248 feet before you have to

34:58 ↗ pay into Benson density bonus and our

35:01 ↗ first consultants showed us that the

35:02 ↗ density bonus was actually a

35:04 ↗ disincentive again because of what it

35:06 ↗ cost to get those extra floors didn't

35:08 ↗ make up in revenue so this this changing

35:11 ↗ this here allows it to a line a bit

35:14 ↗ better with what we want to see in the

35:16 ↗ vertical mix you use areas isn't 12

35:19 ↗ stories being discussed where I'm sorry

35:25 ↗ in the urban core well so the maximum in

35:29 ↗ the urban core is 125 currently but

35:32 ↗ again we're asking like the first story

35:34 ↗ so so the the height isn't that

35:36 ↗ different so it 135 versus 125 but we're

35:40 ↗ we want to make sure that when they do

35:41 ↗ build the building again the first floor

35:43 ↗ commercial has that height that's

35:45 ↗ necessary and then give them the

35:46 ↗ flexibility to do the height limits they

35:48 ↗ need within that first floor and that

35:50 ↗ sixth floor or the tenth floor if

35:52 ↗ they're going to use bonus density okay

35:54 ↗ but so what you're saying is 135 10

35:58 ↗ floors is maximum height yeah yep and

36:01 ↗ we're not talking about 12 stories I

36:03 ↗ thought I heard 12 stories and either in

36:05 ↗ land and Shore or council okay for

36:13 ↗ reference how tall is Atlas oh well it's

36:18 ↗ forty eight forty coz fifty fifty three

36:25 ↗ because they have the unig and the roof

36:27 ↗ elements that aren't counted and so 53

36:29 ↗ is what Keith said okay yeah and again

36:33 ↗ this is already you know in the in the

36:34 ↗ urban core the 125 is already allowed

36:40 ↗ timber ridges ten floors is what Keith's

36:43 ↗ they're already up on a hill they like

36:46 ↗ even bigger than right yeah so we you

36:51 ↗ know we agree that that makes a lot of

36:53 ↗ sense and and again counting on there

36:56 ↗ their knowledge of looking at doing the

36:58 ↗ analysis again they did the analysis for

37:00 ↗ the building type not for the uses

37:03 ↗ necessary for a successful mixed-use

37:05 ↗ project so and this is a quick slide

37:08 ↗ from you do have their presentation as

37:10 ↗ well it's a hundred slides so I didn't

37:12 ↗ want to take that much time with those

37:14 ↗ but this is a the analysis they did a

37:16 ↗ bit about so this is the corner of 12th

37:18 ↗ and Gilman so again we're on the corner

37:21 ↗ there's we're currently Chase Bank is

37:23 ↗ and so they did some running of numbers

37:25 ↗ and seeing okay what could you actually

37:27 ↗ fit here and looking at with parking

37:30 ↗ what could you actually do and so they

37:31 ↗ calculated that being able to go under

37:35 ↗ under the building for one level having

37:38 ↗ maybe some tuck in having a strip of

37:40 ↗ parking in the back because you need to

37:41 ↗ have some that space for deliveries and

37:43 ↗ some other areas and as well as having

37:45 ↗ parking on street parking in the front

37:47 ↗ would meet its needs for the the

37:50 ↗ percentage parking required we do not we

37:52 ↗ do not change any of the parking

37:53 ↗ requirements as far as I peruse but

37:57 ↗ that's the analysis that they did yes

38:01 ↗ sir

38:01 ↗ I'm sorry I I just go back to that slide

38:05 ↗ yeah yeah where are all the cars that

38:12 ↗ now go to Hobby Lobby where are they

38:15 ↗ going to park so this is a all right

38:18 ↗ this is a plopping down okay and we got

38:22 ↗ a residential thing there it looks like

38:24 ↗ four storeys 20,000 square feet per

38:27 ↗ floor how many apartment buildings is a

38:30 ↗ how many apartment units and how many

38:33 ↗ cars so they did the analysis to make to

38:37 ↗ meet the parking requirements that are

38:38 ↗ in our code so making sure they have one

38:41 ↗ you know parking per if it's per unit or

38:44 ↗ depending on the size so okay so so this

38:49 ↗ is not to say that this whole will never

38:51 ↗ happen but go ahead so this is not to

38:54 ↗ say that this is exactly going to happen

38:55 ↗ like this it was to look at what could

38:57 ↗ happen because actually the Chase Bank

38:59 ↗ which is in the corner is a different

39:01 ↗ ownership than the Town & Country so the

39:02 ↗ town the country is not you're right

39:04 ↗ Chanin country's not going to build in

39:05 ↗ front of their their current store to

39:08 ↗ take away the parking

39:09 ↗ as they built a structure parking garage

39:11 ↗ on a different part of their property

39:12 ↗ they have a really large property and

39:14 ↗ you know if they redevelop in phases but

39:18 ↗ but you're right this um this is not to

39:19 ↗ say this is what we think is going to

39:21 ↗ happen tomorrow or it was a test of

39:23 ↗ seeing how things could fit and them

39:26 ↗ doing the analysis of running through

39:28 ↗ mountain country is only mountain

39:31 ↗ country could become that what you're

39:34 ↗ saying

39:34 ↗ sure yeah yes I don't think anybody

39:39 ↗ again I don't think anybody's saying

39:41 ↗ that that this is exactly what will

39:42 ↗ happen here I guess I guess my problem

39:46 ↗ is I when you show a picture like this

39:48 ↗ and it we're all subject saying well

39:51 ↗ that's what it's going to look like and

39:53 ↗ that's not true because the first thing

39:54 ↗ that could happen is they would level

39:56 ↗ Hobby Lobby and then that disappears and

40:00 ↗ then there's no parking needed for the

40:02 ↗ store that's not there right so but but

40:05 ↗ I guess I guess I bring in a little

40:07 ↗ reality where they just are saying

40:08 ↗ they're just bringing in new business

40:10 ↗ I'm not sure that they would initially

40:11 ↗ lobby

40:12 ↗ you know demolish Hobby Lobby but the

40:15 ↗ the concept of this could be plopped

40:17 ↗ anywhere along the areas that we're

40:19 ↗ looking at right so you could build one

40:21 ↗ of these buildings you can build two of

40:22 ↗ these buildings you can put three their

40:23 ↗ buildings the idea for them just to show

40:25 ↗ you what they were looking at and so

40:26 ↗ again we're not looking at you know

40:28 ↗ really skyscraper kind of buildings this

40:31 ↗ is the type of environment we want to we

40:33 ↗ want we want to create for this vertical

40:35 ↗ mixed use area but in saying that it's

40:43 ↗ actually not

40:45 ↗ this wouldn't be built out to its

40:47 ↗ maximum use so if a developer came in

40:49 ↗ and wanted to build us out to those

40:50 ↗ maximum use you would be looking at

40:53 ↗ about how many units per parcel you know

40:59 ↗ I don't know that so we were focusing on

41:02 ↗ the elements that were necessary so when

41:04 ↗ they do build what that could be and I

41:07 ↗ think this probably analysis in the

41:08 ↗ centralist call plan already about what

41:10 ↗ where they could build you know I'm not

41:12 ↗ sure by parcel but I'm not looking late

41:15 ↗ for you to have an answer Kristen but

41:16 ↗ but if that already exists because we

41:18 ↗ didn't again we didn't pay the

41:19 ↗ consultants to figure out you know

41:22 ↗ what's the full extent because that's

41:23 ↗ already it has already been done as part

41:25 ↗ of the central let's call planned effort

41:27 ↗ so we didn't again pursue that path with

41:30 ↗ we could actually have I think the

41:33 ↗ numbers are about seven thousand units

41:36 ↗ or the urban car shaking that would be

41:41 ↗ about ten stories per unit i mean per

41:45 ↗ arsal would look anything like that into

41:50 ↗ Carl's point are keen I would assume

41:55 ↗ that would probably 7,000 units figure

41:59 ↗ maybe 1.2 cars per unit you'd be looking

42:02 ↗ at almost four floors per building of

42:05 ↗ parking so the seven thousand units

42:07 ↗ though aren't going to be just on these

42:09 ↗ parcels and the urban core goes from

42:11 ↗ basically newport over to over the

42:15 ↗ highway across the highway into where

42:17 ↗ costco is and from to west west of sr

42:22 ↗ 900 to the commons so that's it's a much

42:24 ↗ larger area than you're envisioning

42:26 ↗ seeing here and these few lots talk us

42:29 ↗ through because i think what we're

42:30 ↗ having a hard time understanding is when

42:33 ↗ you have a dense unit of residential

42:37 ↗ that requires 90 percent or mixed-use

42:40 ↗ with residential on top there requires

42:42 ↗ 90 percent parking and the first floor

42:45 ↗ is retail commercial how many floors

42:48 ↗ parking in like how do you fit that

42:50 ↗ issue so i'm gonna walk right into my

42:52 ↗ firs

43:03 ↗ and if they needed to they could have

43:05 ↗ going up to a second level but the idea

43:08 ↗ is that they in on the ground floor you

43:12 ↗ would not know that there's a parking

43:13 ↗ garage behind that if that's how it was

43:15 ↗ built

43:15 ↗ okay and so you would go under much like

43:18 ↗ Atlas did for the idea that you can go

43:22 ↗ under for a floor or whatever mhm okay

43:27 ↗ we feel like that one and a half under

43:31 ↗ plus a little bit of Street plus a

43:33 ↗ little bit of surface very little

43:36 ↗ surface Atlas if I'm not mistaken had

43:42 ↗ half parking underground and a half

43:44 ↗ surface for their units mmm-hmm so now

43:48 ↗ you've got to take another 40 percent

43:52 ↗ and put it on put it on structure based

43:57 ↗ on this theory so so he's mentioning

44:02 ↗ that's closer to nevada project we're

44:04 ↗ working on where they're take they take

44:05 ↗ the whole site and you actually go under

44:07 ↗ so well you see surface parking was

44:09 ↗ actually garage our parking structure

44:11 ↗ underneath as well so it's the whole

44:12 ↗ plate of the development opportunity so

44:15 ↗ it's not just under the building itself

44:17 ↗ and i think that's one of the challenges

44:19 ↗ when you start looking at these sites is

44:21 ↗ how can you how do you meet these

44:23 ↗ requirements again whether there's vases

44:26 ↗ or a longer term and one of the other

44:30 ↗ part property owners in this area talked

44:33 ↗ about how they are going to build

44:35 ↗ parking and thinking about that to take

44:38 ↗ advantage of the future redevelopment of

44:41 ↗ other sites so so how is parking handled

44:45 ↗ for vertical mixed-use for other cities

44:49 ↗ that have done this so parking in

44:54 ↗ structures because again park the person

44:56 ↗ several times and you know is it

44:59 ↗ happening in structures is happening

45:00 ↗ underground is what we're asking

45:02 ↗ unreasonable you know those types of

45:05 ↗ yeah so you have you guys where the

45:08 ↗ parking structure studies that were just

45:09 ↗ completed as part of the moratorium i

45:11 ↗ believe that you might have been in that

45:13 ↗ discussion right

45:14 ↗ so so from that analysis and I wasn't

45:16 ↗ the one leading that before I understand

45:19 ↗ is that our our ratios are right on what

45:24 ↗ they should be and we did not 50% a not

45:29 ↗ a 90% so ratios I'm sorry ratios of how

45:32 ↗ many parking spaces are required so are

45:34 ↗ you asking that or you asked or you're

45:36 ↗ asking both I thought you're asking both

45:37 ↗ well I'm asking more of the how are

45:40 ↗ other cities fitting in parking in

45:43 ↗ vertical mixed use are they going under

45:46 ↗ the entire site are they building some

45:50 ↗ underground and some above the retail

45:53 ↗ are they not requiring 90 percent yeah

45:57 ↗ they're not requiring 90 percent

45:59 ↗ structure but they also so one of the

46:02 ↗ things the reasons that Crandall /

46:04 ↗ ambulating 90 percent is that if you

46:07 ↗ don't you're gonna get the surface

46:08 ↗ parking right and so then you're gonna

46:10 ↗ get that building form that's for all

46:12 ↗ there for the next 20 40 50 years that

46:14 ↗ has a big sea of parking and a nice

46:17 ↗ pretty building so we may have gotten

46:20 ↗ that nice pretty building and getting

46:21 ↗ that commercial storefront but we're not

46:24 ↗ we're gonna have the sea of parking and

46:26 ↗ it doesn't create that allow that

46:27 ↗ pedestrian environment to continue to

46:29 ↗ grow so that's why they consider that

46:32 ↗ this would be a higher percentage I

46:34 ↗ agree with the 90 percent idea I have

46:39 ↗ with is the reality of making that work

46:42 ↗ in that area in this area that where

46:46 ↗ this diagram is labeled partly because

46:49 ↗ it has a very high water table though if

46:53 ↗ you go down a story or two stories are

46:56 ↗ you gonna keep all the water out do what

46:58 ↗ are you gonna do with all the cars if

46:59 ↗ there's a flood and then three is with

47:04 ↗ all that water and then ground how is

47:06 ↗ that going to support a 10 story

47:07 ↗ building that's going to be super

47:09 ↗ saturated in the winter and the soils

47:14 ↗ are they really stable enough to support

47:16 ↗ a 10 story building if you structure do

47:19 ↗ it structurally correct yeah yeah it

47:21 ↗ cost more some piles UK it costs more

47:24 ↗ yeah

47:25 ↗ but mm-hmm so is there a plan for what

47:29 ↗ to do with 7,000 cars or in this case

47:32 ↗ let's say 3,500 cards let's say it's

47:34 ↗ 50/50 50% on the other side of 90 50% is

47:38 ↗ on this side what we're gonna do with

47:40 ↗ 3500 cars if it floods the floods you

47:44 ↗ mean you're saying that all of them have

47:45 ↗ structure parking and floods well if we

47:48 ↗ have 90 percent parking and you're

47:50 ↗ talking about going maybe two stories

47:52 ↗ down or maybe one story up we have

47:55 ↗ thousands of cars they're gonna have to

47:56 ↗ go somewhere

47:57 ↗ is there a back-up plan to people so

48:01 ↗ their cars don't underwater doesn't ant

48:09 ↗ let's have a plan where they're

48:10 ↗ downstairs in the parking structure its

48:13 ↗ marked about the water yes yeah so I

48:17 ↗ think it happened site by site when it's

48:19 ↗ developed the developers would address

48:21 ↗ that as they go the water table on that

48:23 ↗ friend so there's different issues with

48:27 ↗ different parcels so so Alice is part of

48:31 ↗ they're right next to the flood way

48:36 ↗ right and so that property has

48:38 ↗ historically flooded that property to my

48:42 ↗ knowledge hasn't flooded since I've been

48:44 ↗ here now the issue that you're bringing

48:46 ↗ up Ron which is okay if you've got a

48:48 ↗ let's say you've got a piece of property

48:50 ↗ that's not in a flood zone right and you

48:52 ↗ want to build subterranean parking which

48:56 ↗ will intercept the groundwater you as a

48:59 ↗ developer need to figure out how to keep

49:01 ↗ that dry and you need to also show that

49:04 ↗ that impact to the groundwater and what

49:07 ↗ it's trying to do isn't a problem

49:09 ↗ hydrologically so I mean you've got both

49:11 ↗ those things as a developer that you

49:13 ↗ would have to solve if you're going down

49:15 ↗ that far which is why most of them

49:18 ↗ probably won't go down farther than one

49:20 ↗ story down which means the privy to

49:22 ↗ stories of parking within the building

49:25 ↗ to answer Karl's question generally I

49:28 ↗ think what you're going to see is ground

49:29 ↗ floor non-residential use the next two

49:33 ↗ floors or partial floors will be parking

49:35 ↗ and then the other use whether it's

49:37 ↗ office or residue

49:38 ↗ so would be above that okay yeah I don't

49:41 ↗ anticipate or I don't believe we're

49:43 ↗ gonna have above-ground flooding in this

49:46 ↗ area but I could see if water level I

49:49 ↗ mean we have wet land so I know the

49:50 ↗ water table is almost a ground level

49:52 ↗ that's why I bring that up as far as

49:55 ↗ flooding of parking mm-hmm and again

49:57 ↗ when that would be built that I think

49:59 ↗ yeah obviously we'd be very on top of

50:01 ↗ making sure they make the considerations

50:05 ↗ that are necessary by code and being in

50:07 ↗ the that area so so I know things have

50:11 ↗ been mitigated since the last flood but

50:13 ↗ there were two feet of water going right

50:15 ↗ down built Gillman Boulevard for the

50:17 ↗ whole way so it has flooded sure yes we

50:21 ↗ can never see never may be sure okay so

50:25 ↗ we did height and then looking at when

50:28 ↗ we actually looked at if we wanted to

50:31 ↗ see this actually happen the

50:33 ↗ calculations again looking at the what

50:35 ↗ you could build with the current urban

50:38 ↗ core fa fa ours did not get as to what

50:42 ↗ we wanted to see and so these are the

50:44 ↗ again the calculations that are

50:46 ↗ necessary in order to align with the

50:49 ↗ other recommendations so we're

50:52 ↗ increasing the minimum if they are to

50:56 ↗ 2.5 because currently it's up for

50:58 ↗ commercial 0.55 so they couldn't even

51:01 ↗ build a two-story building right unless

51:03 ↗ you build it really tall and skinny and

51:06 ↗ then looking as the base so again that's

51:09 ↗ in a weird word but it's actually the

51:12 ↗ maximum before you get into the bonus

51:14 ↗ density at 5.0 and the maximum at 8 pono

51:18 ↗ and again the height limits you know

51:20 ↗ make sure that that all kind of takes

51:22 ↗ account what we need not to get a dead

51:28 ↗ horse here but I think would be a good

51:31 ↗ recommendation for the city to have a

51:33 ↗ plan on how to deal with parking in the

51:36 ↗ event of a flood bellboys

51:39 ↗ you could put that onus on the developer

51:41 ↗ but once things build and they're gone

51:43 ↗ that's a no-no it's up to the homeowners

51:45 ↗ association and property management

51:47 ↗ company and they may not have all the

51:49 ↗ answers so okay I think would be Roden

51:52 ↗ that we have a back-up plan to say hey

51:55 ↗ we take over the transit center the top

51:57 ↗ floors that's going to be dedicated for

52:00 ↗ flood parking or we put them on squawk

52:03 ↗ and trum or from somewhere but I have a

52:05 ↗ plan okay and so again I mentioned so

52:14 ↗ this again doesn't allow the auto

52:16 ↗ dominated building type so again having

52:19 ↗ that point five five if they are then

52:23 ↗ you know that was less less building

52:26 ↗ space are and more more parking surface

52:29 ↗ parking space and then the ninety

52:33 ↗ percent so again this was a

52:35 ↗ recommendation from the consultants

52:37 ↗ looking at what they felt was necessary

52:39 ↗ to avoid building a building type that

52:42 ↗ was going to be a nice building with a

52:44 ↗ sea of parking around it and that is

52:46 ↗ what would be allowed with 50 percent

52:48 ↗ they did they now assess with our you

52:50 ↗ know new standards because they're aware

52:53 ↗ of those and it showed that you're able

52:55 ↗ to have you know a large parking lot

52:59 ↗ with your building they thought if we're

53:01 ↗ gonna really in this area where we want

53:03 ↗ to see that density and that pedestrian

53:06 ↗ oriented less more people walking on the

53:09 ↗ sidewalks less parkings drop a spots

53:12 ↗ seen this is the way to go so with this

53:16 ↗ recommendation separate from the the

53:19 ↗ analysis that concluded that there

53:22 ↗ wasn't the financial incentives but

53:25 ↗ there would be in the five to ten years

53:27 ↗ because yeah so this is based on the

53:29 ↗ structure based on what you want it to

53:31 ↗ look like but not based on that we want

53:34 ↗ people to feel financially secure doing

53:39 ↗ this which is I'm saying financially

53:42 ↗ feasible is that we have yeah right okay

53:45 ↗ because but they did do analysis and

53:47 ↗ they looked at what other other places

53:49 ↗ they have they've worked in

53:52 ↗ showed that example so okay but but

53:56 ↗ there was the one analysis that showed

53:58 ↗ that there is maybe not the economic yes

54:01 ↗ opportunity right now but in five years

54:03 ↗ and then this is separate this is just

54:05 ↗ to get it to to have the form that we

54:08 ↗ want correct yes yes then the the

54:11 ↗ remaining 10% parking do you have a plan

54:14 ↗ on what kind of parking that would be

54:15 ↗ well that would be allowed so again you

54:18 ↗ know 90% would be you know requires they

54:20 ↗ could do all hundred percent in a

54:22 ↗ structure but what the idea is that

54:24 ↗ would probably be along the back edge of

54:26 ↗ the buildings that would allow for the

54:28 ↗ deliveries and other things that are

54:30 ↗ necessary to have that access that would

54:32 ↗ be controlled to I don't know that I

54:40 ↗ would say that at this date that level

54:42 ↗ of detail because there could be you

54:44 ↗ know customer parking but but the idea

54:47 ↗ is that the number of spots would be

54:49 ↗ able to fit in the back of the building

54:52 ↗ and without again creating a sea of

54:54 ↗ parking and we would not have surface

54:57 ↗ parking on the street or we would also

54:59 ↗ have on street parking yes as part of

55:01 ↗ the core streets standards and that

55:04 ↗ would be that would be actually really

55:06 ↗ important for a the commercial

55:09 ↗ ground-floor too happy to have some

55:11 ↗ spaces just like in like in a downtown

55:13 ↗ to feel like you can pull in right off

55:15 ↗ the street and looking at these plans

55:19 ↗ through this packet I don't see anything

55:21 ↗ about the green necklace or bicycle

55:26 ↗ paths right so with that wasn't part of

55:28 ↗ their scope they're part of their scope

55:29 ↗ was to look at if we were going to put

55:31 ↗ regulations to create a vertical

55:34 ↗ mixed-use building area where would that

55:36 ↗ be and what would those regulations be

55:37 ↗ so we didn't look at the broader things

55:40 ↗ again the central escuela plan has that

55:42 ↗ the parks departments doing a strategy

55:45 ↗ right now and I think it's probably near

55:47 ↗ the end or finished that also looks at

55:50 ↗ partially at the green necklace and so

55:52 ↗ that those those work items are taking

55:55 ↗ place in other in other ways okay so

55:57 ↗ these would be submissive to the CIP

56:05 ↗ these developments additive I guess so

56:08 ↗ submissive meaning this is so if you're

56:11 ↗ on if you're in that map and you're that

56:12 ↗ area you have to follow these rules and

56:13 ↗ what's in the CIP Centro so-called ad

56:17 ↗ development Stander's and design

56:19 ↗ standards I worry about things like

56:21 ↗ bicycle paths getting cut out yeah yeah

56:24 ↗ and pedestrian walkways when we have

56:26 ↗ that many units being built so those are

56:29 ↗ very important and those would be there

56:32 ↗ it just we're not part of this

56:34 ↗ conversation but they will be there yes

56:36 ↗ and again unfortunately we're talking

56:37 ↗ about this really tiny part of what we

56:40 ↗ have for our vision for the community

56:42 ↗ for the central Sequoia area but those

56:44 ↗ things are still there they're not being

56:46 ↗ removed they're not being changed and so

56:47 ↗ that's why we did you better important

56:49 ↗ what's that

56:50 ↗ tiny but important yeah yeah every piece

56:53 ↗ is right so so those are our again four

57:00 ↗ recommendations of I don't know how many

57:02 ↗ points the central core standards

57:04 ↗ addresses but broadly millions but we

57:08 ↗ will again we'll be back here for an

57:11 ↗ actual public hearing on the 28th and

57:13 ↗ Landon Shore and then full council adopt

57:16 ↗ for considering adoption are there any

57:19 ↗ other comments question oh yeah I'm

57:23 ↗ gonna come on a Sunday I want to be done

57:28 ↗ a day early okay we'll go on the 16th

57:31 ↗ that's been wrong now for two it's like

57:33 ↗ two meetings so sorry about that

57:36 ↗ so do not come on a Sunday looking for

57:39 ↗ this we talked about it council

57:45 ↗ yeah so I recognize this is a really

57:50 ↗ complex topic and we've been working on

57:52 ↗ it for a while and you guys are kind of

57:53 ↗ coming in at the end chapter is there

57:56 ↗ any other any information or any other

57:58 ↗ kind of follow-up you'd like us to do

58:01 ↗ when we come back for the 28th to

58:03 ↗ present back to you I would like to see

58:07 ↗ a more definite view of some of the

58:15 ↗ other buildings in the other cities that

58:16 ↗ have the same kind of structures should

58:21 ↗ say that yeah they do it is one thing

58:24 ↗ but it would be nice to be able to

58:26 ↗ actually see what is working not just a

58:30 ↗ piece of sentence that says yes it is

58:34 ↗ working it would real pictures not views

58:37 ↗ phone that's a signer drawing yes yes

58:41 ↗ and in the small packet pictures those

58:43 ↗ slides we sent you we have some that but

58:45 ↗ we'll we'll add that to the slideshow

58:47 ↗ next time okay yeah if there are really

58:50 ↗ some really beautiful buildings and

58:52 ↗ create some really great community so

58:55 ↗ one of the things that you've talked

58:56 ↗ about here are basically four code

58:59 ↗ changes but I know in some of the

59:01 ↗ earlier conversations we were talking

59:03 ↗ about potentially incentivizing

59:06 ↗ developers to do vertical mixed-use and

59:10 ↗ one of the things discussed there was MF

59:13 ↗ tees are those off the table or they

59:17 ↗ part of a different discussion that is

59:19 ↗ part of a different discussion as part

59:21 ↗ of our affordable housing strategy and

59:23 ↗ will be actually going to council in

59:25 ↗ November and I think that one's the 14th

59:28 ↗ to talk at the work session to look at

59:30 ↗ it for the transit oriented development

59:32 ↗ but the council gave us direction when

59:35 ↗ we came back from that first analysis

59:36 ↗ that incentives were not the way to go

59:38 ↗ they wanted to make sure they believe

59:40 ↗ the market will eventually come and they

59:41 ↗ want to make sure that the regulations

59:43 ↗ are there to ensure we get what we want

59:46 ↗ it's probably where I was going to okay

59:49 ↗ I do have a request yes

59:52 ↗ so Aldi so you have a bunch of

59:55 ↗ recommendations and they're on different

59:57 ↗ slides and you had different consultants

59:59 ↗ and I'm harping on the consultant thing

1:00:00 ↗ because I ask what I do for a living

1:00:02 ↗ okay and so I would like to see your you

1:00:05 ↗ have here's what the consultant that we

1:00:08 ↗ we brought in said here's what what the

1:00:11 ↗ second one said so you said you had two

1:00:13 ↗ and then here's what the staff

1:00:15 ↗ recommended and I would like to see it

1:00:17 ↗ as a as a comparison okay just to see

1:00:20 ↗ what what was changed you know just in a

1:00:24 ↗ table form there are three columns

1:00:26 ↗ because I'm you know as I said I'm

1:00:29 ↗ concerned that it's the answer we're

1:00:31 ↗ looking for is the answer we're looking

1:00:32 ↗ for and so that that worries me so sure

1:00:36 ↗ and so just so you know they're made

1:00:38 ↗ between eco Northwest and Crandall Aram

1:00:41 ↗ Beulah the Scopes are different so it's

1:00:42 ↗ not like it changed so it may not be a

1:00:44 ↗ reflective this we didn't ask the same

1:00:47 ↗ questions so they're not comparative

1:00:50 ↗ like that so we initially asked eco

1:00:52 ↗ Northwest

1:00:53 ↗ what is the market like and then we

1:00:55 ↗ asked Crandall Ram Beulah about more

1:00:58 ↗ specific what do we need to put in

1:01:01 ↗ regulations for this building per se so

1:01:04 ↗ so when you see if you would see that on

1:01:05 ↗ table it wouldn't align as well but the

1:01:08 ↗ change is that your your seat you're

1:01:10 ↗ seeing here we did record we did reflect

1:01:12 ↗ what we we as staff felt let's change

1:01:14 ↗ which is that one item so I can do that

1:01:16 ↗ yeah I just want to see all the things

1:01:19 ↗ that have been that there's decisions

1:01:21 ↗ made or dis or recommendations made by

1:01:24 ↗ staff that are different from what was

1:01:28 ↗ recommended by the people we paid in you

1:01:31 ↗ don't have to have all three homes

1:01:32 ↗ filled up sure just maybe the to the

1:01:34 ↗ Crandall room and then staff staff would

1:01:37 ↗ be yeah basically on all of them but you

1:01:39 ↗ could have sure yeah and the last one

1:01:42 ↗ was the so would what John was talking

1:01:45 ↗ about John right about the the other

1:01:49 ↗ cities and what they're doing now I

1:01:52 ↗ don't always always think that all

1:01:55 ↗ cities are doing the right thing or you

1:01:57 ↗ know doing the the optimal thing but if

1:01:59 ↗ we would like to see what that looks

1:02:00 ↗ like

1:02:02 ↗ and with that recommendation sure and so

1:02:04 ↗ and you're talking more again more about

1:02:06 ↗ the visual pictures or do you want to

1:02:07 ↗ know about what they're just just a word

1:02:13 ↗ comparison would be fine

1:02:14 ↗ Oh as far as their their code we have

1:02:19 ↗ that and that's we definitely have that

1:02:21 ↗ already so okay I would I have another

1:02:25 ↗ request I would like to know some

1:02:29 ↗ information about the so it's in between

1:02:32 ↗ the two consultants there's there's this

1:02:36 ↗ 90% parking recommendation the other one

1:02:38 ↗ was taking into account the incentives

1:02:40 ↗ versus disincentives and the economic

1:02:43 ↗ feasibility so I would I would be

1:02:46 ↗ curious to see the economic feasibility

1:02:48 ↗ any information about that as far as

1:02:51 ↗ taking into account this 90 percent how

1:02:53 ↗ much of a disincentive would that be to

1:02:55 ↗ people considering our to developers

1:02:58 ↗ considering the vertical mixed-use if we

1:03:01 ↗ asked that 90 percent does it push the

1:03:02 ↗ five to ten years off to 10 to 15 yeah

1:03:06 ↗ we don't have we don't have that's that

1:03:11 ↗ consult under contract so I think about

1:03:13 ↗ how to how we get that done because that

1:03:14 ↗ was a really complex financial model

1:03:16 ↗ that we don't have access to so you know

1:03:19 ↗ our gut feeling could say okay yes this

1:03:22 ↗ is going to add more costs and therefore

1:03:25 ↗ it changes the financial feasibility and

1:03:28 ↗ and I we sent the powerpoints were they

1:03:31 ↗ as raw or that was just like the for per

1:03:34 ↗ slide because one of the things you can

1:03:36 ↗ do and I think I'm not sure if in the

1:03:38 ↗ memo it was linked to the different

1:03:40 ↗ sessions and we can send to you the

1:03:42 ↗ actual PowerPoint so you can actually

1:03:44 ↗ see the data from eco Northwest which

1:03:45 ↗ looks at how if you change parking

1:03:48 ↗ ratios if you change MF to e if you

1:03:49 ↗ change this it kind of moved the line as

1:03:51 ↗ far as feasibility so it can give you an

1:03:54 ↗ idea without maybe giving an exact

1:03:56 ↗ answer for the 90% but you know we know

1:04:01 ↗ that the direction it goes when you have

1:04:02 ↗ more requirements it's becoming less

1:04:04 ↗ financially feasible we did you know the

1:04:07 ↗ one thing that kind of quote unquote

1:04:09 ↗ remove some and disincentive a soda and

1:04:11 ↗ set instead of

1:04:12 ↗ forty-eight feet you know we said six

1:04:15 ↗ you know we're looking at it okay what

1:04:17 ↗ we you need to do it in six floors

1:04:19 ↗ that's what financially feasible for

1:04:21 ↗ that and so that we believe it takes as

1:04:24 ↗ I won't call an incentive but it takes

1:04:26 ↗ away a disincentive so we're hoping that

1:04:30 ↗ you may encounter a bit but it is true

1:04:32 ↗ that it will cost more you have a time

1:04:39 ↗ range when the city thinks something

1:04:42 ↗ like this might come forward as far as a

1:04:45 ↗ development to happen we could guess you

1:04:49 ↗ know the again the the Commons is

1:04:52 ↗ looking at talking to us about a

1:04:54 ↗ development agreement to redevelop their

1:04:55 ↗ property I do not want to mean it is one

1:04:58 ↗ meeting of saying this is what we could

1:05:00 ↗ if we are interested this is what we're

1:05:02 ↗ really we really love your your

1:05:05 ↗ development and our vision of our

1:05:06 ↗ community is this and so there's nothing

1:05:08 ↗ you know no time there but I don't think

1:05:11 ↗ it's going to be next year but we're

1:05:13 ↗ trees could change the Commons is we're

1:05:16 ↗ a target and not including time but

1:05:18 ↗ Safeway and REI and Trader Joe's so

1:05:22 ↗ again that's they aren't looking at

1:05:24 ↗ tearing down things and rebuilding they

1:05:26 ↗ would do it in phases as well so the

1:05:28 ↗ property owners of Town & Country have

1:05:30 ↗ not shown an interest in redevelopment

1:05:31 ↗ at this time but things change as

1:05:33 ↗ ownership change you know changes as

1:05:36 ↗ over time and chase bank hasn't also

1:05:40 ↗ shown any interest in redeveloping what

1:05:43 ↗ we're talking about today could move

1:05:44 ↗ over to the Commons

1:05:47 ↗ it is currently yes so the map itself

1:05:49 ↗ it's kind of hard to tell but this is

1:05:52 ↗ the commentary so the picture we showed

1:06:00 ↗ was just of one space of that so that

1:06:03 ↗ that could look like that all along that

1:06:04 ↗ case and but REI is not in that group

1:06:07 ↗ REI is below target go back to the

1:06:21 ↗ height versus floor yes thing that's the

1:06:25 ↗ wrong way if anything I would like to

1:06:27 ↗ try to see that simplified okay I'm not

1:06:33 ↗ sure how you're going to do this because

1:06:34 ↗ at one point you're saying we're moving

1:06:36 ↗ it from 48 feet to six floors then it's

1:06:40 ↗ 125 feet to 10 floors but the ground

1:06:43 ↗ floor we're talking feet yes we're

1:06:45 ↗ talking two feet and floor Thank You

1:06:47 ↗ Carl so we actually we are going to

1:06:49 ↗ actually have actually feet in the in

1:06:51 ↗ the code we wanted to keep it there cuz

1:06:53 ↗ again that whole visual thing what is

1:06:54 ↗ what is six

1:06:55 ↗ what does 85 feet really mean it's about

1:06:57 ↗ six storey building so we actually do

1:07:00 ↗ plan to have continued to be consistent

1:07:02 ↗ with what is already there in feet so

1:07:04 ↗ thank you it seems like we're changing

1:07:07 ↗ things yeah feet two floors and then

1:07:11 ↗ back two floors or fee and I think was

1:07:14 ↗ more illustrative but thank you for

1:07:16 ↗ reminding it at that so the city has to

1:07:22 ↗ have lands I don't expect this

1:07:25 ↗ development to happen anywhere in the

1:07:27 ↗ near future but when it does and

1:07:30 ↗ eventually something will happen you

1:07:34 ↗ have to have these basic rules and you

1:07:37 ↗ have to have an idea of what you want

1:07:39 ↗ the city will look like so what happens

1:07:44 ↗ if you don't get there what if somebody

1:07:47 ↗ comes in and and wants to build almost

1:07:51 ↗ to your specifications but not really is

1:07:54 ↗ there processes in place or you're just

1:07:57 ↗ going to say no would rather wait so the

1:08:01 ↗ opportunity is there and the financial

1:08:05 ↗ backing is there are you going to let

1:08:06 ↗ something else go

1:08:08 ↗ and that kind of but not really

1:08:11 ↗ that's the question so I I don't know

1:08:14 ↗ which of these items currently have

1:08:16 ↗ administrative ability to just a bit but

1:08:22 ↗ but the idea is that this is what we

1:08:25 ↗ want to see and we these are the

1:08:27 ↗ regulations we're gonna be on here but

1:08:29 ↗ we would work with the developer to see

1:08:30 ↗ how we can get to the intent and get

1:08:33 ↗ what we want because otherwise then

1:08:34 ↗ we're end up building again something

1:08:36 ↗ that not doesn't fit the vision I think

1:08:38 ↗ so you should follow your dreams and say

1:08:42 ↗ this is what we want to look like and if

1:08:44 ↗ you can't build it to what we all agreed

1:08:47 ↗ on

1:08:48 ↗ then you're gonna wait I want you to

1:08:51 ↗ wait instead of having that other okay

1:08:55 ↗ so this is how we ended up here so that

1:08:57 ↗ after Eko Northwest basically did their

1:09:00 ↗ study and said you're not the market

1:09:04 ↗ doesn't support vertical makes use now

1:09:05 ↗ and if you want it now

1:09:08 ↗ you're gonna have to put some incentives

1:09:09 ↗ in place to get it and the council said

1:09:11 ↗ no we don't want to do that and so then

1:09:14 ↗ the question on the table was what

1:09:17 ↗ happens in the meantime until the market

1:09:19 ↗ catches up to actually do this kind of

1:09:21 ↗ project by itself and the council was

1:09:24 ↗ worried that they were gonna get single

1:09:26 ↗ story surface Park redevelopment or

1:09:28 ↗ things that didn't meet their vision and

1:09:30 ↗ they said we want to mandate it and if

1:09:34 ↗ that pushes it an extra five years out

1:09:36 ↗ you know what we'll wait where we'll be

1:09:39 ↗ good waiting and so they made that

1:09:41 ↗ decision which is why we hired the

1:09:42 ↗ second consultant to say okay if we want

1:09:46 ↗ it

1:09:46 ↗ not if we almost want it but if we want

1:09:49 ↗ it what do we have to do to get it and

1:09:51 ↗ that's how we got here and and I guess

1:09:54 ↗ to answer your question Joan I would say

1:09:56 ↗ that we have a very small subset of the

1:09:59 ↗ 400 acres of the Corps that this is

1:10:02 ↗ going to apply to it's going to be an

1:10:03 ↗ overlay over an area but if I don't want

1:10:06 ↗ to build this or the economics don't

1:10:08 ↗ work out for my financing

1:10:10 ↗ I've got other properties in town I

1:10:12 ↗ could choose from I mean you actually

1:10:14 ↗ answered the question earlier and said

1:10:17 ↗ council wanted to wait and and that's

1:10:19 ↗ kind of what I I want the city to do I

1:10:24 ↗ don't want it to be haphazard yeah yeah

1:10:29 ↗ yeah compromise again yeah so these are

1:10:32 ↗ rule these are regulations these aren't

1:10:33 ↗ guidelines okay yep any other question

1:10:37 ↗ any interest thank you very much for all

1:10:40 ↗ your feedback I know again this is a bit

1:10:42 ↗ of long to a process and I appreciate

1:10:44 ↗ every question and we'll be back in the

1:10:46 ↗ 28th okay so if I follow my agenda

1:10:51 ↗ there's opportunity if somebody wants to

1:10:53 ↗ make a comment on anything that was

1:10:57 ↗ discussed it's not a public hearing and

1:11:02 ↗ such but we're certainly going to

1:11:04 ↗ welcome you to come up and say fencing

1:11:13 ↗ ice-t Pereira living in old town for

1:11:16 ↗ about ten years now so several thoughts

1:11:18 ↗ one was the question of MFT e or other

1:11:22 ↗ incentivization came up i know i've

1:11:25 ↗ heard the city council kind of give the

1:11:27 ↗ idea that they're kind of against the

1:11:28 ↗ idea i would like to see you recommend

1:11:30 ↗ that put it in writing that we don't

1:11:33 ↗ recommend MF te other incentivization

1:11:35 ↗ don't just rely on that put it in

1:11:37 ↗ writing to provide that guidance next

1:11:40 ↗ point was it seems something i've heard

1:11:42 ↗ in the highlands is they underestimated

1:11:44 ↗ how many families with children would be

1:11:46 ↗ living in apartment buildings and

1:11:49 ↗ because of that they don't have enough

1:11:51 ↗ school sites i have i would like to see

1:11:55 ↗ more of a discussion with how this idea

1:11:58 ↗ of mixed vertical use Ferhat for housing

1:12:01 ↗ would affect the school district and the

1:12:03 ↗ number of the school schools that go

1:12:05 ↗ them where they build them that part of

1:12:07 ↗ the conversation hasn't happened i'd

1:12:08 ↗ like to see some recommendations from

1:12:10 ↗ you all how that happens i would also

1:12:13 ↗ like to see recommendations on how

1:12:15 ↗ that's going to impact traffic and the

1:12:19 ↗ flow of traffic and where all the

1:12:20 ↗ traffic goes as part of that

1:12:21 ↗ conversation not just and how these

1:12:22 ↗ different pieces all fit and tie

1:12:24 ↗ together doesn't seem to be something

1:12:26 ↗ that i hear or see enough of the next

1:12:31 ↗ point was i have some concerns when we

1:12:34 ↗ talked about a height variance between

1:12:36 ↗ the number of floors and the number of

1:12:38 ↗ the height of the building when people

1:12:40 ↗ see let's say hundred twenty five

1:12:43 ↗ hundred thirty five feet they expect 125

1:12:45 ↗ 135 feet or they don't see a variance

1:12:48 ↗ they want to know what they can expect

1:12:49 ↗ so i'm more concerned with having

1:12:51 ↗ variables in there I'm also concerned

1:12:53 ↗ when we say things like the the the roof

1:12:58 ↗ or the elevators don't count as part of

1:13:01 ↗ that height restrictions so I would like

1:13:03 ↗ to see this body say more about how that

1:13:07 ↗ those things be included in the heights

1:13:08 ↗ of restrictions I'd let's see a piece

1:13:12 ↗ where we talk about where we talk about

1:13:14 ↗ mix rocky use where it can go whether to

1:13:16 ↗ see some definitions or restrictions

1:13:18 ↗ where it cannot go for me old town is

1:13:23 ↗ not such bullish not be susceptible to

1:13:25 ↗ make sure overt eclis

1:13:27 ↗ I think you give on village properties

1:13:29 ↗ where small or houses make up the book

1:13:33 ↗ that are not susceptible to where it

1:13:35 ↗ should go but I would again not just

1:13:36 ↗ wear a kanga beware it should not go

1:13:40 ↗ keep up the good work thank you

1:13:57 ↗ so there was the map that had the green

1:13:59 ↗ outline but you never said exactly what

1:14:04 ↗ the green outline meant and I saw that

1:14:07 ↗ there was a pedestrian bridge going over

1:14:10 ↗ high 90 in the north side of Gilman

1:14:15 ↗ Boulevard and so and target is it within

1:14:19 ↗ that green line but it doesn't have any

1:14:22 ↗ of the black vertical makes juice nor

1:14:24 ↗ the purple shading so I didn't I didn't

1:14:28 ↗ understand the context of that so an

1:14:33 ↗ explanation would be good okay you know

1:14:37 ↗ when we have the central Issaquah plan

1:14:39 ↗ 125 feet was hard-fought and the

1:14:42 ↗ community doesn't even like that so now

1:14:44 ↗ all of the sudden for the first meeting

1:14:46 ↗ ever I'm seeing a hundred and thirty

1:14:47 ↗ five feet with really no particularly

1:14:50 ↗ good explanation as to why there's an

1:14:53 ↗ extra ten feet I understand that you

1:14:55 ↗ want a larger sort of lobby first floor

1:14:58 ↗ but I don't understand why that can't be

1:15:01 ↗ carved out of like an interior floor

1:15:07 ↗ like an atrium and the inside right so I

1:15:10 ↗ would say keep it at 125 with HVAC you

1:15:14 ↗ can get a 15 extra feet so we're still

1:15:17 ↗ getting significant buildings and I

1:15:19 ↗ didn't hear persuasive argument that

1:15:21 ↗ that was all that important so my bigger

1:15:26 ↗ thing is interim changes we have these

1:15:28 ↗ big huge fat parcels owned by single

1:15:31 ↗ land owners and right now the code is

1:15:33 ↗ written you shall do the whole thing if

1:15:38 ↗ you get above a certain percentage of

1:15:40 ↗ improvement and that's a barrier to

1:15:44 ↗ change so is it possible to allow these

1:15:49 ↗ parcels to be broken into smaller units

1:15:52 ↗ so that the land owners can begin

1:15:54 ↗ creating the a small portion one at a

1:15:58 ↗ time of each building to the proper

1:16:00 ↗ standard because

1:16:03 ↗ QFC shopping center is a bunch of small

1:16:06 ↗ parcels Town & Country is basically a

1:16:09 ↗ big parcel and Chase Bank so they have

1:16:14 ↗ to do the whole thing has to develop and

1:16:16 ↗ if anything changes much at all which i

1:16:19 ↗ think is of concern the next thing is

1:16:21 ↗ when you're picturing it and we're

1:16:22 ↗ picturing how we want our our town to be

1:16:27 ↗ do we want them all to be built out at

1:16:30 ↗ exactly the same time do we want these

1:16:32 ↗ mega blocks at buildings that all look

1:16:34 ↗ the same or would we like to have oh

1:16:36 ↗ here's one building that was built with

1:16:38 ↗ a slightly different architecture and

1:16:39 ↗ then there's the next one would say as

1:16:41 ↗ zero setbacks that looks a little

1:16:43 ↗ different until you have a streetscape

1:16:45 ↗ that's more varied instead of sort of

1:16:47 ↗ wow that was that nineteen I mean 2022

1:16:52 ↗ apartment style on three blocks isn't

1:16:55 ↗ that charming so I prefer smaller units

1:17:01 ↗ of varied architecture and I don't see

1:17:05 ↗ that being able to be done in this sort

1:17:08 ↗ of large lot situation I hope that made

1:17:11 ↗ any sense whatsoever

1:17:13 ↗ then because I know the ground very well

1:17:16 ↗ in these areas and I know where the

1:17:19 ↗ critical areas and their buffers are the

1:17:21 ↗ maps that were created so far are so far

1:17:25 ↗ off of the reality of what could be

1:17:27 ↗ built as to not even provide an

1:17:32 ↗ appropriate template for someone to look

1:17:34 ↗ at to understand that the opportunities

1:17:37 ↗ so I think you need a little bit more

1:17:39 ↗ ground proofing on you know not a huge

1:17:42 ↗ amount not actually what is in detail

1:17:44 ↗ there but enough to understand that you

1:17:46 ↗ will you will really not be able to

1:17:49 ↗ build 8 feet from wetland that has a

1:17:54 ↗ hundred foot buffer which is how the

1:17:55 ↗ maps are being shown right now right so

1:17:58 ↗ I think you need a little bit more

1:17:59 ↗ ground proofing and then Steve said all

1:18:04 ↗ these puzzle pieces if all of these

1:18:07 ↗ changes are all up in the air at the

1:18:08 ↗ same time and we're all trying to figure

1:18:10 ↗ out how they're gonna come down and

1:18:12 ↗ somehow form this elegant layered

1:18:14 ↗ package that we're going to be able to

1:18:16 ↗ perceive as a great

1:18:17 ↗ future for Issaquah we need all of that

1:18:21 ↗ to come together in our brains to to say

1:18:24 ↗ yeah well that one's over there and that

1:18:26 ↗ one's over here and this one is over

1:18:28 ↗ here and you are supposed to be deciding

1:18:29 ↗ and avoid how those are going to fit

1:18:32 ↗ together I don't think we're gonna have

1:18:34 ↗ success so I would ask that we spend

1:18:37 ↗ some time trying to figure out how all

1:18:39 ↗ the puzzle pieces are going to fit

1:18:40 ↗ together

1:18:41 ↗ and if they actually will because they

1:18:44 ↗ might not thanks first and then you

1:18:54 ↗ Steve Crawford speaking as a Sammamish

1:18:57 ↗ resident talked a lot about having nice

1:19:00 ↗ pretty buildings I think it would be a

1:19:02 ↗ shame to hide them behind on street

1:19:05 ↗ parking and that is probably one of the

1:19:08 ↗ ugliest things you can do in front of a

1:19:10 ↗ building so some surface parking behind

1:19:13 ↗ might satisfy the need for retail it's

1:19:15 ↗ going to be a bit of a challenge retail

1:19:16 ↗ is going to say we'd like to have

1:19:17 ↗ parking right in front but if you look

1:19:19 ↗ around there's a lot of other retail

1:19:20 ↗ that doesn't have parking right in front

1:19:22 ↗ if you do have the on street parking

1:19:24 ↗ then it shouldn't count as part of the

1:19:26 ↗ required parking because it'll be

1:19:27 ↗ occupied by residents all the time and

1:19:29 ↗ it wouldn't be available for the people

1:19:31 ↗ who want to use it for retail

1:19:39 ↗ hello my name is Bob Swanson I have no

1:19:42 ↗ idea when I'm doing here in the sense of

1:19:44 ↗ I'm still learning I know what PPC now

1:19:46 ↗ means it's a planning policy Commission

1:19:49 ↗ so I'm pretty proud of myself on that

1:19:51 ↗ and I figured that one out you can tell

1:19:54 ↗ me to sit down I'd be more than happy to

1:19:55 ↗ because I I don't know if I'm I'm here

1:19:58 ↗ to talk about the school up in the the

1:20:00 ↗ zoning I don't know this is the right

1:20:02 ↗ time I don't I literally do not know

1:20:04 ↗ so is this later is this 8:30 is this it

1:20:08 ↗ will be the next next right it's the

1:20:10 ↗ next one well thank you and a little bit

1:20:13 ↗ more time and I'm sure Steve will be

1:20:15 ↗ back to tell us his thoughts on on

1:20:19 ↗ additional school problems is there

1:20:22 ↗ anybody else that would like to say

1:20:24 ↗ anything no I do agree with with Connie

1:20:30 ↗ that it all has to come together I'm a

1:20:33 ↗ little nervous that every parcel I mean

1:20:41 ↗ it build all these these these gorgeous

1:20:45 ↗ house these gorgeous buildings and

1:20:47 ↗ certainly not the way they look on that

1:20:50 ↗ picture because I thought oh gee we

1:20:52 ↗ can't have those in Issaquah we have to

1:20:54 ↗ have some more creativity and and design

1:20:58 ↗ standards but I've never seen a map that

1:21:03 ↗ basically says this is the wetlands this

1:21:07 ↗ is what we're I can how much I cannot

1:21:10 ↗ build to and this realistically is how

1:21:12 ↗ much we can put in there and I know that

1:21:16 ↗ the the people that you hard to do this

1:21:20 ↗ work probably did some of that but I

1:21:23 ↗ don't think that every area in the city

1:21:25 ↗ has has done that I know that we've

1:21:28 ↗ talked about doing that three four years

1:21:30 ↗ ago when we're talking

1:21:31 ↗ about the central area plan that and I

1:21:35 ↗ know the environmental company that you

1:21:38 ↗ hired to look at all the environmental

1:21:41 ↗ problems where we can put parking how

1:21:45 ↗ the traffic is going to go

1:21:46 ↗ oh yeah the question yes you can build

1:21:49 ↗ all the stuff that you want and the

1:21:50 ↗ traffic will be fine and somehow that

1:21:53 ↗ does not compute

1:21:55 ↗ so I think besides putting all these

1:21:58 ↗ buildings in you have to look at where

1:22:01 ↗ not where they're parked but how they

1:22:03 ↗ get to where they're parked and how many

1:22:06 ↗ people are coming into town to work not

1:22:08 ↗ just to live there and so before you

1:22:11 ↗ come up with this grand plan you have to

1:22:15 ↗ look at all those things I mean I like

1:22:17 ↗ most of the stuff of what you said

1:22:19 ↗ tonight I like the additions in the way

1:22:23 ↗ of putting it together to make it clear

1:22:25 ↗ but I still think it needs more to be a

1:22:27 ↗ real plan that's my thoughts I else I

1:22:31 ↗ actually would like to add on to that I

1:22:34 ↗ would like to see what this would look

1:22:37 ↗ like visually if it was built out to 90%

1:22:40 ↗ of land potential so if the land has the

1:22:47 ↗ looking for I'm thinking of the phrase

1:22:51 ↗ maximum use I'd like to see what a plan

1:22:53 ↗ would look like if these were if this

1:22:55 ↗ area was built out to ninety percent of

1:22:57 ↗ its maximum best use and what the level

1:23:01 ↗ of service would be along these

1:23:03 ↗ corridors

1:23:05 ↗ if these buildings were built out to

1:23:07 ↗ ninety percent

1:23:11 ↗ not quite sure how you do that but you

1:23:13 ↗ have to you have to somehow look at the

1:23:19 ↗ traffic that that these this is going to

1:23:21 ↗ cause and I know that the people the

1:23:24 ↗ rest of people who live in Issaquah

1:23:25 ↗ that's their main thing you know you

1:23:28 ↗ what you had an hour or so to get here

1:23:31 ↗ tonight I had problems coming down Front

1:23:33 ↗ Street you're gonna put all these people

1:23:35 ↗ in there what do you do with them and

1:23:38 ↗ that's pretty far away from any of our

1:23:41 ↗ entrances on the freeway so we're gonna

1:23:43 ↗ have traffic coming in I mean Bellevue

1:23:48 ↗ has a lot of access Kirkland has a lot

1:23:51 ↗ of different accesses to get to where

1:23:53 ↗ they want to be we don't and I know this

1:23:57 ↗ is a grand plan and we want all this all

1:24:00 ↗ these people to come in and and

1:24:03 ↗ welcoming them and putting in real

1:24:06 ↗ retail that that will support them but I

1:24:10 ↗ think we just have to step back just a

1:24:14 ↗ little bit and trying to put it all

1:24:16 ↗ together and and I think that's a big

1:24:19 ↗ part that you know you prove these plans

1:24:21 ↗ and this is a way it's going to be but

1:24:23 ↗ then what about traffic or what about

1:24:26 ↗ this and anyway so with that we're gonna

1:24:34 ↗ are you gonna present Fish House

1:24:38 ↗ Conference land and it's like we flipped

1:24:42 ↗ I'm taking notes

1:24:44 ↗ oh okay but I will be here for a

1:24:48 ↗ resource stand well give an update on

1:24:51 ↗ the post comprehensive plan amendments

1:24:54 ↗ and then we will open up to a public

1:25:00 ↗ hearing okay so for those excuse me one

1:25:07 ↗ second for those of you who have not met

1:25:13 ↗ my name is Kristen Lisa and I'm with the

1:25:15 ↗ development service I can't can you take

1:25:19 ↗ my shoes off okay there we go

1:25:22 ↗ so I'll do this again for those of you I

1:25:25 ↗ have not met my name is Kristen Lisa and

1:25:27 ↗ I'm with the development services

1:25:28 ↗ department I work with Trish as many of

1:25:30 ↗ you know we do annual comprehensive plan

1:25:33 ↗ amendments and this year there are

1:25:36 ↗ relatively few they are primarily

1:25:39 ↗ amendments that are required because of

1:25:41 ↗ population changes or housing count

1:25:43 ↗ changes things that just need to be

1:25:44 ↗ reflected in our comprehensive plan or

1:25:46 ↗ acquisition of properties so the we only

1:25:52 ↗ cover two elements this year we're only

1:25:55 ↗ talking about changes or amendments to

1:25:57 ↗ the land use element and the

1:25:59 ↗ transportation or that transportation

1:26:00 ↗ element and also some reasons which

1:26:03 ↗ technically are in the land use code but

1:26:06 ↗ they happen simultaneously with some of

1:26:08 ↗ our designations the first one we're

1:26:12 ↗ going to talk about is the housing chart

1:26:15 ↗ this is a chart that counsel requested

1:26:17 ↗ that I'm missing something that the

1:26:20 ↗ council requested we had here last year

1:26:24 ↗ this reflects Olivar so as most of you

1:26:27 ↗ know we have state adopted housing

1:26:29 ↗ targets for housing units this the year

1:26:35 ↗ spans are the horizon spans from 2006

1:26:37 ↗ until 2031 so by 2031 we are expected to

1:26:40 ↗ accommodate not build accommodate 5750

1:26:45 ↗ housing units within that time frame so

1:26:47 ↗ this just shows how close we are getting

1:26:50 ↗ each year towards meeting or to how many

1:26:52 ↗ units have been built towards that

1:26:54 ↗ target so as you can see in 2017

1:26:56 ↗ we actually built 1116 units which

1:27:00 ↗ brought us up to sixteen thousand two

1:27:01 ↗ hundred and two housing units that

1:27:02 ↗ leaves us with about two that one

1:27:05 ↗ thousand two hundred and ninety two

1:27:07 ↗ units to be built until we reach that

1:27:08 ↗ target any questions the second update

1:27:17 ↗ that we have is to the population

1:27:20 ↗ projection housing unit and population

1:27:22 ↗ chart and we updated it this year the we

1:27:26 ↗ submit information to the state office

1:27:27 ↗ of financial management in April and in

1:27:30 ↗ June or July they get back to us with

1:27:31 ↗ our official population is for that year

1:27:34 ↗ and the housing target

1:27:36 ↗ we now have we've adjusted it so we're

1:27:39 ↗ at thirty six thousand and thirty people

1:27:41 ↗ and I forgot my sheet of paper at

1:27:44 ↗ sixteen thousand two hundred and two

1:27:45 ↗ units that's whatever kind of thank you

1:27:52 ↗ we also in the past with the villages

1:27:56 ↗ have sort of had to guesstimate based on

1:27:58 ↗ their allowed development what they were

1:28:02 ↗ going to build per year but those

1:28:03 ↗ development agreements are about to

1:28:04 ↗ close out and we have a really good idea

1:28:06 ↗ of what's going to happen when those

1:28:07 ↗ close out so those numbers have been

1:28:09 ↗ adjusted as well which actually lowered

1:28:11 ↗ the projections for the highlands a

1:28:13 ↗ little bit

1:28:18 ↗ so we are also as you know in the

1:28:20 ↗ process of annexing the King County

1:28:22 ↗ Island this reflects so this is our

1:28:26 ↗ potential annexation map and normally

1:28:28 ↗ the King County Island would be right we

1:28:37 ↗ are in the process of annexing that and

1:28:40 ↗ they're assuming that the annexation

1:28:41 ↗ will happen by the time that this goes

1:28:43 ↗ through public hearing and then through

1:28:45 ↗ City Council so this just reflects that

1:28:46 ↗ that would no longer be a potential

1:28:48 ↗ annexation area of the city this also

1:28:54 ↗ reflects that we have two annexation

1:28:55 ↗ history maps one is the history of

1:28:58 ↗ annexation since the inception of the

1:29:00 ↗ city and the other one is since 1990

1:29:02 ↗ this one is from the beginning this also

1:29:04 ↗ reflects up reflects the annexation of

1:29:12 ↗ the Sammamish utility district which it

1:29:15 ↗ was I mean Bellevue

1:29:18 ↗ it's the Sammamish reservoir Bellevue

1:29:22 ↗ utility district and it was it was a

1:29:26 ↗ misunderstanding we thought it was ours

1:29:28 ↗ it wasn't and so we're just it's a

1:29:29 ↗ correction and then the other one shows

1:29:31 ↗ the King County property same here this

1:29:34 ↗ is just for the 1990 the annexation

1:29:36 ↗ since 1990 this one we every year the

1:29:43 ↗ city acquires either through purchase or

1:29:46 ↗ designate deed or give different ways we

1:29:49 ↗ acquire properties and when they are

1:29:51 ↗ acquired we zone we give those land use

1:29:54 ↗ designations of community facilities

1:29:56 ↗ which shows that it is a publicly owned

1:29:58 ↗ property by a public agency whether it

1:30:00 ↗ be a fire department at police district

1:30:03 ↗ a city state the county and that it's

1:30:06 ↗ going to be used for public purpose so

1:30:09 ↗ this is what we do so seven out of the

1:30:12 ↗ eight first properties are owned by the

1:30:16 ↗ city and will be zone community

1:30:17 ↗ facilities so the first four these were

1:30:21 ↗ acquired from her slur as part of the

1:30:25 ↗ 62nd Street development they will all

1:30:28 ↗ get environmental mitigation

1:30:31 ↗ property number five will get wetland

1:30:34 ↗ mitigation and one through four will

1:30:37 ↗ have riparian and floodplain

1:30:39 ↗ improvements at a later date this

1:30:44 ↗ property was acquired with fire

1:30:46 ↗ mitigation fees and it will be used for

1:30:48 ↗ a fire station and other emergency

1:30:51 ↗ services and we are proposing that this

1:30:53 ↗ one be zoned RB does it they're all

1:30:55 ↗ community facilities the language

1:30:57 ↗ designations those as well this one is

1:31:02 ↗ actually owned by the over Dale

1:31:04 ↗ homeowners association so it's privately

1:31:06 ↗ owned and they use it as a park they

1:31:10 ↗ would like to see it as preserved for

1:31:12 ↗ open space for in perpetuity and so what

1:31:16 ↗ they did is they applied to the city and

1:31:18 ↗ the state approved a deed which will

1:31:20 ↗ keep it as open space forever and so we

1:31:23 ↗ are just proposing a redesignate and

1:31:26 ↗ rezone of this property to component I'm

1:31:31 ↗ sorry to comply with that and it would

1:31:35 ↗ be Conservancy residential recreation

1:31:37 ↗ I'm sorry it would be the zoning I've

1:31:39 ↗ got a question for number seven sir so

1:31:42 ↗ without what you're saying is that's now

1:31:45 ↗ public would be owned by the city this

1:31:47 ↗ one is not this one is privately owned

1:31:49 ↗ so the designation is actually

1:31:50 ↗ Conservancy I apologize that I mentioned

1:31:52 ↗ that the designation is Conservancy and

1:31:54 ↗ then the zoning would be Conservancy

1:31:56 ↗ recreation all right so the city would

1:31:58 ↗ really have no jurisdiction over this

1:32:00 ↗ except for the fact that it just falls

1:32:03 ↗ within the city but it's privately owned

1:32:04 ↗ property and maintained by private

1:32:06 ↗ correct okay this one was purchased by

1:32:12 ↗ the parks department and there are

1:32:14 ↗ adjacent properties that were purchased

1:32:16 ↗ previous years and eventually this will

1:32:17 ↗ be redone into a park so it's community

1:32:20 ↗ facilities and then community facilities

1:32:21 ↗ recreation as the proposed zone

1:32:26 ↗ so 9 through 16 are part of the these

1:32:32 ↗ are all properties that are part of the

1:32:33 ↗ King County annex Island annexation they

1:32:37 ↗ are being proposed proposing any zoning

1:32:40 ↗ at this time we are only proposing land

1:32:42 ↗ use designations the zoning would

1:32:46 ↗ designate how many units can go there

1:32:47 ↗ what the density would be this is not

1:32:49 ↗ this is an overall general use the first

1:32:51 ↗ two properties 9 and 10 are being

1:32:53 ↗ proposed as commercial uses and then 11

1:32:58 ↗ through 16 are being proposed as

1:33:01 ↗ community facilities land use

1:33:02 ↗ designations but what's the basis of the

1:33:10 ↗ nine and ten being commercial and rest

1:33:14 ↗ being there are there are proposed uses

1:33:19 ↗ for those sites it's and it's also

1:33:22 ↗ topography they can be used there on

1:33:24 ↗ there on flat land they're lower to the

1:33:26 ↗ freeway or close to the freeway and

1:33:28 ↗ they're flatter and can be developed and

1:33:30 ↗ number nine is a partial part of a

1:33:33 ↗ property that has previously been

1:33:35 ↗ annexed into the city long ago and we

1:33:38 ↗ the annex er back then missed the tip of

1:33:41 ↗ it and the part that's already in the

1:33:43 ↗ city is already zoned with commercial

1:33:45 ↗ uses the one the other 110 is the site

1:33:49 ↗ of the previous King County shop site so

1:33:52 ↗ there's already buildings and garages on

1:33:54 ↗ that site and so we thought that made

1:33:57 ↗ sense to leave that with a commercial

1:33:59 ↗ use because there's already something

1:34:00 ↗ there okay thank you

1:34:05 ↗ and before you go to this one I've got a

1:34:07 ↗ quick question for number six the 46

1:34:11 ↗ acres is that the location of BMC got

1:34:15 ↗ back a couple pages yeah this is north

1:34:20 ↗ of BMC so you have BMC and then you have

1:34:23 ↗ a Presbyterian Church and then you have

1:34:25 ↗ a house next to us

1:34:26 ↗ the little tooth is the little house and

1:34:29 ↗ then okay and so number six is going to

1:34:42 ↗ be property for Fire District right or

1:34:46 ↗ for a fire station and then other

1:34:47 ↗ emergency uses but it hasn't been

1:34:50 ↗ decided what those uses will be thank

1:34:52 ↗ you

1:34:56 ↗ you ready okay so this is the only

1:35:00 ↗ amendment to the transportation element

1:35:02 ↗ this is the transportation improvement

1:35:05 ↗ plan this is the map for it the entire

1:35:08 ↗ document is much much longer you all saw

1:35:10 ↗ this back in June I believe and made a

1:35:13 ↗ recommendation to City Council and City

1:35:15 ↗ Council approve that so all we're doing

1:35:16 ↗ is taking what's already been approved

1:35:17 ↗ and updating it in the comprehensive

1:35:19 ↗ plan to show what the improvements are

1:35:21 ↗ proposed for 2018 through 2023 so the

1:35:25 ↗ things are please ten through I want to

1:35:37 ↗ get some a little bit more information

1:35:39 ↗ on that are they definitely the evident

1:35:45 ↗ parcels or they assume that they're

1:35:47 ↗ going to be those parcels so it's a good

1:35:48 ↗ question ten eleven twelve and fourteen

1:35:50 ↗ are currently one parcel and those lines

1:35:54 ↗ are drawn based on elevations and slopes

1:35:58 ↗ and where those are right now so you're

1:36:01 ↗ bringing them in as you're not you're

1:36:04 ↗ not putting any zoning on them you are

1:36:06 ↗ doing what just land use designations

1:36:09 ↗ right your purview is the land use

1:36:12 ↗ designation and usually councils done

1:36:15 ↗ with the annexation when you get it

1:36:17 ↗ because you already decided it was

1:36:19 ↗ EAA so you did the first step by putting

1:36:22 ↗ all the land in a PAA back in 1995 and

1:36:25 ↗ then council goes through the process

1:36:27 ↗ when it gets annex of doing

1:36:29 ↗ pre-annexation zoning through that they

1:36:32 ↗ have two public hearings sixty days

1:36:34 ↗ apart they notify everybody and they

1:36:36 ↗ figure out what the proper zoning is

1:36:38 ↗ usually they're all done with that by

1:36:40 ↗ the time we do the comp plan amendment

1:36:42 ↗ that comes after and so because they're

1:36:45 ↗ not done you all get to take a shot at

1:36:48 ↗ the land uses instead of doing it as

1:36:51 ↗ housekeeping because you've are we've

1:36:53 ↗ already gone through that they use the

1:36:56 ↗ state process for the pre-annexation

1:36:58 ↗ zoning and you use the your level six

1:37:03 ↗ review to do the land use designation so

1:37:06 ↗ so so to be clear on this one so you

1:37:10 ↗ guys are setting the land use vision for

1:37:12 ↗ the island what's what you've got in

1:37:14 ↗ front of you is the staffs

1:37:15 ↗ recommendation but you guys could say

1:37:17 ↗ you know what I think all of that should

1:37:19 ↗ be commercial you know that could be a

1:37:21 ↗ recommendation to the council

1:37:23 ↗ you have the ability I think what we can

1:37:25 ↗ do is the conversation the question you

1:37:28 ↗ asked earlier which is why why and why

1:37:30 ↗ there's a lot of background for why the

1:37:33 ↗ staff is making the recommendation it is

1:37:35 ↗ so it's it's so tense it's on the floor

1:37:39 ↗ and then once you start going up the

1:37:41 ↗ hill there's a significant ask from

1:37:45 ↗ mountains to Sound Greenway that all

1:37:47 ↗ that stays forested and so one of the

1:37:50 ↗ reasons why we're recommending community

1:37:52 ↗ facilities and at the end of the day it

1:37:55 ↗ could be open space it could be

1:37:56 ↗ community facilities facilities but but

1:37:58 ↗ part of it is is the expectation that it

1:38:02 ↗ will all be in public ownership right

1:38:04 ↗ now 16 15 and 13 are owned by wash dot

1:38:09 ↗ and then we own 10 11 12 14 and so part

1:38:14 ↗ of why what's in front of you there is a

1:38:18 ↗ story here and we need to unpack that

1:38:20 ↗ and you guys can decide whether you

1:38:21 ↗ think that's we landed in the right spot

1:38:23 ↗ or whether you want to make some other

1:38:26 ↗ recommendation but it's all about the

1:38:28 ↗ land uses and not the zoning the zoning

1:38:30 ↗ happens at Council as part of the pre

1:38:32 ↗ annexation

1:38:33 ↗ discussion this is about setting the

1:38:35 ↗ vision for this area and right now what

1:38:38 ↗ we're saying is other than 10 which you

1:38:41 ↗ can't really see from the freeway and

1:38:43 ↗ has been previous you've been used as a

1:38:45 ↗ King County roads maintenance yard the

1:38:47 ↗ rest of it should be community

1:38:49 ↗ facilities so that's that's the

1:38:51 ↗ recommendation that's coming from us but

1:38:53 ↗ you guys get to basically say whether

1:38:56 ↗ you agree with that recommendation or

1:38:57 ↗ whether you want to recommend something

1:38:59 ↗ else to the City Council I know that

1:39:01 ↗ there was a long discussion at the

1:39:03 ↗ council on these particular pieces of

1:39:09 ↗ property and the process of getting them

1:39:11 ↗ in whether they're which point in time

1:39:15 ↗ if you're looking at zoning if you're

1:39:17 ↗ looking at this I know there was a big

1:39:19 ↗ discussion on it and there was some

1:39:22 ↗ questions that needed to be answered and

1:39:25 ↗ that's I am bringing that up was there a

1:39:29 ↗ question in there Joan no okay now I

1:39:32 ↗ know what what the council had why the

1:39:35 ↗ council had a problem with putting it

1:39:37 ↗ into community facilities wasn't it the

1:39:41 ↗ question between open space kymmie

1:39:44 ↗ community facilities open space and

1:39:46 ↗ community facilities facilities right so

1:39:48 ↗ the debate wasn't about community

1:39:50 ↗ facilities it was about which community

1:39:52 ↗ facilities zone to apply to a portion of

1:39:56 ↗ potentially 12 okay but we're not

1:39:58 ↗ looking at zoning right right not at all

1:40:00 ↗ okay we're just doing vision so what so

1:40:03 ↗ this this piece of property you know

1:40:05 ↗ unfortunately we don't have maybe we

1:40:07 ↗ need to put up a land-use map but

1:40:11 ↗ basically it's you know Highlands is

1:40:14 ↗ immediately to the east of 12 and 14 the

1:40:18 ↗ freeway bounds this kind of the south

1:40:21 ↗ and to the west and then everything to

1:40:24 ↗ the north of 10 is mobile home park city

1:40:27 ↗ maintenance yard it's kind of the small

1:40:30 ↗ pocket that we have for manufacturing

1:40:33 ↗ and industrial uses and so that's that's

1:40:38 ↗ why we see it the way we do and 15 and

1:40:41 ↗ 16 are is really unbuildable because of

1:40:43 ↗ the steep slopes

1:40:47 ↗ you know nowadays Ron unbuildable is a

1:40:50 ↗ tough descriptor because there's a lot

1:40:53 ↗ of things being chased by developers

1:40:55 ↗ that have for decades been considered

1:40:58 ↗ undeveloped able wash dot because they

1:41:00 ↗ own it they have expressed to us a kind

1:41:05 ↗ of an interest to not sell it for

1:41:08 ↗ development so right now our water

1:41:10 ↗ utility has been talking about

1:41:12 ↗ potentially putting a reservoir on 13

1:41:15 ↗ but they would buy 13 15 and 16 so all

1:41:19 ↗ of the remnant washed out parcels would

1:41:21 ↗ could likely become City parcels in the

1:41:24 ↗ near future so the discussion of the

1:41:34 ↗ school is potentially 12 so the so the

1:41:43 ↗ discussion of a school is not part of

1:41:46 ↗ this conversation but will be coming

1:41:50 ↗ back to the City Council likely on 10 -

1:41:54 ↗ well you're asking us for a

1:41:56 ↗ recommendation of what we think on

1:41:58 ↗ vision should be for these parcels on

1:42:00 ↗ land use not zoning okay so basically

1:42:05 ↗ whether we see it as community

1:42:06 ↗ facilities or commercial or anything

1:42:10 ↗ else so you could say you know that you

1:42:15 ↗ might want it to be Conservancy

1:42:18 ↗ recreation you might say that you think

1:42:20 ↗ this should be residential you know

1:42:24 ↗ maybe we want more housing I mean so

1:42:27 ↗ that's the that's the conversation we're

1:42:28 ↗ having here I think right because the

1:42:31 ↗ washed out properties right now are

1:42:32 ↗ zoned residential in King County okay so

1:42:36 ↗ what is the difference than between

1:42:39 ↗ community facilities and Conservancy

1:42:43 ↗ recreation so community facilities is a

1:42:48 ↗ church correct me if I'm wrong community

1:42:50 ↗ facilities is represents a publicly

1:42:52 ↗ owned property by public jurisdiction

1:42:54 ↗ Conservancy residential and Conservancy

1:42:56 ↗ recreation are generally

1:42:58 ↗ privately owned right and that isn't

1:43:01 ↗ even an option for us they know I mean

1:43:03 ↗ else and the other thing with community

1:43:05 ↗ facilities is it's for public use it's

1:43:08 ↗ publicly owned for public use oh I think

1:43:12 ↗ well we're coming down to is everybody

1:43:14 ↗ would be an agreement for community

1:43:16 ↗ facilities yeah and basically we're

1:43:19 ↗ shoving the decision of whether it's

1:43:22 ↗ open space or school or anything like

1:43:25 ↗ that off to council to make the

1:43:30 ↗ suggestion okay or we make an emotion

1:43:34 ↗ for this well okay so yes that is the

1:43:43 ↗ end of the amendments after you didn't

1:43:44 ↗ have any questions about the TI p that

1:43:46 ↗ covers the rest of it this goes back to

1:43:48 ↗ Linda and Shore on October 2nd

1:43:50 ↗ I'm sorry because it does goes to Lena

1:43:53 ↗ Shore on October 5th it goes to Council

1:43:56 ↗ on October 2nd Lena and Shore on October

1:43:58 ↗ 5th and then back to City Council on

1:44:00 ↗ October 16th for decision so if there's

1:44:10 ↗ no questions from you I'm going to open

1:44:12 ↗ up the public hearing at 8:20 and if

1:44:16 ↗ anybody would like to make any comments

1:44:19 ↗ this is just on the view this is not the

1:44:23 ↗ zoning as we've been told 12 times

1:44:26 ↗ already but if you would like to come in

1:44:28 ↗ absolutely

1:44:34 ↗ so once again my name is Robert Swanson

1:44:36 ↗ you can guide me any way you want I have

1:44:39 ↗ no idea what really a planning policy

1:44:43 ↗ Commission totally does I'm learning a

1:44:45 ↗ lot thank you very much I think you guys

1:44:46 ↗ are doing great I'm just gonna give you

1:44:50 ↗ my opinion you can stop me tell me to

1:44:51 ↗ sit down at any time I live so anyway um

1:44:59 ↗ beautiful Hill right there

1:45:01 ↗ I know basically they want to put a

1:45:02 ↗ school there I heard about this a month

1:45:04 ↗ and a half ago I had to do some

1:45:06 ↗ searching online they got to be doing a

1:45:07 ↗ meeting about this I found out a meeting

1:45:09 ↗ they were doing up at cougar Ridge I

1:45:10 ↗ think it's called the elementary school

1:45:12 ↗ and myself and only one of the person

1:45:14 ↗ came from our neighborhood because

1:45:16 ↗ nobody else knew about it so we went up

1:45:19 ↗ there and they said hey it's great

1:45:20 ↗ alright so in everybody's for it and I

1:45:23 ↗ go well and so I had my chance and they

1:45:26 ↗ let me speak and thank you

1:45:27 ↗ they I said well it's very narrow

1:45:30 ↗ streets you cannot I'm just lettin no

1:45:33 ↗ anything public they're okay school

1:45:36 ↗ whatever where a lot of traffic is gonna

1:45:38 ↗ be going through you can't have people

1:45:40 ↗ come down from above and go through here

1:45:42 ↗ one car can go this way but not one car

1:45:44 ↗ can go that way it's a bunch of cars

1:45:46 ↗ this way or a bunch of cars that way

1:45:48 ↗ nothing passing each other you have to

1:45:50 ↗ pull over parking is terrible completely

1:45:53 ↗ you if if you did put a school you know

1:45:55 ↗ how they say no left turn through

1:45:57 ↗ between six and ten or whatever it is

1:45:58 ↗ you'd have to put there nobody could

1:46:00 ↗ come down so the next thing is coming

1:46:02 ↗ down this way and there's the hospital

1:46:07 ↗ thank you very much appreciate that the

1:46:09 ↗ hospital is right there okay well now

1:46:11 ↗ you got traffic coming two times a day

1:46:13 ↗ five times five times a week where the

1:46:16 ↗ traffic is going to have two 300 cars

1:46:18 ↗ however many is going to become dropping

1:46:20 ↗ off because nobody ever nobody's gonna

1:46:23 ↗ let their kindergarten or first grade or

1:46:25 ↗ 2nd grade walk down to a facility like

1:46:27 ↗ that whatever facility that may be so

1:46:31 ↗ they're gonna drop the kid off tons of

1:46:33 ↗ cars didn't come through their ambulance

1:46:35 ↗ we've had one gentleman get up there

1:46:37 ↗ Paul's his name he lives right over

1:46:39 ↗ there he has its he had three aneurysms

1:46:41 ↗ if he had been a doctor doesn't know why

1:46:43 ↗ he's alive but if he'd been there a

1:46:45 ↗ minute later he probably

1:46:47 ↗ a vegetable so minutes are life-saving

1:46:51 ↗ with ambulance the IED one time too we

1:46:56 ↗ had the bill passed the bond passed 100

1:46:58 ↗ million dollars so once again I don't

1:47:00 ↗ understand how all the money spent how

1:47:02 ↗ we gather it what we do with it but from

1:47:04 ↗ my very rookie understanding is we have

1:47:08 ↗ a hundred million dollars to spend

1:47:09 ↗ well if day one we would have gone hey

1:47:12 ↗ up at ninth and High Street there's a

1:47:14 ↗ perfect place it's in between there and

1:47:16 ↗ up the hill with the movie theater and

1:47:18 ↗ every bunch of the homes live up there

1:47:20 ↗ it's in between the two places

1:47:21 ↗ people can technically walk probably not

1:47:23 ↗ a kindergarten to first grade but they

1:47:25 ↗ could walk up there people can walk down

1:47:27 ↗ the apartments can walk over there it's

1:47:29 ↗ a great location if from day one they

1:47:32 ↗ would have gone hey eminent domain let's

1:47:34 ↗ go for it

1:47:34 ↗ it may not been done right about now

1:47:37 ↗ from what I understand I didn't know

1:47:38 ↗ everything about eminent domain I know

1:47:40 ↗ what it means but the process it does

1:47:43 ↗ take a lot of time there's lawsuits

1:47:44 ↗ there's multiple people to own land but

1:47:46 ↗ it would have probably been getting

1:47:48 ↗ close to being done right about now but

1:47:51 ↗ now for different reasons I've been

1:47:53 ↗ doing a lot of Investigation a lot of

1:47:55 ↗ talking to people I'm going to try

1:47:56 ↗ getting with people that owned that land

1:47:57 ↗ up there at ninth and tenth I'm taking

1:47:59 ↗ time off work next week and I know

1:48:02 ↗ they've done a great day I've already

1:48:03 ↗ met with them but they had an

1:48:05 ↗ opportunity I don't want to go into

1:48:06 ↗ great detail about things I've learned

1:48:08 ↗ about it but they had an opportunity at

1:48:10 ↗ that point in time different reasons

1:48:13 ↗ they decided to go with this one down

1:48:14 ↗ here it really is a much much they got a

1:48:19 ↗ three lane road you can drop kids off

1:48:22 ↗ you can go right down the road I know

1:48:24 ↗ this isn't about school but basically it

1:48:26 ↗ is about a school when you get down to

1:48:27 ↗ it so it's three lane road all the way

1:48:30 ↗ done they don't have to recreate do

1:48:31 ↗ anything to the roads they don't have to

1:48:33 ↗ worry about a hospital there's no bad

1:48:36 ↗ driving right there

1:48:38 ↗ there's you're not gonna cut down the

1:48:40 ↗ tree there's just so many pluses the big

1:48:43 ↗ the big minus is money I got that if

1:48:46 ↗ it's they want to do five acres on this

1:48:48 ↗ here put five acres up at ninth and high

1:48:51 ↗ ninth in High Street okay

1:48:52 ↗ let's say cost you four million dollars

1:48:54 ↗ an acre that's 20 million dollars to buy

1:48:56 ↗ that land I don't know how much I'm just

1:48:58 ↗ throwing the number out

1:49:00 ↗ yeah it's gonna cost money but you know

1:49:02 ↗ what it's gonna be a better deal all

1:49:03 ↗ around up there at ninth and high than

1:49:06 ↗ it is down here

1:49:07 ↗ congestion travel dropping people off

1:49:09 ↗ walking tons more kids are gonna be able

1:49:11 ↗ to walk to that place than this place

1:49:13 ↗ down here this is like the farthest away

1:49:15 ↗ place you can get into the Issaquah

1:49:16 ↗ Highlands in that area to get a kid to

1:49:18 ↗ walk down to our neighborhood obviously

1:49:20 ↗ people can walk down almost any other

1:49:22 ↗ neighborhood no kid is gonna walk to

1:49:24 ↗ that just not gonna happen

1:49:26 ↗ once again I appreciate you guys

1:49:30 ↗ listening I don't know if I'm this is

1:49:31 ↗ the right time the whole thing but it

1:49:34 ↗ I'm just like if I was gonna have my

1:49:36 ↗ choice and we're gonna I don't know if

1:49:37 ↗ this is zoning what you're gonna

1:49:38 ↗ recommend I know it's a quad I just

1:49:42 ↗ found out is required to have more parks

1:49:43 ↗ yeah I don't know if you guys work with

1:49:47 ↗ that I really don't know but great place

1:49:50 ↗ to put a park all mine all the people in

1:49:52 ↗ the neighborhood up there by the way

1:49:53 ↗ it's 92 percent of the people are

1:49:56 ↗ totally against it not not a little bit

1:49:58 ↗ they are like what cutting down a hill

1:50:01 ↗ traffic coming through our neighborhood

1:50:02 ↗ nobody can build this way everybody's

1:50:04 ↗ got to pull over go through a driveway

1:50:05 ↗ to let the other person go through

1:50:07 ↗ everybody's like that doesn't make any

1:50:09 ↗ sense at all

1:50:10 ↗ put a park right there put try and put

1:50:13 ↗ trails people will love it it's a great

1:50:15 ↗ place now you can check off your Park

1:50:17 ↗ thing boom done

1:50:18 ↗ go put it up at ninth and high he's

1:50:20 ↗ gonna cost money I understand I'm hoping

1:50:22 ↗ for a miracle I'm a person that I like I

1:50:25 ↗ like believing than the positive it

1:50:28 ↗ works for me works in my family so I'm

1:50:30 ↗ really working on on that I'm doing my

1:50:32 ↗ due diligence I'm trying to learn about

1:50:35 ↗ everything going on here this is my

1:50:37 ↗ fifth meeting in four weeks I have a ton

1:50:42 ↗ more to learn Saturday I'm trying to get

1:50:44 ↗ with some people that are members of

1:50:46 ↗ City Council just to find out what they

1:50:48 ↗ do I don't want to tell them things

1:50:49 ↗ because I hear I'm not supposed to

1:50:50 ↗ influence people so but if I'm gonna

1:50:54 ↗ make a recommendation I don't know who I

1:50:56 ↗ make it at recommendation to I think the

1:50:58 ↗ City Council and the board of directors

1:51:00 ↗ need to I mean the the Board of

1:51:02 ↗ Education need to get together and go

1:51:03 ↗ hey what do we need laying let's do it

1:51:05 ↗ let's work together I don't think

1:51:08 ↗ they're really working together that's

1:51:09 ↗ my

1:51:09 ↗ opinion so there you go do I need it

1:51:14 ↗ anything else or am i done here no I

1:51:17 ↗ appreciate some anybody who gets

1:51:20 ↗ involved in the community gets involved

1:51:21 ↗ in looking at maybe other options for

1:51:25 ↗ for the school you know we don't even

1:51:28 ↗ know if the schools going to go in there

1:51:29 ↗ we don't know what's going to go in

1:51:31 ↗ there and if it does they would have to

1:51:35 ↗ do a huge trade study on on just exactly

1:51:38 ↗ what your what you're saying so I think

1:51:41 ↗ that the city and the school district

1:51:43 ↗ would be cognizant of the the problems

1:51:48 ↗ that it would cause to children walking

1:51:50 ↗ in that area so thank you

1:51:52 ↗ well one thing that somebody mentioned

1:51:53 ↗ to me last night he goes why I would get

1:51:56 ↗ people involved once we start the

1:51:57 ↗ planning stages and I go well that would

1:52:01 ↗ be too late because at that point you've

1:52:03 ↗ got everything going now you're just

1:52:04 ↗ planning the thing that's why I'm

1:52:05 ↗ getting involved here because yes I

1:52:08 ↗ understand it's only pre stages but if

1:52:12 ↗ you get to if I don't get involved early

1:52:13 ↗ enough I appreciate that and there's to

1:52:17 ↗ at least two people back there that you

1:52:20 ↗ should talk to the president is awesome

1:52:25 ↗ so those are the people that you need to

1:52:28 ↗ talk to to to find out that the city and

1:52:31 ↗ the school dinners are indeed talking to

1:52:33 ↗ one another and working together and

1:52:35 ↗ have the last couple schools that were

1:52:38 ↗ built so it doesn't please get in touch

1:52:42 ↗ with them and and and and see what what

1:52:46 ↗ can have happen is there anybody else

1:52:47 ↗ that wants to make a comment so you can

1:52:52 ↗ leave this map up here but that fire

1:52:54 ↗ station land we talked a lot about prior

1:52:57 ↗ zoning for this one but I didn't know

1:52:59 ↗ what the prior zoning for the fire

1:53:01 ↗ station land was and

1:53:03 ↗ while we talked about the future process

1:53:05 ↗ for this we didn't talk about what the

1:53:07 ↗ future process is for the planning of a

1:53:11 ↗ fire station there because most of that

1:53:13 ↗ land is critical area there's only a

1:53:16 ↗ small part of that land that is not and

1:53:18 ↗ so well this has been cut into theoretic

1:53:24 ↗ chunks the other one is just one big

1:53:28 ↗ parcel and and so I sort of want to know

1:53:32 ↗ what the next steps are for that but we

1:53:35 ↗ can take it offline I just wanted to

1:53:37 ↗ show the difference now one I don't know

1:53:41 ↗ what footnote one and two are or what

1:53:45 ↗ they mean because there's no footnote

1:53:47 ↗ thing here that I can see am i missing

1:53:50 ↗ it one of them is that the that there's

1:53:59 ↗ not actual property lines there and the

1:54:02 ↗ acreage is approximate because we don't

1:54:05 ↗ actually know where the property lines

1:54:07 ↗ are going to be between 10 11 and 12 and

1:54:10 ↗ 14 uh-huh that's that's footnote 1 oh I

1:54:14 ↗ know that's what's and footnote 1 is

1:54:17 ↗ that that's only partly part of a

1:54:20 ↗ Burgess property that's already the

1:54:22 ↗ other part is already in the city we

1:54:24 ↗ don't know what the in it we don't know

1:54:25 ↗ and there's only 0.07 of it is in the

1:54:28 ↗ King County Island so and this is this

1:54:33 ↗ is actually where City Council got wound

1:54:35 ↗ around an axle and I'm I'm gonna wind up

1:54:38 ↗ around the same axle because if it's

1:54:43 ↗ only approximate how can we put it into

1:54:50 ↗ official parcels if we don't really know

1:54:53 ↗ what the parcels are right so my problem

1:54:58 ↗ as much as I really actually would like

1:55:01 ↗ to put 10 use at 10 which is when I went

1:55:07 ↗ 10 as commercial I don't know what 10 is

1:55:14 ↗ so I would say

1:55:16 ↗ you would have to put the the use the

1:55:20 ↗ same as all of the rest of the parcel

1:55:22 ↗ numbers that are in that group because

1:55:25 ↗ it's all one parcel we actually don't

1:55:28 ↗ have more than one parcel to designate a

1:55:31 ↗ use on right and just to answer your

1:55:34 ↗ question we've done that in several

1:55:36 ↗ places in the past where there's a slope

1:55:38 ↗ or both on the Grand Ridge where the

1:55:41 ↗ spire Road is and also on the Spock

1:55:44 ↗ property where we've zoned knowing that

1:55:47 ↗ the top would be one thing the bottom

1:55:49 ↗ would be one thing but not knowing where

1:55:51 ↗ that middle line is yet until a property

1:55:53 ↗ site plan comes in and then we decide

1:55:56 ↗ how to put the buffer on do you put it

1:55:57 ↗ at the top of the slope or at the toe so

1:56:00 ↗ we've had we've done that before where

1:56:02 ↗ the there's been an asterisk on the

1:56:03 ↗ zoning map that says this line well this

1:56:06 ↗ is on a land land use right it's not a

1:56:08 ↗ zone right but to me why would you why I

1:56:13 ↗ this is just my Connie you don't have to

1:56:16 ↗ write I just let you know that I was

1:56:17 ↗ doing this in the past and that could be

1:56:19 ↗ but it doesn't seem right

1:56:22 ↗ no matter how many times we've done it

1:56:24 ↗ in the past it seems like if you're

1:56:26 ↗ designating an official thing on a

1:56:29 ↗ parcel you should actually be able to

1:56:30 ↗ describe the parcel that it's on

1:56:33 ↗ officially and and or you could

1:56:37 ↗ potentially show the contract by which

1:56:40 ↗ you are deciding exactly how you are

1:56:44 ↗ going to decide you're going to resolve

1:56:46 ↗ that parcel because right here it's more

1:56:50 ↗ of a trust us situation we have it in

1:56:52 ↗ hand but we don't know and they're

1:56:54 ↗ trying to make a decision for the

1:56:55 ↗ community that is responsible and so

1:56:58 ↗ that would be my my comment there I

1:57:00 ↗ think that's it oh yeah we got it thank

1:57:02 ↗ you and actually that's a very that that

1:57:07 ↗ point is valid because it's also got the

1:57:09 ↗ same personal number and I was wondering

1:57:11 ↗ about that but so this is now commercial

1:57:15 ↗ and considering the concerns with the

1:57:18 ↗ school you know if if this goes to

1:57:22 ↗ commercial so 10 goes to commercial then

1:57:25 ↗ does it eliminate the option

1:57:27 ↗ to make it to school and that's a

1:57:29 ↗ different place right you know - right

1:57:32 ↗ ten is the the previous King County

1:57:34 ↗ shopsite is where what ten is right now

1:57:38 ↗ okay so we're going to finish the of the

1:57:43 ↗ comments so so I guess a couple thoughts

1:57:48 ↗ one was maybe CF to me seems a little

1:57:53 ↗ overly used in Issaquah can we come up

1:57:56 ↗ with some additional uses for for things

1:57:59 ↗ like a school zone specifically or can

1:58:02 ↗ we look at a zoning was not I know we're

1:58:09 ↗ not doing Zoning Conservancy could apply

1:58:12 ↗ to public land as well as privately

1:58:14 ↗ owned land and maybe that would be a

1:58:17 ↗ better use for some or all these

1:58:19 ↗ properties to me when I've seen things

1:58:27 ↗ come another thought was when I've seen

1:58:29 ↗ things come to Development Commission

1:58:32 ↗ its what does the code allow them to do

1:58:33 ↗ what does its own and allow them to do

1:58:35 ↗ so you might change and move things

1:58:37 ↗ around a little bit basically if the

1:58:39 ↗ code allows that you can build to

1:58:41 ↗ whatever that code says so I tend to

1:58:45 ↗ think more of having zoning that allows

1:58:50 ↗ that to happen so that you make that

1:58:52 ↗ happen or don't allow that to happen

1:58:53 ↗ based on the code because you can't say

1:58:55 ↗ we don't want to build in the steep

1:58:57 ↗ sloped area if the court allows it to

1:59:00 ↗ happen it's going to happen so more

1:59:02 ↗ towards concern for how may be a top

1:59:05 ↗ spot of the an area affects the bottom

1:59:09 ↗ slope or steep slope areas needs to be

1:59:13 ↗ confronted can determine to in

1:59:16 ↗ conjunction with each other not as

1:59:17 ↗ separate pieces that kind of alludes to

1:59:20 ↗ the point that Connie made earlier thank

1:59:23 ↗ you

1:59:24 ↗ anybody else want to make a public

1:59:26 ↗ comment

1:59:33 ↗ Steve craford director capital projects

1:59:35 ↗ for this one School District I think as

1:59:38 ↗ we look at land use designation the King

1:59:41 ↗ County Road shops area at the bottom of

1:59:43 ↗ the hill has been commercial use for a

1:59:46 ↗ long long period of time it makes sense

1:59:48 ↗ for that to continue in that sort of

1:59:50 ↗ designation and while 11 12 13 14 15 and

1:59:54 ↗ 16 have different lines in between them

1:59:57 ↗ 11 12 13 12 and 14 are all part of this

2:00:01 ↗ king county parcel and as proposed

2:00:04 ↗ that's all just CF so you're really only

2:00:07 ↗ looking really at the industrial

2:00:11 ↗ commercial area at the bottom and the

2:00:13 ↗ rest of it is all CF to be further

2:00:15 ↗ designated in a zoning decision by

2:00:18 ↗ Council at a future time anybody else

2:00:26 ↗ hello I'm Lisa Callen with across School

2:00:29 ↗ District School Board and so I just

2:00:33 ↗ wanted to say on behalf of the school

2:00:35 ↗ district the school board that we are in

2:00:36 ↗ favor of the land use of cf community

2:00:39 ↗ facilities for the King carrying Island

2:00:44 ↗ parcels 11 12 14 or specifically we're

2:00:46 ↗ interested we have a high interest due

2:00:48 ↗ to our bond that we passed in 2016 part

2:00:52 ↗ of that bond was to build two Elementary

2:00:54 ↗ School's one middle school and one high

2:00:56 ↗ school so we've done extensive land

2:00:58 ↗ searches for suitable land that would be

2:01:01 ↗ on the initial the initial checkbox list

2:01:06 ↗ of what would be suitable for the

2:01:07 ↗ district to try to do a deeper dive for

2:01:10 ↗ these four sites of schools and we have

2:01:12 ↗ a high interest in the upper portion of

2:01:16 ↗ this khinkali Island area and of course

2:01:19 ↗ that would fall under a community

2:01:20 ↗ facility because there would be for

2:01:22 ↗ public use and so that's that's our

2:01:25 ↗ perspective on it and we wanted to share

2:01:27 ↗ that in terms of why we're here tonight

2:01:30 ↗ thank you anybody else want to make

2:01:33 ↗ comment seeing nobody else that is

2:01:39 ↗ wanting to make a comment I'm going to

2:01:41 ↗ close the public hearing at

2:01:45 ↗ 8:36 orb out and open it up to you guys

2:01:53 ↗ for your questions and on any of these

2:02:01 ↗ parcels so I've got one Trish you

2:02:04 ↗ mentioned that the washed-out parcels

2:02:08 ↗ are currently is designated you said

2:02:12 ↗ zoned for residential mm-hmm

2:02:15 ↗ so did they have any opinion on changing

2:02:20 ↗ the designation to community facilities

2:02:22 ↗ they're aware that we're down zoning and

2:02:24 ↗ down designating them and as Keith said

2:02:28 ↗ it's partly due to because they know

2:02:30 ↗ that we're thinking about the water

2:02:31 ↗ reservoir being there and we're thinking

2:02:33 ↗ about trying to purchase but that

2:02:36 ↗ doesn't change anything that they're

2:02:37 ↗ currently doing on the site or any plans

2:02:40 ↗ that correct yeah they're all vacant now

2:02:42 ↗ okay so in regards to the boundary

2:02:47 ↗ between and and eleven and twelve

2:02:52 ↗ because it's not technically a boundary

2:02:55 ↗ yet you're asking us to approve this in

2:03:00 ↗ the spirit of the map as pictured

2:03:03 ↗ correct

2:03:12 ↗ so you are putting in the boundary

2:03:19 ↗ between 10 11 whatever that is because

2:03:25 ↗ of the way the land is geography

2:03:30 ↗ that's why you have created those does

2:03:33 ↗ it make a difference if if we would sort

2:03:37 ↗ of put it all into community except the

2:03:40 ↗ commercial into community facilities and

2:03:43 ↗ then when you get to a point where well

2:03:47 ↗ you might change the line no indication

2:03:52 ↗ yet it's for this purpose for this

2:03:54 ↗ discussion we should have taken out the

2:03:56 ↗ lines between eleven twelve and fourteen

2:03:58 ↗ because you're right the proposal the

2:04:00 ↗ vision for those is that they will all

2:04:02 ↗ be community facilities and the vision

2:04:04 ↗ for ten makes sense that it would be

2:04:08 ↗ commercial that's what it's been it's

2:04:09 ↗ next to the road it's next to commercial

2:04:11 ↗ and intensive uses now and that would be

2:04:14 ↗ the vision so yes you would look at

2:04:16 ↗ eleven twelve and fourteen as one piece

2:04:18 ↗ and then at a later date could look at

2:04:21 ↗ those as separate parcels it wouldn't

2:04:23 ↗ make any difference

2:04:24 ↗ well it wouldn't make sense to make to

2:04:26 ↗ grow ten as a commercial piece and

2:04:29 ↗ exorbitant because you have such a steep

2:04:32 ↗ slope there right exactly okay and so

2:04:37 ↗ that's why it's kind of a zigzag but we

2:04:38 ↗ just haven't got to the point of

2:04:39 ↗ actually making physical boundaries

2:04:41 ↗ correct correct

2:04:43 ↗ we use it okay I understand you go out

2:04:46 ↗ there and draw a line how many think are

2:04:48 ↗ you actually going to draw that line so

2:04:53 ↗ it's been surveyed so we we've already

2:04:56 ↗ had a surveyor go out and survey the

2:04:58 ↗ property so what's happened is that pad

2:05:01 ↗ that King County created at the bottom

2:05:03 ↗ for their road maintenance they actually

2:05:06 ↗ cut the toe of the slope and used

2:05:07 ↗ Ecology blocks to create bins for them

2:05:11 ↗ to store like sand and gravel and stuff

2:05:13 ↗ and so that line generally follows the

2:05:16 ↗ back of their property that they cut so

2:05:20 ↗ we know where it is

2:05:21 ↗ we've got a surveyor that's doing a

2:05:23 ↗ short plat to actually create that

2:05:26 ↗ parcel as a legal parcel separate from

2:05:28 ↗ the balance of the property that we own

2:05:31 ↗ because our intent is to potentially get

2:05:35 ↗ rid of that property we talk about ten

2:05:39 ↗ getting a correct yes and once once that

2:05:43 ↗ plat is recorded then that goes in here

2:05:45 ↗ and we we know exactly where the line is

2:05:46 ↗ and so ten being commercial what would

2:05:50 ↗ be if someone was to come in and

2:05:54 ↗ actually buy ten and build it out some

2:05:56 ↗ maximum use what would that look like so

2:06:02 ↗ so did we do a transit-oriented

2:06:05 ↗ development presentation to you guys we

2:06:08 ↗ should then you'll know what we're doing

2:06:10 ↗ with ten so if you guys have an open

2:06:15 ↗ agenda slot and one a presentation on a

2:06:19 ↗ transit-oriented development project

2:06:21 ↗ that economic development is working on

2:06:23 ↗ right now it includes that parcel so

2:06:26 ↗ it's part of a story that is much more

2:06:30 ↗ complicated than we might want to get

2:06:32 ↗ into tonight generally though commercial

2:06:36 ↗ includes intensive intensive commercial

2:06:38 ↗ which would and retail I believe but

2:06:42 ↗ included includes low intensive

2:06:46 ↗ manufacturing uses light industrial

2:06:50 ↗ that's that's what I'm looking for light

2:06:51 ↗ industrial uses warehouse kind of uses

2:06:53 ↗ that goes in there generally okay so I

2:07:00 ↗ know that there was some questions at

2:07:03 ↗ the council because the lines are not

2:07:05 ↗ parcels are not created you know it

2:07:11 ↗ surveyed and actually made those are

2:07:14 ↗ just your estimations of where they're

2:07:16 ↗ going to be right and with that I don't

2:07:19 ↗ know if it's easier just to zoom the

2:07:22 ↗ whole area and

2:07:24 ↗ put it into parcels that you've created

2:07:29 ↗ and it's there a problem with doing that

2:07:33 ↗ and then later on when you're actually

2:07:35 ↗ looking at when the council goes in and

2:07:38 ↗ looks at zoning to actually say yes

2:07:41 ↗ these are the parcels at this point in

2:07:43 ↗ time so the idea here that's coming

2:08:04 ↗ forward what this looks like

2:08:10 ↗ okay so you're not you're not looking it

2:08:13 ↗ okay that it's not it's not deeper than

2:08:15 ↗ that it's work and the reason is so

2:08:17 ↗ here's our vision is ten is flat and

2:08:21 ↗ historically been used as a commercial

2:08:23 ↗ property and the rest of its forested

2:08:25 ↗ and it's publicly owned so for us

2:08:27 ↗ because it's publicly owned and it's

2:08:30 ↗ forested it would be community

2:08:31 ↗ facilities facilities I think you know

2:08:36 ↗ that's a fine designation I just don't

2:08:39 ↗ want to see any problems with the actual

2:08:42 ↗ lines if it were just going no because

2:08:44 ↗ because you actually have divided it in

2:08:47 ↗ the way you have put it up there so if

2:08:50 ↗ you get rid of that and just say

2:08:52 ↗ commercial facilities then I'm fine with

2:08:54 ↗ that does anybody have any other as far

2:08:58 ↗ as 10 goes shouldn't we actually

2:09:00 ↗ understand what that would look like as

2:09:02 ↗ commercial before we vote on it being

2:09:06 ↗ commercial because right now they're

2:09:07 ↗ asking us to take basically a version

2:09:09 ↗ piece of land and add it's a high-level

2:09:12 ↗ coat garage and building and garage and

2:09:18 ↗ office right now

2:09:19 ↗ that's what 10 is it's already been

2:09:21 ↗ cleared it's already has been used in

2:09:24 ↗ the past for King County roads

2:09:25 ↗ maintenance site with the bins for

2:09:28 ↗ gravel sand all that kind of stuff it's

2:09:31 ↗ it's an industrial place right now

2:09:33 ↗ I I'm not mistaken what I just heard was

2:09:37 ↗ we like some zoning as commercial and

2:09:40 ↗ then solid naming it so so the council

2:09:48 ↗ gets to make decisions on the sale of

2:09:50 ↗ land so right now

2:09:52 ↗ city staff are working on a project that

2:09:54 ↗ includes that parcel and right now all

2:09:56 ↗ we're doing is making a designation for

2:09:59 ↗ what the land use should be there and if

2:10:02 ↗ there's reasons why you don't think

2:10:03 ↗ commercial is the right designation then

2:10:06 ↗ you should propose an alternative

2:10:09 ↗ designation the rest of that tale and

2:10:11 ↗ story it's really not part of this

2:10:13 ↗ conversation it's up its later date you

2:10:16 ↗ know well I don't know what that

2:10:20 ↗ commercial I don't know all the land use

2:10:22 ↗ head so you're asking us to make a

2:10:24 ↗ decision on something that we haven't

2:10:25 ↗ been filled in with so all the land use

2:10:28 ↗ that's adjacent to ten you know on the

2:10:30 ↗ on the comp on the comp plan map and

2:10:33 ↗ maybe we need to put the comp plan map

2:10:34 ↗ on so you guys can see the context it's

2:10:37 ↗ all commercial so everything that's kind

2:10:41 ↗ of north of there

2:10:42 ↗ that's our that's commercial and if we

2:10:44 ↗ need to put the comp plan map up we can

2:10:46 ↗ because I think so the zoning map behind

2:10:49 ↗ you is is a different it's got a finer

2:10:52 ↗ grain of detail but the comprehensive

2:10:54 ↗ plan map which is where this will this

2:10:57 ↗ right now it shows up as white on the

2:10:59 ↗ comp plan what we're talking about is

2:11:02 ↗ putting colors in to the comp plan for

2:11:06 ↗ the island that's all we're talking

2:11:07 ↗ about here so let me ask you this key so

2:11:10 ↗ that isn't a that is not those are not

2:11:12 ↗ separate parcels right they all have the

2:11:14 ↗ same parcel number they're not separate

2:11:17 ↗ parcels so right now that's an

2:11:18 ↗ approximate it's some piece of that that

2:11:20 ↗ total land right it's five acres out

2:11:23 ↗ there so what's so it I'm playing

2:11:27 ↗ devil's advocate here what's to stop

2:11:30 ↗ anybody to say from saying now five

2:11:33 ↗ acres is now ten acres we're gonna we're

2:11:35 ↗ gonna take down all of that wooded area

2:11:37 ↗ and make it all commercial because

2:11:39 ↗ originally it was approximately five and

2:11:42 ↗ we decided we're gonna make it larger it

2:11:45 ↗ so we're having trouble with with

2:11:48 ↗ something that is not defined so 1010 is

2:11:51 ↗ defined the the story that the

2:11:54 ↗ conversation that happened at the City

2:11:57 ↗ Council because I was there

2:11:58 ↗ was not about 10 because 10 we know the

2:12:02 ↗ dimensions of 10 it was about whether or

2:12:05 ↗ not there was a cff parcel at the top of

2:12:08 ↗ the hill and what the dimensions of that

2:12:10 ↗ were and because some of the other

2:12:13 ↗ variables have not landed on that yet we

2:12:16 ↗ didn't have the exact dimensions for

2:12:18 ↗ what a potential school site would look

2:12:20 ↗ like and so that's what happened at the

2:12:24 ↗ City Council it wasn't about 10 it was

2:12:27 ↗ about what showing up is 12 on this map

2:12:30 ↗ the dimensions of that parcel are not

2:12:34 ↗ said as of today we have pictures of

2:12:39 ↗ what that area looks like and you can

2:12:42 ↗ pull up pictures if that would be

2:12:44 ↗ helpful it's on high map the picture of

2:12:47 ↗ the shop site is on a map and just so

2:12:51 ↗ you know that the existing parcel is own

2:12:53 ↗ mining in King County and we didn't want

2:12:58 ↗ to be comparable and and zone at that

2:13:00 ↗ why not I'm not going to answer that

2:13:08 ↗ [Applause]

2:13:27 ↗ okay so here is our King County Island

2:13:38 ↗ and so you can see basically so what

2:13:44 ↗ show clone that maps con so it showed up

2:13:46 ↗ is 10 11 12 and 14 so that's this parcel

2:13:52 ↗ you can see the parcel boundaries right

2:13:54 ↗ here so the city of Issaquah owns this

2:13:57 ↗ parcel which you can see right here this

2:14:00 ↗ is down at the bottom of the hill so

2:14:02 ↗ elevation aliy this is at the bottom

2:14:04 ↗ this is slope up to the top it crests

2:14:08 ↗ about right here so there there's a

2:14:10 ↗ crest line that runs along this line and

2:14:14 ↗ then this wooded area is up at the

2:14:18 ↗ elevation of is qua Highlands and

2:14:20 ↗ Swedish and the subdivision that's going

2:14:23 ↗ in right next to it so the area that

2:14:26 ↗ we're talking about being commercial you

2:14:28 ↗ can see there's a very distinct eastern

2:14:31 ↗ edge to it because that actually if you

2:14:35 ↗ had if I'm gonna guess the Google

2:14:38 ↗ Streetview didn't come back into here

2:14:40 ↗ because it's not a real street but if

2:14:42 ↗ you saw that there's actually ecology

2:14:45 ↗ blocks that form this back edge and as

2:14:48 ↗ Ron mentioned earlier what happened is

2:14:51 ↗ they basically created a flat pad they

2:14:53 ↗ cut the toe of the slope there's a

2:14:55 ↗ ecology blocks that are stacked there

2:14:57 ↗ and then it goes up the hill from there

2:14:58 ↗ and so migrating that Eastern property

2:15:02 ↗ boundary any farther east is really

2:15:05 ↗ expensive because then you're actually

2:15:08 ↗ having to cut more of the toe of the

2:15:10 ↗ slope and build a retaining wall to hold

2:15:13 ↗ back the slope don't forget all of this

2:15:15 ↗ is owned by the city so any property

2:15:18 ↗ decisions about taking a bigger parcel

2:15:21 ↗ migrating that taking down the forested

2:15:23 ↗ hillsides is a decision that the City

2:15:25 ↗ Council would have to make and as I

2:15:28 ↗ mentioned earlier and even though as

2:15:29 ↗ Trish mentioned these parcels this one

2:15:32 ↗ here and this one here and this one here

2:15:34 ↗ are owned by wash dot you know both wash

2:15:37 ↗ dot and the city of Issaquah support

2:15:40 ↗ mounts to sound Greenway and part of the

2:15:43 ↗ vision for mountains to sound is that

2:15:46 ↗ this hillside remains forested and so

2:15:50 ↗ that's one of the

2:15:51 ↗ reasons why I think to answer the

2:15:53 ↗ question earlier I'm not sure watchdogs

2:15:55 ↗ concerned about us designating this as

2:15:58 ↗ community facilities because them

2:15:59 ↗ selling it for residential is probably

2:16:01 ↗ not in the cards politically and it

2:16:06 ↗ helps that we're looking to potentially

2:16:08 ↗ cite a reservoir somewhere back in here

2:16:09 ↗ so I don't know if that's helpful but

2:16:13 ↗ that's part of the story oh one of my

2:16:17 ↗ concerns is that as far as commercial if

2:16:22 ↗ we zone it as commercial that's not

2:16:24 ↗ owning it you're putting a designation

2:16:26 ↗ for land use I'm sorry we're giving it a

2:16:29 ↗ designation of as commercial if we do

2:16:32 ↗ that then the city would be this desire

2:16:36 ↗ maybe to sell it wouldn't that be prime

2:16:40 ↗ property for the city to use for

2:16:42 ↗ facilities we could do that still so

2:16:47 ↗ just because you put a commercial

2:16:50 ↗ facility on it so I'm gonna pull the map

2:16:52 ↗ down a bit and so right here this is the

2:16:56 ↗ city's Public Works operations

2:16:57 ↗ department so we we have facilities in

2:17:02 ↗ this location maintenance facilities and

2:17:05 ↗ we actually own the trailer park so we

2:17:10 ↗ own this parcel too so you know this

2:17:14 ↗ piece of property though like I said

2:17:16 ↗ right now right now we've got plans for

2:17:19 ↗ it it doesn't mean that we'll actually

2:17:21 ↗ get that over the goal line so if at the

2:17:24 ↗ end of the day we own this and don't

2:17:31 ↗ have a use for it we could use it for

2:17:34 ↗ like a parks maintenance shop because we

2:17:36 ↗ are trying to move the parks maintenance

2:17:38 ↗ shop out of confluence park so there's a

2:17:40 ↗ lot of things that we're trying to do

2:17:42 ↗ that we could use this property for and

2:17:45 ↗ at the end of the day if the council

2:17:49 ↗ were to decide a different zone so let's

2:17:52 ↗ assume that you guys make a

2:17:54 ↗ recommendation that it all should be

2:17:55 ↗ community facilities or let's assume you

2:17:57 ↗ make a rec you go with staff and make

2:17:59 ↗ the recommendation that that should be

2:18:00 ↗ commercial city council still will zone

2:18:03 ↗ the property and

2:18:04 ↗ if they choose to put a different zone

2:18:06 ↗ on that property then we come back in

2:18:09 ↗ next year's comp plan docket

2:18:11 ↗ well actually we could do it this year

2:18:12 ↗ because we'll know the answer to that

2:18:14 ↗ it's potentially in a couple weeks but I

2:18:18 ↗ think I guess what I would say Ron is I

2:18:22 ↗ think what we're looking for is for you

2:18:24 ↗ guys to tell us what you think makes the

2:18:26 ↗ most sense here and then we'll take that

2:18:29 ↗ forward as a recommendation to the City

2:18:31 ↗ Council from PPC okay so if if what the

2:18:35 ↗ if what the staff of what the

2:18:36 ↗ administration is recommending at least

2:18:38 ↗ for parcel ten doesn't make sense for

2:18:40 ↗ you then pitch a different alternative

2:18:43 ↗ and you guys can deliberate on that

2:18:45 ↗ we're not there's there's multiple

2:18:47 ↗ choices here

2:18:48 ↗ so if we decided as a as a body to say

2:18:53 ↗ well OS CF CF for the entire parcel for

2:18:59 ↗ all Lots expected Lots then the city can

2:19:04 ↗ come back with a proposal and say this

2:19:06 ↗ is what we want to rezone we want his

2:19:08 ↗ own lot n as a commercial piece and this

2:19:10 ↗ is why that thought that thought and

2:19:12 ↗ then we can make the decision and that

2:19:13 ↗ can go to City Council then you actually

2:19:14 ↗ make the decision to zone it so they

2:19:17 ↗ would make both the decision for zoning

2:19:19 ↗ and for land use so what will happen is

2:19:22 ↗ so the administration makes a

2:19:23 ↗ recommendation you guys make a

2:19:25 ↗ recommendation it's great if they match

2:19:27 ↗ if they don't match then the staff will

2:19:30 ↗ provide a rationale for why the two

2:19:33 ↗ recommendations didn't match and then

2:19:35 ↗ the council makes a decision based on

2:19:37 ↗ that okay

2:19:43 ↗ I don't see this is controversial at all

2:19:46 ↗ I think it completely makes sense to

2:19:50 ↗ list that as commercial considering the

2:19:53 ↗ surroundings and the landscape of that

2:19:56 ↗ and the rest as community facilities and

2:19:59 ↗ take that decision off of City Council

2:20:02 ↗ since they're going to have enough on

2:20:03 ↗ their hands in deciding what will

2:20:06 ↗ potentially be parcel 12 well we're not

2:20:09 ↗ taking off their their plate they still

2:20:11 ↗ have to look at it but they can look at

2:20:14 ↗ it as our recommendation we do have to

2:20:19 ↗ make a proposal for this so keep that in

2:20:24 ↗ your mind sorry I've got a quick

2:20:27 ↗ question for Keith yes listen the

2:20:30 ↗ parcels that are in front of 10 like the

2:20:34 ↗ the Trailer Park and the other

2:20:35 ↗ facilities part like skis yes you're

2:20:38 ↗ right those are commercial or what are

2:20:41 ↗ those CF if there's CF because we own

2:20:44 ↗ them ok so I guess the next step is to

2:20:52 ↗ make a motion I would like to make a

2:20:55 ↗ motion that the king county island is

2:20:58 ↗ owned to CF they're not zoned for CF but

2:21:02 ↗ has designated as CF that's that's ten

2:21:06 ↗ right

2:21:07 ↗ that includes ten okay good then if you

2:21:10 ↗ know they want to come back and make it

2:21:12 ↗ as commercial then it could be a

2:21:14 ↗ discussion when they have a proposal

2:21:18 ↗ that's fully baked do I get a second

2:21:21 ↗ then nobody has a second okay

2:21:23 ↗ it's been moved and seconded and is

2:21:26 ↗ there any discussion or zealot of zoning

2:21:30 ↗ for designating all of those areas I

2:21:33 ↗ have a question for Keith what does that

2:21:38 ↗ do to that particular part a parcel does

2:21:43 ↗ it make it it's still cf it's zoned it's

2:21:48 ↗ done so so you guys don't have the you

2:21:53 ↗ guys don't have the benefit of

2:21:55 ↗ understanding what we're doing with that

2:21:56 ↗ parcel and I apologize for that at some

2:21:59 ↗ point we brought you guys so much stuff

2:22:01 ↗ we you guys should ask ask so I'm giving

2:22:05 ↗ you the invitation to ask to get the

2:22:06 ↗ presentation on transit oriented

2:22:08 ↗ development so the City Council's

2:22:10 ↗ already entered into a memorandum of

2:22:12 ↗ understanding with a developer to

2:22:15 ↗ basically move the CenturyLink

2:22:17 ↗ maintenance yard from where it is next

2:22:19 ↗ to the sound transit garage on SR 900 to

2:22:23 ↗ this location in in exchange for that so

2:22:27 ↗ they'll be so we will build a developer

2:22:29 ↗ will build a one-story maintenance yard

2:22:32 ↗ for CenturyLink because they do not want

2:22:34 ↗ to leave the city in this location in

2:22:36 ↗ their current location and I can since I

2:22:38 ↗ have a aerial photograph up I can go

2:22:41 ↗ there if I can

2:22:44 ↗ might need to scroll down a little bit I

2:22:49 ↗ think I can get there keep going okay

2:22:54 ↗ wait I found the park I'm doing good all

2:22:57 ↗ right so this is where CenturyLink is

2:23:00 ↗ right now this is Newport

2:23:03 ↗ this is SR 900 and this is the

2:23:06 ↗ park-and-ride garage our plan are very

2:23:09 ↗ complicated plan is to move this over to

2:23:12 ↗ that bottom piece of property and then

2:23:16 ↗ in exchange for the developer building

2:23:19 ↗ them a new one of these over there they

2:23:22 ↗ will then get access to this piece of

2:23:23 ↗ property and what they are going to

2:23:26 ↗ build here is some of that stuff that

2:23:30 ↗ Jen talked about early we're gonna get

2:23:33 ↗ it's a 300

2:23:35 ↗ I'm doing this from memory so I

2:23:37 ↗ apologize it's like 360 housing units of

2:23:40 ↗ which at least half of them are

2:23:42 ↗ affordable it's got a human service

2:23:45 ↗ space in the ground floor it's got

2:23:46 ↗ ground-floor retail it's got two floors

2:23:49 ↗ of parking above that ground floor it's

2:23:53 ↗ got one level of parking that

2:23:56 ↗ subterranean and it's got a big kind of

2:23:59 ↗ Plaza space that's across the street

2:24:01 ↗ from the new skate park in Tibbets

2:24:03 ↗ really cool council super excited about

2:24:06 ↗ it but we need the bottom of that

2:24:09 ↗ property to potentially be part of a

2:24:16 ↗ three party transaction where that would

2:24:19 ↗ go to CenturyLink at the end of the

2:24:21 ↗ process to replace this facility here so

2:24:24 ↗ my apologies for that so if you guys do

2:24:27 ↗ community facilities for all of that

2:24:29 ↗ given the fact that the City Council

2:24:31 ↗ already approved memorandums of

2:24:33 ↗ understanding to work with both Century

2:24:35 ↗ Link and the developer my guess is the

2:24:37 ↗ council will ignore that and probably

2:24:39 ↗ put commercial on that I think that was

2:24:41 ↗ my question if I got there eventually

2:24:43 ↗ yeah if it is cf then the city I mean

2:24:48 ↗ you used to you can't put commercial

2:24:52 ↗ into it so there is a restriction of

2:24:55 ↗ what you can do with it you can't add

2:24:57 ↗ the with the commercial in it so I

2:24:59 ↗ wanted that to be clear you know the

2:25:02 ↗ rest of it you can eventually put

2:25:04 ↗ whatever you want so likely and we're in

2:25:06 ↗ a kind of a funky procedural thing in

2:25:08 ↗ that there's kind of a recommendation

2:25:10 ↗ that's in process on the entire comp

2:25:12 ↗ plan docket and in the midst of all that

2:25:15 ↗ the council is going to make a decision

2:25:16 ↗ on one of the things that you guys are

2:25:18 ↗ making a recommendation on and if

2:25:20 ↗ ultimately you make a recommendation and

2:25:22 ↗ they don't concur with it a hundred

2:25:25 ↗ percent my guess is it would come back

2:25:27 ↗ here and we would change the

2:25:29 ↗ recommendation ultimately coming forward

2:25:31 ↗ I don't know it seems a little we got a

2:25:33 ↗ weird procedural thing going on but we'd

2:25:35 ↗ figure it out

2:25:36 ↗ but this isn't I mean I understand

2:25:38 ↗ aspirationally we're going this

2:25:39 ↗ direction and everybody's on the same

2:25:41 ↗ boat

2:25:43 ↗ if this there is a chance that this

2:25:46 ↗ could fall through sure though

2:25:50 ↗ could we ins and in essence make a

2:25:53 ↗ motion that we zone everything as CF and

2:25:56 ↗ if CenturyLink deal goes through it

2:25:58 ↗ becomes commercial it's my understanding

2:26:03 ↗ the CenturyLink deal can't go through

2:26:06 ↗ and CenturyLink it's kind of holding

2:26:08 ↗ back on that next step until they know

2:26:11 ↗ that the city is behind this part of it

2:26:15 ↗ right so so it's a con it's complicated

2:26:18 ↗ so there's to make it even more

2:26:22 ↗ complicated enters King County and King

2:26:26 ↗ County has set aside 10 million dollars

2:26:29 ↗ for Issaquah North Bend and Snoqualmie

2:26:32 ↗ specifically for transit oriented

2:26:33 ↗ development and because Snoqualmie and

2:26:37 ↗ North Bend likely don't have the

2:26:38 ↗ facilities to qualify for that 10

2:26:40 ↗ million dollars it could very well be

2:26:42 ↗ that the city has the ability to get ten

2:26:45 ↗ million dollars from King County from

2:26:47 ↗ their transit oriented development funds

2:26:49 ↗ to apply specifically for this project

2:26:52 ↗ all the pieces need to be in play and

2:26:56 ↗ moving in the right direction for us to

2:26:58 ↗ get King County's support for making

2:27:02 ↗ that allocation that application is

2:27:04 ↗ going in this month so the ten million

2:27:07 ↗ dollar piece is for CenturyLink going to

2:27:11 ↗ parcel ten and the central area of

2:27:17 ↗ becoming that affordable housing piece

2:27:19 ↗ yes okay it helps with the financing

2:27:23 ↗ back to the conversation earlier about

2:27:25 ↗ the markets not here outside financing

2:27:29 ↗ if you can get ten million dollars from

2:27:31 ↗ a third party that makes a big

2:27:32 ↗ difference so with that understanding I

2:27:36 ↗ like a plan a plan B kind of thing but I

2:27:39 ↗ mean I understand that and it's like

2:27:40 ↗ okay we like to go forward understanding

2:27:45 ↗ what Keith has just explained do you

2:27:48 ↗ still want to go for

2:27:50 ↗ with your motion or do you want to pull

2:27:52 ↗ evil I would like to retract that motion

2:27:55 ↗ is that approved by the person who

2:27:58 ↗ seconded it I am concerned said that by

2:28:03 ↗ the way these conversations go it's you

2:28:05 ↗ know we don't want to approve it and so

2:28:07 ↗ then there's a whole bunch of other

2:28:08 ↗ information there wasn't provided to

2:28:10 ↗ begin with I mean this is the motion has

2:28:15 ↗ been withdrawn you know okay so it's the

2:28:21 ↗ I assume with the motion if the maker of

2:28:24 ↗ the motion is pulled it back I'm

2:28:25 ↗ assuming that the second goes away right

2:28:29 ↗ that's right okay so would you like to

2:28:32 ↗ make a new motion or anybody like to

2:28:35 ↗ make a motion that's a question weird

2:28:37 ↗ I'm not mistaken we're not approving

2:28:40 ↗ anything you're recommending we are

2:28:42 ↗ making a recommendation yes so we can

2:28:46 ↗ recommend to the City Council that it be

2:28:49 ↗ all community facilities that meets

2:28:54 ↗ everybody's desire way I see the issue

2:28:57 ↗ and then with the City Council having

2:29:00 ↗ the greater knowledge of the inner

2:29:02 ↗ workings and hidden mechanisms of under

2:29:04 ↗ the table deals that are currently

2:29:07 ↗ Massenet ting out over here which we

2:29:10 ↗ have no knowledge of they can change it

2:29:13 ↗ and they can make it commercial it's

2:29:19 ↗ ready to them that's all

2:29:22 ↗ I was going to suggest that we that

2:29:26 ↗ solves the problem I'm very much in

2:29:28 ↗ favor of this being designated as

2:29:30 ↗ commercial so I will go ahead and make a

2:29:33 ↗ motion the parcel 10 be designated as

2:29:36 ↗ commercial and the remainder as

2:29:39 ↗ community facilities second

2:29:45 ↗ and I miss I'm mystified make anything I

2:29:48 ↗ can't second it

2:29:50 ↗ I miss the motion yeah we were having a

2:29:52 ↗ trouble I made a motion that parcel 10

2:29:55 ↗ as commercial and the remainder as

2:29:59 ↗ community facilities and now Joan is

2:30:02 ↗ asking whether or not she can can I

2:30:06 ↗ second it I don't think I can the chair

2:30:09 ↗ and alternates can't do motions if

2:30:13 ↗ there's already a there's already a

2:30:16 ↗ quorum of official of what do we call

2:30:19 ↗ them regular members and the alternates

2:30:21 ↗ do second can the alternates make a

2:30:23 ↗ second we have okay okay the motion

2:30:31 ↗ fails we have how do you want to proceed

2:30:41 ↗ question for Carl if we what do you

2:30:46 ↗ think proposing it to be CFF I'm sorry

2:30:53 ↗ CF and if this deal with CenturyLink

2:31:00 ↗ goes through it goes to commercial or

2:31:05 ↗ Parcel ten I think

2:31:07 ↗ that's unnecessary counsel we get the

2:31:11 ↗ council as council will change it here

2:31:14 ↗ you to do that if the deal is contingent

2:31:18 ↗ on it being commercial we don't know

2:31:20 ↗ that because we don't know all the

2:31:23 ↗ details of what's going on and since

2:31:27 ↗ there's concerns over a specific piece

2:31:30 ↗ of property in regards to the dimensions

2:31:32 ↗ and exactly what's going to happen we

2:31:35 ↗ eliminate that but just saying we'll do

2:31:36 ↗ the whole island

2:31:41 ↗ community facilities and then if the

2:31:45 ↗ City Council deems it necessary to have

2:31:47 ↗ a specific portion nine and ten maybe

2:31:51 ↗ make ten a little bigger or something

2:31:53 ↗ for whatever reason because of the masa

2:31:55 ↗ nations going on in the backroom

2:31:58 ↗ smoke-filled okay look I make a motion

2:32:03 ↗ that the King County Island is

2:32:07 ↗ designated as CF now second it and the

2:32:15 ↗ rest are you just gonna are you just

2:32:18 ↗ doing Marshall ten are you doing all of

2:32:21 ↗ it

2:32:21 ↗ Oliver pink I love what you say so

2:32:23 ↗ incoming Island one of these parcels

2:32:27 ↗ parcel nine is actually privately owned

2:32:29 ↗ right I can't take community facilities

2:32:32 ↗ right nine is the little part that's

2:32:34 ↗ just part of a parcel yes and you

2:32:38 ↗ couldn't that couldn't be designated

2:32:39 ↗ community facilities because it's not

2:32:41 ↗ publicly owned the teeny little 0.077 a

2:32:44 ↗ that's not part of the King County

2:32:45 ↗ Island it is okay right

2:32:52 ↗ and that's nine right so one mr. parson

2:32:57 ↗ make a motion then to designate the king

2:33:03 ↗ the King County Island as CF with an

2:33:07 ↗ exception of personal nine perfect in a

2:33:12 ↗ second okay

2:33:16 ↗ and the second a second I second

2:33:19 ↗ okay so any other discussion with that

2:33:26 ↗ all those in favor of the motion is

2:33:29 ↗ stated

2:33:30 ↗ aye aye opposed no listen oh I left out

2:33:38 ↗ Lindsey's no there's three or I've got I

2:33:43 ↗ three in favor

2:33:48 ↗ so that's Carl Ron Jones with that if

2:33:54 ↗ there's no other but you have an entire

2:33:56 ↗ list of comp plan amendments that still

2:33:58 ↗ need to be recommended to the City

2:33:59 ↗ Council travursel um okay we just got

2:34:03 ↗ rid of the hard part's the ready to

2:34:08 ↗ accept the amendments as stated by

2:34:11 ↗ Kristen in relation to housing and I

2:34:16 ↗ make a motion to to approve the

2:34:20 ↗ amendments to the comprehensive plan and

2:34:22 ↗ zoning map for the 2016 docket including

2:34:24 ↗ land-use amendments we use designation

2:34:27 ↗ rezoning community facilities

2:34:28 ↗ redeafination rezoning the over Dale

2:34:30 ↗ property and a transportation element

2:34:33 ↗ six-year transportation improvement

2:34:34 ↗ program and related map I second isn't

2:34:40 ↗ that part correct so with the exception

2:34:43 ↗ with the exception as as was stated okay

2:34:46 ↗ all those in favor say aye aye opposed

2:34:51 ↗ motion care well done so with that that

2:34:59 ↗ I'm gonna call the meeting to close okay

2:35:02 ↗ at 10:00 after 9:00 okay thank you

2:35:05 ↗ it could pop you well done

2:35:17 ↗ you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF