Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, September 28, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

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 September 14, 2017

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 0:47 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing: End of Development Agreements and Proposed Amendments, (R)

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.19–277

Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

Memo To: Planning Policy Commission (PPC) Urban Village Development Commission (UVDC) From: Lucy Sloman, DSD Land Development Manager Date: September 22, 2017 Re: Ending the Development Agreements – edits to Sept 21, 2017 draft

Public Hearing: Vertical Mixed Use in Central Issaquah and Proposed Amendments, (R)

Jen Davis Hayes, Economic Development Manager · packet pp.279–287

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.279 ↗

Staff report:

a. Table 4.2B Intent of Overlays (new table) b. Table 4.3B Permitted Land Uses c. 4.4 District Standards d. Table 4.4B Vertical Mixed Use Overlay Standards

4650 segments .txt ↗

0:19 ↗ good evening and welcome to the

0:22 ↗ September 28th meeting of the planning

0:24 ↗ policy commission the first thing I'd

0:27 ↗ like to congratulate you on your last

0:30 ↗ meeting I thought we had some great

0:32 ↗ questions and great ideas to reelin City

0:36 ↗ so I really appreciate I actually

0:37 ↗ watched the three and a half hours today

0:39 ↗ so thank you very much for your time

0:41 ↗ when you're here interest so usually the

0:44 ↗ first thing on our on our agenda is

0:47 ↗ approval of the minutes of the September

0:51 ↗ 14th meeting do I have a motion to

0:55 ↗ approve the minutes I would like to we'd

1:00 ↗ like to make a motion to approve the

1:02 ↗ minutes from the September 14th meeting

1:04 ↗ by the second seconded those in favor

1:07 ↗ aye

1:09 ↗ approved so tonight we're going to have

1:11 ↗ two separate public hearings the first

1:15 ↗ one is the end of the development

1:17 ↗ agreements and the proposed amendments

1:21 ↗ and so lucy is going to give us an

1:25 ↗ update on a quick view of what those are

1:29 ↗ so good evening i'm lucy slum and land

1:31 ↗ development manager of DST back again I

1:35 ↗ always like to review the history

1:37 ↗ because the meetings just keep piling up

1:39 ↗ hits just keep on coming so we started

1:43 ↗ in the spring working with two

1:45 ↗ communities who development agreements

1:48 ↗ the build-out period has been reached we

1:52 ↗ started working with PPC and you VDC

1:55 ↗ jointly in August we've had three

1:58 ↗ meetings this is our fourth meeting and

2:00 ↗ public hearing on this matter I am NOT

2:04 ↗ doing another summary so because I think

2:06 ↗ we've worked with you guys enough so the

2:09 ↗ only thing I'm and I'm not even going to

2:10 ↗ go through everything that was in the

2:12 ↗ summary memo I'm just going to touch on

2:14 ↗ the ones that based on that either

2:17 ↗ changes or things that we've talked

2:20 ↗ about that I thought were worth touching

2:21 ↗ on so first is in section

2:27 ↗ up in the front section Oh 300 scope and

2:33 ↗ applicability we added a director's

2:36 ↗ interpretation that would clarify how

2:39 ↗ central Issaquah would apply when used

2:43 ↗ in association with the urban villages

2:45 ↗ so we had several different references

2:47 ↗ that we showed you last time where

2:49 ↗ language would be virtually replaced and

2:53 ↗ you guys were supportive of that the

2:56 ↗ interpretation would also identify which

2:59 ↗ level of review we're proposing for site

3:02 ↗ development permits and that was the

3:04 ↗ lowest level or the small yeah else call

3:09 ↗ at the lowest level three acre sites are

3:13 ↗ what applying the urban villages

3:14 ↗ currently this would also add a building

3:17 ↗ of 45,000 square feet there are three

3:20 ↗ levels 45,000 hundred thousand and

3:23 ↗ hundred and fifty thousand so we picked

3:25 ↗ the low bar and then there was also an

3:28 ↗ explanation related to figures that were

3:31 ↗ referenced in centralism plan which ones

3:34 ↗ did not apply and if they were used as

3:37 ↗ part of code references or standards

3:39 ↗ what to do with that any questions okay

3:47 ↗ second we added a bunch of definitions

3:50 ↗ that the Commission's had identified the

3:53 ↗ need for we removed informal gathering

3:56 ↗ areas because the definition that we had

3:59 ↗ previously provided was almost identical

4:01 ↗ to the one that was already in central

4:03 ↗ is kua and we did not add a definition

4:06 ↗ for Plaza because that was also already

4:09 ↗ identified defined in central is Klaw

4:11 ↗ and we thought that was sufficient based

4:13 ↗ on our discussion when we removed

4:17 ↗ informal gathering area where did you

4:19 ↗ replace that way so central Issaquah had

4:22 ↗ virtually the same language at as was in

4:25 ↗ the draft so since if something is not

4:27 ↗ in 1890 avait teen 18 be sorry it's 1819

4:32 ↗ be the replacement regulations if

4:36 ↗ there's a definition there

4:37 ↗ would use it if we don't have a

4:39 ↗ definition then we go to central is

4:41 ↗ quest standard so decentralized to go

4:43 ↗ have a definition for informal gathering

4:44 ↗ area yes and it was virtually identical

4:46 ↗ to the one that we had provide okay so

4:48 ↗ this was your removed because it's

4:49 ↗ duplicative exactly thank you for

4:51 ↗ clarifying me so are you saying that

4:53 ↗ there isn't a definition for assisted

4:55 ↗ living or senior housing or anything

4:57 ↗ like that in central Alaska yes although

5:01 ↗ sociable public realm which is the term

5:03 ↗ that's used in Tallis and his Highlands

5:05 ↗ is called public realm in central East

5:09 ↗ cause so the definition really just

5:11 ↗ points to public realm it says where you

5:14 ↗ see the terms sociable public realm see

5:17 ↗ public realm in the central is quite

5:19 ↗ standards definitions but there isn't

5:23 ↗ anything for assisted living or senior

5:25 ↗ housing really okay and there was Park

5:29 ↗ but we didn't think it worked well with

5:32 ↗ what we were trying to do here so we

5:34 ↗ provided a definition that would fit

5:37 ↗ better with all the work that you guys

5:38 ↗ have done around requiring those okay

5:42 ↗ any other questions on definitions okay

5:47 ↗ in uses we that very detailed sheet that

5:51 ↗ we worked through those got inserted

5:53 ↗ there were three changes made in

5:56 ↗ single-family we took out transportation

5:59 ↗ services it's not that we don't want

6:01 ↗ transportation services there but this

6:03 ↗ only applies to the single family lots

6:06 ↗ and taxi stands and car2go and all those

6:09 ↗ things don't really make sense on a

6:11 ↗ single-family lot they make sense in the

6:13 ↗ street but the streets are right-of-way

6:15 ↗ so that isn't the use that would define

6:19 ↗ having that available near single-family

6:22 ↗ homes in Issaquah Highlands because we

6:26 ↗ had combined retail and commercial into

6:29 ↗ a new zone this was just a leftover

6:32 ↗ hangnail that we needed to remove with

6:34 ↗ the mix juice non-residential because

6:36 ↗ we're not using that term anymore with

6:38 ↗ talis we removed indoor recreation

6:40 ↗ because that isn't really consistent

6:43 ↗ with the office campus but as part of

6:46 ↗ support office Support Services

6:50 ↗ Fitness is still there so it's not that

6:52 ↗ you couldn't have a gym or an Athletic

6:55 ↗ Club or something you just wouldn't have

6:57 ↗ a bowling alley or things that didn't

6:59 ↗ support that office campus vision any

7:05 ↗ more questions there okay

7:09 ↗ in district standards we added a minimum

7:14 ↗ floor area ratio of one who here knows

7:17 ↗ when a floor area ratio is or an FA are

7:20 ↗ okay yeah you guys don't count so floor

7:24 ↗ area ratio is one way of governing

7:27 ↗ density so a floor area ratio of one

7:31 ↗ means you could build a single storey

7:33 ↗ over the entire site two storeys over

7:37 ↗ half the site four storeys over a

7:39 ↗ quarter of the site so it it you need

7:43 ↗ height limits and other things to help

7:46 ↗ shape that but it gives you a sense of

7:48 ↗ how much you can put on a piece of

7:51 ↗ property floor area ratio there were

7:54 ↗ maximum floor area ratios and

7:56 ↗ development agreements there were not

7:57 ↗ minimums however the city is moving you

8:03 ↗ know as residential we have a minimum

8:05 ↗ density and as us in the development

8:08 ↗ agreements and as a city we are moving

8:10 ↗ towards minimum densities to assure the

8:13 ↗ insure that we are getting efficiently

8:15 ↗ smartly developed land so this is

8:18 ↗ different than the development agreement

8:19 ↗ but seem consistent with where we were

8:21 ↗ as a city in terms of change that we

8:27 ↗ made we had required a 15-foot first

8:31 ↗ floor and we had applied that to

8:33 ↗ non-residential projects retail and

8:37 ↗ mixed-use projects we took it out of non

8:39 ↗ residential office buildings currently

8:43 ↗ need 15 foot first floors that is

8:47 ↗ something that sometimes works if they

8:49 ↗ have certain kinds of lobbies but there

8:51 ↗ was a concern was that with the height

8:53 ↗ limits that would restrict the number of

8:55 ↗ floors and we weren't putting that in

8:58 ↗ there to try and reduce the number of

9:01 ↗ floors plus at

9:03 ↗ Halas the office campus isn't even

9:05 ↗ allowed to have retail so it didn't make

9:07 ↗ sense to apply that there so it was

9:09 ↗ removed from both Towson issaquah

9:11 ↗ Highlands for non-residential projects

9:15 ↗ only applied to retail or mixed-use

9:17 ↗ projects questions okay

9:23 ↗ parks we had a requirement of 250 square

9:28 ↗ feet per net new residential units and

9:35 ↗ you all asked we sort of talked about a

9:38 ↗ bunch of things and you had asked for

9:40 ↗ some criteria and standards to make sure

9:43 ↗ that we were getting what we wanted

9:44 ↗ we've proposed something so I don't we

9:48 ↗ need to hear if this seems like the

9:50 ↗ right things kind of hard to read and

9:57 ↗ you're well summarized sure so it says

10:03 ↗ with net new residential development new

10:06 ↗ parks will be provided at the minimum

10:08 ↗ rate of 250 square feet per residential

10:11 ↗ unit you know what let me do this let me

10:17 ↗ find it in the code so you can actually

10:19 ↗ just look at it it's on page this is on

10:28 ↗ page 43 of 287 if you have your packets

10:31 ↗ does anyone need a packet okay I'll take

10:35 ↗ one if you have some appended so this

10:39 ↗ way I don't need to read it out loud but

10:41 ↗ I'm happy to talk about it in concept

10:44 ↗ we're saying it only applies to net new

10:47 ↗ units and that's those that are added

10:52 ↗ beyond those in place upon the effective

10:56 ↗ date of this code the characteristics

10:58 ↗ are that it will they will comply with

11:01 ↗ the urban village goals and guidelines

11:03 ↗ they have to be provided on-site for

11:08 ↗ multifamily this means as part of the

11:09 ↗ parcel for plats this means that it's an

11:12 ↗ integral part of the overall

11:15 ↗ subdivision in either attract or parcel

11:18 ↗ that it will have visual and

11:21 ↗ recreational variety in pedestrian

11:24 ↗ amenities appeal to the senses have

11:27 ↗ seating lighting and it will have

11:32 ↗ elements such as I should say seating

11:34 ↗ lighting water features paving landscape

11:36 ↗ artwork special recreational features

11:39 ↗ Sun and shade it be located away from

11:43 ↗ surface parking lots loading waste

11:46 ↗ collection service areas the land will

11:49 ↗ be usable pleasant integral component of

11:52 ↗ the project or plat in which it is

11:53 ↗ located

11:54 ↗ it won't be on leftover property or in

11:58 ↗ locations that are isolated our hidden

12:01 ↗ which might create safety issues and

12:04 ↗ that it should have an access easement

12:07 ↗ so these are privately owned with public

12:11 ↗ easement I would assume that they are

12:13 ↗ privately owned but we did not specify

12:15 ↗ ok and then what oh sorry what was the

12:19 ↗ rationale between having it on requiring

12:21 ↗ it on site for multi-family well I think

12:26 ↗ that that's the way most of the parks

12:28 ↗ that that we were looking at except for

12:31 ↗ the city-owned parks that's the way most

12:34 ↗ of them have been done so I think we're

12:36 ↗ looking at something that's integral I

12:38 ↗ suppose I I mean I guess it just I'm not

12:44 ↗ sure what you would do if you said you

12:46 ↗ could buy property off-site you know

12:48 ↗ like how does or buy property in his

12:50 ↗ Highlands I'm just not quite sure

12:52 ↗ how that would work this is new park

12:57 ↗ requirements what were they before this

13:00 ↗ how is there were none no it was there

13:04 ↗ were so when we started there was a

13:09 ↗ capital facilities plan that had a list

13:12 ↗ of certain recreational features that

13:14 ↗ had to be provided then there was a

13:17 ↗ master parks plan maybe 10 years and to

13:20 ↗ build out in which the those capital

13:24 ↗ facilities were located in certain air

13:28 ↗ to ensure that they would be built out

13:30 ↗ and as a kind of coordinated effort

13:32 ↗ between the master developer and the

13:35 ↗ city in addition to those capital

13:38 ↗ facilities multifamily projects in the

13:42 ↗ guidelines are supposed to provide these

13:44 ↗ projects single family plots have as

13:48 ↗ kind of a custom

13:50 ↗ and a part of the character provided

13:51 ↗ them and I think as we have reached the

13:54 ↗ end of the build-out period our proposal

13:58 ↗ to you is that these parks have become

14:01 ↗ an integral part of the character and so

14:04 ↗ therefore we are requiring them as we

14:06 ↗ complete the build-out of the project

14:09 ↗ but it's not based on it's based on

14:12 ↗ character and some research we have done

14:17 ↗ over the years but not on a development

14:20 ↗ agreement requirement okay so the

14:23 ↗ research you've done have come up with

14:26 ↗ 250 wear feet in other areas and which

14:30 ↗ is actually for iske highlands it's less

14:32 ↗ than what other areas have but we wanted

14:36 ↗ a consistent I think the message we'd

14:38 ↗ gotten from you VDC probably more than

14:41 ↗ PPC was that there should be a

14:43 ↗ consistent Plaza and a consistent Park

14:46 ↗ requirement between the two communities

14:47 ↗ so in looking at the two projects that

14:51 ↗ was the number that we're proposing

14:52 ↗ based on our analysis of the two urban

14:55 ↗ villages so in looking at this

14:59 ↗ requirement looking at these pictures

15:00 ↗ they're great pictures but the reality

15:03 ↗ of is if you only have if you have a new

15:06 ↗ one to four units that's less than a

15:09 ↗ thousand square feet that's hardly

15:11 ↗ enough space to consider Park so should

15:14 ↗ we put in some sort of minimum

15:16 ↗ requirements saying that if you have

15:19 ↗ more than four net you new units then

15:23 ↗ you have to meet the thousand or if

15:25 ↗ you're putting in one net unit it's

15:27 ↗ hardly we want to even go there well I

15:32 ↗ guess my thought would be that based on

15:35 ↗ our conversation last time is that a

15:37 ↗ project let's say you had

15:40 ↗ I'm going to use your example you have

15:43 ↗ an existing piece of property that has

15:45 ↗ ten units on it right now and the way

15:50 ↗ the rest of the standards are written

15:51 ↗ that park that amount of park is

15:56 ↗ protected and cannot be removed or

15:59 ↗ reduced without council approval so if

16:03 ↗ you were redeveloping a ten unit project

16:06 ↗ into a 14 unit project you're right you

16:10 ↗ would only be adding a thousand square

16:12 ↗ feet but that would be to whatever was

16:14 ↗ there before so I think the idea is that

16:18 ↗ you couldn't take out the existing park

16:22 ↗ and put those four units in you would

16:24 ↗ have to increase the density and grow

16:29 ↗ the park area somewhat does that make

16:32 ↗ sense yeah that makes sense and I was

16:34 ↗ kind of thinking of a situation where

16:36 ↗ you have an owner that has maybe two

16:39 ↗ duplex or four Plex units and so space

16:43 ↗ might be a premium for them and they

16:45 ↗ wouldn't have that expansion capability

16:47 ↗ but they're adding maybe one or two

16:49 ↗ units it almost seems like we'd be

16:52 ↗ defeating itself because we would rather

16:54 ↗ have the optimized structure or a new

17:00 ↗ development or that they would they

17:04 ↗ would be restricted from being able to

17:05 ↗ do that because they'd have to come up

17:06 ↗ with five hundred square feet of a lot

17:08 ↗ which they might actually need for those

17:11 ↗ two units and for five hundred square

17:13 ↗ feet of lot it doesn't it seems really

17:16 ↗ restrictive so remember there isn't a

17:21 ↗ way to increase the density right now

17:23 ↗ council would have to approve TDRs

17:27 ↗ coming in and if those were allowed I'm

17:30 ↗ not sure they would you would be buying

17:32 ↗ one TDR to create a duplex on your

17:36 ↗ property that would be a lot of expense

17:38 ↗ and process to add one unit and then

17:42 ↗ have to come up with an extra 250 square

17:45 ↗ feet yeah so are you suggesting that we

17:48 ↗ have a

17:49 ↗ option to allow them to invest into a

17:54 ↗ fund the purchase park property I'm I'm

17:59 ↗ not I because I think it's just such an

18:01 ↗ unlikely scenario that I don't think

18:04 ↗ that we need to address that but that's

18:08 ↗ that's me I need to hear from the

18:11 ↗ commissioners I was a proponent of this

18:14 ↗ I felt like you heard our back and forth

18:16 ↗ discussion last time and I thought this

18:18 ↗ was the president I think we have a way

18:21 ↗ of really mirroring the kind of

18:23 ↗ community that we want to continue to

18:25 ↗ encourage I think this is a really

18:27 ↗ important requirement as well and by

18:30 ↗ really specifying the net new I think

18:32 ↗ that we make a clear distinction between

18:33 ↗ adding and so I recognize your point

18:36 ↗ about how much adding is and you're

18:39 ↗ worried about the impact of small

18:41 ↗ additions but to Lucy's point I don't

18:43 ↗ think this is a realistic situation

18:45 ↗ where everyone's gonna be want to be

18:46 ↗ turning a single-family home into a

18:48 ↗ duplex and we'll be able to easily go

18:50 ↗ through that process even if they did I

18:53 ↗ would like to see them contribute to

18:54 ↗ this I think that's a part of being in

18:56 ↗ this community and I'm a proponent of

18:58 ↗ how it's written right now

18:59 ↗ oh you continue that thought ad use so

19:04 ↗ you have a house and we're trying to

19:07 ↗ promote Haiti use so we allow someone to

19:10 ↗ build an ad you how are they going to

19:12 ↗ come up with the 250 square feet on

19:14 ↗ their lot so no ad you is not considered

19:19 ↗ an additional unit an ad you is

19:22 ↗ accessory and so it's assumed that the

19:26 ↗ provisions that are made on the lot are

19:29 ↗ sufficient to accommodate this accessory

19:33 ↗ use so the ad use are restricted by size

19:36 ↗ and other factors to keep them as an

19:40 ↗ accessory use so you don't for instance

19:42 ↗ on a single-family lot you you get one

19:46 ↗ house and you can have one ad you you

19:49 ↗ don't need another piece of entitlement

19:51 ↗ or zoning to be able to provide an ad

19:54 ↗ you okay and take into consideration if

19:59 ↗ someone who has a one acre lot and they

20:01 ↗ split the lot that's one additionally

20:04 ↗ new unit right no they don't but they

20:07 ↗ don't have an entitlement for that unit

20:08 ↗ two so you've got you've got to have

20:10 ↗ separate Council action to create the

20:12 ↗ entitlement for the unit above and

20:14 ↗ beyond the fact that it's sort of an so

20:16 ↗ this is an oddball because the way

20:17 ↗ you're describing it run is very

20:19 ↗ consistent with the way it would be in

20:21 ↗ the rest of the city if if we have five

20:23 ↗ thousand-square-foot zoning and I have a

20:25 ↗ ten thousand square foot lot I can short

20:27 ↗ plot it and put another house on it but

20:30 ↗ right now we we can't stop you from

20:33 ↗ short planning it but you would have no

20:34 ↗ right to put a house on it you would

20:36 ↗ just have a separate empty lot okay so

20:40 ↗ and so what you're saying is this policy

20:42 ↗ would what we're discussing tonight

20:45 ↗ would give you that outcome you would

20:48 ↗ have a homeowner who wants to create a

20:53 ↗ 10,000 square foot lot they would have

20:57 ↗ to come up with a 250 square feet of

20:59 ↗ work space if they short planted it and

21:04 ↗ had some provision to allow them to add

21:09 ↗ another unit and right now there's no

21:13 ↗ provision except going to council and

21:15 ↗ buying a TDR to allow them to develop

21:18 ↗ that lot okay this seems a little

21:23 ↗ confusing I think it's a little bit hard

21:27 ↗ to think about the Highlands or Telus

21:29 ↗ being built out and they're not being

21:32 ↗ situations where and new homes are gonna

21:36 ↗ pop up or something like that that's

21:39 ↗ where we're at so right now we're simply

21:42 ↗ saying the entitlement that was

21:46 ↗ associated with the development

21:47 ↗ agreement is all there is that's

21:50 ↗ different than other parts of the city

21:52 ↗ where you may be able to figure out

21:54 ↗ change zoning or in some way increase

21:58 ↗ what you can do on your property what

22:00 ↗ we're giving people is what they possess

22:02 ↗ now and so we're just simply saying with

22:08 ↗ the parks piece is that has been a

22:10 ↗ integral part of the character

22:13 ↗ that as the community community finishes

22:17 ↗ building out the entitlement that was

22:18 ↗ part of the development agreement they

22:20 ↗ would need to be providing parks at a

22:22 ↗ certain rate if they are not vested

22:25 ↗ under the development agreement okay

22:29 ↗ clarifying question on that Lucy so it

22:31 ↗ says dwelling units in place do we have

22:36 ↗ any residential units that have current

22:39 ↗ entitlement that have not yet been built

22:40 ↗ I know we've got a fair amount of

22:41 ↗ commercial retail office space that's

22:44 ↗ hasn't yet been built I'm thinking of

22:46 ↗ the big what's the developer but that

22:49 ↗ that's building next I was going yes

22:51 ↗ thank you polygons clarify I think that

22:59 ↗ it's has to do with vesting okay so for

23:03 ↗ instance the three left over units that

23:06 ↗ not polygons but the shelter if they

23:11 ↗ added those three units a couple years

23:13 ↗ from now would they have to supply 750

23:15 ↗ square feet of park space if they were

23:18 ↗ not but if they were not considered

23:19 ↗ vested throughout in juice okay so

23:21 ↗ though so we're assuming I mean they

23:24 ↗ think it always file something Burroughs

23:25 ↗ I mean those three units would not be

23:27 ↗ vested but the polygons presumably would

23:29 ↗ be fully vested so a couple of thoughts

23:32 ↗ I vesting is very complicated right now

23:35 ↗ we're still talking with the city

23:37 ↗ attorney and we're going to propose

23:38 ↗ something to the council about certain

23:41 ↗ kinds of permits are vested by by the

23:44 ↗ state in certain aspects and then other

23:48 ↗ things are not automatically vested in

23:51 ↗ the city we'll have to make a policy

23:52 ↗ decision about whether they're vested or

23:54 ↗ not I did look so I did look at polygons

24:00 ↗ and the city are at sort of the pre-op

24:04 ↗ phase for Phase two of their townhouses

24:08 ↗ the last phase of townhouses and I did

24:11 ↗ look at the open space they're providing

24:13 ↗ in that particular project and they

24:14 ↗ exceed this so if they were not vested

24:17 ↗ well they would they would say weathers

24:19 ↗ they would have no trouble meeting it

24:20 ↗ yeah because I wanted to make sure we

24:23 ↗ weren't backing ourselves into a bad

24:25 ↗ situation

24:26 ↗ and what about the there's just a few

24:29 ↗ lots up on Grand Ridge Drive in the

24:32 ↗ highlands so I would say that those lots

24:37 ↗ are vested and therefore that is not an

24:40 ↗ issue but I think that's a good thing to

24:42 ↗ clarify too okay

24:45 ↗ same for parcel D a lot to you whatever

24:50 ↗ it's called up in the Highland rec T

24:51 ↗ track D thank you would that be

24:53 ↗ considered vested whatever their

24:55 ↗ entitlement is we don't have a land use

24:57 ↗ permit at this time okay what is one of

25:01 ↗ my fellow Commissioner members think

25:03 ↗ about if you're trying to gets built for

25:05 ↗ public housing or affordable housing

25:08 ↗ would we still expect them to fill its

25:10 ↗ requirement yeah I think they would have

25:12 ↗ to go before council and say this is why

25:14 ↗ we're making a proposal as to why we

25:16 ↗ shouldn't have to fit this and they

25:19 ↗ would have to be specifically asking for

25:20 ↗ an exemption okay agree I would agree

25:23 ↗ okay so we'll clarify that language

25:26 ↗ under the sort of introduction of the

25:28 ↗ in-place language yeah I think this

25:30 ↗ ending the spirit of it's fine there was

25:32 ↗ more worried about those yeah no I think

25:33 ↗ that's a good good call anything else on

25:36 ↗ this slide

25:38 ↗ okay plazas which would be the next page

25:43 ↗ 44 out of 287 is the language one point

25:47 ↗ five that I've got up here essentially

25:51 ↗ that's the the rate is the same one that

25:53 ↗ we talked about 25 square feet per

25:55 ↗ thousand square feet of new

25:57 ↗ non-residential construction it has to

26:00 ↗ be on site it can be broken into

26:02 ↗ multiple spaces however if they choose

26:06 ↗ to do multiple spaces they cannot be

26:10 ↗ smaller than two thousand square feet

26:12 ↗ and it needs to be located to serve both

26:14 ↗ the site's users and the public should

26:17 ↗ we consider in addition to non

26:19 ↗ residential non community facilities if

26:23 ↗ any of these properties were to include

26:26 ↗ a school would we expect them to have a

26:30 ↗ plaza

26:32 ↗ at that rate a school yeah I guess my

26:39 ↗ initial reaction I haven't thought about

26:42 ↗ this at all so unbar niscitam

26:44 ↗ they provide a lot of onsite recreation

26:47 ↗ so that seems to me and that bent the

26:50 ↗ community is often allowed I'm

26:52 ↗ suggesting I wouldn't want to force a

26:55 ↗ school to have to create a plaza oh okay

27:00 ↗ so you're wanting to exclude schools yes

27:02 ↗ I would concur with that so I will will

27:06 ↗ clarify that language too and I would

27:08 ↗ just put it in there it's community

27:09 ↗ facilities because then if they're

27:12 ↗ building a park I mean I sure wasn't an

27:16 ↗ exception if it's a private school

27:18 ↗ it wouldn't be C F F so correct that

27:22 ↗ would be in public facility rather than

27:24 ↗ community facilities but otherwise I

27:26 ↗ would agree with you okay and then

27:33 ↗ lastly adjustments and modifications we

27:37 ↗ talked some about preliminary plats and

27:39 ↗ we tried to unpack this process somewhat

27:42 ↗ the details are on on page 56 of 287 the

27:54 ↗ idea is that you know we work with the

28:00 ↗ applicant in a collaboration meeting and

28:03 ↗ then a pre-op meeting and then they make

28:05 ↗ the full preliminary plat the middle and

28:09 ↗ when that happens well let me take a

28:15 ↗ step back let me tell you what the

28:16 ↗ process is right now and that's what

28:18 ↗ kind of was the genesis of this in the

28:21 ↗ city right now if you have a preliminary

28:23 ↗ plat staff issues a report and it goes

28:26 ↗ to the Hearing Examiner the only sort of

28:30 ↗ public meeting other than the Hearing

28:32 ↗ Examiner meeting which takes place

28:33 ↗ during the day is a neighborhood meeting

28:35 ↗ which is held by the applicant in the

28:39 ↗ neighborhood okay but I think the thing

28:42 ↗ that we found working with the UV DC

28:45 ↗ is that we appreciate a larger community

28:49 ↗ conversation did you ever think you'd

28:50 ↗ hear me say that that we we've really

28:55 ↗ appreciated the larger community

28:57 ↗ conversation with both the Commission

28:59 ↗ and the public and the neighbors so it's

29:02 ↗ not that we don't want to hear from the

29:03 ↗ neighbors we absolutely do but we want

29:06 ↗ to have that sort of larger community

29:07 ↗ conversation because Platts really do

29:09 ↗ set so many things you know they're off

29:12 ↗ in the streets and where the parks are

29:14 ↗ going in all kinds of things so to try

29:18 ↗ and find a balance between the city's

29:23 ↗ process and what we've been in doing in

29:25 ↗ the urban villages what we would propose

29:28 ↗ is that once we get the full plat the

29:31 ↗ middle and it is deemed complete we

29:33 ↗ would hold a community conference

29:35 ↗ community conferences are hosted by the

29:38 ↗ Commission in this case the Development

29:40 ↗ Commission after that meeting in which

29:44 ↗ the public the neighbors the

29:46 ↗ commissioners get to speak the applicant

29:48 ↗ can speak we would produce a community

29:52 ↗ response a community conference response

29:55 ↗ memo which is kind of like the memos

29:56 ↗ that we've been doing for you guys which

29:58 ↗ we call briefing response memos so we

30:00 ↗ would summarize all the topics that have

30:03 ↗ come up and the applicant and staff

30:05 ↗ would respond to them and have sort of

30:09 ↗ conclusions this is supported by code so

30:11 ↗ we're going to do X this is an

30:14 ↗ interesting point and we've asked the

30:16 ↗ applicant to consider it but we don't

30:17 ↗ have a code basis for requiring it you

30:19 ↗ know go through all all of that the

30:22 ↗ community conference response memo would

30:25 ↗ then be issued for a two-week comment

30:28 ↗ period so if the Commission the public

30:31 ↗ the neighbors disagree they have an

30:34 ↗ opportunity to read through how we've

30:36 ↗ summarized the topics and how we've

30:38 ↗ suggested responding we take that and if

30:42 ↗ that if their concerns are supported by

30:45 ↗ code we would incorporate those into

30:47 ↗ either the memo the conditions the plat

30:50 ↗ and then that would be one of the

30:55 ↗ attachments that we would send to the

30:56 ↗ Hearing Examiner for their canoe

30:59 ↗ in reviewing the plat in making a

31:02 ↗ decision on the play so I like this idea

31:05 ↗ and I think we've seen a lot of

31:07 ↗ developer community involvement in

31:09 ↗ particularly in the highlands where

31:12 ↗ you've got that community engagement so

31:14 ↗ I love this idea I'm a little bit

31:16 ↗ concerned that we're putting something

31:18 ↗ in place as far as development review

31:21 ↗ for the urban villages that's separate

31:24 ↗ from what we're seeing in the rest of

31:26 ↗ the highlands I think that feels a

31:28 ↗ little bit wrong from the rest of the

31:32 ↗ Highland sorry the rest of Issaquah

31:34 ↗ thank you

31:35 ↗ so our ideas we're going to propose that

31:38 ↗ we change the planning process citywide

31:40 ↗ but right now we're just starting with

31:42 ↗ the urban villages so we will have that

31:44 ↗ conversation with Council and let them

31:47 ↗ know that that's our intent okay what

31:49 ↗ would it look like if we have that

31:51 ↗ conversation with Council and go forward

31:54 ↗ with that but there are some adjustments

31:56 ↗ maybe they want a one-month comment

31:58 ↗ period or something like that

31:59 ↗ how would that reflect on this if this

32:02 ↗ is already implemented they then end up

32:05 ↗ being different well so remember we're

32:08 ↗ gonna have this goes to Council they're

32:11 ↗ going to be aware that this is what

32:12 ↗ we're proposing and they're gonna ask

32:15 ↗ that same question why is it different

32:17 ↗ than the rest of the city and we're

32:18 ↗ going to say we're going to propose that

32:20 ↗ what you approve here is then

32:23 ↗ implemented citywide if they decided

32:26 ↗ when they went through that conversation

32:29 ↗ next year that it should be a one-month

32:31 ↗ comment period for instance as you I you

32:35 ↗ know just throughout we can as part of

32:38 ↗ adopting that code we could change this

32:40 ↗ code at the same train so there are

32:42 ↗ there mechanisms to to make them

32:44 ↗ eliminate this code and say point to

32:46 ↗ city of us a question or something

32:48 ↗ okay sure well I appreciate you adding

32:51 ↗ the second level on from what we

32:52 ↗ discussed this other week having this a

32:54 ↗ second opportunity because sometimes

32:57 ↗ life happens and you missed your first

32:58 ↗ chance and so if you were to miss the

33:00 ↗ meeting you're still able to have

33:02 ↗ have an impact so I appreciated you

33:04 ↗ hearing those comments we had the other

33:06 ↗ way yeah no we i we think it's a good

33:08 ↗ addition so that's that's all I have so

33:14 ↗ I'm I'm open to answer any questions or

33:18 ↗ other things that you feel that I should

33:20 ↗ you want to talk about or that you would

33:22 ↗ like to ask me about are we going to

33:26 ↗ address the two applicants that we have

33:28 ↗ who are requesting changes or is that a

33:31 ↗ separate discussion we have so unlike

33:34 ↗ our previous meetings this would just be

33:36 ↗ a general public comment period we don't

33:42 ↗ feel that all the changes that we think

33:44 ↗ should have been made have been made I

33:47 ↗ know that they are still asking for

33:50 ↗ something different than what's

33:51 ↗ currently being proposed they're both

33:53 ↗ here tonight I imagine they will speak

33:55 ↗ and then you are welcome to ask

33:59 ↗ questions of me of them however you

34:03 ↗ would like to proceed oh that's what

34:05 ↗ we're gonna do we're gonna open up the

34:07 ↗ public comment period of this and then

34:09 ↗ after we get the input we're going to

34:13 ↗ come back and if there's any questions

34:15 ↗ that comes up that's that's when you get

34:16 ↗ a chance to to talk about anything else

34:20 ↗ that pops into your mind so with that

34:22 ↗ I'm going to open up the public hearing

34:25 ↗ at 7:05 and this is on the end of the

34:31 ↗ development agreement the what lucy has

34:35 ↗ just talked about now later on will have

34:37 ↗ the opportunity to talk about mixed use

34:41 ↗ vertical mix use so with that dua is

34:44 ↗ there anybody in the audience that would

34:47 ↗ like to make a first comment so let's do

34:49 ↗ that one and then and then you and I

34:51 ↗ think there was a sign-up sheet that

34:54 ↗ went around

34:57 ↗ hey Jay would you go get it

35:04 ↗ you can you can speak even if you don't

35:07 ↗ sign that piece okay good evening I'm

35:15 ↗ Ken Bellamy

35:17 ↗ 7900 southeast 28th Street Suite 238

35:21 ↗ Mercer Island

35:23 ↗ I'm with trimet and were the one of the

35:26 ↗ owners of the 17b parcel in talus the

35:32 ↗ talus development agreement was adopted

35:34 ↗ in 1999 and a great deal has changed

35:38 ↗ over the last 18 years the agreement

35:41 ↗ will be terminated in the next few

35:42 ↗ months and the replacement zoning will

35:45 ↗ have several modifications to properly

35:48 ↗ recognize that today's codes conditions

35:51 ↗ and objectives are significantly

35:54 ↗ different than those that existed when

35:55 ↗ the agreement was adopted we support the

35:59 ↗ proposed UVO zoning on our property for

36:02 ↗ five hundred and sixteen thousand square

36:04 ↗ feet of office which is the existing

36:07 ↗ approval under the talus development

36:08 ↗ agreement after considering comments

36:12 ↗ from the U VDC meeting and those of the

36:14 ↗ board of the talus homeowners

36:16 ↗ association we're proposing one revision

36:19 ↗ which would permit the development of up

36:21 ↗ to seventy seven townhomes on a portion

36:24 ↗ of our property our proposal is to allow

36:28 ↗ the potential conversion of office to

36:30 ↗ townhomes at a ratio of one townhome

36:33 ↗ unit for twelve hundred square feet of

36:35 ↗ office this ratio is consistent with

36:38 ↗ previous conversions approved in talus

36:42 ↗ three major changes have occurred since

36:45 ↗ nineteen ninety nine that weren't

36:46 ↗ consideration of our proposal firstly

36:50 ↗ the office market second biggest was new

36:53 ↗ vision adopted in the central Issaquah

36:55 ↗ plan and thirdly changes in the talus

36:59 ↗ community the office market today is

37:02 ↗ much different than it was when the

37:04 ↗ talus development agreement was adopted

37:07 ↗ in 2006 we purchased the property and

37:11 ↗ proceeded at a cost of four million

37:13 ↗ dollars with architectural and

37:15 ↗ engineering

37:16 ↗ as well as the site development other

37:19 ↗ necessary / permits for an office campus

37:23 ↗ the vacancy rate on the 990 corridor in

37:26 ↗ 2006 was 4.2 percent and today it is

37:31 ↗ nine point one percent in 2006 major

37:35 ↗ office tenants were the predominant

37:37 ↗ occupier of suburban campuses in the

37:40 ↗ i-90 corridor was the number one choice

37:42 ↗ of office investors in recent years

37:46 ↗ leasing and investment activity has

37:48 ↗ moved to those more urban locations in

37:51 ↗ the Puget Sound market desired by the

37:54 ↗ high tech tenants which account for much

37:56 ↗ of the new office space occupied in the

37:58 ↗ last five years and 40 percent of all

38:01 ↗ leases signed these preferred or urban

38:05 ↗ locations are characterized by dense

38:07 ↗ mixed juice neighborhoods with services

38:09 ↗ retail 24/7 activity walkability and

38:14 ↗ access to public transit during all this

38:17 ↗ time we have continued to aggressively

38:19 ↗ lease a market for lease our property

38:24 ↗ the second major change since the

38:26 ↗ adoption of the talus development

38:28 ↗ agreement is the approval of the central

38:29 ↗ Issaquah plan it was adopted in 2012 to

38:34 ↗ guide the long term evolution of the

38:36 ↗ 1,100 acre commercial core into a more

38:39 ↗ sustainable urban area that meets the

38:42 ↗ community's needs for environmental

38:43 ↗ protection jobs housing and rapid

38:47 ↗ transit this is now is opportunity to

38:51 ↗ create the vibrant urban center today's

38:53 ↗ high-tech businesses shops and urban

38:56 ↗ focus residents desire third major

39:00 ↗ change is the talus community itself the

39:04 ↗ vision of the talus development

39:05 ↗ agreement was to create an urban village

39:07 ↗ community with a mountain village

39:09 ↗ character it identified 15 community

39:13 ↗ goals which have mostly been achieved

39:16 ↗ talus is now almost completely built out

39:19 ↗ and the residential component is

39:21 ↗ successful however the most significant

39:24 ↗ component that will not be built is the

39:26 ↗ village center that was to be the heart

39:29 ↗ of the

39:29 ↗ and provide a lively gathering place to

39:32 ↗ run errands have coffee shop dine and

39:36 ↗ partake in community events the office

39:39 ↗ campus was envisioned to be in proximity

39:42 ↗ to that village center which would have

39:44 ↗ provided the shops services and

39:46 ↗ activities necessary to support the

39:49 ↗ viability of an office campus on our

39:51 ↗ property for today's large tenants there

39:56 ↗ are several benefits to take into

39:57 ↗ account when considering our proposal it

40:01 ↗ will allow development of a portion of

40:02 ↗ the property to proceed while we

40:05 ↗ redesign the office buildings to

40:06 ↗ accommodate multiple tenants such as

40:09 ↗ regional branches or back offices of

40:12 ↗ traditional offices as well as

40:14 ↗ organizations and institutions another

40:19 ↗ benefit our proposal offers is that it

40:21 ↗ complements the objectives of the

40:23 ↗ central is Squa plan with additional

40:26 ↗ customers for the retail and service

40:28 ↗ businesses and more users to support the

40:31 ↗ viability of rapid transit at the same

40:34 ↗ time the townhomes will not compete with

40:37 ↗ the high density mixed use housing

40:39 ↗ component of central Issaquah the King

40:43 ↗ County buildable land report 2014 notes

40:46 ↗ that almost all of us cause substantial

40:48 ↗ residential capacity is in the mixed use

40:51 ↗ zone

40:53 ↗ finally our proposal is consistent with

40:56 ↗ the existing distinct character of the

40:58 ↗ talus community townhomes are an

41:01 ↗ existing housing type in talus and they

41:04 ↗ are well suited to its mountain village

41:06 ↗ character the major concern we have

41:10 ↗ heard from the talus community is

41:11 ↗ traffic as an owner of property and

41:14 ↗ talus we acknowledge and share that

41:16 ↗ concern traffic analysis shows that

41:20 ↗ residential uses generates significantly

41:23 ↗ less traffic than office however a study

41:26 ↗ of peak hour counterflow traffic impact

41:29 ↗ has not been done this will be completed

41:32 ↗ an appropriate mitigation identified as

41:35 ↗ part of the required approval process

41:37 ↗ for any specific project

41:41 ↗ we respectfully request your support for

41:44 ↗ our proposal to allow town homes on a

41:46 ↗ portion of our property thank you for

41:49 ↗ your time and I ask one question I

41:52 ↗ wasn't clear the homeowners of Tallis

41:56 ↗ want the town homes or they're against

42:00 ↗ building the townhomes the first of all

42:03 ↗ we don't have an exact answer from them

42:05 ↗ at one point they suggested townhomes

42:08 ↗ may be appropriate but they also said

42:11 ↗ that that was conditioned on some

42:13 ↗ benefit to the Tallis community and we

42:17 ↗ don't know what that is we haven't been

42:18 ↗ able to have that conversation

42:20 ↗ thank you thank you thank you I'm gonna

42:25 ↗ go back to since I do have a clipboard

42:30 ↗ in front of me

42:31 ↗ the first name on the Left Ford is Fred

42:35 ↗ Nystrom so I'm gonna have to you'll be

42:37 ↗ there but I'm gonna go buy this

42:48 ↗ good evening my name is Fred nice term I

42:52 ↗ live at 3 9 1 southeast Sycamore Creek

42:55 ↗ Lane in Issaquah and I mentioned to you

42:58 ↗ a couple of weeks ago when I was talking

42:59 ↗ in front of your group meeting that I

43:03 ↗ too had sat in those very chairs where

43:05 ↗ you are tonight for a good many years as

43:08 ↗ a member of the Planning Policy

43:10 ↗ Commission and during my time on the

43:13 ↗ Commission we dealt with the development

43:16 ↗ of Tallis the Issaquah Highlands and the

43:20 ↗ commercial strip along Gilman Boulevard

43:24 ↗ all sort of complex and thorny issues

43:28 ↗ like you may be facing in your

43:30 ↗ jurisdiction or your time on the board

43:33 ↗ we debated these issues on fairly open

43:36 ↗ sessions often challenging our staff and

43:39 ↗ the representatives from the city to

43:41 ↗ clearly define meaning and intent of any

43:45 ↗ intended changes that they suggest a lot

43:50 ↗ of this was tedious technical and a

43:55 ↗ little overwhelming with its

43:58 ↗ complexities but we endured over the

44:02 ↗ years because it was universally

44:04 ↗ believed that it was our duty to make

44:08 ↗ certain that any change that had been

44:11 ↗ suggested be it zoning or any other

44:14 ↗ overlay that controls the development be

44:18 ↗ dissected and represent the best

44:21 ↗ decision that we could make with a

44:23 ↗ knowledge that we have never did the

44:27 ↗ staff try to insert a change in anything

44:30 ↗ we're working on at the last minute

44:32 ↗ without the understanding that it would

44:34 ↗ get our personal scrutiny along the way

44:37 ↗ so how is it that after so many years of

44:40 ↗ talking about the the ease of taking the

44:47 ↗ the zoning regulations and development

44:51 ↗ agreement regulations for you know I'm

44:53 ↗ speaking now for the highlands in

44:54 ↗ particular and

44:58 ↗ directly into the new follow-on

45:01 ↗ agreements from Issaquah suddenly this

45:05 ↗ last Friday night the staff produces an

45:09 ↗ entirely new package and expects well it

45:15 ↗ really does away with this at this point

45:17 ↗ of consistency because it changes things

45:19 ↗ significantly and now you're expected

45:23 ↗ several days later to understand it and

45:27 ↗ vote on it and give it your personal

45:29 ↗ stamp of approval with very little time

45:32 ↗ to look at what afar is and what the

45:36 ↗ impact is now typically you only backup

45:43 ↗ the far in this case it affects shelter

45:47 ↗ Holdings property differently than it

45:51 ↗ affects anyone else in the highlands so

45:54 ↗ there goes this point of consistency so

45:57 ↗ when a jurisdiction normally inserts or

46:01 ↗ considers a minimum for there's a lot of

46:05 ↗ comprehensive study and analysis so you

46:08 ↗ have to ask yourself why in this case is

46:11 ↗ this a last-minute change that has a

46:13 ↗ significant impact and why is this not

46:17 ↗ being totally debated here in your

46:20 ↗ format and in other places so it's

46:23 ↗ understood what the implications are

46:26 ↗ before you're asked to vote on it

46:29 ↗ minimum FAR's were never a part of the

46:33 ↗ development agreement and are not

46:35 ↗ appropriate now shelter should be

46:38 ↗ allowed to develop according to the same

46:41 ↗ general rules as everyone else in the

46:45 ↗ highlands it's only fair and reasonable

46:48 ↗ so please be real careful when you're

46:51 ↗ asked to approve something where you

46:53 ↗ haven't had a chance to really dig in

46:55 ↗ and give it your own personal stamp of

46:58 ↗ approval now let me say one other thing

47:01 ↗ that is along the line of obvious

47:03 ↗ inconsistencies I acknowledge that the

47:06 ↗ city wants to push as much density as

47:09 ↗ they can down in the central area

47:11 ↗ the redevelopment area which is probably

47:15 ↗ a very good idea but why in the world

47:18 ↗ would we as a community not be

47:21 ↗ encouraging low and working-class

47:23 ↗ families to live next to the only

47:26 ↗ parking right in the entire plateau why

47:30 ↗ is it that we say by our decision then

47:33 ↗ unless you have enough money to drive

47:35 ↗ your car to a park and ride you don't

47:37 ↗ get to ride the bus instead of putting

47:40 ↗ homes where they can walk and use the

47:43 ↗ bus okay I've had my time I've said my

47:46 ↗ piece thank you very much and we thank

47:50 ↗ you for your opinion Fred's

47:51 ↗ TIA

48:16 ↗ hi I'm TIA hi I'm with shelter Holdings

48:19 ↗ thanks for allowing me the time to speak

48:22 ↗ tonight I know we don't have a lot of

48:27 ↗ time tonight so I'm gonna focus my

48:29 ↗ remarks on the issue of biggest concern

48:33 ↗ to us in the current draft which is the

48:36 ↗ proposed minimum F AR and then my

48:39 ↗ written comments address some of the

48:41 ↗ other issues that I think you've heard

48:42 ↗ from me in the past that I think remain

48:45 ↗ open at this point so for the past two

48:48 ↗ years we've been assured that the

48:50 ↗ devatas the development agreement wraps

48:51 ↗ up the zoning will give us the same

48:53 ↗ development rights as we had under the

48:55 ↗ development agreement that's clearly not

48:58 ↗ happening our users are getting narrowed

48:59 ↗ the continuously changing SIDS are

49:02 ↗ getting wrapped up wrapped in in an

49:04 ↗ unclear manner and now at the last

49:06 ↗ minute staff has proposed a minimum F AR

49:09 ↗ that changes everything

49:10 ↗ imposing a minimum FA are severely

49:13 ↗ impacts the ability and the character of

49:15 ↗ development on our property it

49:17 ↗ eliminates the ability to do any retail

49:19 ↗ that would be similar to and would

49:21 ↗ complement Grande Ridge Plaza it

49:24 ↗ severely limits and in some case

49:26 ↗ prohibits our ability to do commercial

49:28 ↗ or office because of the amount and/or

49:31 ↗ configurations that would be required on

49:33 ↗ these large Lots minimum FA Ark is

49:36 ↗ completely at odds with the city's

49:38 ↗ stated goals and approach to creating

49:40 ↗ the zoning with a minimum FA are nearly

49:43 ↗ every non residential use would now be

49:46 ↗ non-conforming minimum fer is not a

49:49 ↗ concept that's been used throughout the

49:50 ↗ city in fact Central is akua's urban

49:53 ↗ core is the only place that currently

49:56 ↗ has a minimum F they are for commercial

49:58 ↗ I understand that there may be

49:59 ↗ considering changes but at this point

50:01 ↗ that's all that there is and it's at

50:03 ↗ point five five so this would be

50:05 ↗ dictating that Issaquah Highlands be

50:07 ↗ much more dense than the urban core of

50:09 ↗ the central Issaquah area imposing a

50:13 ↗ minimum F AR is a huge and extreme step

50:16 ↗ typically reserved only for the densest

50:18 ↗ of urban areas you really haven't been

50:22 ↗ presented with adequate information or

50:24 ↗ analysis to carefully consider a minimum

50:27 ↗ F AR

50:28 ↗ for example why is it appropriate or

50:30 ↗ necessary here or why is one the

50:33 ↗ appropriate number where did that come

50:34 ↗ from it doesn't appear to be related to

50:37 ↗ anything in Issaquah Highlands the

50:39 ↗ development agreement had no minimum fer

50:41 ↗ it had targets which actually recognized

50:44 ↗ the difference between retail and

50:46 ↗ commercial developments so the

50:48 ↗ development agreement had a target F AR

50:50 ↗ for retail at 0.25 and 0.75 for

50:54 ↗ commercial even the old 2002 Microsoft

50:58 ↗ proposal which I know people often refer

51:00 ↗ to as sort of the original vision would

51:03 ↗ not have met this proposed minimum F AR

51:06 ↗ it was closer to a point for four F AR

51:11 ↗ so I guess I would ask you why all of a

51:14 ↗ sudden is the vision for Issaquah

51:16 ↗ Highlands commercial changing so

51:18 ↗ drastically the concept of having a

51:22 ↗ minimum F AR while also having an

51:24 ↗ overlay with a zoning cap also has some

51:26 ↗ inconsistencies potentially leaving some

51:28 ↗ parcels in situations where it would be

51:30 ↗ impossible to redevelop and comply with

51:32 ↗ both the minimum F AR and the Max owning

51:36 ↗ cap over the past few years we've done

51:40 ↗ extensive outreach to the Issaquah

51:41 ↗ Highlands community and had extensive

51:43 ↗ communication and analysis with the

51:44 ↗ brokerage community we've worked

51:46 ↗ extremely hard to bring commercial

51:48 ↗ development to Issaquah Highlands and

51:50 ↗ we're continuing to do that we're

51:52 ↗ finally at the point where in response

51:53 ↗ to public input and market conditions we

51:56 ↗ have some development proposals which we

51:57 ↗ are currently in the process of pursuing

52:00 ↗ applications for all of which would

52:02 ↗ comply with the development agreement

52:04 ↗ regulations and all of which would be

52:07 ↗ precluded by this proposed code so to

52:10 ↗ give you a sense of what those are there

52:12 ↗ we're looking at 120,000 square feet of

52:15 ↗ retail on blocks a and B so when I talk

52:18 ↗ about a through E I'm starting at the

52:20 ↗ North End by the park-and-ride working

52:22 ↗ my way around the corner so blocks a and

52:24 ↗ B we're looking at retail which would

52:26 ↗ have things like probably four or five

52:28 ↗ new restaurants fitness users maybe a

52:31 ↗ drug store other retail possibly a

52:34 ↗ daycare also looking for an

52:35 ↗ entertainment use there

52:38 ↗ on Block C on the corner we're looking

52:41 ↗ at doing a hundred and fifty thousand

52:42 ↗ square feet of office commercial with a

52:44 ↗ fitness center that's on the corner of

52:47 ↗ Discovery and ninth and then as you go

52:50 ↗ around the corner onto Discovery we're

52:52 ↗ looking at a four-story medical office

52:54 ↗ building with over 80,000 feet of

52:56 ↗ medical office plus street-level retail

52:58 ↗ and commercial uses we're also looking

53:01 ↗ on block e at a hundred and ten thousand

53:04 ↗ square feet of commercial and small

53:05 ↗ retail uses all of these plans have been

53:08 ↗ developed with an eye towards retaining

53:10 ↗ the possibility for future more dense

53:14 ↗ development on-site when the market can

53:16 ↗ support that but all of these projects

53:20 ↗ would be prohibited by the minimum F a

53:23 ↗ are these are all real projects that

53:26 ↗ will bring jobs services and revenue to

53:28 ↗ the city so I've just you know I

53:31 ↗ normally wouldn't put out there are the

53:33 ↗ applications that haven't all been

53:34 ↗ submitted but I want you to really

53:36 ↗ understand what you are doing if you if

53:39 ↗ you recommend a minimum FA are so our

53:43 ↗ request is that PPC honor the city's

53:46 ↗ goals of maintaining character creating

53:48 ↗ as few non-conforming situations as

53:50 ↗ possible and using regulations that are

53:52 ↗ consistent with the rest of the city and

53:54 ↗ the city stated intent that the new

53:56 ↗ regulations would mimic the development

53:58 ↗ agreement and think about what's

53:59 ↗ rationale what's fair while recognizing

54:02 ↗ property rights and desires of the

54:04 ↗ community for additional retail

54:06 ↗ restaurant services and jobs keeping

54:08 ↗ this in mind you should recommend

54:10 ↗ eliminating the proposed minimum F AR

54:12 ↗ and recommend further cleanup and

54:14 ↗ clarification of the code be conducted

54:16 ↗ prior to recommending to the council

54:18 ↗ it's really important to note that there

54:20 ↗ are two crucial sections that are

54:22 ↗ missing from this proposed code vesting

54:25 ↗ and mitigation until those sections are

54:28 ↗ included the package is really not

54:29 ↗ complete and the public neither the

54:31 ↗ public nor the Commission can make an

54:33 ↗ informed decision and recommendation to

54:35 ↗ the council we also stand by our

54:37 ↗ previous request to allow conversions of

54:39 ↗ some of the commercial to residential

54:41 ↗ particularly in the north end of our

54:43 ↗ property near the Transit Center we're

54:46 ↗ including residential uses clearly the

54:49 ↗ most appropriate use

54:51 ↗ that parcel there's lots of additional

54:53 ↗ thoughts in the in the letter but I

54:56 ↗ won't stand here and take up your time

54:58 ↗ to restate all of those happy to answer

54:59 ↗ any questions you might have

55:01 ↗ thank you

55:19 ↗ hello to the Commission my name is Steve

55:21 ↗ Johnson with a full receivers architects

55:24 ↗ my office is at 14 11 4th Avenue Suite 1

55:28 ↗ 3 0 6 in Seattle thanks to the

55:32 ↗ Commission and the V CDC for being here

55:36 ↗ tonight and taking the time I'm the

55:39 ↗ architect for shelter Holdings we're

55:41 ↗ currently working on a retail proposal

55:43 ↗ for Issaquah Highlands the Tia spoke we

55:47 ↗ were also the architects for Grand Ridge

55:49 ↗ Plaza so we've got a lot of experience

55:51 ↗ in this community and interpretation of

55:53 ↗ the former code shelter Holdings has

55:57 ↗ asked us to take a look at the proposed

55:59 ↗ code and we have concerns and a lot of

56:01 ↗ questions I apologize that this is the

56:03 ↗ first meeting I've been to but I have

56:06 ↗ been following the different

56:07 ↗ reiterations of the code and I'm up to

56:10 ↗ speed on it our primary concern is Tia

56:14 ↗ said and the former Commissioner is of

56:19 ↗ the minimum FA our requirement this is

56:22 ↗ kind of slipped in at the last minute we

56:25 ↗ haven't had time to fully analyze is I

56:28 ↗ think you should and has been suggested

56:30 ↗ of what how this plays out with the

56:33 ↗ density of the code the density of the

56:37 ↗ properties I believe it's inconsistent

56:41 ↗ planning and has unintended consequences

56:44 ↗ for example the fa r prohibits any

56:47 ↗ standalone retail development except a

56:50 ↗ multi-story mall if you were trying to

56:53 ↗ do mall and not office which we know of

56:58 ↗ is a project type a mall as we know as a

57:00 ↗ project type is not desirable or

57:02 ↗ leasable in today's environment in fact

57:07 ↗ except for under small circumstances and

57:11 ↗ and constrained use in fact under the

57:13 ↗ proposed it so-called highlands code

57:15 ↗ University Village would not meet an FA

57:18 ↗ r1 requirement it would probably be in

57:20 ↗ the vicinity of 0.5 but you'd have to

57:24 ↗ argue that yes the University Village

57:26 ↗ provides a wonderful pedestrian shopping

57:28 ↗ experience and you could also argue that

57:30 ↗ it probably meets the goals of the urban

57:35 ↗ secondly the FBR creates a

57:37 ↗ non-conforming density for most most all

57:40 ↗ non-residential developments that exist

57:42 ↗ in US Issaquah Highlands today so

57:44 ↗ there's an unfairness and an unbalance

57:46 ↗ in imposing this on the new development

57:48 ↗ which was not required of grand rich

57:51 ↗ Plaza in other words all existing

57:54 ↗ development Greenwich Plaza would not

57:55 ↗ conform to these FA are standards next I

58:01 ↗ cannot think of another jurisdiction

58:02 ↗ that it imposes a minimum fer that

58:05 ↗ doesn't allow for true mixed-use

58:07 ↗ development which includes residential

58:10 ↗ Seattle has recently imposed a minimum

58:13 ↗ fer in their pedestrian oriented zones

58:15 ↗ which I would consider to be similar to

58:17 ↗ the zones but a higher density to to

58:21 ↗ what is Sequoia Highlands is trying to

58:23 ↗ achieve but residential is always

58:27 ↗ allowed on the upper levels they're

58:30 ↗ constricted on the lower levels for the

58:32 ↗ sake of the pedestrian experience in

58:34 ↗ putting retail on the street but

58:37 ↗ residential is always allowed above that

58:39 ↗ whenever there's a minimum FA are

58:41 ↗ imposed in order to meet this level

58:44 ↗ which is not excuse me this was in order

58:50 ↗ to meet this FA our requirement will

58:51 ↗ require that retail shops and

58:53 ↗ restaurants would have to be provided on

58:55 ↗ a second level which I know as a retail

58:57 ↗ expert is not Lisa Belen today's retail

59:00 ↗ world unless it's in very specific

59:03 ↗ high-density areas such as downtown

59:06 ↗ Seattle or downtown Bellevue the

59:09 ↗ unintended outcome of this FAO

59:11 ↗ requirement is to require commercial

59:13 ↗ offices space because without

59:14 ↗ residential this is the only remaining

59:17 ↗ viable use to be provided on the upper

59:20 ↗ floors shelter Holdings is demonstrated

59:25 ↗ that there is some market for additional

59:29 ↗ office space but not in to the extent

59:31 ↗ that would be required by this FA our

59:33 ↗ agreement if it covered the entire

59:36 ↗ shelter Holdings properties

59:41 ↗ the proposal that we are working on

59:44 ↗ currently will bring exactly the type of

59:45 ↗ services restaurants and retailers that

59:48 ↗ residents have said that they desire and

59:49 ↗ those community goals would be

59:52 ↗ prohibited by this code if the fer

59:56 ↗ requirements are approved the and I was

1:00:01 ↗ running some calculations when Lucy was

1:00:03 ↗ going over the minimum Plaza

1:00:06 ↗ requirements the 25 square foot Plaza

1:00:09 ↗ per 100,000 was per 1,000 square foot a

1:00:13 ↗ development means that if you proposed

1:00:16 ↗ on any site less than 80,000 square feet

1:00:19 ↗ of development you will provide more

1:00:22 ↗ than the rate than what she implies so

1:00:25 ↗ in from instance that the two thousand

1:00:28 ↗ square foot minimum Plaza if you had a

1:00:31 ↗ forty thousand square foot of

1:00:33 ↗ development which is considered as a

1:00:34 ↗ large grocery store you would have to

1:00:37 ↗ provide twice the rate of what she's

1:00:39 ↗ suggesting too because of the 2,000

1:00:43 ↗ square foot in minimum Plaza area we'd

1:00:47 ↗ also like to point out that having only

1:00:50 ↗ a general statement in the proposed code

1:00:51 ↗ that SIDS fills in where new regulations

1:00:54 ↗ are silent without a clear list of which

1:00:58 ↗ provisions of the SIDS apply is very

1:01:00 ↗ confusing for the end-user and the

1:01:02 ↗ architect architects and owners need

1:01:05 ↗ clarity and certainty which this

1:01:07 ↗ proposed code is lacking we work with

1:01:10 ↗ all local jurisdictions Bellevue Redmen

1:01:12 ↗ Seattle and I've never seen a code which

1:01:14 ↗ is hard to navigate and difficult to

1:01:17 ↗ decipher which regulations apply between

1:01:20 ↗ the various codes it is usually very

1:01:23 ↗ easy when interpreting codes to

1:01:25 ↗ determine which regulations govern and

1:01:27 ↗ there's cross references provided that

1:01:30 ↗ typically provided clear direction in

1:01:35 ↗ summary I know that shelter Holdings has

1:01:38 ↗ offered our services to the city staff

1:01:40 ↗ to help review this code to make sure

1:01:42 ↗ that it works from a practical

1:01:43 ↗ standpoint and I want to reiterate that

1:01:45 ↗ offer I believe that proposed Issaquah

1:01:50 ↗ Highlands code for all its good

1:01:51 ↗ intention isn't sufficiently developed

1:01:54 ↗ developed to be approved thanks for your

1:01:58 ↗ consideration thank you

1:02:11 ↗ why didn't type anything so I'm just I'm

1:02:14 ↗ just a lowly citizen here and in

1:02:16 ↗ Issaquah and I have been since 1993 I

1:02:19 ↗ currently live directly across the

1:02:21 ↗ street from the shelter Holdings piece

1:02:23 ↗ and in my when I was looking through

1:02:27 ↗ this I've been following the meetings as

1:02:28 ↗ well I haven't attended I've just been

1:02:29 ↗ watching and then when I saw that the FA

1:02:33 ↗ are come in and come into play it really

1:02:35 ↗ kind of made me a little nervous because

1:02:36 ↗ I'm very anxious to have more services

1:02:39 ↗ up there I'm tired of having to go to

1:02:42 ↗ the RAM I don't wanna have to get my car

1:02:44 ↗ and drive down there's some great things

1:02:46 ↗ that have come up and in central

1:02:47 ↗ Issaquah here and I'm excited for that

1:02:49 ↗ and I think that's those restaurants and

1:02:52 ↗ there's a great new Mexican place over

1:02:54 ↗ in Gilman village I love it you know

1:02:55 ↗ there it's really good camera or the

1:02:56 ↗ name but it's good I want to see those

1:02:59 ↗ things come up to the highlands and I

1:03:01 ↗ think that having the ability to do that

1:03:04 ↗ is going to be harmed with the FA our I

1:03:06 ↗ mean just in my small amount of research

1:03:09 ↗ again I saw the places like downtown

1:03:12 ↗ Seattle very concentrated living areas

1:03:14 ↗ they have like an F AR of two but that's

1:03:17 ↗ just not quite where we're at and I

1:03:19 ↗ didn't see any data economic or

1:03:22 ↗ otherwise as to why it was being applied

1:03:23 ↗ it seemed that it was just being moved

1:03:25 ↗ from one part of town to another and

1:03:27 ↗ then yet again I couldn't find where it

1:03:29 ↗ actually was already in place in

1:03:31 ↗ Issaquah so I just am just hoping that

1:03:34 ↗ you you vet that a little more and

1:03:36 ↗ wonder you're to yourselves and why is

1:03:38 ↗ this being put on this one parcel and

1:03:41 ↗ I've lived in that location now for

1:03:43 ↗ about eighteen months and I'm just

1:03:44 ↗ waiting for something to come that I can

1:03:47 ↗ use also I read through the hundred plus

1:03:50 ↗ pages that related to the Highlands

1:03:53 ↗ because I was very curious and several

1:03:56 ↗ times in there it's mentioned that cars

1:03:58 ↗ are a problem and that they don't want

1:04:00 ↗ to see cars they don't want surface

1:04:01 ↗ parking and that makes me think back to

1:04:04 ↗ part of shelters original proposal which

1:04:06 ↗ was to put all the parking underground

1:04:08 ↗ to build these great pedestrian malls

1:04:10 ↗ which we continue to hear about to

1:04:12 ↗ provide more restaurants and then also

1:04:14 ↗ to put residential close to transit and

1:04:16 ↗ all of those are goals that appear to

1:04:17 ↗ have been in place since 1996 and it's

1:04:21 ↗ mentioned numerous times

1:04:22 ↗ so I was just kind of astounded that

1:04:24 ↗ there was so much pushback to their

1:04:25 ↗ initial plan but I'm hoping that you

1:04:28 ↗ folks can can find a way to really

1:04:31 ↗ evaluate what the fer is is it really

1:04:33 ↗ necessary there is it an economic harm

1:04:35 ↗ to the developer and how can we get more

1:04:38 ↗ exciting things and have that vibrant

1:04:41 ↗ village feel which again is mentioned

1:04:43 ↗ numerous times in here how can we get

1:04:45 ↗ that up there and not stifle the growth

1:04:47 ↗ but build something that the residents

1:04:49 ↗ continue to say they want which are the

1:04:51 ↗ other restaurants at least that's what

1:04:52 ↗ I've heard and all the other meetings I

1:04:54 ↗ went to so thank you for your time thank

1:04:57 ↗ you

1:04:58 ↗ Torian does anybody else want to make

1:05:06 ↗ any comments about the

1:05:17 ↗ Kenny's Minh to 473 Northwest Stony

1:05:21 ↗ Creek Drive and I'm a resident of Talas

1:05:25 ↗ so my comments will pertain to tell us

1:05:29 ↗ and the expiration of the DA persons

1:05:35 ↗ concern I've got is tree cutting for

1:05:38 ↗ views a little background three years

1:05:41 ↗ ago the talus HOA board authorized a

1:05:45 ↗ green belt to be cut in order to

1:05:48 ↗ preserve the views of a handful of

1:05:49 ↗ Tallis residents and this decision was

1:05:53 ↗ wildly unpopular and when the tree

1:05:55 ↗ cutters arrived the city was called the

1:05:58 ↗ police recalled and the evening news

1:06:00 ↗ works called and we were on the six

1:06:01 ↗ o'clock news and a hundred saved Tallis

1:06:04 ↗ tree signs popped up in a hundred Tallis

1:06:07 ↗ yards and they were all over State Route

1:06:09 ↗ 900 all the way down to me Valley City

1:06:12 ↗ ruled that our development agreement

1:06:15 ↗ allowed that and the trees were cut but

1:06:19 ↗ the language was said to say that once

1:06:22 ↗ the build-out period was done you

1:06:24 ↗ couldn't do that anymore

1:06:25 ↗ and so my question to all you is where's

1:06:28 ↗ the new language know that the DA goes

1:06:30 ↗ away that says we're not going to be

1:06:32 ↗ cutting trees to preserve views in

1:06:35 ↗ Tallis second comment I'm a little

1:06:41 ↗ nervous about urban villages reverting

1:06:44 ↗ to central Issaquah plan rules Tallis

1:06:48 ↗ doesn't seem Orban to me it doesn't feel

1:06:50 ↗ anything like gateway or atlas or

1:06:54 ↗ anything in central Issaquah feel

1:06:56 ↗ suburban to me and I hope there's no

1:06:59 ↗ misunderstanding the talus is part of

1:07:03 ↗ central Issaquah that's not it's talus

1:07:06 ↗ just to comment about that I looked at

1:07:10 ↗ the things that are allowed in

1:07:12 ↗ single-family zoning that would be like

1:07:15 ↗ my house and my neighbor's house allows

1:07:19 ↗ Bed and Breakfasts temporary and

1:07:22 ↗ seasonal usage and group houses

1:07:25 ↗ I don't want my neighbor's house to be a

1:07:28 ↗ bed-and-breakfast or a group house and I

1:07:31 ↗ don't even know what a temporary or

1:07:32 ↗ seasonal use houses but that's not for

1:07:36 ↗ me and I don't want that there's a

1:07:42 ↗ statement in some of the staff

1:07:46 ↗ documentation about a hundred foot

1:07:48 ↗ wooded buffer required on the east side

1:07:53 ↗ of Talas between talus and State Route

1:07:57 ↗ 900 I don't think this exists I don't

1:08:02 ↗ know what it means and I don't know

1:08:04 ↗ who's responsible to put there but I

1:08:07 ↗ sure hope it's not my homeowners

1:08:08 ↗ association so I'd like to know more

1:08:11 ↗ about what that's all about

1:08:12 ↗ now one last comment I'm troubled by

1:08:16 ↗ comments I hear in this room about

1:08:18 ↗ owners burdens on developers and I guess

1:08:22 ↗ I just have to think in an environment

1:08:24 ↗ where every day I read a next-door

1:08:26 ↗ residents up at arms about rampant

1:08:30 ↗ development gone wild here in Issaquah

1:08:34 ↗ development that so many of our

1:08:36 ↗ residents just abhor I mean to hear gee

1:08:41 ↗ we have to make life easier for

1:08:42 ↗ developers seems just out a character

1:08:45 ↗ and out of sync with public sentiment I

1:08:49 ↗ guess what I would suggest is when

1:08:52 ↗ you're thinking about the rules and what

1:08:57 ↗ we should require developers to do

1:08:59 ↗ whether it's 250 foot per new residents

1:09:03 ↗ for park space or something else I'd ask

1:09:06 ↗ you to consider you can always use

1:09:09 ↗ mechanisms to loosen those rules they

1:09:11 ↗ exist but you can't put in a new rule on

1:09:15 ↗ a property owner you know after the fact

1:09:18 ↗ so make the rules good and stringent and

1:09:21 ↗ then allow mechanism to be able to

1:09:23 ↗ loosen that up or inappropriate but you

1:09:25 ↗ can't go the other way thank you for

1:09:27 ↗ your time

1:09:41 ↗ seneschal a long and convoluted bang

1:09:46 ↗ with lots of words and I'll get to that

1:09:49 ↗ in just a sec you know who you are

1:09:52 ↗ so you don't have to introduce yourself

1:09:53 ↗ yeah super Coney Marsh I live on squawk

1:09:57 ↗ Mountain so one thing that was discussed

1:10:03 ↗ was plazas and one of the things that

1:10:05 ↗ neither village has gotten is large

1:10:09 ↗ enough plaza to actually hold a

1:10:12 ↗ significant event it's it's a shortage

1:10:15 ↗ in both so rather than dividing them

1:10:18 ↗ into smaller units I would rather see

1:10:20 ↗ them assembled into larger units so that

1:10:22 ↗ then you would actually create a

1:10:24 ↗ community gathering space of

1:10:26 ↗ significance because we have lots of

1:10:29 ↗ little things that are hard to use so I

1:10:32 ↗ would rethink that I also when you say

1:10:37 ↗ CF that's that's government buildings

1:10:42 ↗ for example and you know I think a

1:10:46 ↗ government building should be required

1:10:48 ↗ to create a plaza so I think that that's

1:10:52 ↗ a little gross just to say CF doesn't

1:10:56 ↗ have to may be community facilities

1:11:00 ↗ facilities needs to also have Plaza

1:11:07 ↗ space you can discuss a little bit of

1:11:11 ↗ the Tallis language that is odd and I

1:11:16 ↗ don't know I put it in my letter but you

1:11:19 ↗ know Tallis actually has language saying

1:11:21 ↗ and this shall carry after the

1:11:23 ↗ development agreement is closed now I'm

1:11:25 ↗ not sure if there's a other language

1:11:27 ↗ like that in either of the development

1:11:29 ↗ agreements but I would ask for a scan to

1:11:31 ↗ see if there is and then I think we

1:11:35 ↗ should either carry it through or the

1:11:37 ↗ council should change the development

1:11:39 ↗ agreement before it is ended so that it

1:11:41 ↗ needn't be carried through but I don't

1:11:43 ↗ think you can just let it sit there and

1:11:46 ↗ not do it I don't think that is within

1:11:48 ↗ the intent of what Tallis had expected

1:11:53 ↗ so then you see me fighting the green

1:11:56 ↗ necklace because like the gentlemen here

1:11:59 ↗ are doing the development and you know

1:12:01 ↗ I'm on the other side I'm always pushing

1:12:02 ↗ back at the development but we both have

1:12:04 ↗ to read the code and try to understand

1:12:06 ↗ what it is getting us and so you dive

1:12:09 ↗ into the one chapter and then it shoves

1:12:11 ↗ you into the central Issaquah planned

1:12:13 ↗ chapters and then you go to the list of

1:12:16 ↗ the language that you have to switch in

1:12:18 ↗ your brain and say no this word means

1:12:20 ↗ this this word means this and then you

1:12:22 ↗ have to decide is this making any sense

1:12:25 ↗ at all and it's really a difficult

1:12:28 ↗ exercise one bell ringer for me was the

1:12:31 ↗ green necklace we do not have green

1:12:33 ↗ necklace in the Issaquah Highlands we

1:12:35 ↗ don't have it in Dallas and I don't

1:12:38 ↗ think we can use the term green necklace

1:12:41 ↗ from our central Issaquah plan area and

1:12:43 ↗ have it mean anything appropriate so I'd

1:12:46 ↗ ask for that to be evicted I don't know

1:12:49 ↗ what should be put into its place also

1:12:53 ↗ the landscape chapter of the central

1:12:55 ↗ Issaquah plan says that you can have

1:12:58 ↗ 100% tree removal yet at the same time

1:13:02 ↗ you all keep working with a

1:13:03 ↗ comprehensive plan that requires that we

1:13:06 ↗ are supposed to maintain our forested

1:13:09 ↗ hills and also replant trees and the

1:13:12 ↗ talus in Issaquah Highland areas where

1:13:15 ↗ those tree escapes were not maintained

1:13:17 ↗ this to me seems like an it is in direct

1:13:20 ↗ contradiction of what our comprehensive

1:13:23 ↗ plan says so my solution I wouldn't use

1:13:28 ↗ the central Issaquah plan landscape

1:13:30 ↗ chapter I would carve out something that

1:13:32 ↗ was more appropriate and I would like to

1:13:36 ↗ see an overlay that would actually begin

1:13:38 ↗ replanting and protecting those forested

1:13:41 ↗ hills as the comprehensive plan has said

1:13:43 ↗ for the last three years and we have

1:13:45 ↗ done nothing about so then now I'm gonna

1:13:47 ↗ now I just need to say a few things

1:13:49 ↗ about the Issaquah Highlands from the

1:13:52 ↗ way way back machine when that was still

1:13:55 ↗ entirely a forest and there was nothing

1:13:58 ↗ there and so having watched the forest

1:14:01 ↗ go down and I hear somebody who's lived

1:14:03 ↗ in the town in the

1:14:04 ↗ for a little while and they're grumpy

1:14:06 ↗ because they don't have more I look at

1:14:09 ↗ Jeff Walker who left and he was so happy

1:14:11 ↗ to get anything at all right now we are

1:14:15 ↗ supposed to be emphasizing the growth in

1:14:17 ↗ our central Issaquah area not creating

1:14:21 ↗ extra growths in our urban villages so I

1:14:25 ↗ think we need to stick with our plan and

1:14:27 ↗ put it where we say we're going to put

1:14:29 ↗ it and we're trying to create the

1:14:30 ↗ infrastructure sure to support it thank

1:14:33 ↗ you

1:14:36 ↗ would anybody else like to speak seeing

1:14:43 ↗ nobody I will close the public hearing

1:14:47 ↗ at 7:45 and open it up to I'm sure

1:14:54 ↗ questions from the Commission I just

1:14:58 ↗ want to start and say thank you for

1:15:00 ↗ everybody showing up there's been some

1:15:02 ↗ really great points I think brought up

1:15:04 ↗ and I think this is a very valuable

1:15:07 ↗ conversation so I want to start at least

1:15:10 ↗ at that point I was part of the chamber

1:15:19 ↗ when the developer of talus came to

1:15:23 ↗ present his their plans for or talus and

1:15:28 ↗ the one thing that was said over and

1:15:30 ↗ over again was you won't see the houses

1:15:33 ↗ or the buildings from SR 900 that was

1:15:38 ↗ over and over and over again so the

1:15:41 ↗ chamber said oh this is great we you

1:15:42 ↗ know it's a great idea you know we need

1:15:44 ↗ the development so that makes me a

1:15:47 ↗ little concerned about what is actually

1:15:51 ↗ going on in the plat at the bottom the

1:15:58 ↗ how that's going to affect

1:16:03 ↗ traffic and ease of entry so that kind

1:16:09 ↗ of that the whole thing whether it's

1:16:14 ↗ townhomes or whatever it still bothers

1:16:19 ↗ me that without knowing what the traffic

1:16:23 ↗ is going to be and how it's going to be

1:16:25 ↗ accessed and all of that I just have a

1:16:29 ↗ interesting and if you want to say

1:16:32 ↗ feeling about how that's going to work

1:16:34 ↗ in the in the overall design expected

1:16:42 ↗ some it's just so much to address where

1:16:46 ↗ do we start with this all gonna start

1:16:48 ↗ with Karl Karl yeah yeah thanks Jonah

1:16:50 ↗ first of all I'm gonna channel when Jeff

1:16:53 ↗ left he had another appointment but he

1:16:54 ↗ wanted to make one comment about and

1:16:56 ↗ mine similar however you guys want to

1:16:59 ↗ address way we would request on the U V

1:17:02 ↗ DC is to ask staff to go back and

1:17:04 ↗ address the specific points that were

1:17:06 ↗ brought up certainly by some of the

1:17:08 ↗ applicants and those questions they had

1:17:10 ↗ and particularly the questions in the

1:17:11 ↗ IHI f letter and document I think Jeff

1:17:16 ↗ and I know I just share the concern

1:17:18 ↗ seems like the FI our question is for

1:17:22 ↗ jumped out at us is sort of new so I you

1:17:25 ↗ know Lucy and Keith and team I'd like to

1:17:28 ↗ get specific responses of why those

1:17:30 ↗ changes were made what the motivations

1:17:32 ↗ were in addressing any inconsistencies

1:17:35 ↗ that seemed to have arisen because it I

1:17:37 ↗ don't know that's the sense I'm getting

1:17:38 ↗ from a lot of people here I certainly

1:17:40 ↗ heard it heard it from the applicants I

1:17:41 ↗ don't want to specifically respond

1:17:43 ↗ applicants questions or comments but

1:17:46 ↗ that's sort of it's a level of

1:17:49 ↗ discomfort from trying to transition

1:17:51 ↗ from the development agreements to sort

1:17:54 ↗ of a like-for-like to new zoning seems

1:17:57 ↗ like we've changed and things along that

1:17:58 ↗ were inconsistent that we started with

1:18:00 ↗ that's my main comment Joe if it's a can

1:18:03 ↗ be taken as a cover I want to agree with

1:18:06 ↗ my other commissioner

1:18:09 ↗ you guys have brought up some really

1:18:10 ↗ good questions and I think are really

1:18:12 ↗ important to be addressed before we can

1:18:15 ↗ continue on or have a motion to accept

1:18:20 ↗ this plan unless Lucy can clear up all

1:18:24 ↗ the questions that have been that have

1:18:26 ↗ come up yeah I was gonna say I mean I

1:18:28 ↗ hate Karl I think your point and I think

1:18:30 ↗ that's probably where we are based on

1:18:31 ↗ what we've heard but since we're here

1:18:33 ↗ you know all together and having fun

1:18:36 ↗ Lucy could you just just spend a minute

1:18:38 ↗ or others maybe to talk about the floor

1:18:40 ↗ area ratio and that was a new new thing

1:18:44 ↗ that you know popped out to me and

1:18:45 ↗ during the presentation and then in the

1:18:47 ↗ packet but just more about the numbers

1:18:50 ↗ and the rationale and consistency with

1:18:52 ↗ what we have in other places and just a

1:18:55 ↗ little more background on that would be

1:18:56 ↗ helpful for tonight and then we can

1:18:58 ↗ decide kind of where we want to go from

1:18:59 ↗ there but I can start and then I imagine

1:19:03 ↗ Keith has some things to add as well the

1:19:06 ↗ entitlement that shelter owns would

1:19:11 ↗ require an FA are of two to use all of

1:19:15 ↗ it so I so I'm not sure that an FA are

1:19:23 ↗ of one is unreasonable it does assume a

1:19:28 ↗ much or mainly structured parking which

1:19:32 ↗ I have heard from them is a concern and

1:19:37 ↗ that is something that the city has put

1:19:40 ↗ in place for projects in central

1:19:45 ↗ Issaquah and minimum of 50 percent

1:19:48 ↗ requirement with vertical mixed you

1:19:50 ↗ shall hear a 90 percent requirement

1:19:53 ↗ being proposed

1:19:55 ↗ edgr hearing later tonight the FA are

1:20:00 ↗ used in central Issaquah Tia's comment

1:20:06 ↗ was somewhat true the commercial FA R is

1:20:10 ↗ 0.55 the residential FA R is 0.75 but it

1:20:17 ↗ isn't limited to the urban core if you

1:20:19 ↗ have a parcel of three acres or more

1:20:22 ↗ anywhere in central is Squa that minimum

1:20:25 ↗ fer applies so it isn't limited to a

1:20:29 ↗ small geographic zone it is applied to

1:20:35 ↗ many properties and Gateway for instance

1:20:38 ↗ had to meet that and that was a

1:20:39 ↗ challenge I think that really it is for

1:20:45 ↗ reference what's the what is the far of

1:20:47 ↗ gateway points out your live one point

1:20:50 ↗ seven five points cepo on the points on

1:20:52 ↗ 5

1:20:52 ↗ they just made that garage parking and

1:20:55 ↗ parking structures and garages do not

1:20:58 ↗ count towards the FA are they would have

1:21:00 ↗ made it easily if that had counted so

1:21:05 ↗ one of the big changes is there's no

1:21:09 ↗ more master developer and so you know

1:21:11 ↗ the city for 20 years in his client's

1:21:15 ↗ and 15 years in talus we had a partner

1:21:17 ↗ that was helping us had good development

1:21:19 ↗ and development that fit the vision of

1:21:22 ↗ the community and because each of them

1:21:24 ↗ created their own neighborhoods really

1:21:27 ↗ and so right now we don't have that any

1:21:30 ↗ longer and so there is nothing to

1:21:34 ↗ without standards in place there's

1:21:37 ↗ nothing to guide the developers of the

1:21:41 ↗ properties within the villages that are

1:21:44 ↗ left to develop to develop in a vision

1:21:48 ↗ that we think is consistent with those

1:21:49 ↗ communities and so given the

1:21:53 ↗ conversations so the FA our conversation

1:21:58 ↗ we do in vertical mixed-use tonight Jen

1:22:01 ↗ okay so you're gonna hear that the

1:22:03 ↗ proposed FA are max for vertical

1:22:06 ↗ mixed-use is 8 so when we're talking

1:22:10 ↗ about 1 you know what what what one is

1:22:14 ↗ is really trying to push us away from

1:22:17 ↗ single story development with surface

1:22:19 ↗ parking as much as y'all love Grand

1:22:21 ↗ Ridge Plaza we were actually kind of

1:22:23 ↗ disappointed in Grand Ridge Plaza and

1:22:26 ↗ Connie's nodding her head and 9 as

1:22:28 ↗ nodding her head because it was less

1:22:30 ↗ dense than what we wanted but we pushed

1:22:33 ↗ that developer to give us at least one

1:22:35 ↗ parking

1:22:36 ↗ structure and that's east of the cinema

1:22:40 ↗ and it's because you know we didn't have

1:22:43 ↗ the tools to make them do anything more

1:22:45 ↗ than that and so I guess you know as

1:22:47 ↗ we're sitting here defending putting a

1:22:50 ↗ new tool in place I think it's because

1:22:52 ↗ it occurred to us that without that they

1:22:55 ↗ could build single-story retail with

1:22:57 ↗ surface parking single-story commercial

1:22:59 ↗ with surface parking and there's nothing

1:23:01 ↗ to stop that you know except for the

1:23:04 ↗ requirement for structured parking and

1:23:06 ↗ putting some sort of minimum if they are

1:23:08 ↗ on the project so our apologies for it

1:23:12 ↗ coming out a little late maybe we should

1:23:14 ↗ have thought of it earlier but this is

1:23:17 ↗ the first time we've done this so so if

1:23:21 ↗ we're looking at some of these

1:23:23 ↗ properties I'm just trying to understand

1:23:26 ↗ if if a if they are jus update the map

1:23:34 ↗ sure if an FA are of one would require

1:23:40 ↗ structured parking or if there would be

1:23:42 ↗ a possibility with the height

1:23:44 ↗ requirements that they could do two

1:23:49 ↗ stories or three stories on a portion of

1:23:51 ↗ the property and have the surface

1:23:53 ↗ parking and still do that yes so they

1:23:59 ↗ would be able to do right that I but

1:24:01 ↗ just speak to Steve Johnson point is I

1:24:08 ↗ think they're concerned that I agree

1:24:11 ↗ with him two-story retail is is not

1:24:14 ↗ workable here retail with office above

1:24:19 ↗ it I I think their concern is that the

1:24:22 ↗ market isn't here for that however I

1:24:27 ↗ think I was I was interested in what Tia

1:24:34 ↗ outlined was a you know about four

1:24:36 ↗ hundred and sixty thousand square feet

1:24:38 ↗ out of

1:24:40 ↗ 1.8 million square feet that they have

1:24:44 ↗ as a zoning cap and that more dense

1:24:47 ↗ development could come in the future I'm

1:24:50 ↗ not though we've only seen a plan for

1:24:54 ↗ one out of the five blocks so I I don't

1:24:58 ↗ know they may have phasing ideas I'm not

1:25:02 ↗ sure it worked with the scheme that we

1:25:05 ↗ had seen so I'm not quite sure how that

1:25:10 ↗ how what they're proposing now could

1:25:14 ↗ then be phased in to meet a higher use

1:25:19 ↗ of their zoning cap

1:25:25 ↗ we have any other areas where with a

1:25:28 ↗ retail zoning we have an FA our minimum

1:25:35 ↗ requirement one though the approach I'm

1:25:38 ↗ taking as much as I am not in favor of

1:25:42 ↗ multi-use residential on that property

1:25:45 ↗ to add more residential to the Highlands

1:25:48 ↗ I think it may become difficult to have

1:25:54 ↗ that kind of an FA are in the current

1:25:56 ↗ economic situation without including

1:25:59 ↗ residential in that so I'm trying to

1:26:01 ↗ think if there are other situations

1:26:03 ↗ where retail has required that so I I

1:26:07 ↗ can't imagine if you're not building

1:26:09 ↗ two-story retail I don't think you can

1:26:12 ↗ meet Rita I don't think you're gonna

1:26:14 ↗ meet 1.0 with a hundred percent retail

1:26:16 ↗ so I think we're I think Keith or at

1:26:19 ↗ least let me escape I think we're

1:26:20 ↗ basically requiring that any sort of

1:26:22 ↗ development has some sort of commercial

1:26:24 ↗ office space component sort of mixed-use

1:26:26 ↗ non-residential that's their entitlement

1:26:28 ↗ that's the property that they built

1:26:30 ↗ that's the current he ours I mean it's

1:26:32 ↗ not like Wright sees just pulled this

1:26:34 ↗ out this is certainly so so they're in

1:26:36 ↗ touch so they're entitled to build that

1:26:38 ↗ and so then I think the move the city is

1:26:39 ↗ making is for Korres you're basically

1:26:41 ↗ requiring that hey if you want to

1:26:42 ↗ develop retail you're basically going to

1:26:45 ↗ have to develop some some amount of

1:26:47 ↗ commercial or office space so I'm gonna

1:26:51 ↗ I'm gonna go back in the Wayback Machine

1:26:52 ↗ for a bit because Connie took us there

1:26:55 ↗ earlier so I'm gonna I'm gonna use the

1:26:57 ↗ same dial so they bought this property

1:26:59 ↗ for Microsoft Microsoft's entitlement

1:27:02 ↗ was office okay so for 15 years of 20 we

1:27:08 ↗ expected that to be an office campus

1:27:09 ↗ right so the community did buy we I'm

1:27:11 ↗ saying the community so they after they

1:27:15 ↗ bought the office they also bought

1:27:16 ↗ retail entitlement that was left over

1:27:18 ↗ from poor Blakeley so so again the

1:27:22 ↗ question is is what is the expected land

1:27:26 ↗ use there if it's commercial with

1:27:30 ↗ supplement of retail on the ground floor

1:27:33 ↗ that's very different than a retail

1:27:36 ↗ development with maybe one or two office

1:27:38 ↗ parts

1:27:39 ↗ right so it's you have to think about

1:27:40 ↗ which way is this thing balanced and and

1:27:43 ↗ what do you guys want because I think

1:27:45 ↗ that's really important in what you

1:27:47 ↗ potentially get at the end of the day

1:27:51 ↗ another question for reference the

1:27:53 ↗ office park that's kind of backed up

1:27:55 ↗ against Lake Sammamish what so it's got

1:27:59 ↗ its got the four photos that there's a

1:28:01 ↗ seaman's I think marzo yeah

1:28:03 ↗ for reference event so those are some

1:28:04 ↗ relatively large buildings a lot of

1:28:06 ↗ surface parking what floor area ratio

1:28:08 ↗ would that be roughly I'm looking at our

1:28:11 ↗ economic development manager and we're

1:28:13 ↗ going to people you're referencing

1:28:16 ↗ actually most of the parking is actually

1:28:18 ↗ in a garage its underground we could

1:28:24 ↗ probably do that calculus right now well

1:28:30 ↗ the problem is this parcel is huge I

1:28:34 ↗ mean yeah you've got some green space

1:28:38 ↗ there's a river bank but if it if you so

1:28:41 ↗ the buildings what maybe maybe half so

1:28:44 ↗ there's and then those buildings are all

1:28:45 ↗ wood so there's a 750,000 square feet of

1:28:48 ↗ Class A office there so we don't there

1:28:53 ↗ we go site is 89 77047 I don't you know

1:29:00 ↗ that I see is dect is multi-level it's

1:29:03 ↗ not surface so but bad which okay so

1:29:08 ↗ that's like so that development which i

1:29:10 ↗ think is relatively dense is not meeting

1:29:13 ↗ far one okay

1:29:15 ↗ that's all full I saw this as a

1:29:19 ↗ progression we know where we've been

1:29:21 ↗ we've seen what we've gotten from that

1:29:24 ↗ we've evolved we've got a little smarter

1:29:26 ↗ I actually appreciated this tool from

1:29:28 ↗ the city and it didn't raise the same

1:29:30 ↗ kind of ire that I normally have for for

1:29:35 ↗ similar circumstances I look at the

1:29:38 ↗ original intent of what we want in in

1:29:44 ↗ our development agreements and when we

1:29:47 ↗ see what we've gotten I see this

1:29:49 ↗ adjustment of moving to this next phase

1:29:50 ↗ and so it

1:29:52 ↗ maybe shading from my work on the UVC

1:29:54 ↗ but I see this block as being something

1:29:56 ↗ that was supposed to be something that

1:29:59 ↗ we still have a need for it hasn't been

1:30:01 ↗ created somewhere else I think it's

1:30:04 ↗ completely reasonable to tell the

1:30:06 ↗ applicant to that we can still honor

1:30:08 ↗ their there are three dwelling units

1:30:10 ↗ that doesn't mean necessarily that it

1:30:13 ↗ should be residential I also appreciate

1:30:16 ↗ that the city actually went through our

1:30:18 ↗ comments and the applicant request and

1:30:20 ↗ came through and said you know what we

1:30:22 ↗ want to actually move assisted living

1:30:25 ↗ into a commercial rather than

1:30:27 ↗ residential zoning you know that was a

1:30:29 ↗ specific request by the applicant we

1:30:31 ↗ talked about it I thought that was a

1:30:32 ↗ nice response from the city as a good

1:30:34 ↗ halfway point and I would reiterate to

1:30:37 ↗ that I would rather see that

1:30:38 ↗ specifically zoned to the a block

1:30:39 ↗ because I do want to see that commercial

1:30:42 ↗ element being able to use the

1:30:44 ↗ park-and-ride so all those services of

1:30:46 ↗ people coming and going to be able to

1:30:48 ↗ support assisted living being able to

1:30:50 ↗ easily use that park-and-ride I don't

1:30:52 ↗ know that I really agree with the

1:30:54 ↗ comments of saying that because it's

1:30:55 ↗ near park-and-ride we should completely

1:30:57 ↗ rezone it for housing I'm not in support

1:31:00 ↗ of that and I'm also not in support of

1:31:03 ↗ taking this really cherry piece of

1:31:06 ↗ property in the highlands and sparsely

1:31:08 ↗ populated it I think it's important to

1:31:10 ↗ really not only fulfill the needs of

1:31:12 ↗ what we see we still need in the

1:31:14 ↗ highlands but to also really fulfill how

1:31:17 ↗ do we get that and kind of you know we

1:31:20 ↗ always talk about you know the teeth is

1:31:21 ↗ in the zoning and this is our chance to

1:31:23 ↗ to use some teeth all right I think I

1:31:27 ↗ make the vision I think a great way to

1:31:28 ↗ look at some of the things and this is

1:31:30 ↗ of course very speculative maybe we

1:31:32 ↗ shouldn't do that but I feel like at

1:31:33 ↗ Tia's document and a question - and she

1:31:36 ↗ kind of rattles off some of the some of

1:31:37 ↗ the sample projects so like I see a

1:31:41 ↗ four-story medical office building with

1:31:42 ↗ ground for retail that strikes me is the

1:31:45 ↗ kind of dense development it's bringing

1:31:47 ↗ a lot of jobs during the day but have

1:31:49 ↗ some ground for retool that that strikes

1:31:51 ↗ me as like the type of thing that we

1:31:52 ↗ meet I would imagine that four-story

1:31:54 ↗ medical office building should easily

1:31:56 ↗ meet a far one I mean you've got

1:31:58 ↗ structure Mario it's a like a 250,000

1:32:01 ↗ square foot site I don't know I do

1:32:03 ↗ wait hold on so that would but hundreds

1:32:06 ↗ through this graph what is the entire

1:32:08 ↗ thing or just depends it depends on how

1:32:10 ↗ small the footprint of the building is

1:32:12 ↗ right so you take a piece of property

1:32:14 ↗ and you put a big four-story building on

1:32:17 ↗ it'll easily meet probably a two to

1:32:20 ↗ three FA are if the if the footprint is

1:32:22 ↗ very small I mean like less than a

1:32:25 ↗ quarter of the total property four

1:32:27 ↗ stories you know you're you're pushing

1:32:30 ↗ one at the most it depends on the

1:32:32 ↗ footprint of the building so this is

1:32:34 ↗ more like point three okay yeah so that

1:32:42 ↗ would be a four story building that

1:32:43 ↗ would be then surrounded by a sea of

1:32:44 ↗ parking yes so it's it's basically the

1:32:47 ↗ building is on just less than a quarter

1:32:49 ↗ of the site with surface parking on a

1:32:51 ↗ quarter and structure parking deck on

1:32:53 ↗ the back I mean I'm not asking you to

1:32:56 ↗ review this but you know we we are in

1:33:00 ↗ the process of discussing it but I'm

1:33:02 ↗ just saying that on on that site it is

1:33:06 ↗ probably an FA are of 0.3 maybe 0.5 okay

1:33:13 ↗ so I'm generally in support of moving us

1:33:17 ↗ toward something with a higher f AR than

1:33:21 ↗ we saw in grand rich Plaza I agree that

1:33:24 ↗ was a disappointment we should be moving

1:33:27 ↗ things forward I will agree that the

1:33:32 ↗ number 11.0 seems a little bit

1:33:37 ↗ cherry-picked

1:33:39 ↗ and I wonder if there's economic

1:33:41 ↗ information behind that you know why it

1:33:45 ↗ was 1 vs. 0.75 or 1.5 or anything like

1:33:50 ↗ that going to our Economic Development

1:33:53 ↗ Director okay um so I mean so what's in

1:33:59 ↗ the central Issaquah plan now is 0.75 I

1:34:02 ↗ think the analysis we did with vertical

1:34:04 ↗ makes use is 0.75 didn't get you any of

1:34:08 ↗ the drawings that the consultants showed

1:34:10 ↗ us that we were going to get with

1:34:12 ↗ vertical mixed-use and so as we did the

1:34:13 ↗ math

1:34:14 ↗ on the numbers for that vision that we

1:34:17 ↗ wanted which was like four-story

1:34:19 ↗ buildings with maybe a little bit of

1:34:21 ↗ surface parking on a block those numbers

1:34:24 ↗ went from 5 to 8 on FA RS so so when you

1:34:28 ↗ talk about 0.75 yeah that's in the code

1:34:31 ↗ right now for central Issaquah and if

1:34:33 ↗ you wanted to pick that you would have a

1:34:35 ↗ rationale for doing that I think from

1:34:37 ↗ our perspective you heard it from Lucy

1:34:39 ↗ earlier if they want to build out all of

1:34:41 ↗ their entitlement that they have on the

1:34:43 ↗ property that they own they would need

1:34:46 ↗ to average out a two-fer over the entire

1:34:49 ↗ 20 acres and I think what we're saying

1:34:52 ↗ is all right you know on a partial by

1:34:54 ↗ partial basis they should have some

1:34:56 ↗ flexibility to have some parcels that

1:34:58 ↗ might be less dense and then some

1:35:00 ↗ parcels that might be more dense but we

1:35:03 ↗ chose one because one we thought it was

1:35:05 ↗ attainable and two because they should

1:35:08 ↗ be thinking in that if they're going to

1:35:11 ↗ try and actualize all that they bought

1:35:14 ↗ and I think from a density perspective

1:35:17 ↗ you know the number of employees that

1:35:19 ↗ were anticipated to be in the highlands

1:35:21 ↗ you've got to build a lot of square

1:35:22 ↗ footage to get us to that point where we

1:35:25 ↗ actually actualize the vision that we

1:35:27 ↗ thought we were going to get so so yeah

1:35:29 ↗ it could be super aggressive and if you

1:35:32 ↗ guys want to put it to 0.75 that's fine

1:35:35 ↗ they're right we didn't we didn't hire a

1:35:38 ↗ bunch of economists to study that and do

1:35:41 ↗ a bunch of research on FA are on

1:35:44 ↗ surrounding commercial projects but we

1:35:48 ↗ also know that I mean I think I mean we

1:35:52 ↗ could do the FA our analysis on the

1:35:54 ↗ proposed Costco building that's coming

1:35:55 ↗ in it's a nice it's six hundred thousand

1:35:57 ↗ square feet and we know the parcel size

1:35:59 ↗ we could probably pull that up right now

1:36:01 ↗ and tell you what that's going to be

1:36:02 ↗ it's going to be higher than one in a

1:36:07 ↗ situation since we're also asking for

1:36:11 ↗ plazas when commercial spaces put into

1:36:14 ↗ place you know do we have a sense how

1:36:17 ↗ that would affect the FA RS because

1:36:22 ↗ plazas are obviously one-story they take

1:36:25 ↗ up some part of the property right

1:36:28 ↗ don't know how that works into the

1:36:30 ↗ calculus I can't it's a bit it's the

1:36:37 ↗ whole parcel yeah so that could be a

1:36:42 ↗ justification for going let you know

1:36:44 ↗ somewhat less than one I I will say that

1:36:47 ↗ I think it was a miss reading of the

1:36:51 ↗ proposed code that two thousand square

1:36:55 ↗ feet of plaza only comes in if you have

1:36:58 ↗ greater than that and you're proposing

1:37:00 ↗ specifically language is there before

1:37:02 ↗ when you're breaking it apart into

1:37:04 ↗ multiple clauses I think that staff

1:37:06 ↗ covered that language and I don't have a

1:37:07 ↗ concern with that with that comment at

1:37:09 ↗ all and I I appreciate I think the

1:37:11 ↗ language actually found it's pretty

1:37:13 ↗ clear there and actually since we're all

1:37:15 ↗ clauses I know we're talking about the

1:37:17 ↗ Highlands right now but we kind of see a

1:37:19 ↗ different situation but an internal

1:37:22 ↗ struggle happening on the plot and Talas

1:37:24 ↗ and what we've what we heard from having

1:37:27 ↗ the benefit of these multiple meetings

1:37:28 ↗ to hear from try met and from from

1:37:32 ↗ Tallis we kind of heard this back and

1:37:34 ↗ forth I appreciate it that there's been

1:37:35 ↗ a change from the developer of coming at

1:37:37 ↗ it week after week I see a response from

1:37:40 ↗ the community and the applicant trying

1:37:43 ↗ to meet that I really appreciate that

1:37:46 ↗ and when there was this comment about we

1:37:49 ↗ would be amenable to the townhomes and

1:37:51 ↗ this is again I'm speaking from the from

1:37:54 ↗ tell us a few point from the homeowners

1:37:56 ↗ association but we'd like to see

1:37:58 ↗ something for that and I kind of like to

1:38:00 ↗ to bring up and this is again more for

1:38:03 ↗ for trauma is what could be something

1:38:05 ↗ that the community wants and I really

1:38:08 ↗ like Connie's idea we've talked before

1:38:09 ↗ about amphitheaters we've talked before

1:38:11 ↗ about large communal spaces and so when

1:38:14 ↗ thinking about maybe tell us wants to

1:38:15 ↗ have an area and again this needs to go

1:38:17 ↗ back to them I can't speak for them but

1:38:19 ↗ when looking at what is a direct

1:38:21 ↗ attribute to the community by allowing

1:38:24 ↗ this change in your entitlement that

1:38:26 ↗ plazas might be a way to integrate that

1:38:28 ↗ maybe maybe tell us wants to have

1:38:30 ↗ something that is an amphitheater for

1:38:32 ↗ hosting concerts and things like that

1:38:33 ↗ maybe they don't but I had this thought

1:38:35 ↗ of trying to

1:38:38 ↗ a way to suggest kind of concepts of

1:38:41 ↗ maybe maybe there are ways on that

1:38:44 ↗ parcel for for the developer to be able

1:38:47 ↗ to help create a community need which

1:38:49 ↗ was clearly asked for I think what

1:38:55 ↗ Scouts are really important right now is

1:38:57 ↗ we need to not be short-sighted in the

1:39:00 ↗ sense that the market may not be here

1:39:03 ↗ today to support these developments but

1:39:07 ↗ what we're looking 10 15 20 years from

1:39:10 ↗ now what does that market are going to

1:39:12 ↗ look like maybe that would be the if we

1:39:15 ↗ hold out today we will get what we

1:39:18 ↗ envisioned long term I think that's

1:39:22 ↗ that's a great point in that I think

1:39:24 ↗ it's an argument in favor of having a

1:39:26 ↗ far and then having a higher FAR's you

1:39:28 ↗ don't want to under build I think you

1:39:33 ↗ want to it's an empty lot this is now is

1:39:37 ↗ the easiest time it'll ever be

1:39:39 ↗ redeveloped what's gonna be built there

1:39:40 ↗ is probably what's going to be there for

1:39:42 ↗ the time being and so I think requiring

1:39:44 ↗ additional density to in order to shape

1:39:46 ↗ the vision we want I think I think is I

1:39:48 ↗ think is good I would agree that I think

1:39:51 ↗ grande ridge Plaza is the I mean it's

1:39:55 ↗ nice but it's big it's a strip mall and

1:39:58 ↗ so I think I think putting requirements

1:40:01 ↗ so that whatever comes in is it's denser

1:40:04 ↗ than grandma's applause I think at

1:40:06 ↗ minimum it needs to be done just in

1:40:08 ↗ Grand Ridge I think I agree that that

1:40:10 ↗ that meets the the vision of what people

1:40:13 ↗ want that that space to be yeah and

1:40:16 ↗ maybe just a final comment for me and

1:40:18 ↗ with you know certainly respect with all

1:40:20 ↗ the up for an investment that the

1:40:22 ↗ developers are made and a little bit of

1:40:24 ↗ a changeup in some respects yeah I

1:40:29 ↗ appreciate that I I do agree with you

1:40:33 ↗ know thinking bigger and pushing them a

1:40:35 ↗ little bit I guess I would just

1:40:36 ↗ depending on how we end up here if we

1:40:38 ↗ end up with a recommendation or whatever

1:40:40 ↗ if and when it goes to council I guess I

1:40:43 ↗ would just recommend you know a little

1:40:46 ↗ more robust sort of analysis and

1:40:49 ↗ something in the press

1:40:50 ↗ to them just so that you know they're

1:40:53 ↗ gonna ask all the same questions we are

1:40:55 ↗ where did the numbers come from what

1:40:57 ↗ does the economic you know impact of the

1:40:58 ↗ developer and all that sort of things so

1:41:00 ↗ just a little bit more behind now I

1:41:01 ↗ think would be useful for that just to

1:41:03 ↗ sort of inform that conversation that's

1:41:07 ↗ all I've set with it would you like to

1:41:10 ↗ see that I would like to see that yeah

1:41:13 ↗ but I don't know if we're in a if we're

1:41:15 ↗ ready to move and make recommendations

1:41:17 ↗ or anything at this point I'm looking

1:41:20 ↗ around to see I feel fairly comfortable

1:41:24 ↗ with the answers provided on things I

1:41:28 ↗ think that council will probably ask

1:41:31 ↗ those questions and so I think having an

1:41:34 ↗ answer at that point is probably

1:41:37 ↗ important but generally I'm feeling

1:41:40 ↗ pretty good about the responses that

1:41:41 ↗ we've heard yeah so just so you know

1:41:44 ↗ when we send this to them to the council

1:41:48 ↗ the changes they like to know what

1:41:53 ↗ changes you make and so we will

1:41:55 ↗ sometimes explain you know for instance

1:41:58 ↗ if you accept the FA our we can provide

1:42:02 ↗ a basis for what we did if you change

1:42:05 ↗ the FA our we're going to include

1:42:07 ↗ something about why that change happened

1:42:10 ↗ and so it it doesn't the way you got it

1:42:15 ↗ was because you've been talking about

1:42:17 ↗ this for three previous meetings but the

1:42:20 ↗ kind of cover memo that you got we you

1:42:23 ↗ know we kind of provide that bridge from

1:42:26 ↗ what you all have talked about and

1:42:28 ↗ identified to them as well what are you

1:42:32 ↗ expecting from us tonight on this

1:42:34 ↗ particular issue

1:42:35 ↗ just further conversation and ideas well

1:42:39 ↗ this is the public hearing so typically

1:42:42 ↗ it would be a recommendation but you may

1:42:44 ↗ not be ready to make him recommendation

1:42:48 ↗ Lucy we heard comments from individuals

1:42:52 ↗ and I'm thinking of Connie's email that

1:42:54 ↗ she had sent us specifically addressing

1:42:56 ↗ both tree retention and Talas as well as

1:42:59 ↗ language about

1:43:01 ↗ seeing kind of replanting x' after you

1:43:04 ↗ know gross removal of trees can can you

1:43:08 ↗ address how the city won't have is

1:43:09 ↗ addressing that sure

1:43:11 ↗ so the developed both development

1:43:15 ↗ agreements as quo Highlands and talus

1:43:17 ↗ had tree preservation provisions in that

1:43:22 ↗ took effect after build-out so if you

1:43:25 ↗ remember back to our discussion last

1:43:27 ↗ week there was no guarantee that after

1:43:31 ↗ build-out that the development agreement

1:43:33 ↗ would ever be terminated so the tree

1:43:36 ↗ preservation provisions were in place to

1:43:41 ↗ ensure that after build-out that tree

1:43:45 ↗ preservation would happen I haven't

1:43:50 ↗ studied the talus provisions I was at a

1:43:55 ↗ conference today so I didn't get to go

1:43:56 ↗ back and look at the things that Connie

1:43:59 ↗ said except on my phone but I know for

1:44:02 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands ones they are

1:44:05 ↗ significantly less robust than what we

1:44:08 ↗ have in place for central Issaquah or in

1:44:12 ↗ the municipal code so I would not

1:44:15 ↗ recommend I think those were in place in

1:44:17 ↗ case the development agreement remained

1:44:20 ↗ I do not I don't recommend retaining

1:44:23 ↗ those now if there's something in there

1:44:25 ↗ that people like we can talk about

1:44:27 ↗ whether that should go into IMC or

1:44:30 ↗ central is kua but we really as we said

1:44:34 ↗ we're trying to have less codes than

1:44:36 ↗ more and so I think the question is I

1:44:40 ↗ would disagree with Connie relative to

1:44:43 ↗ not using the whole landscape chapter I

1:44:47 ↗ do think that the tree preservation

1:44:49 ↗ piece between s qua Municipal Code and

1:44:52 ↗ central Issaquah is a good conversation

1:44:56 ↗ we have recommended central it's a becau

1:44:59 ↗ because we were recommending centrally

1:45:01 ↗ if the main provision and I'm

1:45:07 ↗ going to look to Jennifer to make sure I

1:45:08 ↗ get this right is

1:45:11 ↗ in central Issaquah you can reduce the

1:45:16 ↗ trees to zero but you have to replace

1:45:19 ↗ them in central Issaquah or pay into the

1:45:22 ↗ tree fund now because of the language

1:45:24 ↗ we've put in place that would be you

1:45:27 ↗ could reduce the trees to zero and you

1:45:29 ↗ would have to either replace them in the

1:45:31 ↗ urban village or pay into the tree fund

1:45:34 ↗ in its quad Municipal Code you cannot

1:45:37 ↗ reduce it below half the required amount

1:45:41 ↗ so depending on the zone that's either

1:45:45 ↗ that would be you would either be able

1:45:47 ↗ to reduce it to twelve and a half or

1:45:49 ↗ fifteen percent with the school the

1:45:54 ↗ compact school things that you did you

1:45:58 ↗ ended up going or this council maybe I'm

1:46:01 ↗ not this may not have happened with you

1:46:02 ↗ guys this may have happened to council

1:46:05 ↗ the approach they used is centralist

1:46:08 ↗ squad central is coiffures outside

1:46:10 ↗ central is Kauai you use the IMC for

1:46:12 ↗ tree preservation so I think those are

1:46:16 ↗ the two choices on the table either

1:46:19 ↗ using central squad now that I've

1:46:21 ↗ thoroughly confused too about the

1:46:23 ↗ differences or the Issaquah Municipal

1:46:27 ↗ Code relative to tree retention and

1:46:30 ↗ replacement the answer is yes you can

1:46:33 ↗ fuse this so who really make this very

1:46:38 ↗ clear what has the strictest tree

1:46:41 ↗ retention policy and what is that that

1:46:43 ↗ would be applicable for these areas so

1:46:49 ↗ it's a little bit of a divided game

1:46:52 ↗ central it's called let's you take it to

1:46:55 ↗ zero but requires replacement either in

1:46:58 ↗ the same area or you pay into the tree

1:47:01 ↗ fund the city does not allow you to take

1:47:04 ↗ it to zero but you just pay into the

1:47:07 ↗ tree fund you don't replant so they're

1:47:12 ↗ they're slightly different they have to

1:47:15 ↗ stay at 15% yes

1:47:17 ↗ so it depends on whether you want you

1:47:21 ↗ want to prevent it from going to zero or

1:47:23 ↗ you want the trees plant replacement

1:47:26 ↗ trees planted in the area and I'm just

1:47:29 ↗ not going to make a value judgment for

1:47:30 ↗ you which one you think is stricter do

1:47:35 ↗ those apply to a built out property or

1:47:38 ↗ what they also apply to a Greenbelt area

1:47:41 ↗ that is property yeah would it be like

1:47:45 ↗ private property open space what is a

1:47:48 ↗ zoned so develop property follows a

1:47:52 ↗ different requirement tree preservation

1:47:55 ↗ is for developing properties and yet the

1:48:00 ↗ question was about trees removed on

1:48:04 ↗ Greenbelt areas right right and I think

1:48:08 ↗ the question was that as well as view

1:48:10 ↗ protection and right now city code both

1:48:15 ↗ tree standards don't recognize views I

1:48:18 ↗ mean so just because you want to have a

1:48:20 ↗ view of the lake doesn't mean you can

1:48:22 ↗ cut top all the trees and get a view of

1:48:24 ↗ the lake I was gonna build and they're

1:48:26 ↗ like you can't build so I think actually

1:48:30 ↗ Lindsey the if the point you're

1:48:34 ↗ referring to was Ken's point about the

1:48:37 ↗ tree buffer that's a separate thing than

1:48:39 ↗ tree preservation there was a provision

1:48:42 ↗ that the it's my fault because I

1:48:46 ↗ combined them two I brought up the

1:48:47 ↗ discussion and so they're gonna come

1:48:51 ↗ together so I'm not surprised you just

1:48:57 ↗ want to see how well my brain works at

1:48:59 ↗ this hour actually the later it gets

1:49:06 ↗ there was an exception so the the

1:49:11 ↗ hundred foot buffer was required where

1:49:14 ↗ there are pond there are some exceptions

1:49:17 ↗ such as for ponds this area was used for

1:49:22 ↗ construction at one point and it has

1:49:24 ↗ not been reforested that is something

1:49:27 ↗ that's on our negotiation list with the

1:49:30 ↗ master developer to complete the

1:49:34 ↗ restoration of that area I don't think

1:49:38 ↗ we're looking for the HOA to do that so

1:49:42 ↗ they're not the master developer so as

1:49:45 ↗ it's written right now I want to give

1:49:46 ↗ the example we have this contested piece

1:49:49 ↗ of property that is now apparently

1:49:51 ↗ moving forward in the Highlands for the

1:49:53 ↗ building of a school so we've talked

1:49:55 ↗ about this CF designation two plazas

1:49:57 ↗ apply to government buildings meaning

1:49:59 ↗ and schools and we have a voicing of

1:50:03 ↗ opinions saying should schools have to

1:50:05 ↗ have this requirement versus why do they

1:50:07 ↗ have an exemption to not have to have

1:50:08 ↗ this requirement as it's written right

1:50:10 ↗ now this law is going to be clear-cut

1:50:13 ↗ what is the obligation right now to

1:50:15 ↗ replace those treats them are we're

1:50:17 ↗ losing I'm not going to talk about that

1:50:19 ↗ because it has no UV zoning on it so it

1:50:22 ↗ isn't I don't need I don't want

1:50:26 ↗ additional gasoline this evening so if

1:50:28 ↗ we speak hypothetically about a

1:50:30 ↗ different lot that is completely treat

1:50:33 ↗ and it's going to be clear-cut for the

1:50:34 ↗ purposes of a government building what

1:50:36 ↗ is the obligation in the code right now

1:50:38 ↗ about those trees so I'm not sure that

1:50:41 ↗ there are any treed Lots in Issaquah

1:50:42 ↗ Highlands or talus they may there may be

1:50:46 ↗ selling Balinese Robert II may have a

1:50:49 ↗ few what Bellevue college lot it's not a

1:50:52 ↗ different development agreement

1:50:54 ↗ they're the exception to everything they

1:51:00 ↗ are numbers when you're ready to go back

1:51:01 ↗ to that one so in the reality this whole

1:51:05 ↗ tree discussion is almost a moot point

1:51:07 ↗ because the only parcels that are

1:51:10 ↗ developable in the highlands don't have

1:51:11 ↗ any trees on them already currently they

1:51:19 ↗ do but then it's about how many trees

1:51:23 ↗ you can cut off your property I think I

1:51:28 ↗ didn't get added as the world continues

1:51:32 ↗ to turn and change around us what is the

1:51:35 ↗ current tree retention as this reads

1:51:36 ↗ right now if I have a lot that is treed

1:51:39 ↗ it gets a clear cut is right now is it a

1:51:42 ↗ path adapt and system wrong around the

1:51:45 ↗ 15 percent it's you can you could take

1:51:48 ↗ it to zero with I believe with an

1:51:51 ↗ adjustment of standards and you could

1:51:54 ↗ either replant on site in Issaquah

1:51:58 ↗ Highlands or pay into the tree fund

1:52:00 ↗ thank you and there is no language

1:52:03 ↗ currently to talk about view mitigation

1:52:06 ↗ and clear cutting it was previously

1:52:08 ↗ addressed in the development agreement

1:52:10 ↗ there is no language as to plants that

1:52:12 ↗ for disallowing the clear-cutting for so

1:52:15 ↗ I don't I don't think either central is

1:52:18 ↗ Squa or IMC allow so they're they're

1:52:21 ↗ more like criteria for what when you can

1:52:24 ↗ cut trees it does not mention views I

1:52:27 ↗ believe but views are not one of the

1:52:30 ↗ criteria for cutting trees so it's it's

1:52:36 ↗ it's kind of backward it you back into

1:52:40 ↗ it if it's not listed then that's not

1:52:41 ↗ one of the options though as it's

1:52:43 ↗ currently written it's more of a seek

1:52:45 ↗ forgiveness after I've done it rather

1:52:47 ↗ than ask permission

1:52:48 ↗ Oh we'll seek forgiveness comes with

1:52:50 ↗ penalties if you cut trees before you

1:52:53 ↗ have a permit but that isn't current

1:52:55 ↗ that isn't currently written in as we do

1:52:58 ↗ it so you'd have to refer back to the

1:52:59 ↗ central Issaquah right so you can't cut

1:53:03 ↗ trees in either central it's claw or the

1:53:06 ↗ of the city without permits or approval

1:53:10 ↗ and review and that means that we look

1:53:12 ↗ at the caliper sizes of all the trees

1:53:14 ↗ you it's not just retaining the trees

1:53:16 ↗ it's retaining the caliper size so if

1:53:19 ↗ you have big trees or small trees its

1:53:24 ↗ you we add up all those calipers of

1:53:26 ↗ trees that count and you have to retain

1:53:29 ↗ a certain amount of it right now the

1:53:31 ↗ central Issaquah guidelines give us what

1:53:35 ↗ we need in the stock that's why it

1:53:36 ↗ hasn't is it currently being addressed

1:53:39 ↗ so it is a set of tools that we use in

1:53:43 ↗ one part of the city we have effectively

1:53:46 ↗ used it there's some concern about using

1:53:48 ↗ it in other parts of the city that is a

1:53:51 ↗ policy discussion and I don't have a

1:53:53 ↗ problem having a policy discussion I

1:53:56 ↗ know that there are people who would say

1:53:58 ↗ there's a right answer and a wrong

1:53:59 ↗ answer I'm providing you with

1:54:01 ↗ information I we recommended centralized

1:54:06 ↗ squad because we were recommending

1:54:07 ↗ central it's kua for everything that

1:54:09 ↗ wasn't covered that doesn't mean that we

1:54:12 ↗ couldn't say except for trees which have

1:54:15 ↗ to follow the IMC provisions and so

1:54:22 ↗ let's if a developer decides the clerk

1:54:25 ↗ cuttin and we make the agreement that

1:54:27 ↗ that's okay and the developer pays into

1:54:30 ↗ the tree fund assuming we have a tree

1:54:34 ↗ fund going right now all have we spent

1:54:36 ↗ the money on the tree fund what have we

1:54:38 ↗ done with that investment I don't know

1:54:41 ↗ that we know it's administered through

1:54:43 ↗ the parks department so you know we're

1:54:46 ↗ permitting we are not construction so

1:54:50 ↗ unfortunately I don't know the answer of

1:54:52 ↗ how they have you know whether they put

1:54:55 ↗ them in parks or they use them for open

1:54:58 ↗ space replant I I don't I don't know in

1:55:01 ↗ specifically how they use that money so

1:55:06 ↗ it's for city-owned so usually it's for

1:55:08 ↗ you know

1:55:09 ↗ we end up buying properties along the

1:55:11 ↗ creeks and in other places and and I

1:55:17 ↗ know that the parks department does use

1:55:19 ↗ that money to replant on city-owned

1:55:22 ↗ properties so and you know for example

1:55:27 ↗ you know there's one area comes to mind

1:55:32 ↗ for me at least and that is you know

1:55:34 ↗ we're gonna about to take a big open

1:55:37 ↗ space area as part of Gateway and it's

1:55:41 ↗ right now it's needs to be revegetated

1:55:45 ↗ once all the blackberries get cleaned

1:55:47 ↗ out you know and that's going to be an

1:55:49 ↗ area that planting trees is the best way

1:55:52 ↗ to keep blackberries out because it

1:55:54 ↗ basically creates the shade canopy that

1:55:56 ↗ does a lot of the blackberries to grow

1:55:58 ↗ so so there's always a need for trees to

1:56:01 ↗ be planted and so what kind of trees are

1:56:05 ↗ we planting and I asked that because

1:56:07 ↗ we're I'm thinking like for like so if

1:56:10 ↗ we take out a grove of Doug firs are we

1:56:12 ↗ planting Doug firs are we planting trees

1:56:16 ↗ or City like trees in place of that I

1:56:19 ↗ think it depends on where you plant it's

1:56:21 ↗ where you plant them I don't even know

1:56:23 ↗ that necessary planting happens I think

1:56:25 ↗ that they nest a green space it's that

1:56:30 ↗ tit-for-tat I don't think it's a direct

1:56:31 ↗ correlation of tree fund means trees I

1:56:33 ↗ think sometimes that means from green

1:56:35 ↗ space to the city ok so I'm hearing

1:56:47 ↗ uncertainty for trees and for FA ours

1:56:50 ↗ you want some information on fer ok so

1:56:56 ↗ hopefully how my numbers are right so

1:56:59 ↗ the medical office building that's at

1:57:01 ↗ 4th Avenue and the ni 90 is quoi medical

1:57:06 ↗ building I believe it's fer is 0.8

1:57:11 ↗ Swedish 1.1 the Swedish is right there

1:57:17 ↗ yes okay and technically it's up there

1:57:20 ↗ but yes that's why I was like wait you

1:57:23 ↗ can see it from here

1:57:26 ↗ here let's just let me just point the

1:57:29 ↗ bit the first building that Keith

1:57:30 ↗ referred to is this one that's right

1:57:32 ↗ here okay that's a link that's not even

1:57:34 ↗ point one and then this one and then 90

1:57:39 ↗ East which is it's where Microsoft it's

1:57:44 ↗ the office buildings we were talking

1:57:46 ↗ about earlier

1:57:46 ↗ that's point 85 and the office building

1:57:50 ↗ that's about to come in for land use

1:57:52 ↗ permit from Costco's of five point five

1:57:57 ↗ nine stories maybe the biggest billion

1:58:02 ↗ Esquire I'm sorry a minute tall is

1:58:05 ↗ pulling us apart actually I think it

1:58:06 ↗ might be eight stories

1:58:08 ↗ you didn't only eight cuz that would be

1:58:10 ↗ the same as rally Hotel what's the so

1:58:13 ↗ the tallest building and is it was still

1:58:14 ↗ gonna be Timber Ridge just in case

1:58:20 ↗ anybody wants to know for that

1:58:22 ↗ trivia night okay so that's what I got

1:58:30 ↗ just from some quick numbers I support I

1:58:33 ↗ support the 1.0 yeah so yeah I put the 1

1:58:40 ↗ 1 0 to I just think it has to go to the

1:58:42 ↗ council with the acknowledgement that

1:58:43 ↗ the people that actually are affected

1:58:45 ↗ are quite upset about it but they're

1:58:47 ↗ also upset about structured parking it's

1:58:49 ↗ true there's a there's a quantifier list

1:58:52 ↗ of the things that they're upset about

1:58:53 ↗ let's just

1:58:54 ↗ that's there is anyone on the let's

1:58:57 ↗ propose this Way's anyone the Commission

1:59:00 ↗ objects to 1.1 or is deeply four-pointer

1:59:03 ↗ is skeptical 1.0 thank you not trying to

1:59:06 ↗ sneak an extra tenth in there is anyone

1:59:08 ↗ on the Commission skeptical of it I'm

1:59:11 ↗ not skeptical but I'd like to

1:59:13 ↗ a little bit more about the intricacies

1:59:17 ↗ of what problems is going to present to

1:59:22 ↗ the Builder and also is the city getting

1:59:25 ↗ one at once and why it wants to so what

1:59:27 ↗ I'm proposing is - we could go on for

1:59:31 ↗ this conversation for all or all night

1:59:34 ↗ but everything else in the plans those

1:59:38 ↗ are the only two things that you had

1:59:40 ↗ some heartburn aligned and some definite

1:59:43 ↗ questions so what what I'd like to do is

1:59:46 ↗ kind of take to have this Lucy take it

1:59:52 ↗ to the City Council with the with in

1:59:56 ↗ knowledge that we had we needed some

1:59:59 ↗ more explanations on those two

2:00:01 ↗ particular issues and that you know that

2:00:05 ↗ the lucy has said that she's going to

2:00:07 ↗ put some things together and make it

2:00:08 ↗ more whatever one of you said more

2:00:12 ↗ complete when they go to the City

2:00:15 ↗ Council but with those two things that

2:00:18 ↗ those are issues that we feel we need to

2:00:21 ↗ have more so I just want to make sure I

2:00:23 ↗ know which are the two issues one is the

2:00:25 ↗ FA are and then trees okay just want to

2:00:27 ↗ make sure and I just one a third thing

2:00:30 ↗ just a clarification on the the plaza

2:00:33 ↗ requirement for public community

2:00:34 ↗ facilities you got that you guys had

2:00:40 ↗ identified a couple of edits yeah that's

2:00:42 ↗ two plazas and Parks I think that was

2:00:47 ↗ the only one that was real substantially

2:00:48 ↗ the other ones are more edits and

2:00:49 ↗ clarifications I think that one was

2:00:51 ↗ actually a slight policy shift that we

2:00:53 ↗ were I think that for the community

2:00:56 ↗ facilities designation and theory the

2:00:58 ↗ school district would go to Council and

2:01:00 ↗ say we feel this is an undue burden and

2:01:02 ↗ would be able to lobby against those

2:01:04 ↗ plaza and and park requirements and so

2:01:08 ↗ building in the code that CF is not part

2:01:11 ↗ of that regulation I don't know that I

2:01:13 ↗ support that

2:01:14 ↗ oh it wasn't a it wasn't a CF it was

2:01:16 ↗ based upon the type of building not that

2:01:18 ↗ so

2:01:19 ↗ let me just say this I'm thinking

2:01:22 ↗ through what we're saying here right now

2:01:27 ↗ a non-residential project in like UV

2:01:32 ↗ calm reach or whatever it's called would

2:01:36 ↗ have to do this Plaza requirement I

2:01:40 ↗ think that we if there was some reason

2:01:43 ↗ that we wanted to we could either

2:01:45 ↗ exclude or include the CFP o because

2:01:51 ↗ we're establishing those zones just for

2:01:53 ↗ the urban villages I would be hesitant

2:01:56 ↗ to for the CF that applies to the rest

2:02:00 ↗ of the city that we are changing that

2:02:03 ↗ here because we're simply acknowledging

2:02:07 ↗ that in this code that those show up on

2:02:10 ↗ the map but we are not in any way

2:02:11 ↗ altering the uses or requirements or

2:02:17 ↗ develop district standards or

2:02:20 ↗ development standards for that so as a

2:02:24 ↗ public school is us is a CF F zone that

2:02:31 ↗ is already established in the city okay

2:02:33 ↗ yeah I guess I've every sort of reason

2:02:36 ↗ my idea I agree with what Joyce said I

2:02:39 ↗ think we just to leave it keep it simple

2:02:41 ↗ and then they can come and ask for a

2:02:43 ↗ variance if they school district is very

2:02:45 ↗ good at it yes there's a lot of

2:02:47 ↗ experience with it well I I guess what

2:02:49 ↗ I'm saying is are you asking to change

2:02:53 ↗ the Issaquah municipal code for

2:02:55 ↗ community facilities facilities which is

2:02:58 ↗ what in the park section where it says

2:03:02 ↗ non-residential stuff requires it had

2:03:05 ↗ originally been suggested to specify out

2:03:07 ↗ yeah I had said hey we should exclude

2:03:10 ↗ schools from that and then we said well

2:03:11 ↗ maybe we'll just do all CF and now we're

2:03:13 ↗ like oh no just let them ask for an

2:03:15 ↗ exception keep it as is but schools

2:03:18 ↗ wouldn't this wouldn't apply to schools

2:03:22 ↗ they're non-residential aren't they what

2:03:26 ↗ you proposed in the park codes

2:03:28 ↗ a non-residential requires plaza true

2:03:38 ↗ I'm I'm just okay I'll be watching this

2:03:47 ↗ section so at this point it sounds like

2:03:52 ↗ we're moving we're proponent of this

2:03:54 ↗ though though we would like the council

2:03:55 ↗ to have more information on the two

2:03:59 ↗ points that we suggested as written

2:04:01 ↗ where we're in favor of this document

2:04:04 ↗ yep do we have any commentary or any

2:04:08 ↗ concerns about the proposals for the to

2:04:13 ↗ specific developers asking for

2:04:16 ↗ adjustments I would like there to Civic

2:04:19 ↗ language that the the specific allowance

2:04:24 ↗ of the assisted-living be put in block a

2:04:26 ↗ I think that's important for the

2:04:29 ↗ community but if the rest of the of my

2:04:31 ↗ fellow commissioners feel that that's

2:04:33 ↗ more of an opinion than a direction we

2:04:34 ↗ want to go that's more than fine by

2:04:36 ↗ changing the code that that's not the

2:04:39 ↗ way it's drafted right now it's just an

2:04:40 ↗ aloud use on anywhere yeah on in a non

2:04:44 ↗ residential commercial entitlement there

2:04:46 ↗ to decide where so with that would we

2:04:51 ↗ need a motion would she need a motion

2:04:53 ↗ for that no asking do we have any

2:04:57 ↗ commentary on those two plots other than

2:05:00 ↗ to say we agree with what staff has

2:05:04 ↗ recommended and we don't want to make

2:05:06 ↗ any variances and I further encourage

2:05:11 ↗ the discussion between that tell us

2:05:13 ↗ homeowners association and TriMet and

2:05:15 ↗ hope that a council can be addressed can

2:05:18 ↗ how can have something brought to it

2:05:19 ↗ that is a collaboration between the two

2:05:21 ↗ but at this point in this forum I don't

2:05:22 ↗ know how we support something other than

2:05:24 ↗ what staff is proposing I agree in the

2:05:29 ↗ staff proposal for Tallis is basically

2:05:31 ↗ to leave it with the office space yes so

2:05:35 ↗ it's it's leaving it as commercial with

2:05:39 ↗ additional uses

2:05:42 ↗ such as assisted living and we are are

2:05:49 ↗ following the sort of commission HOA

2:05:54 ↗ Property Owner discussion and at this

2:05:57 ↗ time I think as joyed aptly described it

2:06:00 ↗ it has not been resolved yet when it

2:06:03 ↗ says on the witnesses on the docket so

2:06:06 ↗ we have proposed a couple some meetings

2:06:11 ↗ with land and Shore in October and

2:06:14 ↗ November I won't go into the dates with

2:06:16 ↗ tentative adoption data in December so

2:06:19 ↗ there's some times a little bit there's

2:06:21 ↗ some time yeah excellent anything else

2:06:27 ↗ anything else with eyes any thoughts on

2:06:32 ↗ the comment on narrowed retail uses and

2:06:36 ↗ that being too prescriptive I think this

2:06:38 ↗ was number 13 so we've answered that

2:06:44 ↗ before I'm happy to answer it again I

2:06:50 ↗ think we have the uses at Issaquah

2:06:53 ↗ Highlands were exceptionally broad for

2:06:58 ↗ retail for commercial for mineral

2:07:01 ↗ extraction and asphalt processing and a

2:07:03 ↗ lot of things that I don't think that we

2:07:05 ↗ think are consistent with the character

2:07:08 ↗ it is true we are narrowing the uses

2:07:10 ↗ based on what's there and what we feel

2:07:13 ↗ is consistent with the uses that are

2:07:15 ↗ there but we have tried to retain some

2:07:18 ↗ flexibility to allow for evolution of

2:07:22 ↗ uses and uses that we don't anticipate

2:07:24 ↗ under retail or cultural facilities etc

2:07:30 ↗ okay okay I have one I know this is

2:07:36 ↗ gonna

2:07:37 ↗ I mean I go over all the staff but there

2:07:40 ↗ have been some comments and I find it

2:07:42 ↗ the same way that when I'm going through

2:07:45 ↗ and and you have a line and says a dot B

2:07:49 ↗ dot whatever C refer to some code

2:07:53 ↗ somewhere else I think that's what make

2:07:56 ↗ one of the things that makes it hard for

2:07:58 ↗ developers to go in and understand the

2:08:02 ↗ code and I was just wondering why I know

2:08:05 ↗ it would add more paperwork thickness

2:08:09 ↗ but why do you do that

2:08:11 ↗ why can't you at least put in the

2:08:13 ↗ synopsis any further information go to

2:08:18 ↗ the other document to find out what you

2:08:21 ↗ can and cannot do do you have an example

2:08:25 ↗ Joan I just want to make sure I'm

2:08:26 ↗ answering the actual question that

2:08:28 ↗ you're answering

2:08:36 ↗ it's just a question of I think you've

2:08:40 ↗ said a couple of times that you don't

2:08:45 ↗ want to make the the document too long

2:08:47 ↗ it's easier if it's in there then you

2:08:50 ↗ don't have to redo it

2:08:52 ↗ and so I want to know the basis of why

2:08:55 ↗ you do it that way I know it's just

2:08:58 ↗ wouldn't I think as a developer and I

2:09:00 ↗ think I've heard some comments that you

2:09:03 ↗ know we can't understand the code we

2:09:04 ↗ can't we have to go back and forth we're

2:09:06 ↗ not sure what it says so why wouldn't

2:09:09 ↗ you do that so at some point I well I'd

2:09:13 ↗ say two things first of all the

2:09:16 ↗ development agreements have always

2:09:17 ↗ relied on this qua municipal code for

2:09:20 ↗ the things that aren't covered and it

2:09:21 ↗ says it just basically the same way it

2:09:23 ↗ does in here and so there's obviously

2:09:26 ↗ the development agreements are bigger

2:09:28 ↗ there's more content and therefore there

2:09:31 ↗ were fewer instances of that but we've

2:09:35 ↗ always had to rely on the on parts of

2:09:39 ↗ the municipal codes such as definitions

2:09:41 ↗ and processing and public notice and

2:09:44 ↗ fence standards I mean there were all

2:09:46 ↗ kinds of things that we would have to go

2:09:48 ↗ get out of this qua Municipal Code so

2:09:51 ↗ we've been doing that for a long time

2:09:52 ↗ this is more pervasive you know that is

2:09:55 ↗ true I think at some point we hope in

2:09:58 ↗ the next couple of years to create a

2:10:02 ↗ synthesize code update the IMC integrate

2:10:06 ↗ the centralist squawk code integrate the

2:10:11 ↗ urban villages into central squad that

2:10:15 ↗ is a really big work task especially

2:10:17 ↗ with the moratorium work items that are

2:10:23 ↗ changing centrally Squa so this made

2:10:28 ↗ sense to us I understand some of the

2:10:30 ↗ challenges of using the codes together I

2:10:34 ↗ understand

2:10:36 ↗ that it's a big process but I think when

2:10:40 ↗ you're actually putting it I think it

2:10:42 ↗ all needs to be put together and it's a

2:10:44 ↗ something that should be going up closer

2:10:49 ↗ to the top of what needs to be done to

2:10:52 ↗ make everybody understand what it is and

2:10:54 ↗ how it's put together just saying

2:10:56 ↗ attachment 3 C code 45 that you know you

2:11:01 ↗ may be at some point in time before you

2:11:04 ↗ put it all together you know while

2:11:06 ↗ you're doing this you can add what it

2:11:09 ↗ actually means as a to two-sentence

2:11:11 ↗ thing not the whole old body of the code

2:11:16 ↗ and the other process okay just a

2:11:20 ↗ thought so with that so I'm going to

2:11:26 ↗ make a motion if there's we're ready for

2:11:29 ↗ that Thanks

2:11:33 ↗ so I moved PBC recommend that amendment

2:11:36 ↗ one creation of Issaquah Municipal Code

2:11:37 ↗ chapter 18 19 be urban village

2:11:40 ↗ replacement regulations be approved as

2:11:42 ↗ an amendment to the S quad Municipal

2:11:44 ↗ Code with the additional detail and

2:11:46 ↗ clarifications that we talked about here

2:11:48 ↗ tonight be included in the packet that

2:11:50 ↗ goes to counsel he's like in the motion

2:11:55 ↗ all those in favor say aye

2:11:57 ↗ any discussion that was a good motion

2:12:02 ↗ all those in favor say aye aye

2:12:06 ↗ Bost Thank You Lucy

2:12:10 ↗ thank you

2:12:13 ↗ Jen Davis is going to talk to us about

2:12:16 ↗ vertical mix used in central Issaquah I

2:12:22 ↗ already had a teaser about if they are

2:12:25 ↗ [Laughter]

2:12:31 ↗ if you're all sensuous crotch on before

2:12:38 ↗ yes it's literally like I think the last

2:12:57 ↗ five pages this is just these last five

2:13:00 ↗ code proposed code and then

2:13:05 ↗ P means permanent I assume right a

2:13:08 ↗ little buddy okay starts on page 279

2:13:12 ↗ okay yeah the last five okay and then

2:13:17 ↗ riffing off for the comment they had

2:13:19 ↗ before about like Oh like retail was too

2:13:21 ↗ narrowly defined looks like it literally

2:13:23 ↗ just says retail I kid there's no

2:13:26 ↗ there's no more narrow definition and

2:13:28 ↗ than that looking at page seven not in

2:13:30 ↗ central squat okay but it is in the

2:13:33 ↗ island that's more prescriptive we

2:13:35 ↗ earlier saw a list of uses associated

2:13:41 ↗ proposed to be associated with the UV

2:13:44 ↗ retail zone and is that a prescriptive

2:13:46 ↗ list or a yes yes yes but it did have

2:13:50 ↗ some fairly broad categories in it if I

2:13:53 ↗ recall yeah it feels off though I prefer

2:13:58 ↗ when these things are more vaguely

2:13:59 ↗ worded to allow for that was the

2:14:02 ↗ evolution of the space that was the

2:14:03 ↗ intent for central ok but we but but for

2:14:06 ↗ the Highlands we did want to be more

2:14:08 ↗ prescriptive yes there was there was a

2:14:12 ↗ list in there that specified what uses

2:14:14 ↗ would be in the retail zone come does

2:14:17 ↗ that answer your question yes okay and

2:14:20 ↗ you're on all right good evening so my

2:14:24 ↗ name is Jen Davis Hayes I work as the

2:14:25 ↗ Economic Development Manager here at the

2:14:27 ↗ city and I'm back to you tonight to

2:14:30 ↗ continue the conversation around the

2:14:31 ↗ vertical mix use code changes as part of

2:14:34 ↗ the moratorium so we'll start off this

2:14:38 ↗ talks about the schedule where we are

2:14:40 ↗ but we'll start off of responding to the

2:14:42 ↗ information that was requested at the

2:14:43 ↗ last meeting and then talk about the

2:14:45 ↗ code amendments so as you can see here

2:14:48 ↗ we are really close to the finish line

2:14:49 ↗ and this is the public here will be the

2:14:51 ↗ public hearing for the vertical

2:14:53 ↗ mixed-use changes and hope to then have

2:14:58 ↗ counsel consider adoption on October

2:15:00 ↗ 16th so that's very exciting so one of

2:15:05 ↗ the questions was to look at we had

2:15:07 ↗ mentioned that this is a project that's

2:15:08 ↗ been wrong and

2:15:10 ↗ time going we received money last spring

2:15:14 ↗ to look at this before the moratorium

2:15:15 ↗ even started so when I say last spring

2:15:18 ↗ mean 2016 and the idea was that we were

2:15:23 ↗ not seeing the development products that

2:15:25 ↗ we envisioned in the centralist call

2:15:26 ↗ area we wanted to better understand what

2:15:28 ↗ the market was like and so we actually

2:15:32 ↗ contracted with Eko Northwest to conduct

2:15:34 ↗ a study and so I pulled the information

2:15:38 ↗ out of their scope of work to understand

2:15:42 ↗ again what what we asked them to look at

2:15:44 ↗ and compared to what we asked our

2:15:46 ↗ secondary consultant to look at so again

2:15:50 ↗ this is again in response to requests

2:15:53 ↗ from the Commission to represent what

2:15:56 ↗ the scope was and then the current

2:15:59 ↗ market dynamics so again they looked at

2:16:00 ↗ more of the economics and so they did

2:16:03 ↗ come back with saying the current market

2:16:05 ↗ dynamics does not support vertical

2:16:08 ↗ mixed-use products but it's moving the

2:16:11 ↗ right direction they believed it was

2:16:12 ↗ going to be from between five and ten

2:16:14 ↗ years before that would come about the

2:16:18 ↗ second part of their scope was to look

2:16:20 ↗ at recommendations and so what I did

2:16:22 ↗ here was these are options so they did

2:16:25 ↗ not go deep into the recommendations

2:16:26 ↗ because at the time when we spoke to

2:16:28 ↗ Council they talked we talked about

2:16:30 ↗ these options and council had actually

2:16:34 ↗ through multiple conversations had come

2:16:37 ↗ to the to the conclusion that they would

2:16:39 ↗ like to instead of look at incentivizing

2:16:42 ↗ vertical mixed-use required making sure

2:16:45 ↗ that our code has the requirements that

2:16:48 ↗ when it does happen if it's five years

2:16:50 ↗ of it's three years if it's ten years it

2:16:52 ↗ happens in the form that we want to see

2:16:54 ↗ so of the options that the eco Northwest

2:16:59 ↗ presented for us that the two and blue

2:17:01 ↗ are the the ones that carried forward

2:17:03 ↗ into the next phase of this project any

2:17:06 ↗ questions about the scope and kind of

2:17:08 ↗ what EKOS north/northwest

2:17:10 ↗ did for the beginning of this project

2:17:16 ↗ so then we were directed by Council to

2:17:20 ↗ get some additional assistance for

2:17:22 ↗ through a consultant to do to look at

2:17:23 ↗ the project scope which is to develop

2:17:26 ↗ recommendations to ensure vibrant and

2:17:29 ↗ mixed-use community community develops

2:17:31 ↗ within the central its call plans so it

2:17:32 ↗ was less about looking at the market and

2:17:34 ↗ doing studies there but actually looking

2:17:36 ↗ at our code and saying does the code

2:17:38 ↗ what what changes need to be made if any

2:17:41 ↗ to ensure that when that Martin a

2:17:43 ↗ development does come that it happens so

2:17:46 ↗ again so then their recommendations are

2:17:49 ↗ to define that the sub areas where we

2:17:53 ↗ will require it and require ground-floor

2:17:55 ↗ on the on the bottom floor and then

2:17:57 ↗ define those uses a little bit and then

2:18:00 ↗ to also look at changing the base and

2:18:02 ↗ the maximum height increasing that they

2:18:06 ↗ are and then also decreasing the

2:18:08 ↗ percentage of surface parking allowed or

2:18:09 ↗ another way of saying increasing the

2:18:12 ↗ required percentage in structured

2:18:14 ↗ parking so again so it wasn't again less

2:18:16 ↗ about a market study more about looking

2:18:19 ↗ at what the site was identified what

2:18:21 ↗ things need to be in place when it does

2:18:23 ↗ redevelop it becomes what we want to see

2:18:25 ↗ any questions in general about their

2:18:28 ↗ recommendations so we were here last

2:18:31 ↗ time I yeah I have a question I don't

2:18:34 ↗ mean the sidetrack why is there so much

2:18:35 ↗ focus on first floor heights why do we

2:18:38 ↗ have that requirement and why do you

2:18:40 ↗ know it currently exists in the Central

2:18:45 ↗ School plan to look at 15 feet and so I

2:18:47 ↗ think a lot of the ideas that your first

2:18:49 ↗ floor there's a lot of additional

2:18:51 ↗ requirements for HVAC and other systems

2:18:55 ↗ and in a retail space that may not be as

2:18:57 ↗ required in an office space or

2:18:59 ↗ residential and so and if you build to

2:19:02 ↗ that level so maybe right now it may not

2:19:04 ↗ be the retail but it can easily convert

2:19:06 ↗ to that if it doesn't move forward with

2:19:08 ↗ that okay so it's similar to a

2:19:11 ↗ requirement of like say requiring you

2:19:13 ↗ know doors facing the street or

2:19:16 ↗ something like that it's even it's just

2:19:18 ↗ a developer's forced to build it that

2:19:19 ↗ way to facilitate later convertibility

2:19:21 ↗ exactly right right got it and then it

2:19:23 ↗ doesn't require like oh well I can't you

2:19:25 ↗ know I cannot cover this retail because

2:19:27 ↗ space isn't available for that so and a

2:19:30 ↗ lot of cities have done that that's

2:19:32 ↗ again that kind of transition phase so

2:19:34 ↗ again that's already in the central

2:19:35 ↗ cigar planet at 15 we believe we want to

2:19:37 ↗ give some more flexibility after 20 so

2:19:40 ↗ then the Commission asked to look at the

2:19:43 ↗ last time we talked about the

2:19:45 ↗ recommendations from Crandall Ram Beulah

2:19:47 ↗ and the staff recommendations and where

2:19:50 ↗ the difference was so again going

2:19:52 ↗ through the different recommendations

2:19:54 ↗ the one difference for the staff for our

2:19:56 ↗ recommendation was Crandall Aram Beulah

2:19:58 ↗ suggested that to limit the uses on the

2:20:01 ↗ come on the ground floor for commercial

2:20:03 ↗ to only the three categories lifted they

2:20:05 ↗ listed their food and beverage retail

2:20:07 ↗ service and retail service specifically

2:20:09 ↗ on use this is called we believe that

2:20:12 ↗ the that is pretty limiting and that we

2:20:15 ↗ should continue with what's in the

2:20:17 ↗ current urban core which is where these

2:20:19 ↗ properties exist take removing the

2:20:23 ↗ outdoor storage drive who things that

2:20:25 ↗ don't make sense for a vertical mixed

2:20:27 ↗ use area but to do require those uses

2:20:31 ↗ the food and beverage of retail services

2:20:33 ↗ from minimum distance of 30 60 feet

2:20:36 ↗ right rather from the corner so so

2:20:38 ↗ you're reserving the best the the corner

2:20:40 ↗ spaces for the types of uses you want to

2:20:42 ↗ see there but the in-between can be the

2:20:45 ↗ art gallery or the medical service or

2:20:48 ↗ the yoga studio or the massage therapist

2:20:50 ↗ type of services that are going to be

2:20:52 ↗ serving these neighborhoods that are

2:20:54 ↗ going to be build up around the vertical

2:20:55 ↗ mix use give a question which corners of

2:21:01 ↗ the building all course whichever yes

2:21:05 ↗ from and this is once on the corners

2:21:07 ↗ [Laughter]

2:21:15 ↗ all right now I was more thinking in the

2:21:18 ↗ context of page 9 where you've like

2:21:19 ↗ required frontage but this is this is

2:21:21 ↗ for all blocks or for all structures

2:21:25 ↗ so it's from the corner and now I'm

2:21:30 ↗ gonna get the corner

2:21:32 ↗ yeah it's block corners block corners

2:21:35 ↗ yes okay I guess

2:21:42 ↗ and okay then they all are there any

2:21:45 ↗ blocks that are partially vertical makes

2:21:48 ↗ use of personally not blocks in meaning

2:21:53 ↗ what we're defining is what's required

2:21:55 ↗ yeah I'm just I guess something never

2:21:57 ↗ mind I'm Superman okay wait for the map

2:22:01 ↗ okay yeah I'll restrain myself there you

2:22:04 ↗ go yeah so and so so are there any

2:22:08 ↗ questions about this or further thoughts

2:22:10 ↗ I appreciate that you showed us in more

2:22:13 ↗ depth about what changes were made I

2:22:15 ↗ think I think that the rationale makes

2:22:18 ↗ sense and that having a variety of uses

2:22:21 ↗ opens it up to more occupants and it

2:22:25 ↗ seems like a good plan I do have a

2:22:28 ↗ question when it comes to the retail

2:22:31 ↗ applications in these buildings what

2:22:34 ↗ about the businesses that deal with

2:22:39 ↗ hazardous waste like dry cleaners that's

2:22:43 ↗ clearly retail like wood and could that

2:22:46 ↗ have an impact on the safety of the

2:22:51 ↗ people that live above that because dry

2:22:53 ↗ cleaners is very toxic so I actually

2:22:56 ↗ don't know how dry cleaners are defined

2:22:59 ↗ and lost right this is the right so they

2:23:02 ↗ have right dry cleaner like retail

2:23:04 ↗ operation so a lot of the ones like the

2:23:08 ↗ Highlands didn't allow for that chemical

2:23:12 ↗ used to be done on-site so what happens

2:23:15 ↗ is for some of that stuff they actually

2:23:17 ↗ do it someplace where they can use the

2:23:19 ↗ chemicals so most likely where it's

2:23:22 ↗ happening in a mix you setting they

2:23:25 ↗ won't actually do the dry cleaning on

2:23:27 ↗ site they will

2:23:28 ↗ the laundry activities on site but the

2:23:31 ↗ dry cleaning will happen elsewhere and

2:23:33 ↗ be brought in and so if you can see in

2:23:36 ↗ this is from the central squad code that

2:23:39 ↗ the footnote 22 dry cleaning use dry

2:23:42 ↗ cleaning using the chlorinated solvents

2:23:44 ↗ is prohibited in these areas and I think

2:23:47 ↗ what's what Keith just said is a lot a

2:23:49 ↗ lot of times nowadays it's it's more of

2:23:52 ↗ a retail store storefront versus the

2:23:56 ↗ actual operations this is just a service

2:23:58 ↗ front I get it yeah that's that that's

2:24:00 ↗ kind of how that process works

2:24:03 ↗ Jenn we've been having a discussion this

2:24:05 ↗ week and you've been helping to clarify

2:24:07 ↗ my questions about this increased for

2:24:10 ↗ the building heights and I appreciate

2:24:13 ↗ the details that you've given me to try

2:24:15 ↗ to justify this change but I still have

2:24:18 ↗ some reservations about this so just

2:24:21 ↗ want to give you a heads up that well

2:24:24 ↗ we're well we're moving on I'd like to

2:24:26 ↗ go back to this this increase in the

2:24:30 ↗ later part of discussion it's by 10 feet

2:24:32 ↗ right right now it's 125 and you want to

2:24:35 ↗ go to 135 for the maximum yes'm embeds

2:24:38 ↗ including but using bonus density okay

2:24:41 ↗ okay okay so yeah and again I might be

2:24:48 ↗ jumping out on slides do we ever do we

2:24:50 ↗ have any thinking of our last the first

2:24:53 ↗ half I mean do we have minimum FAR's

2:24:58 ↗ [Laughter]

2:25:02 ↗ this is my first VMs to miss all the

2:25:06 ↗ other ones so okay yeah so so we can

2:25:08 ↗ definitely go into more the details this

2:25:10 ↗ is the generally what we're looking at

2:25:12 ↗ so increasing the FA RS for the further

2:25:14 ↗ vertical makes use across the board

2:25:15 ↗ again changing the base and the max

2:25:17 ↗ Heights creating a the floor height

2:25:22 ↗ range so 15 to 20 feet for the first

2:25:24 ↗ floor and then the parking so that's our

2:25:26 ↗ general code recommendations they are

2:25:27 ↗ reflected in your packet in these

2:25:30 ↗ different chapters again looking at how

2:25:33 ↗ we did that and you'll see in red in our

2:25:35 ↗ slide that we actually have some

2:25:38 ↗ staff proposed changes to the amendments

2:25:40 ↗ there we believe minor and that are just

2:25:45 ↗ more of making references to other

2:25:46 ↗ sections of the code so that the user is

2:25:49 ↗ able to identify that they're in a

2:25:51 ↗ overlay area and know where to go to get

2:25:52 ↗ that information so we can we can talk

2:25:54 ↗ about that information now are you can

2:25:56 ↗ we can stop here and discuss the current

2:25:58 ↗ proposal that you have in your packet

2:26:00 ↗ what would you prefer to do presenters

2:26:03 ↗ choice I'm sorry

2:26:05 ↗ Venters choice do you want to add our

2:26:06 ↗ sure I mean again these are pretty minor

2:26:09 ↗ changes that we're looking at so okay so

2:26:13 ↗ so looking at chapter four so where we

2:26:18 ↗ have the table of permitted land uses we

2:26:22 ↗ so that's pages to 82 to 85 in your

2:26:25 ↗ packets so that is merely taking what

2:26:29 ↗ currently exists and marking off that

2:26:31 ↗ there's footnotes now 23 and 24 but

2:26:34 ↗ we're looking at changing 23 to say to

2:26:37 ↗ refer to the the vertical makes vertical

2:26:42 ↗ mix use overlay what we did in that's

2:26:45 ↗ not in your packet number 23 is add in

2:26:48 ↗ the words in red as defined in Figure

2:26:50 ↗ for a so it's referring to the two maps

2:26:53 ↗ that we've added because we had some

2:26:55 ↗ feedback that again you know as the user

2:26:58 ↗ what if they don't come in through the

2:27:00 ↗ route you think they're going to come in

2:27:01 ↗ in order to look at the code information

2:27:03 ↗ so we wanted to we wanted to add some

2:27:05 ↗ more connection points so again doesn't

2:27:07 ↗ enchant change the intent of the code of

2:27:09 ↗ the changes it just makes that arrows

2:27:13 ↗ any questions that's gonna be the same

2:27:17 ↗ here we with the note adding the note in

2:27:21 ↗ red that explaining a little bit more

2:27:23 ↗ directing them to section four point

2:27:25 ↗ four district standards F again that's

2:27:27 ↗ where we do the summary and then we

2:27:31 ↗ added one more map and then you know

2:27:36 ↗ refer that M is map to the four point

2:27:39 ↗ four B which is the the map just right

2:27:42 ↗ here so I'm again making those

2:27:44 ↗ connections so that if it gives the

2:27:47 ↗ bread crumbs along the way so I think

2:27:50 ↗ again pretty simple kind of stuff right

2:27:52 ↗ so we can go down let me start from the

2:27:56 ↗ kind of the recommendations so the first

2:28:01 ↗ part of that is looking at the geography

2:28:02 ↗ and so this is our proposal is to create

2:28:06 ↗ an overlay on the hatched parcels and so

2:28:08 ↗ to give you a little idea this is our

2:28:10 ↗ zoning map so but to give you idea where

2:28:12 ↗ these are so you have on the corner of

2:28:14 ↗ 12th and Gilman is Chase Bank you have

2:28:16 ↗ Town & Country Center which includes

2:28:17 ↗ that used to be Sports Authority soon to

2:28:19 ↗ be Hobby Lobby Gold's Gym and then you

2:28:22 ↗ have the Commons coming on this side so

2:28:26 ↗ that's Trader Joe's and I have all the

2:28:29 ↗ little brand icons on our zoning map

2:28:32 ↗ right and so then the black are then so

2:28:38 ↗ you notice that it's a dotted line form

2:28:40 ↗ all streaks that's the future

2:28:42 ↗ Wall Street extension that already exist

2:28:44 ↗ in our code so we're not making up

2:28:45 ↗ anything new here and so the required

2:28:49 ↗ ground-floor would be on those on those

2:28:52 ↗ parcels along 12th on the east side

2:28:55 ↗ because on the west side is the Raleigh

2:28:57 ↗ development agreement so we can't make

2:28:59 ↗ any changes to that on the north side of

2:29:01 ↗ the future mall street and then the

2:29:04 ↗ maple part portion to Gilman so that's

2:29:06 ↗ basically in front of where Trader Joe's

2:29:09 ↗ is now and if right over the target they

2:29:13 ↗ yeah and and then I wildfin wildfin

2:29:16 ↗ thank you no that's not that way so it's

2:29:20 ↗ in that little like half block section

2:29:22 ↗ there again the Wall Street doesn't

2:29:23 ↗ exist yet so you don't see it yet why is

2:29:26 ↗ the target not sorry a lot not a target

2:29:31 ↗ is its own property it's his own

2:29:33 ↗ property and we are looking at really

2:29:36 ↗ narrowing like where we think vertical

2:29:37 ↗ makes use has to be in the commercial on

2:29:40 ↗ the ground floor and so these are just

2:29:45 ↗ didn't just to clarify so so someone

2:29:47 ↗ could redevelop he's the target as vmu

2:29:51 ↗ they're just not required anywhere in

2:29:53 ↗ the sense it's cool that allows it you

2:29:55 ↗ not saying it can only be okay so this

2:29:57 ↗ is this is this is where it's required

2:29:59 ↗ to be it certainly allowed in more place

2:30:01 ↗ yes what page is this map on we don't

2:30:07 ↗ have the second map doing no the second

2:30:11 ↗ map is actually the centralist quas

2:30:12 ↗ owning map that's in the code right now

2:30:14 ↗ we added that little footnote to it to

2:30:17 ↗ say and there's also four B which is the

2:30:19 ↗ VM you mounted and then inside of this

2:30:21 ↗ because I'm behind and so the V mu is

2:30:23 ↗ allowed and all of the red or all of the

2:30:25 ↗ red and the blue and the purple V mu

2:30:28 ↗ would be allowed in central Issaquah it

2:30:30 ↗ most of central sukwon most yeah oh but

2:30:33 ↗ they look at it okay I didn't realize

2:30:34 ↗ was that broad okay yeah I'm kind of

2:30:36 ↗ struggling with this map here which

2:30:38 ↗ would this one are the the one before

2:30:43 ↗ okay yeah that one there so it does

2:30:47 ↗ exist when I'm looking at this thing

2:30:50 ↗ black has required ground for frontages

2:30:53 ↗ which means all the rest of the red

2:30:55 ↗ could be but it's just not an actual

2:30:57 ↗ well it says urban core that could all

2:31:00 ↗ be residential this is so we could what

2:31:03 ↗ you're saying or proposing here is we

2:31:04 ↗ could essentially almost eliminate all

2:31:07 ↗ the retail operation that is going on in

2:31:11 ↗ the Commons and all of it would be then

2:31:14 ↗ funneled to the black areas they they

2:31:16 ↗ could do that currently they will they

2:31:18 ↗ do not have any intention of doing that

2:31:20 ↗ so what we are saying is that yes so

2:31:22 ↗ along the black area has to be if you're

2:31:25 ↗ going to rebuild a redevelop that

2:31:27 ↗ ground-floor person portion has to be

2:31:29 ↗ built and then the uses have to be what

2:31:31 ↗ we defined as commercial ground use the

2:31:34 ↗ additional floors can be office they can

2:31:36 ↗ be residential the back portions if

2:31:38 ↗ there's additional buildings that don't

2:31:41 ↗ fit up against those but Street can be

2:31:43 ↗ other uses but currently that's what you

2:31:45 ↗ just described could happen today so

2:31:47 ↗ we're actually requiring more versus

2:31:50 ↗ less do you want to say yeah so the so

2:31:56 ↗ we're not trying to redevelop cut the

2:31:58 ↗ Commons into a residential area that's

2:32:00 ↗ not at all the intent actually it's

2:32:02 ↗ again this kind of requires them to

2:32:04 ↗ continues to use some retail but there's

2:32:06 ↗ no intention by the common to

2:32:08 ↗ to do that so today they could actually

2:32:12 ↗ rip all that out and go with

2:32:14 ↗ high-density housing yep yeah okay but

2:32:19 ↗ they are one of our premier shopping

2:32:21 ↗ centers in Issaquah that is getting the

2:32:24 ↗ highest rent so I don't think that

2:32:25 ↗ that's a worry on this map for the issue

2:32:32 ↗ of corners I'm wondering if you can

2:32:33 ↗ point out so it all of the intersection

2:32:36 ↗ would be corners and then 60 feet within

2:32:38 ↗ those 60 feet from those corners would

2:32:41 ↗ be okay so so not not where it would

2:32:46 ↗ bend in the road but it would just be on

2:32:50 ↗ the wind yeah so there may be some

2:32:53 ↗ additional so the challenge with the

2:32:56 ↗ future Street that hasn't been defined

2:32:57 ↗ yet so is if you this might be hard to

2:33:00 ↗ read in the on the map it actually on

2:33:02 ↗ this map and the future and the

2:33:04 ↗ circulation map where where this the

2:33:06 ↗ road is plotted out it says that the the

2:33:10 ↗ actual location will be identified once

2:33:12 ↗ redevelopment happens there may be some

2:33:14 ↗ additional crop there probably will be

2:33:15 ↗ some additional cross streets that will

2:33:17 ↗ be also in place so we don't anticipate

2:33:19 ↗ that it you know again a first

2:33:22 ↗ circulation if it matters it would be

2:33:24 ↗ challenging to actually multiply yes so

2:33:29 ↗ right now central Issaquah would say

2:33:32 ↗ that the block length can only be a

2:33:33 ↗ maximum of a certain dimension which is

2:33:36 ↗ much less than that

2:33:38 ↗ thank you so they would need to either

2:33:40 ↗ provide streets to break that block up

2:33:44 ↗ or pedestrian in block connections they

2:33:48 ↗ car Road in a passion Street constitute

2:33:51 ↗ a corner I believe it would try that so

2:33:58 ↗ you've got like 300 feet of a block

2:34:01 ↗ length maximum block it's either 240 to

2:34:03 ↗ 300 somewhere in there

2:34:04 ↗ unfortunately Lucy left she would have

2:34:06 ↗ known and so we're talking about the N

2:34:09 ↗ 60s are the active retail spaces so

2:34:13 ↗ that's a 120 of that 240 right so that

2:34:16 ↗ leaves you with like 120 mid block that

2:34:19 ↗ might be

2:34:20 ↗ your insurance agent or something

2:34:23 ↗ III think that a little more not too

2:34:27 ↗ clear to make sure we look and do we

2:34:29 ↗ find what the so it's 240 to 300 is that

2:34:32 ↗ Jennifer did you find it 300 is what

2:34:34 ↗ it's coming out of my mind okay all

2:34:36 ↗ right so so yes so it said obviously

2:34:38 ↗ again we wouldn't be able to have that

2:34:40 ↗ huge building what was the reason for

2:34:43 ↗ just having a well then sorry with my

2:34:46 ↗ direction I think the normal side of the

2:34:49 ↗ future northwest mall Street I required

2:34:51 ↗ ground for plunges rather than both why

2:34:53 ↗ so one of the ideas that is not in our

2:34:57 ↗ recommendations but we're going to be

2:34:58 ↗ looking at in the future study is so one

2:35:01 ↗ of the ideas is obviously zoning and

2:35:04 ↗ codes are very important to make sure

2:35:05 ↗ that you put that you have the

2:35:07 ↗ requirements there but there the there

2:35:10 ↗ needs to be some amenities and some

2:35:11 ↗ they're there in order to encourage a

2:35:13 ↗ community to grow and so one of the

2:35:15 ↗ things that the consultants looked at is

2:35:17 ↗ for the future mall Street which is

2:35:18 ↗ again

2:35:19 ↗ already defined the Central's called

2:35:20 ↗ plan area looking at making that a

2:35:23 ↗ promenade and so a walking area where it

2:35:25 ↗ it's almost like a Linda linear park on

2:35:27 ↗ the one side and then having the retail

2:35:28 ↗ on the other and so the idea is and I

2:35:32 ↗ believe that in central pod the mall

2:35:34 ↗ Street has been envisioned as a

2:35:35 ↗ pedestrian walk I would say walkway but

2:35:38 ↗ kind of pedestrian oriented like no so I

2:35:43 ↗ think I mean so right now you you we're

2:35:46 ↗ dealing we're dealing with issues of

2:35:48 ↗ you've got too much traffic on Gilman

2:35:50 ↗ and Newport right to really make them

2:35:53 ↗ active mix you streets you want a lower

2:35:57 ↗ volume of traffic for it to be a a more

2:36:00 ↗ pedestrian friendly walking experience

2:36:03 ↗ right so if you're gonna focus where

2:36:05 ↗ you're gonna mandate mix use that's why

2:36:09 ↗ mall becomes I think a great opportunity

2:36:11 ↗ because our vision for it is it's much

2:36:14 ↗ less traffic it's much more pet oriented

2:36:17 ↗ not shirts of owner it could very well

2:36:19 ↗ be as Jen said what our consultants came

2:36:22 ↗ up with what they thought was it would

2:36:26 ↗ be much more like a promenade but I've

2:36:29 ↗ heard everything from maybe it's transit

2:36:31 ↗ only to I mean so there's a lot of

2:36:34 ↗ ideas for mall Street that still need to

2:36:36 ↗ bake a little bit yeah but that's that's

2:36:38 ↗ where you that's where you kind of make

2:36:40 ↗ the the mixed-use happen because there's

2:36:43 ↗ less traffic so that's great but are you

2:36:47 ↗ saying that but the make sure marina

2:36:49 ↗ line right are only requiring retail on

2:36:52 ↗ one yes Wall Street yes cuz the other

2:36:55 ↗ half would be more than linear I don't

2:36:57 ↗ think I don't think that makes any sense

2:36:58 ↗ I mean I'm no consultant but I think you

2:37:01 ↗ can have a great beautiful promenade

2:37:03 ↗ with retail on both sides of the street

2:37:06 ↗ and frankly I think yeah I think having

2:37:10 ↗ retail both sides the street makes her a

2:37:12 ↗ better promenade than then only the

2:37:15 ↗ consultants did say was having that that

2:37:19 ↗ Street presence and having people

2:37:22 ↗ oriented you're gonna have more of that

2:37:25 ↗ if you have multiple areas of the next

2:37:29 ↗ years which is why you wanted it to

2:37:31 ↗ curve around the corners and you

2:37:34 ↗ couldn't do it on the rally side but you

2:37:36 ↗ really hoped that it would be there on

2:37:37 ↗ the rally side right so to say we really

2:37:40 ↗ hope that it would be here on this area

2:37:43 ↗ but on this one we're just gonna say we

2:37:46 ↗ don't know also fits with me also it

2:37:51 ↗ should be sorry go ahead

2:37:52 ↗ also from the pedestrian point of view

2:37:54 ↗ it would seem to make more sense to have

2:37:56 ↗ the walkway so that you could go in and

2:37:58 ↗ out of the retail rather than have to go

2:38:00 ↗ back and forth across the street if you

2:38:01 ↗ wanted to go to a store on the on the

2:38:04 ↗ retail side and you're walking along the

2:38:05 ↗ walkway site

2:38:06 ↗ oh yeah unless it's it's no cars I mean

2:38:10 ↗ that's pretty common that you find in

2:38:11 ↗ Denver also too is that you have

2:38:13 ↗ pedestrian only and you have retail on

2:38:15 ↗ both sides yeah I think that changes it

2:38:17 ↗ because then you would have that freedom

2:38:18 ↗ but if you are having to cross across

2:38:21 ↗ the street that's that doesn't seem like

2:38:23 ↗ a very conducive walkway and it also

2:38:25 ↗ probably wouldn't add as much foot

2:38:27 ↗ traffic to the retail so it yeah and

2:38:31 ↗ again you know so part of this is we

2:38:32 ↗ didn't get into that detail of what mall

2:38:34 ↗ is gonna look like and so it's kind of

2:38:36 ↗ hard to so Harold why are we changing

2:38:38 ↗ the code when we don't know what we

2:38:39 ↗ wanted to look like I mean you're you're

2:38:41 ↗ giving it allowance so you know if we

2:38:43 ↗ allow

2:38:43 ↗ in the code we hope that it will come I

2:38:45 ↗ like that concept of this directive of

2:38:48 ↗ saying we want to make sure that we

2:38:49 ↗ allow for having the mixed use and

2:38:53 ↗ having that bridge with the retail but

2:38:55 ↗ right now when it's so unclear and but

2:38:57 ↗ yet we're writing in this is exactly

2:38:58 ↗ what it is right so two things so it is

2:39:01 ↗ defined in the code about the what the

2:39:03 ↗ standards are the street standards from

2:39:04 ↗ all are so it's so that exists right so

2:39:07 ↗ it's not like do what you want again the

2:39:10 ↗ other kind of footnote and the other

2:39:11 ↗ thing that you'll note is that these are

2:39:14 ↗ mala goes through two rather large

2:39:16 ↗ property owners right and the idea is to

2:39:20 ↗ work with a property owner upon

2:39:23 ↗ redevelopment to define what that looks

2:39:25 ↗ like a little bit more now that doesn't

2:39:26 ↗ mean we're gonna say what do you want to

2:39:27 ↗ do as your street but that that's the

2:39:29 ↗ time that we can we can require them to

2:39:31 ↗ do some of these things that maybe not

2:39:33 ↗ maybe above and beyond what's currently

2:39:36 ↗ allowed required in the in the code the

2:39:40 ↗ other pieces again so these are you know

2:39:42 ↗ there's multiple things happening

2:39:43 ↗ obviously the park strategy you know is

2:39:46 ↗ going on in our community and talking

2:39:47 ↗ about so if we're looking at so not just

2:39:49 ↗ the promenade or whatever maybe but

2:39:52 ↗ other kind of public amenities and other

2:39:54 ↗ opportunities to fill in the green

2:39:55 ↗ necklace we didn't want to go and define

2:39:58 ↗ something that then counters what the

2:40:00 ↗ park strategy is out there doing a whole

2:40:02 ↗ bunch of community involvement with

2:40:03 ↗ because we want to make sure that that's

2:40:05 ↗ aligned so we have the intention to

2:40:07 ↗ actually continue to work with our Parks

2:40:09 ↗ Department as we as we look at what this

2:40:11 ↗ area looks like and it and potential

2:40:14 ↗ future redevelopment opportunities to

2:40:17 ↗ ensure that we get again the green

2:40:18 ↗ necklace or whatever comes out of that

2:40:20 ↗ park strategy there is also some ideas

2:40:24 ↗ of looking at an urban park and such but

2:40:26 ↗ for our scope for this project we could

2:40:31 ↗ go pretty far and redesign this whole

2:40:33 ↗ area but that's not our scope and so

2:40:35 ↗ again to help me with my orientation

2:40:37 ↗ right now the corner of 12th and maple

2:40:39 ↗ is the previously held Sports Authority

2:40:41 ↗ building wealth and maple know is

2:40:45 ↗ actually a a office building so the the

2:40:49 ↗ hatch part up right the hatch part

2:40:52 ↗ starts where that is

2:40:53 ↗ and pretty much from all so it's

2:40:55 ↗ basically a you know so III have this is

2:40:58 ↗ a kind of a non sequitur the top pot

2:41:01 ↗ that's on that's on 12th in its

2:41:02 ↗ kitty-corner there has that been deemed

2:41:04 ↗ a historic building and has been

2:41:06 ↗ grandfathered in I don't believe it's

2:41:08 ↗ been deemed historic it's part of the

2:41:10 ↗ raleigh development agreement so it's

2:41:11 ↗ under different rules and regulations

2:41:13 ↗ you don't know what those rules are so

2:41:15 ↗ looking at the map right now it's so the

2:41:18 ↗ development agreement as far as what's

2:41:19 ↗ allowed there is usually for that

2:41:20 ↗ building yeah yeah for that for that for

2:41:22 ↗ that plot that's on 12th and so the

2:41:25 ↗ rally I mean I don't know if I can in

2:41:27 ↗ general the raleigh development

2:41:28 ↗ agreements pretty similar to the central

2:41:30 ↗ Issaquah idea where you're looking for a

2:41:32 ↗ mixed-use higher density so there is I

2:41:37 ↗ wouldn't know I guess let me get to let

2:41:39 ↗ me get some of my points I'm wondering

2:41:40 ↗ how much of this I'm because I'm

2:41:41 ↗ picturing it as it is now and

2:41:42 ↗ effectively the future north west wall

2:41:44 ↗ street exists though it's not a surface

2:41:46 ↗ street it goes through or like that

2:41:49 ↗ corner that corner guy that's on Gilman

2:41:51 ↗ is the Chase Bank yes so effectively the

2:41:53 ↗ rest of that is their parking lot so to

2:41:55 ↗ be able to create this all that's going

2:41:57 ↗ away we need to imagine a completely

2:41:59 ↗ demolished area where none of the none

2:42:02 ↗ of that shopping center as it currently

2:42:03 ↗ is exist other than maybe the office

2:42:07 ↗ space it's on Maple in 12 right that's

2:42:10 ↗ not paper Hobby Lobby a sense they've

2:42:12 ↗ just yeah least that out which was what

2:42:15 ↗ they said in one of the previous

2:42:17 ↗ meetings and we also you know remember

2:42:19 ↗ the market study shows that we're not

2:42:21 ↗ looking at getting this Accord in the

2:42:23 ↗ market for five to ten years so this

2:42:24 ↗ isn't something that next year or two

2:42:27 ↗ years I'm things changed so it could

2:42:29 ↗ come sooner or later but you're right

2:42:31 ↗ this there's no there's no plans like

2:42:33 ↗ we're gonna pass this and then tomorrow

2:42:35 ↗ the developers are the owners are gonna

2:42:37 ↗ be in to redevelop we're allowing for

2:42:39 ↗ this area but we really would be

2:42:41 ↗ contingent in the next decade that it's

2:42:42 ↗ completely completely redone I don't

2:42:45 ↗ know that in the next second it would be

2:42:46 ↗ completely redone I don't know if I

2:42:47 ↗ would state that what we're saying is if

2:42:50 ↗ there's going to be redevelopment there

2:42:52 ↗ it has to happen within these framework

2:42:56 ↗ so that they can't just redevelop and

2:43:00 ↗ build atlas can you put me to the other

2:43:03 ↗ half there yeah did you say they can't

2:43:04 ↗ just build a central sequoias zoning map

2:43:13 ↗ yep and so can you point out where QFC

2:43:15 ↗ is for me on this on this map right now

2:43:17 ↗ so so so we have that's where we come

2:43:23 ↗ down so when we've had discussions about

2:43:26 ↗ where light rail is coming in and we've

2:43:29 ↗ allowed for you know for Sound Transit

2:43:31 ↗ to do what they want wherever they want

2:43:33 ↗ because we want to give them that

2:43:33 ↗ freedom as they've requested this has

2:43:35 ↗ been a parcel of land that's been talked

2:43:37 ↗ about as a possible site for this so has

2:43:40 ↗ this been accounted for in this this red

2:43:43 ↗ overlay as being the area that's been

2:43:46 ↗ highly discussed for transit coming in

2:43:47 ↗ so yes so in general so what I will say

2:43:50 ↗ when when Sound Transit did its work for

2:43:52 ↗ st3 diffident off' i'd this parcel area

2:43:55 ↗ to do for the cost the other point to

2:43:59 ↗ note is that they have never a sighted a

2:44:01 ↗ station where they have identified it at

2:44:03 ↗ this early stage right so so doesn't

2:44:05 ↗ mean it won't be there but i'm just

2:44:07 ↗ saying it never happened yet they just

2:44:09 ↗ they just need to look at some of the

2:44:10 ↗ characteristics of what the light rail

2:44:12 ↗ station would be like etc so we are

2:44:15 ↗ consultants crandall arambula who also

2:44:17 ↗ have worked with us the city for the

2:44:20 ↗ architecture overview and design

2:44:21 ↗ guidelines have thought about where

2:44:23 ↗ light rail is going and we and we

2:44:26 ↗ believe again that the area we've

2:44:27 ↗ identified is gonna be close to where

2:44:29 ↗ we'll be it will most likely be within

2:44:32 ↗ that you know urban core

2:44:33 ↗ Tibbits valley gilman district so we

2:44:39 ↗ when we were looking over some of the

2:44:41 ↗ earlier information on vertical mixed

2:44:43 ↗ use and why it hadn't already come in

2:44:46 ↗ one of the things was that one and I

2:44:49 ↗ think three mile radius

2:44:51 ↗ number of households and things like

2:44:53 ↗ that

2:44:54 ↗ yeah so that still that still isn't

2:44:59 ↗ going to be in place even if we put in

2:45:01 ↗ the requirement no but it is changing so

2:45:05 ↗ at the time we did those studies last

2:45:07 ↗ summer atlas

2:45:08 ↗ wasn't there gateway wasn't there in his

2:45:12 ↗ word bail you know so the so that

2:45:15 ↗ density residential density is coming

2:45:18 ↗ but again it's not it's not to the full

2:45:21 ↗ bill that obviously but I'm moving in

2:45:23 ↗ the right direction I think that's the

2:45:24 ↗ thing that echo Northwest said is things

2:45:26 ↗ are moving the right direction and you

2:45:28 ↗ know nobody can really truly be the

2:45:30 ↗ predictors of the you know crystal ball

2:45:32 ↗ but well I was just gonna say I think

2:45:35 ↗ that the five years doesn't seem like a

2:45:37 ↗ very long time to wait especially when

2:45:40 ↗ having these changes will take time and

2:45:43 ↗ they're major changes so I don't think

2:45:46 ↗ that I five years to me seems like

2:45:50 ↗ planning for that makes good sense at

2:45:52 ↗ this point but that's also not so

2:45:54 ↗ distant in the future that you know that

2:45:58 ↗ planning for the sound transit and so on

2:46:00 ↗ yeah I think it makes sense at this

2:46:02 ↗ point I think we should be even more

2:46:03 ↗ aspirational and and put retail on both

2:46:07 ↗ sides of the mall Street and just say

2:46:14 ↗ aspirationally this is what we this is

2:46:16 ↗ what we envision because if we don't

2:46:17 ↗ actually ask for it now people won't be

2:46:20 ↗ thinking that this is requirements

2:46:26 ↗ required but it's aspirational in the

2:46:28 ↗ sense of if you put it on both sides and

2:46:30 ↗ then just like nothing happens for ten

2:46:32 ↗ years we can revisit it but I I so i

2:46:35 ↗ think it's aspirational in that sense

2:46:37 ↗ but i i'm i agree i think we should

2:46:39 ↗ require it on both sides of mall Jen I'm

2:46:42 ↗ sorry I'm so obsessed with that other

2:46:43 ↗ map can you point out you may because

2:46:46 ↗ I'm like oh can you point out where the

2:46:48 ↗ post office is for me so it's always

2:46:51 ↗ confusing so I think it's like right in

2:46:52 ↗ here is that about right outside no

2:46:55 ↗ actually right it's right here it's

2:46:57 ↗ actually right there yeah that's that a

2:46:58 ↗ little bit to the left of the white tree

2:47:01 ↗ I think

2:47:01 ↗ no that's the entrance right now

2:47:05 ↗ all that land right now and all that

2:47:07 ↗ road closure I have that you know what

2:47:09 ↗ it's all it's all designated a mixed-use

2:47:11 ↗ right now yep okay

2:47:15 ↗ so the answer to rally development

2:47:19 ↗ agreement so that parcel is identified

2:47:22 ↗ as mixed use within the mixed use zone

2:47:27 ↗ they can go up to ten stories and it

2:47:31 ↗ allows for obviously a mix of uses it

2:47:36 ↗ goes up to ten stories and again and

2:47:38 ↗ clarifying is that 125 feet in the rally

2:47:41 ↗ development around it's a hundred and

2:47:43 ↗ twenty five feet thank you for looking

2:47:45 ↗ that up yep I'll leave my laptop on I

2:47:51 ↗ started go back to the other map I just

2:47:57 ↗ wanted I guess a couple thoughts the

2:47:59 ↗ idea of putting the you know vertical

2:48:02 ↗ mix cues on both sides of Wall Street so

2:48:05 ↗ I guess two questions one is in

2:48:08 ↗ discussion about only putting it on one

2:48:11 ↗ side was that there was a thought that

2:48:12 ↗ if we required it on this on the south

2:48:15 ↗ side or whatever the bottom side on that

2:48:20 ↗ cuts too much into those existing

2:48:22 ↗ parcels and makes those less usable or

2:48:26 ↗ was it really just a or was there not

2:48:27 ↗ that much about that we heard at that

2:48:30 ↗ point I think that was I mean and part

2:48:32 ↗ of it too

2:48:33 ↗ could be that you're looking at building

2:48:35 ↗ so this is again this is the nape will

2:48:37 ↗ tend to be neighborhood serving retail

2:48:39 ↗ and so having too much is challenging so

2:48:43 ↗ if you think about the downtown's you

2:48:44 ↗ know you have a couple blocks of it and

2:48:46 ↗ that's about the right amount for people

2:48:48 ↗ who want to walk and receive those

2:48:50 ↗ services so it might have been also you

2:48:52 ↗ know they calculated how much square

2:48:54 ↗ footage it was in here and kind of

2:48:56 ↗ thought about the market and thought

2:48:57 ↗ that that made sense so I need to

2:49:00 ↗ clarify what I said earlier so the so

2:49:04 ↗ ten stories is what they're allowed so

2:49:07 ↗ under five point two

2:49:10 ↗ Appendix C of the rally development

2:49:12 ↗ agreement which says criteria for height

2:49:14 ↗ increase a building may be increased to

2:49:18 ↗ 12 stories or a hundred and fifty feet

2:49:20 ↗ from finished grade if there is a

2:49:23 ↗ mid-rise building five to nine stories

2:49:26 ↗ already constructed within the

2:49:27 ↗ neighborhood or there is or maybe that's

2:49:31 ↗ an and/or and I'm not sure there's no

2:49:34 ↗ transition there is not another

2:49:37 ↗ high-rise within 110 feet of the

2:49:39 ↗ proposed building so they can go up to

2:49:41 ↗ 150 feet if there's another if there's a

2:49:46 ↗ mid rise and not another high-rise

2:49:48 ↗ within a hundred and ten horizontal feet

2:49:51 ↗ what's considered the neighborhood the

2:49:53 ↗ Riley development agreement area or the

2:49:55 ↗ Tibbets Valley they have two

2:49:56 ↗ neighborhoods

2:49:57 ↗ hila and rally Center okay so but not

2:50:00 ↗ like it not like across the street and

2:50:02 ↗ then outside their development agreement

2:50:03 ↗ if there's a building all right so not

2:50:05 ↗ like it something's here that's not

2:50:06 ↗ going to go to our building yeah okay

2:50:10 ↗ I'm sorry I'm sure we're going to

2:50:12 ↗ continue this discussion about some

2:50:14 ↗ about the vertical mixed-use but I want

2:50:16 ↗ to give the opportunity maybe for Joan

2:50:18 ↗ to open it up to public comments it's oh

2:50:20 ↗ okay no no I mean so we didn't go

2:50:25 ↗ through all of them but the public with

2:50:28 ↗ the pond I can definitely sit down and

2:50:30 ↗ we can continue okay I officially open

2:50:32 ↗ this up for public comment you'd like to

2:50:35 ↗ sign the clipboard 135 is too high it

2:50:51 ↗ should be 125

2:50:52 ↗ I will I doubt I live to see a day where

2:50:56 ↗ we have rally going to a hundred and

2:50:59 ↗ fifty but you know I mean that you know

2:51:02 ↗ 30 years from now be dead so there we go

2:51:04 ↗ maybe 40 the question of how close can

2:51:11 ↗ tall buildings be together in the

2:51:13 ↗ central Issaquah plan and did the rally

2:51:16 ↗ hundred feet separation carry through -

2:51:19 ↗ that would be sort of an interesting

2:51:21 ↗ question for this

2:51:22 ↗ particular area because we're sort of

2:51:24 ↗ focusing on it is more dense and

2:51:26 ↗ allowing these hundred and thirty-five

2:51:28 ↗ foot buildings and I frankly don't

2:51:30 ↗ remember

2:51:30 ↗ and then I'm even because I'm hungry I'm

2:51:33 ↗ tired and I'm cranky is there anybody

2:51:39 ↗ else that would like to see me sing

2:51:41 ↗ nobody else I close the public hearing

2:51:44 ↗ and go back to Lucy's Thank You Connie a

2:51:52 ↗ quick question sorry thank you thank you

2:51:55 ↗ for hearing actually a concern on the

2:51:59 ↗ corner of East Maple and North West

2:52:03 ↗ maple and Newport there is a wetlands

2:52:08 ↗ and this looks like this isn't built out

2:52:10 ↗ for building so that's not what this

2:52:16 ↗ intent so this map does not include

2:52:18 ↗ wetlands or parks agrees this is the

2:52:20 ↗ zoning map so currently that area is

2:52:22 ↗ zoned urban core but you could not

2:52:24 ↗ develop it because you wouldn't be able

2:52:26 ↗ to you know you're it's a wetland so

2:52:28 ↗ this is not intended to say it's just

2:52:31 ↗ because that's all one parcel you can't

2:52:33 ↗ just half you know you can't do an

2:52:35 ↗ overlay on part part of something okay

2:52:37 ↗ yeah I see yeah

2:52:39 ↗ but but you know again just like any

2:52:41 ↗ other parcel in the in the central area

2:52:44 ↗ they can't just build on it because

2:52:45 ↗ their zoning there right so when we were

2:52:48 ↗ discussing this central area plan and

2:52:50 ↗ there was a desire to put something like

2:52:53 ↗ 7,500 units or people in there have you

2:52:57 ↗ divided it you know if you put that

2:53:00 ↗ there do you not have to put ten story

2:53:05 ↗ building someplace else I mean how is

2:53:07 ↗ how we how do you make sure that you're

2:53:10 ↗ going to get that density unless you

2:53:14 ↗ have some idea where you're going to put

2:53:16 ↗ it you can't just say I'm going to put

2:53:18 ↗ five story buildings there and then only

2:53:21 ↗ get three stories of how do you do this

2:53:26 ↗ so the way that it works is for us to

2:53:29 ↗ get designated as a regional growth

2:53:32 ↗ center it's about buildable lands so we

2:53:35 ↗ have to have the

2:53:36 ↗ owning in place that allows the capacity

2:53:38 ↗ it doesn't have to guarantee its

2:53:41 ↗ fruition right so so if we have the

2:53:45 ↗ capacity that allows for 10 storey

2:53:47 ↗ buildings doesn't mean that everybody

2:53:49 ↗ unless we mandate it that everybody has

2:53:51 ↗ to build 10 storey buildings we you know

2:53:54 ↗ the way that it actually plays out will

2:53:56 ↗ probably be much less than that over

2:53:58 ↗ time if we get to a point where now we

2:54:02 ↗ no longer can meet our target for the

2:54:05 ↗ regional growth center we might have to

2:54:07 ↗ provide some additional zoning somewhere

2:54:09 ↗ else within the regional growth center

2:54:11 ↗ to accomplish that but that would happen

2:54:13 ↗ at a later point or long ways away from

2:54:16 ↗ that like 30 years away from that

2:54:18 ↗ 50 years away from that true but if you

2:54:21 ↗ I won't be here to worry about that

2:54:25 ↗ [Laughter]

2:54:29 ↗ wants to build a five storey building

2:54:31 ↗ yep and over here you have another

2:54:34 ↗ developer that only wants to do a five

2:54:36 ↗ storey building and so all the land is

2:54:38 ↗ built

2:54:39 ↗ oh you can't come back and then so so

2:54:45 ↗ the right now I understand so the the

2:54:49 ↗ buildable lands analysis doesn't happen

2:54:52 ↗ once every 30 years I mean we're doing

2:54:54 ↗ it again next year so what happens is on

2:54:57 ↗ and I don't know the frequency I want to

2:54:59 ↗ say it might be on a five year cycle we

2:55:01 ↗ go back and look at what our what's our

2:55:04 ↗ buildable lands and can we accommodate

2:55:07 ↗ the capacity that we're planning okay so

2:55:09 ↗ that's what I'm asking it happens more

2:55:12 ↗ frequently then and I haven't really

2:55:13 ↗ seen that kind of presentation I've seen

2:55:16 ↗ you know this little swatch and maybe

2:55:19 ↗ this little swatch over here but I

2:55:20 ↗ haven't seen a central area wide plan

2:55:24 ↗ for where it's gonna go good good

2:55:27 ↗ question it's coming right well so it's

2:55:34 ↗ so it's there in the zoning way I mean

2:55:37 ↗ the zoning allows for certain density

2:55:41 ↗ and number of units to be built and so

2:55:44 ↗ now we wait we will be actually wait for

2:55:46 ↗ property owners to decide to do sure

2:55:48 ↗ that that's what's gonna determine it

2:55:51 ↗ but you still have to have some kind of

2:55:54 ↗ idea that maybe it'll work you can

2:55:58 ↗ always well gee I'm getting five stories

2:56:00 ↗ here and I really need more so I will up

2:56:02 ↗ zone right this area to to provide for

2:56:05 ↗ it so yes and right now you know because

2:56:09 ↗ there's also the density bonus program

2:56:11 ↗ it's kind of like there's capacity and

2:56:14 ↗ then there's even capacity beyond the

2:56:15 ↗ capacity so you've created this kind of

2:56:18 ↗ scenario that can now unfold as we go

2:56:22 ↗ through actualization of development in

2:56:27 ↗ central Issaquah we will know whether

2:56:29 ↗ we're falling short of the goal line or

2:56:31 ↗ still going beyond right now we don't

2:56:33 ↗ know because what's happened hasn't been

2:56:36 ↗ there's been nothing in the core i think

2:56:39 ↗ alice is outside the core gateways

2:56:41 ↗ outside the core you know there's no

2:56:43 ↗ reason for us to change anything yet

2:56:45 ↗ because nothing's happened so we're

2:56:47 ↗ waiting for that development to start

2:56:50 ↗ happening in the core now we're putting

2:56:52 ↗ a lot of other things in place in the

2:56:55 ↗ meantime while we're waiting you know

2:56:56 ↗ we're adding regulations or requiring

2:56:58 ↗ structured parking we're doing a bunch

2:56:59 ↗ of stuff but you're right once things

2:57:03 ↗ start building in the core we will be

2:57:06 ↗ able to understand whether we're gonna

2:57:08 ↗ meet our targets or whether we're gonna

2:57:09 ↗ fall short and if we fall short we're

2:57:11 ↗ gonna have to do some measures some

2:57:12 ↗ countermeasures to help us get to where

2:57:15 ↗ we want to be I just want to don't want

2:57:18 ↗ to get into situations where we don't

2:57:21 ↗ have the code we don't have the

2:57:22 ↗ regulations written where we can have a

2:57:24 ↗ gas station in the middle of somewhere

2:57:27 ↗ like the storage units well we had to

2:57:30 ↗ put it there because we didn't have the

2:57:32 ↗ codes written to prevent it from being

2:57:35 ↗ there right so those are the kind of

2:57:37 ↗ things that I'm concerned about not

2:57:39 ↗ exactly the height or or if we hit the

2:57:42 ↗ target I want to make sure that the what

2:57:44 ↗ goes in there is something that we

2:57:47 ↗ really

2:57:48 ↗ at the community so that gets to the the

2:57:53 ↗ land-use tables that are in your packet

2:57:55 ↗ and page 2 to 82 to 85 is there any

2:58:00 ↗ questions or comments or concerns with

2:58:01 ↗ what we chose to it to amend well if you

2:58:05 ↗ still have storage units still allowed

2:58:06 ↗ right yes yes we removed like more again

2:58:13 ↗ this the outdoor storage and drive

2:58:16 ↗ throughs that are obviously not intended

2:58:18 ↗ to be an epidural you know there may be

2:58:21 ↗ that storage units are again so you

2:58:23 ↗ can't have them on the ground floor

2:58:25 ↗ you need to have again those at least in

2:58:27 ↗ the first 60 feet on either side of the

2:58:30 ↗ intersection those more active uses you

2:58:34 ↗ could have it above why can you not have

2:58:37 ↗ tractors why they might have been

2:58:40 ↗ removed from the code because if you're

2:58:42 ↗ trying to create a pedestrian oriented

2:58:44 ↗ location it's our environment to have a

2:58:47 ↗ drive through building or they're gonna

2:58:49 ↗ how you orient that orient that well use

2:58:51 ↗ the chance as an example they have a

2:58:53 ↗ drive through on the corner there I

2:58:55 ↗ think the chase is not an example if you

2:59:01 ↗ have an area where you're encouraging

2:59:03 ↗ people to be on the sidewalk to walk on

2:59:05 ↗ the sidewalk to have outdoor cafes then

2:59:06 ↗ you have a curb cut in between because

2:59:09 ↗ the cars need to go through it's not

2:59:12 ↗ that of the mindset and I'm not a

2:59:13 ↗ planner so it looks like keith is

2:59:15 ↗ currently future mall street yes does

2:59:17 ↗ allow cars right as written in the code

2:59:20 ↗ yeah though and you're hoping to divert

2:59:23 ↗ traffic from Newport and Gilman and put

2:59:25 ↗ it on future Northwest mall Street I

2:59:27 ↗ believe you said earlier I don't think I

2:59:31 ↗ said that no no no you went you through

2:59:33 ↗ traffic on Gilman you want to you want

2:59:34 ↗ to keep it on on the roads that are

2:59:36 ↗ pushing cars on future Northwest mall

2:59:40 ↗ Street maybe maybe so that's a

2:59:42 ↗ conversation we'll still have but I

2:59:44 ↗ think the point is you know if you're if

2:59:47 ↗ you're trying to create something more

2:59:49 ↗ like Ballard you know where you've got

2:59:52 ↗ you've got a

2:59:54 ↗ Pub next to a restaurant next to maybe

2:59:57 ↗ the dry cleaners you know in theory

2:59:59 ↗ you're trying to attract a more a less

3:00:02 ↗ car-dependent portion of our city to

3:00:06 ↗ actually live and and create that their

3:00:09 ↗ neighborhood right and so how does

3:00:11 ↗ Starbucks with the drive-through fit

3:00:14 ↗ into that image when because now you've

3:00:17 ↗ got curb cuts for the drive-through you

3:00:19 ↗ know you're just you're you're spacing

3:00:21 ↗ out that land use for people to stay in

3:00:25 ↗ their car and not to get out and

3:00:27 ↗ actually go into the coffee shop

3:00:29 ↗ I think you'd much rather have a copy

3:00:30 ↗ shop that's oriented to the sidewalk you

3:00:33 ↗ know this gets back to the conversation

3:00:34 ↗ we had the other day about the doors on

3:00:37 ↗ the back side and are those really

3:00:39 ↗ additive or are they subtractive to the

3:00:42 ↗ street front so I'm just thinking of

3:00:45 ↗ even just just in that block there's

3:00:47 ↗ three banks I believe all with Drive

3:00:50 ↗ thrus right there where are you

3:00:51 ↗ proposing that if I if I need to use a

3:00:53 ↗ if a bank wants to go into this red zone

3:00:56 ↗ then you have to get Park and get out of

3:00:59 ↗ your car to be able to utilize that bank

3:01:02 ↗ very small area right so the banks can

3:01:04 ↗ can locate in any other area in the city

3:01:06 ↗ where Drive thrus are like currently

3:01:08 ↗ there I mean what I'm saying and they're

3:01:10 ↗ really serving a need yeah but there's a

3:01:13 ↗ lot of banks I mean the bank I go to on

3:01:15 ↗ Lake Mont has no drive-thru it's a walk

3:01:17 ↗ I think I think these these regulations

3:01:24 ↗ were written further when the time comes

3:01:26 ↗ when that Bank gets torn down and

3:01:28 ↗ replaced with like an eight story

3:01:29 ↗ building not now what not when not for

3:01:32 ↗ when it's not so the bank can be

3:01:33 ↗ remodeled and no conscience change of

3:01:36 ↗ the code it's because you're trying to

3:01:37 ↗ change the way that people are using a

3:01:39 ↗ space and clustering into this area and

3:01:42 ↗ the building so there's still I mean so

3:01:47 ↗ joy there's still other than in the

3:01:50 ↗ areas that are hatched there's still a

3:01:53 ↗ lot of other places within central is a

3:01:54 ↗ cloud that you can put a drive-through

3:01:56 ↗ Starbucks that drive-through bank

3:01:57 ↗ drive-through facilities that's why we

3:02:00 ↗ didn't do the whole area we just did a

3:02:03 ↗ sub right area it's kind of maybe hard

3:02:06 ↗ to see the hatching

3:02:07 ↗ you know on this super hard yeah but

3:02:09 ↗ it's yeah right in here so yeah you get

3:02:12 ↗ three parcels right so everywhere else

3:02:15 ↗ in central I think also the

3:02:19 ↗ drive-thru concept doesn't mesh very

3:02:21 ↗ well with the vertical mixed-use because

3:02:23 ↗ if you have a drive-thru you're just

3:02:25 ↗ you're specifically avoiding going into

3:02:27 ↗ that building and you're then leaving so

3:02:30 ↗ you're not even considering what what

3:02:32 ↗ the other uses of that building are so

3:02:34 ↗ it seems counterintuitive to have a

3:02:37 ↗ drive-thru to me you know if they are is

3:02:40 ↗ a certain amount of floor area to car

3:02:45 ↗ specific surface parking yeah but you

3:02:48 ↗ will have cash or shape that's true

3:02:58 ↗ picture you chicken yeah our phones or

3:03:01 ↗ something we thought about the uses that

3:03:03 ↗ would not be permitted in this area so

3:03:07 ↗ again we followed what the urban core

3:03:09 ↗ currently does not allow in this area

3:03:12 ↗ again the things that we did take out

3:03:15 ↗ are the drive throughs and the outdoor

3:03:17 ↗ storage which don't seem to make sense

3:03:18 ↗ for vertical mixed-use we didn't do we

3:03:20 ↗ decided not so going through and

3:03:23 ↗ recreating all the all the analysis and

3:03:26 ↗ the efforts of creating as a central

3:03:28 ↗ squat plan in the land-use table we

3:03:30 ↗ didn't feel that wasn't necessary to

3:03:31 ↗ redo that whole process but to take

3:03:34 ↗ looking at what what the great work and

3:03:36 ↗ thinking that's went into it for how

3:03:38 ↗ many years look at Joan is it five seven

3:03:40 ↗ ten years and and refined that rather

3:03:44 ↗ than go and pick apart and relook at

3:03:47 ↗ everything yeah so can we talk about

3:03:52 ↗ either the FAR's or sea surface parking

3:03:58 ↗ / sure okay when I jump into the stuff

3:04:03 ↗ yeah yeah

3:04:05 ↗ okay so again what we're proposing to do

3:04:08 ↗ is to have a second table beyond below

3:04:11 ↗ what the current table and to again

3:04:14 ↗ really clearly call out if you're in the

3:04:16 ↗ vertical mixed use overlay again three

3:04:18 ↗ parcels right now

3:04:19 ↗ what that requires and so we working

3:04:23 ↗ with the consultants again they did a

3:04:25 ↗ lot of analysis to get to this right so

3:04:27 ↗ and what you may have missed before is

3:04:29 ↗ is they and actually when they went to

3:04:32 ↗ the council work session more so they

3:04:34 ↗ walk through that analysis a bit more

3:04:36 ↗ and showed okay

3:04:37 ↗ current under the current code you know

3:04:39 ↗ you can build this kind of smaller

3:04:41 ↗ building with lots of surface parking

3:04:42 ↗ right and that's again currently allowed

3:04:45 ↗ by the you see you know urban core FA RS

3:04:48 ↗ but what you really want and what is

3:04:50 ↗ necessary for to be successful for for a

3:04:53 ↗ vertical mixed-use building because of

3:04:55 ↗ the additional costs is to have to to

3:04:59 ↗ you know they and they presented the

3:05:00 ↗ lots of pictures of vertical mixed-use

3:05:02 ↗ buildings that you've seen all over the

3:05:05 ↗ the area and in order to make that all

3:05:08 ↗ calculate out basically these are the FA

3:05:11 ↗ RS and height limits that they are

3:05:14 ↗ recommending to be successful so as we

3:05:17 ↗ mentioned it goes for thee so now

3:05:20 ↗ remember minimum is minimum base is

3:05:25 ↗ actually the maximum before you go into

3:05:27 ↗ using the bonus density and then the

3:05:30 ↗ maximum is truly how far you can go with

3:05:32 ↗ the bonus density so it's I think it's a

3:05:35 ↗ little confusing the base seems like

3:05:36 ↗ that's where you have to be you're you

3:05:37 ↗ know so the minimum is a 2.5 then the

3:05:41 ↗ maximum as I will call it here right now

3:05:44 ↗ where you can go before you touch the

3:05:46 ↗ the the bonus density is 5.0 and then

3:05:50 ↗ looking at the maximum 8.0 and so the

3:05:54 ↗ the and then again that carries through

3:05:57 ↗ with the the base height and the maximum

3:05:59 ↗ height again all calculating that

3:06:01 ↗ together to make the building feasible

3:06:03 ↗ as opposed to having a point 5 5 FA are

3:06:06 ↗ but we want you to be more than one

3:06:08 ↗ story still requiring 10% pervious same

3:06:15 ↗ yeah it's up to its it's I think it's oh

3:06:18 ↗ yeah and it's 91 yeah they're right over

3:06:20 ↗ yeah you're how will you do that if

3:06:24 ↗ you're build two lines are

3:06:26 ↗ zero zero and ten that's currently what

3:06:31 ↗ the urban core is so how do we do that

3:06:33 ↗ in there of course it's landscaping it's

3:06:34 ↗ what the only build to the front

3:06:39 ↗ the others are setbacks right if you're

3:06:43 ↗ in a block so so you have to build you

3:06:46 ↗ have to have you have to be at the

3:06:47 ↗ street anymore now if you're on a corner

3:06:49 ↗ because it's not a round block you gotta

3:06:51 ↗ be on two streets but the backside is

3:06:54 ↗ where you're gonna have probably your

3:06:56 ↗ loading zone it's going to be where you

3:06:58 ↗ that one plant that one tree that we

3:07:01 ↗ make you plants gonna be you know

3:07:02 ↗ looking kind of wilty that stuff so I'll

3:07:05 ↗ be behind the building so we're gonna

3:07:07 ↗ have 10% for the record I would

3:07:11 ↗ appreciate one of those on Maple and the

3:07:12 ↗ new round about strike that from the

3:07:19 ↗ record I think that's it yeah so that's

3:07:25 ↗ what's good that I don't see why if this

3:07:29 ↗ is our true well mini ballad that we're

3:07:33 ↗ building out I don't see why we can't

3:07:34 ↗ have though just those specific lots not

3:07:38 ↗ all centric oh don't don't yell at me

3:07:40 ↗ yet join but I think those specific Lots

3:07:42 ↗ I don't see why you can't we can't go to

3:07:43 ↗ hundred percent because good I think you

3:07:46 ↗ want to build the building and then you

3:07:48 ↗ and then it what it should be flush with

3:07:49 ↗ the two buildings next to it I I don't

3:07:51 ↗ know that the administration would push

3:07:53 ↗ back on that I'm not sure we're gonna

3:07:56 ↗ fall on a sword over that but I'm not

3:07:58 ↗ sure we would argue with that

3:08:01 ↗ suggestion if the Commission wanted to

3:08:03 ↗ do that why is that I want to what is it

3:08:09 ↗ remind me central Issaquah give me give

3:08:11 ↗ me the numbers compared to so this is

3:08:13 ↗ strictly for our overlays right so these

3:08:16 ↗ isn't just all the red on the map this

3:08:17 ↗ is just for our overlays correct right

3:08:19 ↗ yes and what is it current what what is

3:08:22 ↗ it in the red and give me in their core

3:08:24 ↗ oh it says one give me the give me the

3:08:26 ↗ versus numbers change 95 percent 95 this

3:08:32 ↗ is lower no we didn't change this

3:08:34 ↗ well this should be okay so only 10%

3:08:43 ↗ what's wrong there's a typo because we

3:08:48 ↗ didn't check

3:08:49 ↗ we didn't change them but her visa so

3:08:51 ↗ now we're talking about 5% okay so now

3:08:53 ↗ your staff recommended correction yeah

3:09:00 ↗ so we didn't change we didn't change

3:09:02 ↗ these at all we change the height Mac

3:09:07 ↗ I'm sorry it's the height maximum we

3:09:09 ↗ didn't change the height maximum has

3:09:11 ↗ changed yes basis train this it was

3:09:14 ↗ changed oh sorry that was a typo so we

3:09:16 ↗ can correct that bill to one that's

3:09:18 ↗ supposed to be 95 or 98 it should be 95

3:09:20 ↗ we did not change you're looking at 5%

3:09:23 ↗ realistically that's five feet of dirt

3:09:28 ↗ in front of a building that's if they

3:09:34 ↗ back it up 10 feet that could

3:09:36 ↗ incorporate some green space you've got

3:09:37 ↗ your setbacks which Keith alluded to

3:09:39 ↗ that could also add green space they

3:09:42 ↗ have any surface parking they're gonna

3:09:43 ↗ have to have required landscaping as

3:09:44 ↗ part of this so just depending on what

3:09:47 ↗ the make out of the developments gonna

3:09:48 ↗ be they're gonna be certain green

3:09:50 ↗ requirements that may or may not get

3:09:54 ↗ them to a total of 95 percent that could

3:09:56 ↗ be a tree in the middle of the sidewalk

3:09:58 ↗ no not I'm a sidewalk not if it's public

3:10:01 ↗ it has to be on the tree yes are there

3:10:12 ↗ plaza or park requirements are not

3:10:14 ↗ applicable right now correct those are

3:10:16 ↗ requirements in syndra let's have caught

3:10:17 ↗ for community spaces both private and

3:10:19 ↗ public but what about for they were not

3:10:23 ↗ they're not proposing to change any of

3:10:25 ↗ those requirements associated with what

3:10:27 ↗ for community spaces on those properties

3:10:30 ↗ all right that's the same it's just

3:10:32 ↗ these development standards plus an

3:10:34 ↗ extra 5% for impervious the question is

3:10:36 ↗ if a developer put a green space on the

3:10:42 ↗ roof

3:10:43 ↗ and then had pervious surface underneath

3:10:46 ↗ the building to absorb water which is

3:10:49 ↗ like what's over here on Newport that

3:10:51 ↗ were suffice for the five percent you

3:10:54 ↗ could actually do it that way and not

3:10:56 ↗ have actually any visible green space so

3:11:02 ↗ so anything that prevents water from

3:11:04 ↗ infiltrating the soil but that's at this

3:11:08 ↗ point you can have a green roof that

3:11:09 ↗ then filters naturally to a reservoir

3:11:12 ↗ underneath right now with that false

3:11:14 ↗ Isis exact same thing okay in that case

3:11:19 ↗ we're talking five percent people no no

3:11:21 ↗ I think I disagree I think I think this

3:11:24 ↗ I think for this year I think this is

3:11:25 ↗ important because I think requiring some

3:11:28 ↗ impervious or a surface specifically

3:11:30 ↗ prevents build building a full build-out

3:11:34 ↗ which is which is which is what I'm

3:11:36 ↗ envisioning for the OCLC you're five

3:11:39 ↗ percent and I'll raise you the ten feet

3:11:41 ↗ I'm will go to the hundred percent for

3:11:43 ↗ an impervious surface and we do not

3:11:45 ↗ maximize to 135 feet can you go through

3:11:52 ↗ the explanation again for why you moved

3:11:55 ↗ it to the 135 Oh

3:11:56 ↗ build a coalition okay so we're done

3:12:02 ↗ talking impervious or so we will correct

3:12:04 ↗ so we will go back and press that and

3:12:09 ↗ then of course if you recommend

3:12:10 ↗ something different we will do that so

3:12:14 ↗ again looking at whatever we want to see

3:12:18 ↗ for the built for the building for the

3:12:20 ↗ floor Heights again trying to get an

3:12:23 ↗ increased on the ground floor and

3:12:25 ↗ looking at we were looking at six and

3:12:29 ↗ ten stories Flores is that with the kind

3:12:32 ↗ of the calculations Keith I'm looking at

3:12:34 ↗ for the ten is that what I think that's

3:12:36 ↗ the calculations that Crandall ran Billy

3:12:38 ↗ came out at as far as with six four

3:12:43 ↗ before the density bonus and then ten

3:12:49 ↗ okay no no no ten floors not ten feet

3:12:53 ↗ stories yes so yeah stories that's what

3:12:58 ↗ so as they originally that's alright

3:13:00 ↗ that's alright that's right

3:13:01 ↗ that's late and I kind of that was from

3:13:03 ↗ like three three slide shows ago so they

3:13:05 ↗ originally actually just were saying

3:13:07 ↗ let's just require floors and we heard

3:13:09 ↗ feedback to say no be consistent with

3:13:11 ↗ what the code has and convert it to

3:13:13 ↗ basically feet and so then when you

3:13:15 ↗ convert that looking at you know wanting

3:13:17 ↗ to have at least you know to allowing

3:13:19 ↗ them 12.5 feet per story when we switch

3:13:23 ↗ from feet to stories in the highlands or

3:13:26 ↗ the other we gave stories and then we

3:13:34 ↗ gave a max height yeah so but but this

3:13:38 ↗ is consistent with essentials because

3:13:39 ↗ this is gonna be right next to the other

3:13:40 ↗ century like what code you know and so

3:13:42 ↗ that that table we just saw you know is

3:13:45 ↗ is similar to the table above and so

3:13:47 ↗ again we received feedback from camp I

3:13:50 ↗ think was counsel who said let's not be

3:13:53 ↗ mismatched and within the same table and

3:13:56 ↗ the code in the area so so when you get

3:13:58 ↗ to that that gets out to the 135 so to

3:14:02 ↗ clarify it's basically converting the

3:14:06 ↗ 12.5 feet per floor for 10 floors not it

3:14:13 ↗ for 9 floor to 20 and then the ground

3:14:16 ↗ floor is larger that's what bumps it

3:14:19 ↗ from 125 to 135 I think there's a little

3:14:22 ↗ around yeah okay when you put things on

3:14:26 ↗ the top of the building you know you

3:14:28 ↗ have the top floor and then you add

3:14:30 ↗ something to make it decorative you

3:14:32 ↗ count that it's and it's currently not

3:14:35 ↗ counted as that's part of the central

3:14:36 ↗ Issaquah plan currently we did not you

3:14:39 ↗ know look to change that so certain

3:14:41 ↗ features are not counted in the building

3:14:43 ↗ height okay and it depends on if the

3:14:45 ↗ root roof has a pitch or if it's a

3:14:47 ↗ flatter coped roof so there there would

3:14:50 ↗ be a little difference on how we measure

3:14:51 ↗ there but mid mid mid point of the

3:14:54 ↗ highest pitch if it's got a pitch so

3:14:58 ↗ certain things are not counted kind of

3:14:59 ↗ above that

3:15:00 ↗ - I put some nice we might make yeah

3:15:06 ↗ maybe they're nice opponents - so we can

3:15:10 ↗ go higher to make sure that they weren't

3:15:12 ↗ part of the yeah but what about things

3:15:16 ↗ like AC unit yeah that's what and that's

3:15:18 ↗ what I when I say features there's a

3:15:20 ↗ whole wide array of things that your 135

3:15:25 ↗ HVAC I think all the buildings should

3:15:27 ↗ have yeah trees on top of them and we

3:15:33 ↗ just put it in Statue of Joan on the top

3:15:34 ↗ of all the buildings I know yeah I got

3:15:42 ↗ the explanation yeah again there was

3:15:47 ↗ some calculation looking at you know six

3:15:49 ↗ floors eight ten no the bonus density of

3:15:51 ↗ what you're required to you know put in

3:15:53 ↗ as far as because this is the urban core

3:15:54 ↗ so currently it's ten percent of

3:15:56 ↗ affordable housing and some other things

3:15:59 ↗ are HSN never mind

3:16:02 ↗ that's I'm sorry let me take that back

3:16:04 ↗ so the ten percent is for inclusionary

3:16:05 ↗ zoning the bonus density then requires

3:16:07 ↗ you know the affordable housing and

3:16:10 ↗ multiple things choices you have from

3:16:12 ↗ affordable housing open space and fee

3:16:16 ↗ yeah so we're not so again looking at

3:16:19 ↗ that cost for what you get further we're

3:16:21 ↗ not gonna get enough affordable housing

3:16:23 ↗ if we only require ten percent in a

3:16:25 ↗ building we need to be able to back

3:16:29 ↗ conversation will be in front of a

3:16:31 ↗ building a building that is all

3:16:34 ↗ affordable housing well we we are

3:16:36 ↗ working on that and the transit-oriented

3:16:37 ↗ meant project and we can talk about that

3:16:39 ↗ at a different time but yes so the max

3:16:42 ↗ height I want to go back to max a for

3:16:44 ↗ just a moment 125 135 that's a

3:16:47 ↗ difference of two stories and ish cuz 10

3:16:53 ↗ feet is a short floor yeah all right so

3:16:56 ↗ that that may not sound like a lot but

3:16:59 ↗ the other day I was looking at a 10

3:17:02 ↗ story building or nine stories at

3:17:04 ↗ Microsoft and I was thinking my gosh

3:17:06 ↗ that thing is humongous leaked all and

3:17:11 ↗ we really want to put 130 525 what's

3:17:16 ↗ buildings in our anneza class I mean

3:17:18 ↗ that's so the 125 it currently exists in

3:17:20 ↗ central Issaquah in the urban core so in

3:17:23 ↗ that woody 5 already exists yes that was

3:17:25 ↗ no debate going down beyond beyond that

3:17:28 ↗ question is about increasing it I mean

3:17:30 ↗ one story I don't know that one story's

3:17:32 ↗ gonna make a whole lot of difference

3:17:33 ↗ when you're looking at building that

3:17:34 ↗ high already

3:17:35 ↗ I mean it's ginormous yeah we're

3:17:39 ↗ debating another 10 and another 10 and

3:17:41 ↗ at some point we'd say this is where we

3:17:43 ↗ want to be right now you want to come to

3:17:45 ↗ me in 10 years when we're building this

3:17:47 ↗ out this is all amendable but this is

3:17:50 ↗ all fictitious and so it actually does

3:17:53 ↗ matter I mean this is this is the

3:17:54 ↗ standards that we're setting right now

3:17:55 ↗ for a future site that we have no

3:17:58 ↗ concrete evidence as to how or when it

3:18:01 ↗ will be built we just want it to come

3:18:03 ↗ and so the argument right now that I'm

3:18:06 ↗ hearing from staff is to say we've

3:18:07 ↗ talked to developers and this is what

3:18:09 ↗ they want they want to have more max

3:18:10 ↗ height and I don't have I don't really

3:18:12 ↗ don't see there being a situation in a

3:18:15 ↗ decade where developers say yeah we're

3:18:16 ↗ good we don't really don't need any more

3:18:18 ↗ because who knows what's coming next

3:18:20 ↗ about we need a much grander entryway I

3:18:22 ↗ mean we need about since think about how

3:18:25 ↗ we're conserving space and how we're

3:18:28 ↗ utilizing that space I don't think that

3:18:30 ↗ continuing to give on our view corridors

3:18:34 ↗ is really the greatest idea I mean right

3:18:36 ↗ now

3:18:37 ↗ Safeway parking lot has one of the best

3:18:39 ↗ views in Issaquah and when we're look at

3:18:41 ↗ developing Gilman Boulevard you're

3:18:43 ↗ looking at basically destroying a large

3:18:45 ↗ chunk of what people associate as

3:18:46 ↗ Issaquah we want to concentrate this

3:18:49 ↗ density but why does that have to come

3:18:50 ↗ at the cost of every two years adding on

3:18:53 ↗ another 10 feet the 125 was hard fought

3:18:55 ↗ I mean that isn't to say that there

3:18:58 ↗ wasn't a lot of people the community who

3:18:59 ↗ disagreed with it but it was a hard hard

3:19:02 ↗ fought hard won battle to say this is

3:19:04 ↗ now the standard for Issaquah and I have

3:19:06 ↗ concerns even though it is in limited

3:19:09 ↗ areas and limited use actually when

3:19:12 ↗ Keith reads me reading about rally

3:19:14 ↗ saying yeah well you can you build here

3:19:17 ↗ build higher I mean like at one point

3:19:18 ↗ does this end like this is not what I

3:19:21 ↗ have heard from the community that they

3:19:23 ↗ want in Issaquah is ever-expanding

3:19:25 ↗ Heights and so I see this as an easy

3:19:28 ↗ place to right here say do it in 125 you

3:19:31 ↗ still want to have your 20-foot ceilings

3:19:33 ↗ on the ground-floor retail no problem

3:19:35 ↗ but you're gonna have to evaluate where

3:19:37 ↗ that comes from the rest of your

3:19:38 ↗ building

3:19:39 ↗ Microsoft Building in Bellevue under

3:19:43 ↗ Howie Steakhouse is 10 storeys on top of

3:19:47 ↗ the retail and then the structured

3:19:48 ↗ parking so then that's more than 10 I

3:19:51 ↗ count 10 10 stories of Windows so if you

3:19:55 ↗ on top of you're talking about the

3:19:57 ↗ Braeburn yes so that what she's saying

3:19:59 ↗ that would be more than 125 if we say

3:20:01 ↗ way more you have other structures

3:20:04 ↗ underneath it it would account if they

3:20:05 ↗ build it here they'd have to count those

3:20:07 ↗ structures as putting Braeburn actually

3:20:08 ↗ has two different levels of retail and

3:20:10 ↗ then there's the ground-floor parking

3:20:12 ↗ and and some retail so I think that

3:20:14 ↗ might be actually three my figured

3:20:15 ↗ retail I think those windows are two

3:20:17 ↗ stories I think that's a 20-story

3:20:18 ↗ building yeah think about driving on it

3:20:21 ↗ from the case to clarify though and when

3:20:27 ↗ you say that we ask developers we with

3:20:28 ↗ Crandall Ram Beulah is a planning firm a

3:20:31 ↗ consulting firm and so they did an

3:20:33 ↗ analysis of what it takes to actually

3:20:35 ↗ make this work correct and be attracted

3:20:37 ↗ to developers I'm sorry so that must be

3:20:39 ↗ attractive to developers financially

3:20:42 ↗ feasible for developers if you want this

3:20:45 ↗ to happen again but again not not giving

3:20:47 ↗ away really anything because they again

3:20:50 ↗ for this to get to 135 that the bonus

3:20:52 ↗ density which requires some paying so

3:20:55 ↗ this I don't I'm not arguing against I

3:20:57 ↗ just wanted to be clear that that was

3:20:59 ↗ not a what a developer's one so just to

3:21:03 ↗ give us a perspective yes how big is the

3:21:05 ↗ new hotel Riley the hotel is that row

3:21:09 ↗ eight eight eight eight stories and help

3:21:12 ↗ exactly there's the relevant it's on

3:21:22 ↗ okay so twelfth is that what so we're

3:21:25 ↗ looking at that map of as a twelve and

3:21:27 ↗ maple run into I got my brolly

3:21:30 ↗ no no so it's over by the car

3:21:32 ↗ dealerships behind the car dealerships

3:21:34 ↗ yeah it's the type of silver cloud this

3:21:43 ↗ is it's right over there right behind it

3:21:45 ↗ the tallest building in this in the core

3:21:58 ↗ for now so it's just clothes are there

3:22:02 ↗ any quite obviously we have you know

3:22:04 ↗ some discussion around Heights and FA R

3:22:06 ↗ which we should so are there any

3:22:07 ↗ questions or any proposals to kind of

3:22:10 ↗ more discussion what about the

3:22:13 ↗ discussion around requiring retail

3:22:18 ↗ frontage on the other side of mall ok

3:22:21 ↗ great so I I guess I'm asking is there

3:22:24 ↗ any other additional conversation not ok

3:22:26 ↗ no no I just want to make sure

3:22:28 ↗ so the parks of you did remind me about

3:22:30 ↗ parking and so again that's on page 287

3:22:34 ↗ of your packet and you have been

3:22:35 ↗ involved in that conversation for the

3:22:37 ↗ parking study for the rest of centralist

3:22:39 ↗ o'clock and again looking at the

3:22:42 ↗ consultants did an analysis and if you

3:22:44 ↗ still allow 50 percent of your parking

3:22:47 ↗ required parking you end up with a lot

3:22:49 ↗ of surface parking and so again looking

3:22:52 ↗ at how could we make sure that we get

3:22:53 ↗ the structure and the type of former

3:22:55 ↗ building where you know again you're not

3:22:57 ↗ having parking lot in a parking lot in

3:22:58 ↗ parking lot with it you know buildings

3:23:00 ↗ around but mostly when you look down you

3:23:03 ↗ look through there you see lots of

3:23:04 ↗ structured surface parking so they are

3:23:07 ↗ recommending 90% do you have a map of

3:23:10 ↗ the water table in that area you know

3:23:13 ↗ for instance you're not able to build an

3:23:15 ↗ underground parking lot in Old Town but

3:23:17 ↗ in this area is underground parking so

3:23:23 ↗ Alice is doing that now has that correct

3:23:25 ↗ so I don't think it's gonna go down to

3:23:27 ↗ 3/4 levels but there is an ability to

3:23:30 ↗ build what people allows for some

3:23:32 ↗ underground parking to include that

3:23:34 ↗ would account towards the structured

3:23:35 ↗ parking requirement we had not done the

3:23:36 ↗ analysis exactly for these sites and

3:23:38 ↗ that no

3:23:39 ↗ our there's another site that's across

3:23:41 ↗ from Tibbets Valley Park that is doing a

3:23:44 ↗ one-level underground parking so they

3:23:46 ↗ have they're able to do that so a quick

3:23:50 ↗ question for the structured parking I

3:23:54 ↗ would assume they're going to allow for

3:23:57 ↗ bicycle storage it's in the code as

3:24:01 ↗ persons already in the code right and so

3:24:04 ↗ that's already baked in yes and that's

3:24:05 ↗ part of the structure terrain okay

3:24:07 ↗ that's part of their development I'm

3:24:10 ↗ looking at Jennifer I don't know exactly

3:24:11 ↗ the rules looking to change anything

3:24:15 ↗ that take away to say we want more

3:24:17 ↗ vehicle spaces and I just want to make

3:24:19 ↗ sure that there is bicycle person or

3:24:22 ↗ bicycles in these garages biking Park

3:24:24 ↗ bike park light and I'm not sure about

3:24:27 ↗ the required weather protection over the

3:24:29 ↗ bicycle parking right off the top of my

3:24:30 ↗ head I could do some flip in real quick

3:24:32 ↗ here in a second but there is a revision

3:24:35 ↗ for bicycle parking and it the thing

3:24:38 ↗ that comes to mind is that it's required

3:24:40 ↗ to be close to the entry to wherever the

3:24:43 ↗ shops are I mean if we're talking about

3:24:45 ↗ ground-floor retail that bike parking

3:24:47 ↗ would need to be in proximity of those

3:24:49 ↗ entries that's I know that's what the

3:24:50 ↗ code says right now but I'm not totally

3:24:53 ↗ sure about the weather protection part

3:24:54 ↗ of it well that's actually there's two

3:24:56 ↗ aspects of that aspect the retail

3:24:58 ↗ service side but also the residential

3:25:00 ↗ side where are they going to put their

3:25:02 ↗ bikes and I bring that up because you go

3:25:04 ↗ to Microsoft and those bike racks are

3:25:06 ↗ full and I know there are some

3:25:09 ↗ developments who have elected to provide

3:25:13 ↗ a covered bike storage but I'm not again

3:25:17 ↗ I'm not completely sure on the

3:25:19 ↗ requirement itself so can I think if

3:25:22 ↗ most developers who know ok the type of

3:25:24 ↗ user that's gonna be this type of

3:25:25 ↗ building they do want some storage for

3:25:28 ↗ bikes or you know whatever maybe and

3:25:30 ↗ they want it in a secured place so

3:25:32 ↗ they're gonna be putting in the in the

3:25:33 ↗ parking structure so again the project

3:25:35 ↗ we're working on across from Tibbets

3:25:37 ↗ Valley Park that's what they're doing

3:25:38 ↗ because they don't want they want the

3:25:40 ↗ residents want to have a safe secure

3:25:41 ↗ location I don't think that's the case

3:25:45 ↗ for the development that's going in next

3:25:47 ↗ why cross the street from at work okay I

3:25:52 ↗ don't think they have I believe the

3:25:55 ↗ discussion was there is no bicycle

3:25:57 ↗ parking in that building for Vail I

3:26:00 ↗ don't know

3:26:00 ↗ yeah and they are actually in a

3:26:02 ↗ different zone so I mean we I don't know

3:26:04 ↗ if there's different requirements for

3:26:05 ↗ the different zones no it's based on use

3:26:06 ↗ so residential requires a 0.15 spaces

3:26:11 ↗ per bedroom for multifamily so said they

3:26:14 ↗ must have it somewhere then yeah they

3:26:16 ↗ must have like part they had their

3:26:17 ↗ record they're gonna be required some

3:26:18 ↗ portion of bike parking yeah so so I

3:26:21 ↗ asked for actual pictures developments

3:26:27 ↗ that I've gone in like in Kirkland or

3:26:29 ↗ something and I got the pictures but the

3:26:33 ↗ requirements for covered parking were

3:26:35 ↗ like 25 percent and the rest were on

3:26:38 ↗ street parking mm-hmm so how does that

3:26:42 ↗ mean with 95 percent 90 percent in is

3:26:48 ↗ how do you think that affects the

3:26:51 ↗ ability to not only build the buildings

3:26:57 ↗ but you have rents low enough so people

3:27:00 ↗ can afford to be in there so anytime you

3:27:05 ↗ add more regulations it has increased

3:27:07 ↗ the cost when I didn't get from the

3:27:09 ↗ other from the pictures where where how

3:27:11 ↗ they access their underground parking or

3:27:13 ↗ their structured parking you know I've

3:27:16 ↗ got a picture of the building but how do

3:27:18 ↗ you where is the parking yeah typically

3:27:21 ↗ I'm getting for these areas you know so

3:27:23 ↗ that would be because we require that

3:27:25 ↗ ground floor commercial it's not gonna

3:27:26 ↗ be from the front are those streets I

3:27:28 ↗ know that so happy I wanted to know what

3:27:31 ↗ they did right because you just see the

3:27:34 ↗ picture of the front of the building you

3:27:36 ↗ don't know where that parking is and it

3:27:38 ↗ would be nice to know how they access

3:27:40 ↗ right and the value of of that to get

3:27:46 ↗ people the retailing and people sure so

3:27:49 ↗ I know that in the research we did we

3:27:51 ↗ did looking at Redmond Kirkland Bothell

3:27:54 ↗ Linwood who's in transition as well is

3:27:56 ↗ that they defined pedestrian oriented

3:27:58 ↗ streets that don't allow again that

3:28:00 ↗ parking entrances and sort of I don't

3:28:04 ↗ know for those that seem like the

3:28:05 ↗ pictures show that that the parking

3:28:06 ↗ entrance was on the side street or not

3:28:09 ↗ you couldn't see it at all so it

3:28:10 ↗ obviously is behind but but the the

3:28:14 ↗ other thing to think about with the

3:28:15 ↗ additional cost is that the land costs

3:28:17 ↗ in Issaquah as they go up building a

3:28:21 ↗ surface parking lot is going to be not

3:28:23 ↗ as productive cuz you're not earning any

3:28:24 ↗ money off of that right so you want to

3:28:26 ↗ build something that you're gonna earn

3:28:27 ↗ and come off of and so it's the market

3:28:29 ↗ is gonna get to the point where they

3:28:31 ↗ would do that anyway and we win and I'm

3:28:33 ↗ not kind of quote numbers exactly but

3:28:35 ↗ when they did the parking analysis they

3:28:36 ↗ looked at what's already been done the

3:28:38 ↗ percentages as you guys had that

3:28:39 ↗ in-depth conversation you know we're

3:28:42 ↗ kind of already they're you know getting

3:28:44 ↗ up there as far as the percentage so we

3:28:46 ↗ believe in this area we again we want

3:28:48 ↗ less surface parking so well when we

3:28:53 ↗ started when the first when I read what

3:28:56 ↗ you sent me and it said 25 percent

3:28:58 ↗ structured parking and I was concerned

3:29:00 ↗ when we go up to to 95 percent then that

3:29:03 ↗ makes more sense or 90 percent it makes

3:29:05 ↗ more sense to me I was afraid that oh it

3:29:08 ↗ was going in they're going to do oh

3:29:10 ↗ there's a samples from other places

3:29:11 ↗ you're saying okay okay yeah Trish sent

3:29:15 ↗ them okay

3:29:16 ↗ anything else

3:29:24 ↗ so where did we land with all of this

3:29:28 ↗ we've heard hundred percent we've heard

3:29:31 ↗ back to the 25 well let's go back to the

3:29:33 ↗ far we haven't talked about staffs

3:29:35 ↗ coming to these numbers these are again

3:29:40 ↗ looking at the the consultants looking

3:29:43 ↗ at calculating what can currently be

3:29:45 ↗ done under the urban core and what you

3:29:47 ↗ would need to have as a minimum if they

3:29:49 ↗ are and allowable F a hours to get the

3:29:52 ↗ type of product you want this is what

3:29:54 ↗ you need goes up again with the 0.55 as

3:30:02 ↗ a base which is what I mean a minimum

3:30:04 ↗ sorry that doesn't even barely get get

3:30:06 ↗ to two floors right and if we're trying

3:30:10 ↗ to require versus encourage write or

3:30:14 ↗ make sense I mean this makes sense given

3:30:16 ↗ how ambitious just these this particular

3:30:18 ↗ sector is I think doing half is

3:30:20 ↗ reasonable everything the other the

3:30:30 ↗ other changes anything that up south

3:30:33 ↗ beside I mean you've gotten answers to

3:30:36 ↗ all your questions so that what is being

3:30:38 ↗ presented is acceptable to you 100% but

3:30:44 ↗ I also want to go home good policies

3:30:48 ↗ made right now understand this is the

3:30:53 ↗ future and it's you know this is what we

3:30:56 ↗ think or what they think it will be

3:30:59 ↗ changed eventually but at least it's a

3:31:01 ↗ plan that you can start with and go for

3:31:04 ↗ there's nothing you know blaring in

3:31:06 ↗ there that might really besides the fact

3:31:10 ↗ that I understand that nobody lives in

3:31:12 ↗ Issaquah wants and story buildings but

3:31:14 ↗ they're gonna

3:31:15 ↗ so we might as well doing the right way

3:31:19 ↗ mm I have a question maybe to Joan

3:31:25 ↗ there's three this is in three parts and

3:31:28 ↗ the finding effect we need three

3:31:30 ↗ separate motions or one I would think

3:31:36 ↗ it's one is three separate amendments to

3:31:41 ↗ different parts of the code I mean I

3:31:43 ↗ don't know if it matters but so it's all

3:31:45 ↗ to one coat okay so if you wanted to

3:31:48 ↗ package it as staff proposed amendments

3:31:51 ↗ plus additional staff proposed amendment

3:31:54 ↗ plus the impervious correction you could

3:31:57 ↗ bundle it that way the point is to make

3:32:00 ↗ it clear what you're voting on so I

3:32:08 ↗ would like to make a motion of amending

3:32:11 ↗ the height to 125 and not the 135 a

3:32:14 ↗ staff has suggested I was I second that

3:32:21 ↗ a further discussion I I am in favor of

3:32:30 ↗ keeping it at 125 because it seems

3:32:33 ↗ somewhat like it's just creeping up

3:32:36 ↗ because of this other requirement that

3:32:38 ↗ was added on the lower storeys and if

3:32:40 ↗ that was a very intentional decision to

3:32:43 ↗ put it at 125 I would be in favor of

3:32:45 ↗ keeping it that way there just as a

3:32:49 ↗ devil's advocate at 125 we weren't

3:32:52 ↗ getting what we were looking for and we

3:32:54 ↗ asked the consultants to say hey what

3:32:58 ↗ are the things that are blocking this

3:33:00 ↗ and one of the things they said was the

3:33:03 ↗ FE ours and one of them was not allowing

3:33:07 ↗ enough space for that base ground floor

3:33:10 ↗ and also all of the floors that they

3:33:13 ↗ wanted to establish that being said I do

3:33:17 ↗ support the 125 I just want to throw it

3:33:20 ↗ out there I think we're ready to vote

3:33:24 ↗ I'm not allowed to vote against write

3:33:28 ↗ these

3:33:30 ↗ I'm commissioners have to vote on this

3:33:33 ↗ puzzle all those in favor say aye aye

3:33:38 ↗ opposed nay

3:33:40 ↗ yeah it isn't it you are voting no yes

3:33:46 ↗ okay that's three four and two against

3:33:53 ↗ just for clarification I heard joy you

3:33:56 ↗ had made a motion to change just the

3:33:58 ↗ height the max height width with the

3:34:01 ↗ density to be a 125 so that it is

3:34:04 ↗ concurrent with central and central as a

3:34:06 ↗ cross so there would be no there

3:34:08 ↗ initially would be no amendment to the

3:34:09 ↗ no change

3:34:10 ↗ okay okay thank you for the

3:34:13 ↗ clarification now we need in a emotion

3:34:16 ↗ of the rest of it I can't make the

3:34:20 ↗ motion so no and I'm confused

3:34:23 ↗ so that was sorry so that was then for

3:34:27 ↗ which of these three minutes see 125

3:34:30 ↗ no I know I know but which of the three

3:34:33 ↗ there are three different amendments and

3:34:34 ↗ the finding effect so that 125 is

3:34:37 ↗ specific to as a portion of the very

3:34:39 ↗ first fine it has been a one okay this

3:34:44 ↗ is getting and getting a little bit

3:34:45 ↗ messy so I would I move then to

3:34:49 ↗ [Music]

3:34:51 ↗ recommend the amendments one two and

3:34:53 ↗ three as stated in the finding effect

3:34:56 ↗ aside from what we yeah as amended yeah

3:35:01 ↗ that's all I guess I'll second that

3:35:05 ↗ any discussion all those in favor say

3:35:09 ↗ aye aye

3:35:12 ↗ motion carried this has been the longest

3:35:14 ↗ me people thing clarification staff had

3:35:19 ↗ proposed edit clarifying edits for

3:35:22 ↗ cross-references to make it more clear

3:35:23 ↗ as to where you go and what you do

3:35:25 ↗ whenever you get hit these requirements

3:35:28 ↗ did the Commission want to vote on those

3:35:30 ↗ tonight as well or you know we have

3:35:32 ↗ to do that because it was just they

3:35:34 ↗ weren't really changes they were just I

3:35:36 ↗ can appreciate that response so thank

3:35:39 ↗ you I think we're good okay okay I mean

3:35:42 ↗ you're not changing it you know any word

3:35:44 ↗ so more direction and we're gonna crack

3:35:49 ↗ that 90 to 95 correct thank you for your

3:35:53 ↗ work on maybe put it 100 items conclude

3:35:58 ↗ the meeting thank you very much we're

3:36:00 ↗ still on air you want to conclude the

3:36:03 ↗ meetings yes I'm looking at the clock

3:36:05 ↗ and just wondering how in the world it's

3:36:07 ↗ gonna close the meeting at 10:00 7:00

3:36:12 ↗ no7 thanks thank you thank you

3:36:24 ↗ 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