Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, September 29, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 8, 2022

packet pp.3–9

▶ Watch from 5:54 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, September 8, 2022

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.63–65

▶ Watch from 47:38 Open packet at p.63 ↗

Staff report:

Page 64 of 65 Staff Support: Christen Leeson Staff Support: Stephen Padua

1405 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ foreign

0:07 ↗ good evening

0:09 ↗ I would like to call the September 29th

0:11 ↗ planning policy Commission meeting to

0:13 ↗ order it is currently 6 35 pm

0:18 ↗ let me just Begin by saying I believe

0:19 ↗ that all of our thoughts are with the

0:21 ↗ people of Florida right now

0:23 ↗ and uh yeah hoping that everything works

0:26 ↗ out down there

0:28 ↗ our planning policy might look a little

0:31 ↗ bit different tonight

0:33 ↗ it's amazing what a couple weeks off

0:35 ↗ when staff gives it to us what happens

0:39 ↗ our planning policy almost does almost

0:42 ↗ it more than doubles in size

0:45 ↗ I want to thank staff for their Tyler's

0:47 ↗ tireless effort for continuing to look

0:49 ↗ for new colleagues for the planning

0:51 ↗ policy Commission

0:53 ↗ and I'd also like to thank our new

0:55 ↗ Commissioners for volunteering their

0:57 ↗ time and their talent not only for this

1:00 ↗ commission but also for our city

1:04 ↗ we welcome all of you guys

1:09 ↗ so what I'd like to do right now very

1:11 ↗ quickly is do a round robin with our

1:14 ↗ newest members

1:16 ↗ and I think we're going to have plenty

1:17 ↗ of time to discuss improvements and

1:20 ↗ vision how about an introduction to who

1:22 ↗ you are and one thing you love about our

1:25 ↗ city

1:26 ↗ and we'll start down at the end of the

1:28 ↗ Deus and we will also introduce the

1:32 ↗ people who are also joining us virtually

1:39 ↗ there we go all right thanks for having

1:42 ↗ me my name is Jesse Patterson I've been

1:43 ↗ in escrow for about eight to ten years

1:45 ↗ now and I'm really excited to be a part

1:47 ↗ of this commission my personal favorite

1:50 ↗ thing about issca is probably our parks

1:52 ↗ and the walkability of them I've really

1:55 ↗ taken advantage of those last couple

1:56 ↗ years in particular and looking forward

1:58 ↗ to being part of the commission

2:02 ↗ hi everyone my name is Megan altimore

2:04 ↗ and I've lived in issquah for 16 years

2:06 ↗ now and you kind of stole my answer but

2:08 ↗ that's okay Jesse I feel very lucky I

2:11 ↗ raised two kids here and they went

2:12 ↗ through Issaquah schools and are now off

2:15 ↗ in college and it has just been a

2:16 ↗ perfect place for our family to grow up

2:18 ↗ together

2:21 ↗ wonderful and do we have our

2:23 ↗ commissioners online

2:31 ↗ hi this is Jamie Longoria I'm sorry I

2:33 ↗ couldn't be with you there today

2:35 ↗ um I've been living in Issaquah for

2:37 ↗ about 15 years now I'm super excited to

2:41 ↗ um be on this commission and bring some

2:44 ↗ of my lived experiences to the

2:45 ↗ commission

2:47 ↗ um my favorite part about Issaquah is

2:50 ↗ definitely the the safety that I feel

2:52 ↗ living in this community as well as the

2:56 ↗ um people in the community especially

2:58 ↗ here in downtown Issaquah it's my

3:00 ↗ favorite place to be in Issaquah I love

3:03 ↗ walking around to all the restaurants on

3:04 ↗ Front Street and I also enjoy having my

3:08 ↗ kids go to the elementary school here

3:09 ↗ and the treatment that they receive

3:11 ↗ there thanks for having me guys

3:15 ↗ thank you

3:20 ↗ okay and I believe you know the rest of

3:22 ↗ the planning policy commission would you

3:24 ↗ guys like to say something you love

3:25 ↗ about Issaquah

3:28 ↗ I can figure out how to work this yeah

3:30 ↗ hi I'm Nina Milligan and I love our

3:34 ↗ forested hillsides

3:38 ↗ I'm Joy Lewis I've been living in

3:40 ↗ Issaquah for 10 years next month and um

3:44 ↗ like Nina I enjoy the greenery and how

3:46 ↗ we have a harmony with our Wildlife all

3:49 ↗ around us including as we were just

3:51 ↗ talking about our local salmon so proud

3:53 ↗ of our rivers and streams and what we do

3:54 ↗ to protect them

3:57 ↗ great my name is Jason voice and one

4:00 ↗ thing I love about this city and this

4:02 ↗ isn't

4:03 ↗ stuck up or anything but I love working

4:05 ↗ with our fellow residents to try and

4:07 ↗ make our city better so working with

4:09 ↗ city government there we go

4:12 ↗ and yes Sarah commissioner Bader yeah hi

4:17 ↗ um I'm Sarah Vader

4:19 ↗ um I will have been a resident evil for

4:22 ↗ three years next week I realized

4:24 ↗ um October 3rd is our anniversary of

4:26 ↗ moving here so

4:28 ↗ um that's funny um I'm tempted to say

4:30 ↗ the thing I love most is that I can

4:32 ↗ attend virtually when I have a cold um

4:33 ↗ so I appreciate that but really it's all

4:35 ↗ of the the outdoor

4:38 ↗ um space and activities and

4:40 ↗ um just a connection to Nature here um

4:42 ↗ love it a lot so um welcome to New

4:45 ↗ Commissioners it's great to

4:47 ↗ um see you all

4:49 ↗ um and hope to meet you all soon

4:53 ↗ great thank you everyone

4:55 ↗ so now some rules for the road today's

4:58 ↗ meeting is a hybrid meeting the planning

5:00 ↗ policy commission is in person but staff

5:02 ↗ members as well as fellow Commissioners

5:05 ↗ are attending virtually

5:07 ↗ uh comments at tonight's meeting maybe

5:09 ↗ may be made in person or virtually

5:12 ↗ for all who would like to speak during

5:14 ↗ public comments speak clearly and pause

5:16 ↗ frequently state your name each time

5:19 ↗ before speaking and if you are attending

5:21 ↗ virtually by computer or by phone and

5:24 ↗ would like to speak during public

5:26 ↗ comments in addition to the above please

5:29 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

5:31 ↗ speaking and if you're having any

5:33 ↗ technical issues try to join the meeting

5:35 ↗ using a different device such as a

5:37 ↗ smartphone or tablet

5:38 ↗ you can use the call-in information in

5:40 ↗ the meeting invite to call in to the

5:42 ↗ meeting

5:44 ↗ Kristen tonight do we have a quorum

5:48 ↗ yes we do

5:51 ↗ all right so our first item of business

5:54 ↗ is to take action to approve the minutes

5:56 ↗ for September 8th meeting

5:58 ↗ are there any corrections or concerns in

6:01 ↗ the draft minutes that were provided in

6:02 ↗ your packet

6:08 ↗ anything online

6:08 ↗ [Laughter]

6:12 ↗ all right hearing none the meeting

6:14 ↗ minutes from September 8th are approved

6:17 ↗ and now our next item of business is

6:19 ↗ public comment these are public comments

6:21 ↗ for uh general public comments for the

6:23 ↗ good of the order

6:25 ↗ um so please do we have anyone signed up

6:26 ↗ to deliver public comments this evening

6:28 ↗ in person or virtually

6:36 ↗ no one online has indicated that they

6:38 ↗ would like to speak at this time great

6:40 ↗ thank you Jared and with us we have

6:42 ↗ Connie Fletcher okay

7:02 ↗ uh there we go okay thank you very much

7:04 ↗ so come eat salmon

7:06 ↗ um actually I'm here tonight because I'm

7:08 ↗ a member of Our Savior Lutheran Church

7:10 ↗ and a long time volunteer for the

7:12 ↗ Issaquah food and clothing bank

7:15 ↗ um and here this evening to ask your

7:17 ↗ consideration of our request to rezone a

7:21 ↗ parcel of our church property to provide

7:24 ↗ more flexibility for the future

7:26 ↗ the partnership between Our Savior

7:28 ↗ Lutheran Church and the food bank has

7:31 ↗ matured to the point where we have now

7:34 ↗ detailed conceptual plans for a new

7:37 ↗ building on oslc's property

7:40 ↗ the plan has been reviewed by the city

7:42 ↗ staff in a collaboration meeting with no

7:46 ↗ issues that would prohibit such a plan

7:50 ↗ a plan currently envisions a single

7:53 ↗ story structure that would likely meet

7:55 ↗ the existing single-family small lot

7:58 ↗ designation for zoning requirements but

8:01 ↗ that does not diminish the need nor the

8:04 ↗ desire for us to seek a rezone of the

8:07 ↗ parcel

8:09 ↗ even if the planned facility can be

8:12 ↗ built under the single-family small lot

8:14 ↗ limits there is a still a desire for

8:16 ↗ future capability to construct

8:19 ↗ additional stories on the top of the

8:21 ↗ food bank structure to potentially

8:23 ↗ provide for space for other

8:25 ↗ not-for-profit organizations

8:27 ↗ that could provide additional social

8:30 ↗ services such as is being done right now

8:33 ↗ for the together Center in development

8:35 ↗ that's a wonderful development that's

8:37 ↗ being built right now

8:39 ↗ the city's Human Services strategic plan

8:42 ↗ addresses the goal of providing access

8:45 ↗ to Human Services in one location in our

8:48 ↗ community

8:49 ↗ the new food bank could provide Access

8:51 ↗ to Health and Welfare Services needed by

8:54 ↗ the individuals and families that are

8:56 ↗ that rely on the food bank

8:58 ↗ but a rezone would be required to enable

9:01 ↗ these additional stories to be built

9:03 ↗ which is why we want to pursue this now

9:06 ↗ the Issaquah food and clothing bank has

9:08 ↗ invested in and completed surveys and

9:12 ↗ site analysis that provides key data

9:14 ↗ needed for consideration of a rezone

9:17 ↗ the new isaku Issaquah food and clothing

9:20 ↗ bank will provide significant Community

9:23 ↗ benefits with additional capacity for

9:26 ↗ public health safety and Welfare

9:28 ↗ Services most needed by residents and

9:31 ↗ our community

9:32 ↗ we ask the pilot the planning policy

9:34 ↗ commission support this rezone effort

9:37 ↗ which in turn will support this city

9:40 ↗ strategic plan goals thank you

9:48 ↗ thank you

9:50 ↗ all right is there anyone else who would

9:52 ↗ like to speak

9:56 ↗ phone online has indicated that they

9:58 ↗ would like to speak at this time

10:02 ↗ yes

10:05 ↗ Josh Friedman this is the only time to

10:07 ↗ speak would you like to raise your hand

10:09 ↗ or indicate that you would like to make

10:10 ↗ a comment at this time

10:21 ↗ he's just observing tonight and he says

10:23 ↗ thank you okay

10:25 ↗ well I think I can go by uh the visual

10:29 ↗ that uh no more people in person

10:31 ↗ so appreciate that we're going to move

10:34 ↗ on to our regular business which is the

10:36 ↗ rezone applications for Our Savior

10:38 ↗ Lutheran Church and Wildwood

10:41 ↗ so tonight staff will be introducing

10:43 ↗ proposed rezones and is looking for

10:45 ↗ feedback from the public and the

10:47 ↗ commission

10:48 ↗ prior to the public hearing which will

10:50 ↗ be held on October 13th

10:52 ↗ two Z two rezone requests have been made

10:54 ↗ one for Our Savior Lutheran Church and

10:57 ↗ another for a parcel located on Wildwood

11:00 ↗ Boulevard

11:01 ↗ staff will also be discussing the

11:02 ↗ Newport area rezone which requires

11:05 ↗ correction

11:06 ↗ staff will present on each request and

11:09 ↗ then ask for clarifying questions after

11:11 ↗ their presentations

11:12 ↗ all right staff please go ahead with

11:15 ↗ your presentations

11:18 ↗ okay

11:19 ↗ I'll go ahead and start yes tonight

11:21 ↗ we're talking about the proposed 2022

11:23 ↗ comprehensive plan and zoning map

11:25 ↗ amendments by the way my name is Kristen

11:27 ↗ Leeson I'm a senior planner with the

11:28 ↗ conference with the community Planning

11:30 ↗ and Development Department

11:31 ↗ my favorite thing about Issaquah is

11:34 ↗ Pickering Barn I love that place all

11:36 ↗ right actually the whole Farm okay

11:38 ↗ so moving on uh the purpose tonight

11:40 ↗ there are no recommendations being made

11:42 ↗ you all are not voting the purpose of

11:45 ↗ this is to introduce the proposed

11:47 ↗ rezones or requested rezones and then

11:49 ↗ ask you if there's any clarifying

11:51 ↗ information that you need from us

11:54 ↗ um because on October 13th we will have

11:57 ↗ a public hearing and a recommendation

11:58 ↗ recommendation will be made at that time

12:00 ↗ so we want to make sure that you all

12:01 ↗ have everything that you need to make

12:03 ↗ the best possible decision

12:06 ↗ so now I'm going to let Valerie take

12:08 ↗ over Valerie

12:10 ↗ hi my name is Valerie Porter I'm an

12:12 ↗ associate planner here with the

12:13 ↗ community Planning and Development

12:14 ↗ Department

12:15 ↗ so the first free zone requests we'll be

12:18 ↗ discussing tonight is the parcel located

12:19 ↗ on Wildwood Boulevard

12:22 ↗ this parcel is vacant it's located

12:24 ↗ within the squawk Mountain sub area and

12:26 ↗ it's approximately four acres in size

12:29 ↗ the applicant is requesting this parcel

12:32 ↗ be rezoned from single family small lot

12:34 ↗ to multi-family medium this would also

12:38 ↗ require the land use destination to

12:41 ↗ change from low density residential to

12:44 ↗ multi-family residential

12:46 ↗ as you can see on the maps single family

12:49 ↗ development is located on the East and

12:52 ↗ the west side of the parcel while

12:54 ↗ there's a multi-family development just

12:56 ↗ directly north or south of the parcel

12:58 ↗ excuse me next slide please

13:03 ↗ so the image on the left shows the

13:05 ↗ entire parcel which is divided by one

13:08 ↗ single family lot which you can see on

13:10 ↗ the south side

13:11 ↗ the two images on the right show the

13:14 ↗ close proximity of the squawk Mountain

13:16 ↗ axis Trail which runs parallel along the

13:19 ↗ west side of the site and it also shows

13:22 ↗ how the site is heavily vegetated

13:24 ↗ next

13:27 ↗ so next I'm going to discuss the

13:30 ↗ environmental constraints that are

13:31 ↗ occurring on the site so about 80

13:33 ↗ percent of the site is encumbered by a

13:36 ↗ critical area and their Associated

13:38 ↗ buffers maybe a little bit more

13:40 ↗ City Rick records show over half of the

13:43 ↗ site being impacted by steep slopes and

13:45 ↗ Associated buffers which is the image on

13:48 ↗ the left

13:49 ↗ all steep slopes have a 50-foot buffer

13:52 ↗ unless a Geotech report has been

13:54 ↗ provided demonstrating that the buffer

13:56 ↗ can be reduced this information will

13:59 ↗ have to be confirmed should a

14:01 ↗ development occur on the site and that

14:03 ↗ will likely occur with the site survey

14:05 ↗ and a geotechnical report

14:07 ↗ the image on the right shows the

14:10 ↗ location of two streams impacting the

14:12 ↗ site the first stream which runs east

14:15 ↗ and west on the say is a class 3 stream

14:18 ↗ and that has a 50-foot buffer and the

14:22 ↗ second stream which is Issaquah Creek is

14:24 ↗ located off-site and it's on the east

14:27 ↗ side of the site and it's been

14:29 ↗ classified as a class one stream with

14:31 ↗ the 100 foot buffer

14:34 ↗ it's also worth noting that all of these

14:36 ↗ critical areas have an additional

14:38 ↗ 15-foot building setback line starting

14:41 ↗ from the edge of the buffer so should

14:44 ↗ development occur it will likely have to

14:46 ↗ occur 115 feet away from the ordinary

14:50 ↗ high water mark and just to be clear the

14:53 ↗ images are showing the buffers from the

14:56 ↗ center of the stream but the ordinary

14:57 ↗ high water mark will have to be

14:59 ↗ determined by a report in a state survey

15:02 ↗ next slide

15:05 ↗ all right so Issaquah Creek is one of

15:08 ↗ three streams regulated by the shoreline

15:10 ↗ master program due to the site's

15:13 ↗ location to Issaquah Creek portions of

15:15 ↗ the site are regulated by the shoreline

15:17 ↗ master program and it's been designated

15:19 ↗ or classified as Issaquah Creek Urban

15:23 ↗ Conservancy environmental area

15:25 ↗ so should a single-family development be

15:29 ↗ developed on the site no structures can

15:32 ↗ be constructed within 100 feet of the

15:35 ↗ Issaquah Creek's ordinary high water

15:36 ↗ mark and if multi-family development

15:39 ↗ were to be constructed on the site it

15:41 ↗ cannot be constructed within 200 feet of

15:44 ↗ the ordinary high water mark so the

15:46 ↗ image on the left shows the 200 foot

15:48 ↗ buffer from the Issaquah Creek

15:52 ↗ so with all these constraints that are

15:54 ↗ on the site the image on the right was

15:56 ↗ created and so the area in green is

15:59 ↗ considered what is developable

16:01 ↗ developable area and then the area in

16:04 ↗ Gray is considered undevelopable area

16:07 ↗ and I think that's all the slides are

16:10 ↗ there any questions

16:13 ↗ great thank you Valerie and we didn't

16:14 ↗ hear the one thing that you love about

16:16 ↗ Issaquah

16:18 ↗ I like all the events but my favorite

16:20 ↗ one is salmon days I love salmon days

16:22 ↗ hey there's a plug for this weekend

16:25 ↗ everyone

16:26 ↗ all right thank you Valerie

16:28 ↗ uh Commissioners any clarifying

16:31 ↗ questions as far as the Wildwood

16:34 ↗ um lot and rezone

16:37 ↗ hey Joy here thank you very much for

16:39 ↗ that map I really appreciated

16:41 ↗ um especially that last one on the right

16:43 ↗ I don't know if you want to bring that

16:44 ↗ up Kristen but I was kind of mentally as

16:47 ↗ I was going through our packet trying to

16:49 ↗ Overlay the blue and the steep slopes

16:51 ↗ and so it had that little bit of green

16:53 ↗ really helps me to kind of go okay what

16:55 ↗ are we looking at because there's so

16:56 ↗ much that is so um fragile and

16:59 ↗ unbuildable right now on this lot right

17:01 ↗ now I'm curious does the applicant have

17:04 ↗ any issue with those green boxes is

17:06 ↗ there any notion that they need this to

17:08 ↗ be re-surveyed and that this estimate is

17:11 ↗ in question right now when we talk about

17:12 ↗ needing to have further

17:14 ↗ further studies reassess the high water

17:17 ↗ mark

17:18 ↗ is this notion right now in any kind of

17:20 ↗ dispute right now as you've been having

17:23 ↗ discussions with the applicant

17:25 ↗ um no it's not in dispute but again

17:29 ↗ um we won't know for sure until the

17:30 ↗ applicant um conducts the the necessary

17:33 ↗ surveys and gets all these different

17:34 ↗ reports so

17:36 ↗ um but I'm well aware that they know

17:39 ↗ that they need to do this okay I was

17:41 ↗ curious it doesn't actually mention

17:43 ↗ um the intent of the number of units

17:46 ↗ however I couldn't help but notice that

17:48 ↗ the owners listed as Wildwood 28 unit

17:50 ↗ LLC should I draw any conclusions from

17:53 ↗ that 28 or is that more random and I'm

17:56 ↗ reading into it do we have any

17:58 ↗ information from the applicant of what

18:00 ↗ when they're asking for the multi-family

18:02 ↗ medium

18:04 ↗ I don't believe they've listed a number

18:07 ↗ that wasn't in their application or was

18:10 ↗ it in their letter to the commission so

18:13 ↗ no I don't think we should go off the

18:16 ↗ 28. okay thank you my only other

18:18 ↗ question is I couldn't help and this is

18:20 ↗ actually in regards to the applicant

18:21 ↗ provided us some wonderful letters of

18:23 ↗ additional information and it seems like

18:26 ↗ there's a little bit of a discrepancy on

18:28 ↗ what borders the property staff gave us

18:31 ↗ a report on what bordered north south

18:33 ↗ east west the applicants seemed to have

18:35 ↗ a little bit of a different view of what

18:37 ↗ they bordered does that relevant at all

18:39 ↗ for what we're doing I just noticed the

18:41 ↗ discrepancy I don't know that it

18:42 ↗ actually matters

18:44 ↗ but as we kind of bring in our

18:46 ↗ conclusions of where we are in Issaquah

18:49 ↗ and things like that is that something

18:50 ↗ that I should bring my attention to or

18:52 ↗ disregard I think is my question I guess

18:55 ↗ I didn't see that discrepancy what are

18:57 ↗ they it was in the letters we received

18:59 ↗ via email when they were talking about

19:01 ↗ but there was a discrepancy they

19:03 ↗ believed that they had

19:05 ↗ um on one of the neighboring directions

19:07 ↗ had more density than what staff report

19:09 ↗ had again I just wanted to see if I was

19:12 ↗ the only one who caught that I can go

19:13 ↗ back to it to another time but I also

19:16 ↗ was my question was more if that was

19:17 ↗ even something that was worth drawing my

19:19 ↗ attention to

19:20 ↗ I don't believe so Christian can you go

19:22 ↗ back to the I think it's the first slide

19:31 ↗ all the green and single family

19:34 ↗ yeah and then the lighter green is open

19:37 ↗ space

19:40 ↗ so the only multi-family is the directly

19:43 ↗ to the South okay

19:46 ↗ great thanks very much Valerie yeah no

19:49 ↗ worries

19:54 ↗ thank you Valerie and a question for

19:57 ↗ Kristen or Valerie about the comments in

20:00 ↗ this application and in the other

20:01 ↗ application about housing targets and

20:03 ↗ how

20:04 ↗ um I just didn't quite know how to

20:08 ↗ talk about whether we've met a Target

20:10 ↗ that is 20 years away how do we say we

20:14 ↗ haven't done it well we haven't even

20:16 ↗ gotten there yet how do you um how do

20:18 ↗ you read those

20:20 ↗ so we have not met our targets our new

20:23 ↗ targets which were just adopted in

20:24 ↗ mid-2021 go from 2019 to 2044. those

20:29 ↗ targets are 3500 new units for the City

20:32 ↗ of Issaquah those are adopted by the

20:34 ↗ state we were not able to update that in

20:37 ↗ our comprehensive plan last year because

20:38 ↗ they weren't adopted until the middle of

20:39 ↗ the year so that wasn't it couldn't be

20:41 ↗ put onto our docket we'll update that as

20:44 ↗ part of our periodic update we did meet

20:47 ↗ our last targets through 2035 2006 to

20:51 ↗ 2035 20 and I can't remember went

20:53 ↗ through 2031 actually and we did we met

20:56 ↗ and actually exceeded those we hit 104

20:58 ↗ but as for the new targets no we have

21:00 ↗ not hit them

21:03 ↗ yeah so I'm sorry I'm kind of dense

21:05 ↗ about this um how when would we know

21:09 ↗ whether we met them if it's a 2044

21:12 ↗ Target this is what I'm not quite

21:13 ↗ understanding when is the performance

21:15 ↗ supposed to occur we track it every year

21:19 ↗ um we updated in our comprehensive plan

21:20 ↗ we had the number yeah let me oh I'm not

21:23 ↗ saying it right so if I have to have

21:25 ↗ five new houses by 2044 and I get them

21:28 ↗ in 2040 will I have met my target yes

21:31 ↗ okay but the fact that I didn't have

21:33 ↗ them in 2022 doesn't mean that I haven't

21:36 ↗ met my target

21:38 ↗ okay so our Target we have a bucket yeah

21:41 ↗ and the bucket

21:42 ↗ um from this time to this time to fill

21:44 ↗ up that bucket is 3 500 units so in 2022

21:48 ↗ if we've only gotten this far we haven't

21:50 ↗ filled our bucket yet so no we haven't

21:52 ↗ we haven't met our targets haven't

21:54 ↗ filled the bucket

21:55 ↗ does that help

21:58 ↗ I'll accept the answer

22:06 ↗ are there any other questions

22:10 ↗ oh uh Vice chair Bader

22:13 ↗ yeah I just have a follow-up question to

22:16 ↗ that I remember a long what feels like a

22:19 ↗ long long time ago there was a table

22:21 ↗ that we saw that kind of I think it said

22:23 ↗ like how many units could be built based

22:26 ↗ on land as currently zoned is that is

22:30 ↗ that a thing and so if that is a thing

22:32 ↗ and we know that my question is can we

22:35 ↗ meet those targets based on current

22:37 ↗ zoning

22:38 ↗ so yes what you were talking about was

22:41 ↗ our buildable land study that was

22:42 ↗ completed in 2020 2021

22:46 ↗ and that showed our capacity based on

22:49 ↗ existing zoning and our capacity is well

22:52 ↗ above our targets our capacity we have

22:55 ↗ over 12

22:56 ↗ 000 uh you you know we can accommodate

22:59 ↗ over 12 000 units in the city most of

23:02 ↗ those in central Issaquah

23:04 ↗ um yeah and since our growth Target's

23:06 ↗ only 3 500 we are well we have plenty of

23:10 ↗ capacity yes

23:20 ↗ I want to learn more about Urban

23:22 ↗ Conservancy

23:24 ↗ or if I'm saying that right and how it

23:27 ↗ has it is it treated like a creek or

23:30 ↗ another critical area and that it has a

23:31 ↗ buffer so that

23:32 ↗ part of a parcel would be in the

23:35 ↗ Conservancy but not necessarily all of

23:37 ↗ it a couple of things in the maps

23:39 ↗ confused me just a little bit

23:42 ↗ yes that's correct it's treated like

23:45 ↗ another buffer so

23:47 ↗ um just like the regular buffer for the

23:51 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code it's measured

23:53 ↗ from the ordinary high water mark and

23:55 ↗ then there's another layer to it which

23:56 ↗ prevents development from exceeding 35

23:59 ↗ feet so

24:01 ↗ um

24:02 ↗ it's kind of like an overlay

24:11 ↗ Valerie you'd mentioned that this was

24:13 ↗ from the middle of the stream is it

24:15 ↗ possible that when the surveys are done

24:16 ↗ for the ordinary high water mark that

24:18 ↗ those green boxes will go away

24:20 ↗ yes okay thank you a big possibility

24:24 ↗ okay thanks

24:31 ↗ all right I'll jump in here with a

24:33 ↗ question commissioner voice

24:35 ↗ um is this technically because it's

24:37 ↗ because it has a a lot in between it

24:40 ↗ would this be considered a spot zone or

24:43 ↗ a split Zone

24:45 ↗ because there is a single family lot in

24:47 ↗ between no

24:50 ↗ okay

24:53 ↗ again

24:54 ↗ yeah please is it considered a spot or a

24:58 ↗ site-specific Zone because we're doing

25:00 ↗ just one parcel or one property it is

25:03 ↗ considered site specific zone right now

25:06 ↗ we still treat those as we have for the

25:08 ↗ past 20 some odd years as legislative

25:09 ↗ reasons but yes it is a site-specific

25:12 ↗ Zone

25:13 ↗ our site reasonable request

25:22 ↗ and just so I'm understanding this

25:24 ↗ correctly this with the current zoning

25:26 ↗ that it has it can still build

25:29 ↗ um

25:30 ↗ small cottage housing and multi-family

25:32 ↗ to a certain degree

25:34 ↗ or no no multi-family at all

25:37 ↗ correct only single family no

25:39 ↗ multi-family okay

25:41 ↗ they could do cluster Valor correct me

25:43 ↗ if I'm wrong but they could do cluster

25:45 ↗ housing on the site which in which case

25:47 ↗ they could do duplexes

25:49 ↗ and maybe more

25:51 ↗ duplication just duplexes because of the

25:53 ↗ 200 foot Shoreline yeah okay thank you

25:58 ↗ are there any other clarifying questions

26:01 ↗ this might be more of a consideration

26:03 ↗ than a question but um I know Ms

26:05 ↗ Fletcher is here on another topic

26:07 ↗ tonight but she did mention one thing in

26:08 ↗ particular which is flexibility in the

26:10 ↗ rezoning and so one consideration I had

26:13 ↗ for this particular topic was does it

26:15 ↗ make sense to consider rezoning it to

26:17 ↗ have that flexibility knowing that some

26:20 ↗ of the limitations of the you know the

26:22 ↗ slope and the stream would come into

26:23 ↗ play during the development process just

26:26 ↗ kind of something for for considerations

26:28 ↗ we're considering the options

26:30 ↗ oh

26:31 ↗ there would be no flexibility just

26:34 ↗ because like I said because of the

26:36 ↗ shoreline master program that 200 foot

26:39 ↗ buffer there's no

26:41 ↗ um

26:42 ↗ I don't believe there's any variants or

26:44 ↗ adjustments for that and then also

26:47 ↗ um the the 35 foot height requirement so

26:52 ↗ I did reach out to a plans examiner to

26:54 ↗ try to understand you know could you you

26:57 ↗ know do some kind of multi-family or

26:59 ↗ something within that height limit you

27:01 ↗ could it'd be very

27:03 ↗ um

27:04 ↗ from the user's perspective it would

27:06 ↗ feel really odd in the building you

27:08 ↗ could do it but it would be

27:10 ↗ um

27:11 ↗ not recommended

27:17 ↗ oh one other thing is kind of something

27:19 ↗ that Christian Kristen mentioned which

27:21 ↗ is

27:22 ↗ um cluster development so without a

27:24 ↗ rezone

27:25 ↗ um the applicant could do subdivide the

27:28 ↗ parcel and do utilize the cluster

27:31 ↗ Provisions which would allow them to go

27:34 ↗ below the minimum lot size and then also

27:37 ↗ the setbacks would be treated or applied

27:40 ↗ to the entire parcel so that would

27:42 ↗ actually give them some flexibility

27:44 ↗ versus rezoning and they can do that

27:46 ↗ without that without this process

27:52 ↗ thank you Valerie

27:54 ↗ are there any other clarifying questions

27:56 ↗ from the commissioners

27:59 ↗ please commissioner Milligan yeah and

28:01 ↗ this isn't just for this particular

28:03 ↗ application for but for all of them that

28:05 ↗ we're looking at to help us understand

28:06 ↗ and maybe share with the public the

28:08 ↗ approval criteria table uh it has on the

28:11 ↗ left hand side what seems to be

28:13 ↗ something that was developed by staff

28:14 ↗ and on the right hand side developed by

28:15 ↗ the applicant and so um

28:19 ↗ can you tell me a little bit where those

28:21 ↗ the source of those two things in that

28:23 ↗ how a commissioner or anybody who's

28:25 ↗ evaluating this would look at the

28:27 ↗ compliance

28:28 ↗ column it actually it was all developed

28:30 ↗ by staff the column on the left

28:33 ↗ which is though the criteria that need

28:35 ↗ to be met those are in our code and then

28:39 ↗ we're just put into the application so

28:40 ↗ that the applicants could actually see

28:42 ↗ them

28:43 ↗ um and address them the column on the

28:45 ↗ right was actually spelled out by staff

28:48 ↗ uh so then uh in following up though if

28:53 ↗ if the

28:54 ↗ could there be room for disagreement

28:56 ↗ about whether the criterios Met

29:00 ↗ Craig compliance

29:02 ↗ I'm going to say there can always be

29:04 ↗ disagreement

29:06 ↗ I agree

29:09 ↗ well you know me so I'm so glad you said

29:12 ↗ that

29:16 ↗ thank you Kristen thank you commissioner

29:18 ↗ Milligan any other clarifying questions

29:20 ↗ as far as the Wildwood property

29:25 ↗ can't see all the Commissioners online

29:26 ↗ no virtual hands

29:28 ↗ okay thank you Jared

29:30 ↗ all right

29:31 ↗ moving on uh we are now going to be

29:34 ↗ taking a look at the Our Savior Lutheran

29:37 ↗ Church property not yet Newport Newport

29:40 ↗ yeah so Newport we didn't do a separate

29:43 ↗ staff report for this one but I do want

29:44 ↗ to keep reminding you all that it is one

29:46 ↗ of our three reasons that's being

29:47 ↗ requested this year it is a technical

29:50 ↗ correction so it's about 0.41 Acres it

29:55 ↗ is located on Newport Way

29:57 ↗ right it's part of the Anthology

29:59 ↗ Apartments is what it is it is currently

30:03 ↗ zoned as of last year Community or the

30:06 ↗ existing land use is community

30:07 ↗ facilities uh the proposed land use

30:10 ↗ designation is multi-family residential

30:12 ↗ the existing zoning is community

30:14 ↗ facilities Recreation and the proposed

30:16 ↗ zoning is Village Residential so let me

30:19 ↗ tell you the story of what happened

30:21 ↗ so last year the city acquired this

30:24 ↗ property in 2019

30:26 ↗ and we were asked to then a little later

30:29 ↗ rezone the property we had it and uh so

30:32 ↗ we did we and we were given what we're

30:34 ↗ given as a parcel number and then we

30:36 ↗ take that and we map it right so we took

30:38 ↗ the parcel number we mapped it we went

30:40 ↗ through the whole process had it rezoned

30:41 ↗ to community facilities Recreation

30:43 ↗ because it is a park

30:44 ↗ and then afterwards went to go put the

30:48 ↗ zoning in there and correct it and

30:50 ↗ realize that this little tiny portion

30:51 ↗ right here

30:54 ↗ in 2020

30:55 ↗ had actually been

30:58 ↗ the parcel had been subdivided or there

31:00 ↗ was a lot line adjustment and that

31:03 ↗ little tiny portion was actually a part

31:05 ↗ of this much bigger portion right here

31:08 ↗ so we don't own that so it shouldn't be

31:11 ↗ Zone Community facilities it's not

31:13 ↗ public and it belongs to the larger

31:14 ↗ parcel so it needs to go back to Village

31:17 ↗ Residential and it's a technical change

31:19 ↗ that we just need to make it was an

31:21 ↗ oversight and what's that

31:24 ↗ um oh I didn't put anything else in

31:26 ↗ there I apologize do you have any

31:27 ↗ questions I thought I thought I had

31:29 ↗ pictures

31:31 ↗ questions on the Newport area rezone

31:36 ↗ I don't see anything in my chat box

31:40 ↗ thank you Kristen you're welcome

31:42 ↗ okay now we're going to move along yes

31:44 ↗ now we'll move along to our Savior

31:46 ↗ Lutheran Church it is located on Front

31:49 ↗ Street South on the west side of the

31:51 ↗ street there is an existing Church there

31:52 ↗ it is 3.35 Acres it's current land use

31:57 ↗ designation is single family no it's not

31:59 ↗ it's low density residential

32:01 ↗ they're requested land use designation

32:03 ↗ is multi-family residential the existing

32:06 ↗ zoning is single family small lot and

32:08 ↗ the proposed requested zoning is

32:11 ↗ multi-family High

32:15 ↗ and you can see that here's the Ariel

32:17 ↗ right here the site goes to the creek

32:19 ↗ right there

32:20 ↗ butts the streets

32:23 ↗ um

32:24 ↗ and then the church exists right here

32:27 ↗ here this little triangle is also owned

32:29 ↗ by our savior it is currently used for

32:31 ↗ parking

32:32 ↗ and then here's the view from the street

32:35 ↗ right here and I should let you know

32:36 ↗ this is community this is open space

32:39 ↗ right here owned by the city all of this

32:42 ↗ is either condominiums or apartments

32:43 ↗ this is a nursing home right here as I

32:45 ↗ mentioned this is parking and this is

32:47 ↗ Condominiums and apartments behind it as

32:49 ↗ well

32:54 ↗ so I'm so glad that Valerie is more

32:56 ↗ Versed and environmental discussions

32:58 ↗ than I am and she went first so she told

33:00 ↗ you a lot but on your left hand side

33:02 ↗ there are shows a map of both the stream

33:05 ↗ and the creek buffers so this is

33:07 ↗ Issaquah Creek it is a Class one it has

33:10 ↗ a 100 foot buffer attached to it again

33:13 ↗ with a 15-foot building set back from

33:15 ↗ there this little tiny Circle right here

33:18 ↗ that is the only Street steep slope that

33:19 ↗ is on the site that also has a 50-foot

33:22 ↗ buffer and it doesn't really extend

33:23 ↗ outside of the stream buffer right there

33:26 ↗ as Valerie mentioned again this part of

33:28 ↗ Issaquah Creek is

33:30 ↗ designated in the shoreline master plan

33:32 ↗ as an Issaquah Creek Urban con Urban

33:35 ↗ Conservancy area this part of the creek

33:37 ↗ is which means that it has 200 foot

33:39 ↗ buffer

33:40 ↗ um to it and I need to make a correction

33:42 ↗ I made a mistake in the staff report and

33:45 ↗ I said that neither multi-family nor

33:47 ↗ commercial were allowed within 200 feet

33:49 ↗ or we're allowed within this 200 foot

33:51 ↗ buffer I was mistaken multi-family is

33:54 ↗ not allowed within the 200 foot buffer

33:56 ↗ commercial is can't go into the 100 100

33:59 ↗ but it um it is a lab within the 200

34:01 ↗ foot buffer so the church as I mean is

34:05 ↗ still about right here

34:06 ↗ and then there's the developable land I

34:08 ↗ did not do a read available map for this

34:10 ↗ one I apologize but it's clearly a

34:13 ↗ little bit more space than the other one

34:14 ↗ was

34:17 ↗ um that's what I have do you all have

34:18 ↗ any questions about this one

34:20 ↗ all right questions commissioners

34:22 ↗ please commissioner altimore

34:25 ↗ the height of the existing multi-family

34:27 ↗ that's around there is that considered

34:29 ↗ the high height or is that a lower

34:30 ↗ height that's that that's a really good

34:32 ↗ question

34:33 ↗ um

34:34 ↗ it's not most of it I believe is a two

34:36 ↗ and three story

34:38 ↗ and I think the maximum the maximum and

34:40 ↗ oh Valerie's gonna know better than me

34:42 ↗ but I'm not sure she's here

34:44 ↗ um I think the maximum Height's like 40

34:46 ↗ feet

34:47 ↗ in those maybe higher uh actually it's

34:50 ↗ 50 feet Valerie I'm gonna have to check

34:52 ↗ on that one and I will check on that one

34:53 ↗ and I'll include that

34:55 ↗ great thank you you're welcome

34:59 ↗ I had a question about the approval

35:01 ↗ criteria on number two uh the staff

35:05 ↗ report says the proposed rezone does not

35:07 ↗ provide a public health safety welfare

35:09 ↗ or other community benefit is that

35:12 ↗ correct am I reading that am I reading

35:15 ↗ into it incorrect based on who the

35:17 ↗ applicant is and what their plans are no

35:19 ↗ but

35:20 ↗ yeah

35:21 ↗ you need to look at the site as the site

35:23 ↗ and not as the site with the project

35:25 ↗ proposed on it because there is no

35:26 ↗ project here yet nothing has been

35:28 ↗ submitted there's no formal application

35:30 ↗ there's no no legally binding agreement

35:32 ↗ somewhere that says that something's

35:33 ↗ going to happen here so when we look at

35:35 ↗ it we look at the whole site and it

35:38 ↗ doesn't you know if you're looking at

35:39 ↗ reasonable or at a public benefit it

35:42 ↗ doesn't reduce traffic it doesn't

35:44 ↗ provide a park or emergency services or

35:47 ↗ you know a public pool anything like

35:49 ↗ that it doesn't protect the environment

35:51 ↗ and there's one other qualification I

35:53 ↗ can't remember but so no if you're

35:55 ↗ looking at those characteristics then no

35:57 ↗ okay thank you I kind of need a little

35:59 ↗ bit of help with that I think it's very

36:01 ↗ interesting when going through this

36:03 ↗ packet the of that was it's hard not to

36:06 ↗ compare the Our Savior Lutheran and the

36:08 ↗ Wildwood

36:09 ↗ um they're both in this asking for

36:11 ↗ something very similar the sites are

36:13 ↗ very different but it was hard for my

36:15 ↗ mind not to compare them and I found

36:17 ↗ myself needing a refresher on kind of

36:20 ↗ um what kind of guide lines and

36:22 ↗ framework what Lane I need to stay in

36:24 ↗ and I think it's interesting I'm I'm

36:28 ↗ curious too we talk a lot about

36:30 ↗ development agreements here and about

36:32 ↗ staff resources about being able to do

36:34 ↗ that when we see such an amazing partner

36:36 ↗ in our community as the food bank and

36:38 ↗ that's the great work that happens at

36:40 ↗ our Savory at the Lutheran I mean is

36:42 ↗ that something that we want to explore

36:43 ↗ of saying like prior to a rezone is it

36:46 ↗ more appropriate to have staff have a

36:48 ↗ more Hands-On element to a project like

36:50 ↗ this

36:54 ↗ so whether or not we want to do a

36:55 ↗ development agreement is something I've

36:57 ↗ left up to the council not to us so I

36:59 ↗ can't I can't speak to that one

37:02 ↗ um

37:03 ↗ something more concrete would you know

37:05 ↗ something like that shirt that

37:07 ↗ but it needs to be something that's

37:09 ↗ binding because so often if you look

37:11 ↗ like you know there's several properties

37:13 ↗ around here where people have submitted

37:14 ↗ building permits and they go through

37:16 ↗ this process and then they don't happen

37:18 ↗ so that's why we look at it this way

37:21 ↗ if there's nothing binding on the site

37:23 ↗ yeah it was interesting to me

37:26 ↗ um I guess I'm trying to form this more

37:27 ↗ like a question right now so I'm not

37:28 ↗ rambling is to try to say um I I love

37:31 ↗ the intent of so many things about the

37:33 ↗ proposal and yet it's hard to um to not

37:37 ↗ feel like we've had been down this road

37:39 ↗ in a similar way with affordable housing

37:42 ↗ and having Advocates say we want to come

37:44 ↗ we want to bring certain elements to the

37:45 ↗ community and then the way it pans out

37:47 ↗ is a little bit different as the process

37:48 ↗ plays out and I just kind of needed this

37:51 ↗ reminder of how we judge this in a

37:55 ↗ correct Lane rather than in an

37:56 ↗ aspirational way and what we want to see

37:58 ↗ so

38:00 ↗ um tips with that are keeping that

38:02 ↗ coming thank you

38:09 ↗ I believe Sarah has a question

38:12 ↗ uh Vice chair Bader yeah thanks I have

38:16 ↗ um two questions actually the first one

38:19 ↗ is looking at kind of the list of

38:21 ↗ permitted uses under the single family

38:23 ↗ small lot

38:25 ↗ um since it says Social Services

38:26 ↗ nonprofits does that mean that the food

38:28 ↗ bank

38:30 ↗ um piece of this what could be proposed

38:32 ↗ is already permitted on that site

38:34 ↗ yes it is

38:37 ↗ okay and then my second question that I

38:39 ↗ think I know the answer to but I'm going

38:40 ↗ to ask it anyway there's there's no like

38:42 ↗ contingencies to this right so it's not

38:44 ↗ like

38:45 ↗ rezone contingent on

38:48 ↗ like affordable housing I know that

38:49 ↗ that's the intention that we're not

38:51 ↗ supposed to be considering but there's

38:53 ↗ there's no way to do something like that

38:54 ↗ right correct and I've even double

38:56 ↗ checked with our um city attorneys just

38:58 ↗ to ask about it and they've said they do

38:59 ↗ not advise conditioning uh reasons it's

39:07 ↗ great thank you

39:09 ↗ any other clarifying questions

39:12 ↗ please commissioner Milligan thank you

39:15 ↗ it's had to do with

39:17 ↗ the multi-family high density request

39:21 ↗ and however in the narrative I'm calling

39:24 ↗ it The Narrative the kind of prose part

39:26 ↗ where the policy and then the comment

39:28 ↗ and the policy and the comment keeps

39:30 ↗ saying yeah but you know if they don't

39:32 ↗ do it very dense it's not going to

39:33 ↗ conflict so I found that kind of

39:36 ↗ confusing when the application was for

39:38 ↗ multi-family high density rather than

39:40 ↗ multi-family medium am I missing

39:43 ↗ something there

39:46 ↗ I think you're asking why they chose the

39:49 ↗ high density as opposed to the medium

39:50 ↗ density and I don't know the answer to

39:52 ↗ that I did suggest it at one point but

39:54 ↗ they preferred to go with the high so I

39:56 ↗ but I don't know you'd have to ask the

39:57 ↗ applicant

39:59 ↗ I think more of my question

40:01 ↗ um and maybe I can clarify a little bit

40:03 ↗ has to do Under the comprehensive plan

40:04 ↗ goals and policies where there's the

40:07 ↗ response kind of the call and response

40:09 ↗ there in the in the comments say in

40:12 ↗ various places yeah but if they don't

40:14 ↗ make a very it won't conflict with our

40:17 ↗ policies

40:19 ↗ remember that I think that one had to do

40:21 ↗ I don't have it in front of me but had

40:22 ↗ to do with character I existed retaining

40:24 ↗ the character of neighborhoods

40:25 ↗ particularly in Old Town

40:27 ↗ um

40:28 ↗ yeah and part of that is because of the

40:30 ↗ 35 foot height limit at one point and

40:33 ↗ Valerie knows better than I how far that

40:35 ↗ goes

40:36 ↗ um but there is a 35 foot height limit

40:37 ↗ at one point and the site isn't that

40:40 ↗ dense there's still a church on there

40:42 ↗ and any you know the available

40:43 ↗ developable land is behind that

40:46 ↗ but

40:47 ↗ um

40:48 ↗ and going back to me again I think you

40:51 ↗ asked the question about the surrounding

40:52 ↗ development and how high those were I'd

40:54 ↗ have to check and see how high those

40:55 ↗ were and what the height limits are

40:57 ↗ I'll see what I can do and then I can

40:59 ↗ better answer your question but

41:01 ↗ sorry I wasn't able to respond I have a

41:04 ↗ million and when tabs open but I can

41:06 ↗ respond to the height requirements so

41:09 ↗ for

41:10 ↗ multi-family High the max

41:14 ↗ height limit is uh 40. an applicant can

41:19 ↗ request an administrative adjustment of

41:22 ↗ standards and go up to 65 feet so for

41:26 ↗ areas that are located within the

41:29 ↗ Conservancy area the short that's

41:31 ↗ regulated by the shoreline master

41:32 ↗ program there is a height limit of 35

41:35 ↗ feet

41:37 ↗ so it's her single family or

41:38 ↗ multi-family I believe in even

41:40 ↗ commercial it's 35 feet

41:46 ↗ so I'll follow up with that so Valerie

41:48 ↗ that would include the entire property

41:49 ↗ even if they were to be multi-family

41:53 ↗ no so only the um the 35 feet only

41:57 ↗ applies to the area

41:59 ↗ um that's in the urban Conservancy so

42:01 ↗ that Blue Zone and then outside of that

42:03 ↗ if it's the multi-family Hive then it

42:06 ↗ would be the 40 feet but if they wanted

42:09 ↗ to go higher they would have to request

42:11 ↗ an administrative adjustment of

42:12 ↗ standards as our code is today

42:15 ↗ and Valerie there are conditions there

42:17 ↗ with that as well right like step backs

42:19 ↗ yeah and yes there's a set of conditions

42:22 ↗ I don't know them off the top of my head

42:24 ↗ but yes there are conditions that they

42:26 ↗ would have to meet in order to have the

42:29 ↗ um AAS approved

42:37 ↗ any further questions

42:39 ↗ I have one question is is there a

42:41 ↗ particular reason why a traffic

42:44 ↗ a note about traffic in this area in

42:46 ↗ this particular area in this particular

42:48 ↗ city is not involved in this packet

42:51 ↗ so I've already got that one rolling

42:54 ↗ because it's come up a few times so I

42:56 ↗ have asked our Engineers to please

42:58 ↗ provide me with different scenarios that

42:59 ↗ I'll have in the next staff report

43:03 ↗ we will wait for that report

43:07 ↗ any other clarifying questions

43:10 ↗ commissioner

43:13 ↗ okay Kristen I'm still trying to figure

43:14 ↗ out at the process of approving a

43:17 ↗ site-specific zone change and I know

43:19 ↗ that we're this is the way we do it now

43:21 ↗ and we have for 20 years

43:24 ↗ and that we have criteria and if the

43:28 ↗ application

43:29 ↗ satisfies all the criteria then it can

43:34 ↗ qualify for a site specific that might

43:36 ↗ be defensible if it did

43:39 ↗ which the packet hasn't shown that it

43:41 ↗ does but if it

43:43 ↗ if you

43:44 ↗ didn't approve

43:47 ↗ of these is there is there any what's

43:50 ↗ the recourse for the applicant if we

43:54 ↗ don't approve and they think there's

43:55 ↗ something wrong with our process about

43:57 ↗ how we approve things

44:02 ↗ um well it's happened before they can

44:04 ↗ appeal

44:04 ↗ and it goes to uh Valerie you may need

44:08 ↗ to step in who's It Go to

44:14 ↗ give me a minute and let me look at my

44:15 ↗ car okay thank you

44:19 ↗ um but there is an appeal process for it

44:20 ↗ and they can appeal the procedure

44:25 ↗ can an applicant apply more than once uh

44:29 ↗ in this way for a reason through a

44:32 ↗ compliment Amendment and have either of

44:34 ↗ these applicants applied before

44:36 ↗ under our existing code they can apply

44:38 ↗ more than once under the proposed code I

44:42 ↗ believe that it would be once every

44:43 ↗ three years if it's already gone through

44:45 ↗ the process they couldn't do it for

44:46 ↗ another three years but currently I

44:47 ↗ shouldn't even go there currently yes

44:49 ↗ they can and no they have not applied

44:51 ↗ before neither one

44:57 ↗ so you had mentioned that we can't

44:59 ↗ consider proposed that haven't come in

45:01 ↗ in reality for what could be on the site

45:03 ↗ would coming in with an actual plan that

45:07 ↗ to actually go through both the zoning

45:09 ↗ the rezone request as well as moving

45:12 ↗ forward with a planned project would

45:14 ↗ that then allow them to apply again

45:16 ↗ under the new expectations that might be

45:19 ↗ coming for the three-year limit

45:22 ↗ um

45:23 ↗ so you're asking if they reapplied next

45:25 ↗ year and they came in with the project

45:26 ↗ application

45:28 ↗ could they do that yes

45:31 ↗ I think so

45:32 ↗ thank you

45:34 ↗ let me check but I think so

45:40 ↗ before the next question is asked can I

45:42 ↗ answer

45:43 ↗ um commissioner Milligan's about the

45:45 ↗ appeal

45:47 ↗ the red zones would be

45:50 ↗ um if it was appealed it would go to the

45:52 ↗ King County Superior Court

46:00 ↗ foreign

46:03 ↗ going once

46:05 ↗ going twice any other clarifying

46:08 ↗ questions from our commissioners both

46:10 ↗ here

46:12 ↗ and online

46:16 ↗ can you see anybody

46:18 ↗ there is no one indicating that they

46:19 ↗ would like to speak at this time okay

46:23 ↗ all right well thank you very much

46:25 ↗ I believe that's all we have this

46:28 ↗ evening

46:29 ↗ our next meeting on the 13th will be

46:31 ↗ having a public hearing and then

46:34 ↗ hopefully we've asked all the questions

46:36 ↗ that we needed to ask tonight

46:38 ↗ and then after the public hearing we

46:40 ↗ will have our deliberations on these

46:43 ↗ three different topics

46:47 ↗ all right we are now going to move on to

46:49 ↗ our next item of business which is

46:51 ↗ reports city council updates

46:56 ↗ so many is not could not make it tonight

46:58 ↗ I do not have any Council reports I do

47:01 ↗ know that

47:03 ↗ uh part the bucket six the first part of

47:06 ↗ bucket six went to the

47:08 ↗ Planning Development and environment

47:10 ↗ committee and there didn't seem to be

47:13 ↗ any issues no follow-up from staff so or

47:15 ↗ for staff

47:16 ↗ and then the next one goes

47:21 ↗ in the next week or two

47:23 ↗ them in October

47:25 ↗ yes and that will be the last part that

47:27 ↗ you looked at that had definitions and

47:29 ↗ resumes and all those different

47:31 ↗ procedures listed in there

47:35 ↗ all right thank you

47:38 ↗ how about any other business and

47:39 ↗ announcements I do so I was asked

47:44 ↗ um via email earlier to talk about what

47:48 ↗ we affectionately call the happy Grant

47:51 ↗ um so I'm gonna I have a really brief

47:52 ↗ presentation on that but I'll put oops I

47:55 ↗ gotta share my screen

47:59 ↗ there we go

48:02 ↗ there's really not that many buttons to

48:04 ↗ push but I just I'm never in the right

48:06 ↗ ones

48:07 ↗ all right

48:09 ↗ all right I thought I pulled up the

48:10 ↗ wrong one sorry

48:15 ↗ I'm sorry here we go

48:17 ↗ okay so the happy Grant is the housing

48:20 ↗ action plan implementation Grant and it

48:23 ↗ was we received it we applied we

48:25 ↗ received a grant it's for a hundred

48:27 ↗ thousand dollars and the intent is to

48:30 ↗ help us to implement our 2017 housing

48:33 ↗ strategy work plan that was adopted

48:37 ↗ uh we hired a consultant we didn't we

48:40 ↗ haven't talked to you about it really

48:41 ↗ yet because it took us a while to get a

48:44 ↗ consultant on board and we didn't even

48:45 ↗ start until August

48:47 ↗ so um that's why you haven't heard much

48:49 ↗ about it but we now have a consultant on

48:52 ↗ board it's Eco Northwest who has worked

48:54 ↗ with us on a lot of our other housing

48:55 ↗ issues before

48:57 ↗ so the purpose of

48:59 ↗ our grant when we applied we want to

49:01 ↗ address three I'm sorry

49:05 ↗ um we want to address three strategies

49:07 ↗ one of them is strategy six and that is

49:10 ↗ to increase the developer provided

49:11 ↗ affordable housing in central Issaquah

49:14 ↗ so we did some of this and what this

49:16 ↗ means it's called inclusionary zoning

49:18 ↗ and what it means is that if there is a

49:20 ↗ residential component to a development

49:22 ↗ that a certain percentage of that

49:24 ↗ ranging anywhere from seven and a half

49:25 ↗ to twelve and a half percent of your

49:26 ↗ units must be affordable and it's a

49:28 ↗ sliding scale and it also depends on

49:30 ↗ what zone you're in so we currently

49:31 ↗ allow it in urban core

49:35 ↗ mixed use Central Issaquah and the

49:37 ↗ vertical mixed use overlay Zone okay

49:40 ↗ that's where it's currently required and

49:43 ↗ what we're looking to do is expand that

49:46 ↗ out a little bit so in central Issaquah

49:49 ↗ we're looking to expand it to our

49:51 ↗ mixed-use residential Zone

49:53 ↗ but the next one 6.3 says evaluate the

49:55 ↗ potential for inclusionary requirement

49:57 ↗ outside Central Issaquah so we are

50:00 ↗ looking at our multi-family high and our

50:02 ↗ multi-family medium zones right now to

50:04 ↗ expand the inclusionary zoning

50:09 ↗ another one is strategy seven to

50:11 ↗ mitigate and offset the deterrence of

50:13 ↗ condominium development so what happened

50:16 ↗ was the state has

50:17 ↗ crazy restrictive

50:21 ↗ sort of restrictions on Condominiums and

50:24 ↗ there's a

50:25 ↗ I'm not going to say it exactly right

50:27 ↗ but there's a provision that if

50:29 ↗ something happens to the condominium

50:31 ↗ within for a certain amount of times

50:33 ↗ like four years then the property owner

50:35 ↗ of that condominium can then sue the

50:36 ↗ developer which has prevented a lot of

50:38 ↗ developers from doing Condominiums

50:40 ↗ particularly smaller scale Condominiums

50:42 ↗ I could be here

50:43 ↗ so

50:44 ↗ we are have asked our consultant to one

50:47 ↗ look at anything that we can do in the

50:49 ↗ city too because this would be a kind of

50:51 ↗ missing missing middle kind of housing

50:53 ↗ that we would like to have here and we

50:55 ↗ would like to see if there's anything in

50:56 ↗ the city that we are doing currently

50:58 ↗ that is preventing developers from

51:00 ↗ coming in building condos and we are

51:03 ↗ also asking them to look at if there's

51:05 ↗ if there aren't things that we can fix

51:06 ↗ here what can be fixed and what can we

51:09 ↗ take to the state and said you can fix

51:10 ↗ it that you can help us fix it this way

51:12 ↗ so those are the two pieces that we're

51:14 ↗ doing with that

51:16 ↗ the last one is strategy eight which is

51:18 ↗ to incorporate code Provisions to

51:20 ↗ increase potential diversity of housing

51:22 ↗ types built in the city

51:24 ↗ so this we are looking at doing in all

51:27 ↗ of our multi-family zones

51:29 ↗ so all of central Issaquah

51:32 ↗ um multi-family High multi-family medium

51:34 ↗ those are we're looking at doing it in

51:36 ↗ those zones

51:37 ↗ and

51:39 ↗ diversity of housing types so you look

51:41 ↗ at it and you go well we already allow

51:42 ↗ so much and that sounds right but we

51:44 ↗ don't allow things like Cottage housing

51:46 ↗ which would be sort of single family

51:48 ↗ Standalone smaller units on in on

51:51 ↗ Parcels they share a common area in the

51:54 ↗ middle we don't allow Courtyard

51:56 ↗ Apartments right now which whoops I keep

51:59 ↗ doing that um which is you know those

52:02 ↗ are again smaller scale they're usually

52:04 ↗ about two to two to three stories high

52:05 ↗ with the big Courtyard in the middle you

52:08 ↗ might consider live work units something

52:09 ↗ we also don't allow and maybe and we've

52:13 ↗ talked about this and we're not sure

52:15 ↗ we're going to look at it but a podmans

52:17 ↗ something that might go in our Urban

52:19 ↗ core which is much higher density but

52:21 ↗ it's also a diversity of housing that we

52:23 ↗ don't have or allow right here so those

52:25 ↗ are different types that we're going to

52:25 ↗ look at in our multi-family zones

52:29 ↗ so as for this timeline and this is this

52:33 ↗ is alternative

52:34 ↗ um but right now August or October the

52:37 ↗ we are working on focusing on strategy

52:39 ↗ seven which is the condominium

52:40 ↗ development

52:42 ↗ September through January we are working

52:43 ↗ on both strategies six and eight so

52:46 ↗ inclusionary zoning and diversity of

52:48 ↗ housing

52:49 ↗ in January we're going to try and do it

52:51 ↗ in October but we're shifting that and

52:53 ↗ in January we're going to do a housing

52:55 ↗ 101 we're going to have a regional

52:57 ↗ Coalition for housing come and talk to

52:58 ↗ you all about missing middle about

53:01 ↗ affordable housing what that means um so

53:03 ↗ we're going to they'll be here

53:05 ↗ and we'll also probably give an update

53:07 ↗ on where we stand with our research so

53:09 ↗ far

53:10 ↗ and then in January through March our

53:13 ↗ Consultants were all going to work on

53:14 ↗ the results and strategy report and then

53:16 ↗ we'll have hopefully draft code to you

53:17 ↗ in April so the grant says that this

53:20 ↗ needs to be completed in 2023 that does

53:22 ↗ not mean that it has to be adopted I

53:24 ↗ mean in June of 2023 it doesn't mean

53:26 ↗ that that has to be adopted we don't

53:27 ↗ have to have code adopted at that time

53:29 ↗ but we have to have intent to adopt so

53:31 ↗ we have to have the path toward adoption

53:32 ↗ by then I'd like to have it adopted but

53:34 ↗ we'll see what happens

53:36 ↗ okay so that is all I have do you oh and

53:39 ↗ that's the same thing I did it in two

53:40 ↗ different forms uh do you all have any

53:42 ↗ questions about that

53:45 ↗ commissioner Milligan does

53:47 ↗ of course I do thank you thank you

53:49 ↗ Kristen this is awesome you're welcome

53:51 ↗ love all this stuff especially strategy

53:53 ↗ eight

53:54 ↗ uh and I'm looking through my notes

53:56 ↗ feverishly here and maybe it wasn't in

53:58 ↗ the council agenda bill but rather in

54:00 ↗ the original legislation but um do you

54:03 ↗ know about any requirement upon

54:06 ↗ receiving the happy Grant from the state

54:08 ↗ to change single-family zoning

54:12 ↗ that's not part of this grant the state

54:14 ↗ has talked about that but nothing was

54:16 ↗ ever adopted they put two bills forward

54:18 ↗ last year but nothing ever happened they

54:20 ↗ died

54:21 ↗ um and so I I don't know what's going to

54:23 ↗ happen in the next legislative session

54:26 ↗ so no requirement to change

54:29 ↗ single-family zoning with the receiving

54:30 ↗ of this grant is that what I'm no not

54:32 ↗ with receiving in this grant no okay

54:34 ↗ thank you

54:39 ↗ any other questions for Kristen

54:43 ↗ online

54:48 ↗ no indication

54:49 ↗ all right thank you Jared

54:51 ↗ all right are there any comments

54:53 ↗ concerns for the good of our order

54:56 ↗ commissioners

54:59 ↗ I think we're getting out too early

55:01 ↗ [Laughter]

55:07 ↗ um enjoy because it doesn't happen often

55:09 ↗ but yeah we're working on hopefully uh

55:11 ↗ staff is something uh possibly maybe in

55:14 ↗ December

55:15 ↗ I just want to say thank you to again

55:17 ↗ once again the staff for all their

55:18 ↗ Tyler's tireless work on providing us

55:21 ↗ new Commissioners I want to thank and

55:23 ↗ welcome our new Commissioners here in

55:25 ↗ person and also online and we're looking

55:28 ↗ to forward to seeing everybody I believe

55:30 ↗ on October 13th for a public hearing

55:34 ↗ um but before that this coming Monday

55:36 ↗ October 3rd is the orientation and pizza

55:39 ↗ party first at 5 30 followed by

55:42 ↗ orientation

55:44 ↗ Don't Want to Miss a pizza party so see

55:46 ↗ everybody there

55:47 ↗ everybody there all right well thank you

55:49 ↗ everyone having no further business we

55:51 ↗ adjourn this meeting tonight at 7 31 pm

55:55 ↗ night

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (8)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Altimore

Lewis

Longoria

Milligan

Patterson Absence: Esemuede (Excused)

Kennedy (Excused)

Staff (1)

Jared Aldridge, Meeting Associate, Clerks Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Valerie Porter, Associate Planner