Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, October 13, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 29, 2022

packet pp.3–7

▶ Watch from 0:53 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, September 29, 2022

Minutes of October 3, 2022

packet pp.9–10

▶ Watch from 1:02 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:00 p.m. - Thursday, October 3, 2022

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.81–83

▶ Watch from 2:20:06 Open packet at p.81 ↗

Staff report:

Page 82 of 83 Staff Support: Christen Leeson Staff Support: Stephen Padua

3298 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ welcome and good evening

0:15 ↗ um I would like to call the October 13th

0:17 ↗ planning policy commission meeting to

0:19 ↗ order at 6 34 pm

0:21 ↗ tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:23 ↗ the planning policy commission is in

0:26 ↗ person but staff are members of the

0:28 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:29 ↗ person and so welcome to everyone who's

0:32 ↗ here it's great to see so many faces

0:33 ↗ both on our

0:35 ↗ dice is that the right word days as well

0:38 ↗ as in the in the crowd here so great to

0:40 ↗ have

0:41 ↗ so much interest

0:43 ↗ um and so in terms of attendance Kristen

0:45 ↗ do we have a quorum tonight

0:48 ↗ yes we do perfect

0:50 ↗ okay so our first item of business is to

0:53 ↗ take action to approve the minutes for

0:55 ↗ the September 29th meeting

0:57 ↗ are there any corrections to the draft

0:59 ↗ minutes provided in the agenda packet

1:02 ↗ okay so hearing none the minutes are

1:04 ↗ approved

1:06 ↗ our next item of business is public

1:08 ↗ comment

1:11 ↗ um so I'll just provide some brief

1:12 ↗ guidelines for public comments and we'll

1:14 ↗ have actually multiple sessions of

1:15 ↗ public comment tonight the first is just

1:17 ↗ general public comment

1:19 ↗ tonight comments at tonight's meeting

1:21 ↗ may be made in person or virtually for

1:24 ↗ all who would like to speak during

1:25 ↗ public comments speak clearly and pause

1:27 ↗ frequently state your name each time

1:30 ↗ before speaking if you're attending

1:32 ↗ virtually by computer or by phone and

1:34 ↗ would like to speak during public

1:35 ↗ comments in addition to what I just

1:38 ↗ mentioned please mute your microphone

1:39 ↗ when not speaking

1:41 ↗ if you're having technical issues try

1:43 ↗ joining the meeting using a different

1:44 ↗ device such as a smartphone or a tablet

1:46 ↗ or use the call and information in the

1:48 ↗ meeting invite to call into the meeting

1:50 ↗ public comments are an important part of

1:52 ↗ the public process we take them

1:54 ↗ seriously and we Factor them into the

1:56 ↗ decisions that we make

1:58 ↗ comments may be general or related to

2:00 ↗ the topics we're discussing tonight

2:02 ↗ please note that comments are limited to

2:04 ↗ five minutes

2:05 ↗ Jared has anyone signed up to make

2:07 ↗ General Public comments

2:09 ↗ we have one person signed up to make a

2:11 ↗ general audience comment uh we have Ken

2:13 ↗ k

2:15 ↗ um

2:16 ↗ Ken go ahead

2:19 ↗ and press

2:21 ↗ okay

2:27 ↗ there okay

2:28 ↗ thank you hello my name is Ken koenigs

2:31 ↗ Mark and I'm uh representing Our Savior

2:33 ↗ Lutheran church tonight which is at 7 45

2:35 ↗ Front Street South we are one of the

2:38 ↗ requests for a rezone and we think we

2:42 ↗ hope you're all aware of our partnership

2:44 ↗ effort with the Issaquah food and

2:46 ↗ clothing bank

2:47 ↗ uh to relocate their operation from

2:50 ↗ right over here to our church property

2:54 ↗ and to provide a new and better facility

2:57 ↗ on our site we're hopeful that deal will

3:00 ↗ be sealed very soon their board is

3:03 ↗ meeting to discuss it within the next

3:05 ↗ week or two weeks and we hope to have a

3:07 ↗ decision and I would add that in a

3:11 ↗ review of their conceptual plan with

3:13 ↗ Doug yormick from the city there were no

3:16 ↗ issues identified environmental or

3:19 ↗ otherwise that would prohibit their

3:21 ↗ concept from being done

3:23 ↗ so a rezone request is based on this

3:27 ↗ partnership and in support of future

3:29 ↗ potential to do more than that to

3:32 ↗ perhaps become a house a housing a

3:35 ↗ hosting for a hub of Social Services not

3:39 ↗ just maybe the food bank but like the

3:41 ↗ together Center in Redmond a variety of

3:44 ↗ Social Services co-located on one

3:46 ↗ property

3:48 ↗ able to provide a host of services to

3:51 ↗ those most in need in our community and

3:53 ↗ the rezone would enable that it may also

3:57 ↗ be needed for the food bank project

3:59 ↗ because of the current height limit that

4:02 ↗ affects our current zoning but is

4:04 ↗ increased with a multi-family zoning

4:07 ↗ applied and as you might imagine a food

4:10 ↗ bank has high ceilings and where

4:12 ↗ Warehouse type stacking and the extra

4:17 ↗ ceiling limit may be needed

4:21 ↗ we're neither a developer or a landowner

4:24 ↗ seeking a rezone simply for purposes of

4:27 ↗ increasing the development value of our

4:29 ↗ property if anybody knows my record in

4:32 ↗ the city they would know that I am

4:34 ↗ usually on the other side of these kind

4:36 ↗ of issues but in this case for the

4:39 ↗ common good for the benefit of the city

4:41 ↗ for those most in need I do believe a

4:44 ↗ rezone is Justified and very beneficial

4:50 ↗ so we're a church seeking a rezone to

4:52 ↗ better better provide Community benefits

4:54 ↗ and needed services for those most in

4:56 ↗ need which we as a church are already

4:58 ↗ doing and we partner with the food bank

5:01 ↗ to the degree we can now in food drives

5:04 ↗ and uh

5:05 ↗ preparation for school year and so on

5:07 ↗ but a rezone would give us greater

5:10 ↗ opportunity to do much more tomorrow

5:12 ↗ this is all directly supportive of the

5:15 ↗ goals of the city's Human Services

5:18 ↗ strategic plan which does Envision

5:20 ↗ hopefully a hub of social services at

5:23 ↗ one site

5:24 ↗ hopefully close to the downtown core we

5:27 ↗ fit the bill perfectly but this can only

5:30 ↗ happen with a rezone

5:33 ↗ all these are laudable reasons for a

5:35 ↗ rezone but I want to also emphasize how

5:38 ↗ legitimate logical and practical

5:41 ↗ justifiable a rezone is simply based on

5:44 ↗ the map including included in your

5:46 ↗ pre-meeting packet

5:48 ↗ if you didn't see that it shows that our

5:51 ↗ property seeking a rezone is an isolated

5:55 ↗ island of single-family zoning

5:58 ↗ surrounded by multi-family high in the

6:01 ↗ dark brown

6:03 ↗ multi-family medium in the hash brown

6:07 ↗ it's out of place it's it abuts Ingy

6:09 ↗ Johnson Park but if you then look at

6:12 ↗ what the rezone would accomplish

6:14 ↗ it completes the picture as it should be

6:17 ↗ that should be multi-family like

6:20 ↗ everything else around 75 percent of the

6:22 ↗ property and it is in keeping with the

6:25 ↗ character and nature of the neighborhood

6:27 ↗ that already exists

6:34 ↗ we urge PPC to follow the staff

6:37 ↗ recommendation which is to approve the

6:40 ↗ rezone that will again benefit the goals

6:45 ↗ of the food bank the city and our church

6:48 ↗ to bring something that benefits the

6:50 ↗ least in our community and to help them

6:53 ↗ as much as we can in meeting their needs

6:56 ↗ as well as the goals of the city thank

6:59 ↗ you

7:01 ↗ okay thank you Jared is there anyone

7:04 ↗ else who would like to speak

7:08 ↗ just giving a second for online

7:09 ↗ listeners no one else has raised a hand

7:11 ↗ at this time okay

7:14 ↗ wait a second

7:16 ↗ and then we've been joined by chair

7:17 ↗ voice virtually so I will pass it over

7:20 ↗ to him to introduce our next item

7:23 ↗ on the agenda

7:29 ↗ and we can't we can't hear you Jason you

7:31 ↗ might be muted foreign

7:34 ↗ can you hear me now yes

7:37 ↗ thank you everybody for bearing with me

7:39 ↗ it's been so long since I've had to do

7:41 ↗ this that uh I didn't realize the event

7:44 ↗ password was anyway so I have been

7:47 ↗ fighting fighting with my Mac and I

7:49 ↗ finally got in through the back door

7:52 ↗ um thank you Vice chair I appreciate

7:54 ↗ that as you can all tell I have an

7:57 ↗ unrelenting cold which is the right

8:00 ↗ reason I am not there with you this

8:01 ↗ evening you might even be able to hear

8:03 ↗ it in my voice

8:05 ↗ um so in the interest of Everybody's

8:06 ↗ Health decided to stay home

8:10 ↗ but um I do want to thank Vice chair

8:12 ↗ Bader for for taking the torch and

8:15 ↗ running with it

8:16 ↗ um sometimes these live hybrid events

8:18 ↗ can be kind of funny

8:20 ↗ so we have moved along from public

8:22 ↗ comments so the next item on the agenda

8:24 ↗ is our regular business

8:26 ↗ it is the public hearing regarding the

8:28 ↗ proposed 2022 comprehensive plan and

8:31 ↗ zoning map amendments

8:34 ↗ tonight staff will be presenting

8:36 ↗ proposed redesignations and rezones

8:39 ↗ following each presentation PPC will be

8:42 ↗ asking clarifying questions and then the

8:44 ↗ public will have an opportunity to

8:46 ↗ comment on the proposal

8:48 ↗ and then the PPC will deliberate and

8:50 ↗ vote

8:52 ↗ before we begin the public hearing I

8:55 ↗ would like to State the fact that in the

8:57 ↗ interest of maintaining an appearance of

9:00 ↗ fairness and due to the proximity of

9:02 ↗ where I live in regards to two rezones

9:06 ↗ I will be recusing myself from the

9:08 ↗ Wildwood and the Our Savior Lutheran

9:11 ↗ Church reasons this evening I'll be

9:14 ↗ handing it over to Vice chair Bader and

9:16 ↗ in the interest of a seamless meeting

9:18 ↗ I'm going to pass it off to her for the

9:21 ↗ Newport rezone as well but I will be

9:23 ↗ participating in that vote

9:26 ↗ so having said that I will now pass it

9:28 ↗ off to Vice chair Bader

9:30 ↗ great thanks so much Jason

9:33 ↗ um and just to be clear for our

9:34 ↗ commissioners um commissioner Kennedy

9:37 ↗ you'll vote in all three votes tonight

9:39 ↗ commissioner Longoria you'll vote on the

9:42 ↗ Wildwood as well as our Savior Lutheran

9:45 ↗ Church

9:46 ↗ um rezone proposals

9:48 ↗ um once Jason recuses himself so just to

9:51 ↗ be clear what's going to happen there

9:54 ↗ okay so

9:56 ↗ um let's let's kick this off um so we'll

9:57 ↗ start with the Newport area rezone and

10:00 ↗ um Kristen go ahead with your

10:01 ↗ presentation whenever you're ready

10:12 ↗ all right good evening so I'm I'm going

10:15 ↗ to do a little background information

10:17 ↗ first before we start

10:19 ↗ the discussion of the individual rezones

10:22 ↗ because we do have some new members with

10:25 ↗ us here tonight and it's

10:27 ↗ it's just always good to do so we are

10:30 ↗ talking and I'm Kristen Leeson senior

10:31 ↗ planner with the community Planning and

10:33 ↗ Development Department

10:34 ↗ so we are talking about the 2022

10:37 ↗ proposed Conference of plan and zoning

10:39 ↗ map amendments

10:41 ↗ the purpose tonight is for we will

10:43 ↗ present and then the planning polyp we

10:45 ↗ will take public comment and then the

10:47 ↗ planning policy commission will

10:48 ↗ deliberate and provide recommendations

10:50 ↗ on the proposed amendments

10:53 ↗ our process tonight's going to be a

10:55 ↗ little bit different but not too

10:57 ↗ different than we usually do it

10:58 ↗ um just because of the different

11:01 ↗ recommendations so the way we're going

11:03 ↗ to do it we're going to present the

11:04 ↗ first proposed amendment

11:06 ↗ and then the planning policy commission

11:09 ↗ will ask any clarifying questions no

11:10 ↗ deliberation at that time just questions

11:12 ↗ on things maybe you didn't understand

11:13 ↗ then we will take

11:15 ↗ public comment

11:18 ↗ and once that is closed we will then the

11:21 ↗ planning policy commission someone needs

11:22 ↗ to make a motion someone needs to Second

11:24 ↗ once that is done you all can deliberate

11:26 ↗ and then you will vote on the first

11:27 ↗ proposed amendment and then we're going

11:29 ↗ to do it all over again for two and for

11:31 ↗ three okay

11:33 ↗ so you all may remember uh some of you

11:36 ↗ don't that back in January of 2022 we

11:40 ↗ brought a docket of proposed amendments

11:42 ↗ to you this is what lists our you know

11:44 ↗ our potential things that we're going to

11:45 ↗ look at during the year and you all make

11:47 ↗ a recommendation to the city council and

11:48 ↗ the city council makes the final

11:50 ↗ decision so these three reasons came to

11:53 ↗ us our initial recommendation was not to

11:55 ↗ do it we have Title 18 going on and

11:57 ↗ there was just a lot to do but our city

12:01 ↗ council said nope we're going to move

12:02 ↗ forward with these so here we go

12:04 ↗ and we will get into each of these in a

12:06 ↗ minute

12:07 ↗ so I want to be clear there are two

12:08 ↗ things that could potentially change

12:10 ↗ with your votes tonight one is the land

12:12 ↗ use designation map for these three

12:14 ↗ Parcels the other are the zoning

12:17 ↗ designations for these

12:20 ↗ the difference between the two is these

12:22 ↗ land use designations this isn't all of

12:24 ↗ them but the land use designations here

12:26 ↗ are sort of an umbrella and underneath

12:28 ↗ each one of these umbrellas hence the

12:30 ↗ umbrella under each one of these are

12:32 ↗ different zones so the land use

12:34 ↗ designation says these are the zones

12:36 ↗ that are going to fall in here this is

12:37 ↗ kind of the character that we want and

12:39 ↗ then the zones have the development and

12:41 ↗ design standards that are attached to

12:42 ↗ those

12:43 ↗ those get into the specifics

12:45 ↗ so there are different types of rezones

12:47 ↗ so the first one does not require a

12:49 ↗ comprehensive plan Amendment which means

12:52 ↗ that the zoning

12:54 ↗ Falls within one of these categories so

12:57 ↗ say they want to go from single family

12:58 ↗ estate to

13:00 ↗ single-family small lot those happen to

13:02 ↗ both fall into this box so that can

13:04 ↗ happen at any time during the year

13:07 ↗ the other kind the kind that you're

13:09 ↗ looking at tonight require comprehensive

13:11 ↗ plan amendments so those do not fall

13:13 ↗ within the category so those for example

13:16 ↗ maybe someone wants to Zone from

13:19 ↗ Conservancy residential to multi-family

13:22 ↗ High well those are in two different

13:23 ↗ buckets of land use designations so that

13:26 ↗ requires a comprehensive plan Amendment

13:27 ↗ at the same time they request a land use

13:29 ↗ designation change and so this can only

13:31 ↗ occur once a year which is why these are

13:33 ↗ happening at the same time

13:36 ↗ so in this case we have one property

13:38 ↗ that is the recommendation is to Move It

13:40 ↗ from

13:41 ↗ um or the request is to Move It from

13:43 ↗ Community facilities Recreation all the

13:45 ↗ way down here to multi to

13:47 ↗ Village Residential which is in

13:49 ↗ multi-family residential and then there

13:52 ↗ are two the request is to move them from

13:54 ↗ single family small lot in low density

13:56 ↗ residential down to this category

13:58 ↗ multi-family residential

14:01 ↗ there are also criteria that go with

14:02 ↗ this that we are required to look at

14:04 ↗ there are nine different criteria so

14:06 ↗ they bear a relation to public health

14:08 ↗ safety and Welfare or other community

14:10 ↗ benefit

14:12 ↗ uh have we met our growth targets and if

14:14 ↗ you know if they haven't been met then

14:16 ↗ it's that's good we can approve it

14:19 ↗ um or that's one of the things we look

14:20 ↗ at have there been changed circumstances

14:22 ↗ regarding the parcel is this property

14:25 ↗ suitable for development under the

14:26 ↗ proposed zoning

14:28 ↗ will the surrounding will it be Detroit

14:31 ↗ materially detrimental to the

14:33 ↗ surrounding properties

14:35 ↗ is it consistent with the comprehensive

14:37 ↗ plan I talked about those learning

14:38 ↗ designations or does is it in the

14:41 ↗ concurrent process of

14:43 ↗ getting a change or requesting a change

14:44 ↗ like these are does it comply with all

14:47 ↗ this applicable city codes and

14:49 ↗ regulations are there or can there be

14:51 ↗ adequate public facilities provided on

14:53 ↗ the site and are there potentially

14:55 ↗ probable adverse environmental impacts

14:57 ↗ and if so can they be mitigated or are

14:59 ↗ they acceptable

15:02 ↗ I put this in here because it came up

15:04 ↗ last time you all asked about growth

15:06 ↗ targets and so as I mentioned one of the

15:08 ↗ criteria is can it be approved it can be

15:11 ↗ approved if the growth management act

15:13 ↗ GMA housing growth targets have not been

15:15 ↗ met

15:16 ↗ so our 2019 to 2044 housing growth

15:20 ↗ targets is 3500 new units and I promised

15:23 ↗ new members that at some point we will

15:25 ↗ get into all of what this means but

15:26 ↗ don't start to trust me for now it's

15:28 ↗ very there's a lot to it

15:30 ↗ um but we are required to accommodate

15:32 ↗ 3500 new units we actually have the

15:35 ↗ capacity for 12 159 new units so while

15:39 ↗ we have not met yet we have not built 3

15:42 ↗ 500 new units we do have the capacity to

15:44 ↗ do it so you know we don't need to up

15:47 ↗ Zone to allow for more housing

15:51 ↗ so another thing that we looked at is

15:53 ↗ hot that we look at as highest and best

15:55 ↗ use so we look at all uses that are

15:57 ↗ permitted within the proposed Zone these

16:00 ↗ are not tonight's these are just a

16:01 ↗ sample for you all to look at it was for

16:03 ↗ me three years ago but we looked at the

16:05 ↗ mixed use and what was allowed there and

16:07 ↗ then at the urban core use and what

16:09 ↗ additional uses might be allowed in

16:11 ↗ there

16:11 ↗ we also look at development standards so

16:14 ↗ how tall can the building be what's the

16:17 ↗ impervious surface on a site under the

16:18 ↗ existing zoning and how would that

16:20 ↗ change under the proposed zoning

16:22 ↗ any questions so far

16:27 ↗ good because I'm moving on so we're

16:30 ↗ going to start talking about the Newport

16:31 ↗ area and so this one you can kind of

16:34 ↗ throw a lot of what I just said out the

16:35 ↗ window because it doesn't apply to this

16:37 ↗ one so this is a technical change

16:40 ↗ so I've explained it what I I will

16:43 ↗ explain this again just um so last year

16:46 ↗ we reason we were asked to rezone this

16:49 ↗ parcel that ends in it ended in the last

16:52 ↗ three numbers one zero seven

16:54 ↗ and when we went onto the map and pulled

16:57 ↗ it up this is what showed up as parcel

16:58 ↗ 107. so it we sent the personal number

17:03 ↗ and the picture to city council it was

17:05 ↗ approved it was rezoned from a Village

17:07 ↗ Residential to

17:10 ↗ um

17:10 ↗ Community facilities and what happened

17:12 ↗ was why we had it in the first place was

17:14 ↗ that when Anthology developed they were

17:16 ↗ required to give us Parkland or space

17:17 ↗ for Parkland they did that we looked at

17:20 ↗ this piece what happens was

17:22 ↗ um we looked at this piece and said oh

17:24 ↗ we don't need it it's not beneficial for

17:27 ↗ us it's being used for utilities storm

17:28 ↗ water and

17:30 ↗ um and it's going to be an entrance to

17:32 ↗ Anthology well we didn't know

17:34 ↗ um

17:35 ↗ was that this had been decided back in

17:38 ↗ 2019 and this little portion right here

17:41 ↗ with the dot around it it was actually

17:44 ↗ there was a lot line adjustment and it

17:46 ↗ was placed back into this big parcel

17:48 ↗ right here

17:50 ↗ so is that this one is actually a part

17:52 ↗ of this one but we didn't know that when

17:53 ↗ the reason took place so it never should

17:54 ↗ have been rezoned and it needs to go

17:56 ↗ back to Village Residential to match the

17:59 ↗ rest of the parcel

18:01 ↗ so here's what it looks like today

18:03 ↗ right there

18:05 ↗ and this is what it looks like from the

18:07 ↗ ground and as I mentioned the current

18:09 ↗ use the utility storm water Vault and an

18:11 ↗ entrance to Anthology and this won't

18:13 ↗ change because they need the storm water

18:15 ↗ Vault there and the utilities

18:18 ↗ so our recommendation is to approve the

18:21 ↗ land use and Zoning designation changes

18:23 ↗ for this property from Community

18:24 ↗ facilities to multi-family residential

18:27 ↗ and from Community facilities Recreation

18:29 ↗ to Village Residential

18:31 ↗ yeah so now we are going to let's see if

18:34 ↗ you all have any questions

18:38 ↗ [Music]

18:43 ↗ for our virtual Commissioners any

18:45 ↗ questions

18:51 ↗ okay

18:52 ↗ looks like no questions okay

18:54 ↗ and so

18:57 ↗ I should open the public comment right

18:58 ↗ yes okay

19:00 ↗ um so I will open the floor um for

19:02 ↗ public comment at 6 53 pm

19:05 ↗ please remember that each person has

19:07 ↗ five minutes to speak if we have anyone

19:08 ↗ signed up um so Jared has anyone signed

19:11 ↗ up to speak

19:12 ↗ yes we have several uh first we have

19:14 ↗ Brad

19:15 ↗ book who is online I believe

19:18 ↗ if

19:22 ↗ he's written first on the side yes okay

19:26 ↗ hmm

19:27 ↗ I just know that he is here to speak on

19:29 ↗ a different topic okay so and I have a

19:32 ↗ feeling that most of them are but you

19:34 ↗ can ask I'm not positive about that once

19:36 ↗ you okay is there anybody online that

19:38 ↗ would like to make a public comment at

19:40 ↗ this time if so raise your hand I'll

19:41 ↗ give you a few seconds

19:48 ↗ no one has indicated that they would

19:49 ↗ like to speak online

19:51 ↗ great and just to clarify we'll have

19:52 ↗ public comment after each for each

19:55 ↗ proposed rezone so

19:57 ↗ and we'll come back to the list

20:00 ↗ okay um so it sounds like um no public

20:03 ↗ comments so I'll close the public

20:04 ↗ comment portion of this public hearing

20:06 ↗ at 6 54 pm

20:09 ↗ and in order to begin deliberations on

20:12 ↗ this topic someone must first make a

20:13 ↗ motion and it must be seconded

20:15 ↗ so PPC would anyone like to make a

20:17 ↗ motion chair I would like to make a

20:19 ↗ motion to approve the findings of fact

20:21 ↗ and our packet for amendment number one

20:25 ↗ a second thank you Nina so the motion is

20:29 ↗ to approve the findings of fact for

20:31 ↗ Amendment or

20:33 ↗ yeah I'm just saying I need to read it

20:36 ↗ following my script here

20:38 ↗ um but anyone like the comments um on

20:40 ↗ the motion

20:43 ↗ virtual Commissioners any comments

20:47 ↗ okay so if no one would like to comment

20:50 ↗ then we'll take a vote

20:51 ↗ um so the motion on the floor is

20:55 ↗ to

20:57 ↗ go next week

21:00 ↗ motion is to adopt the findings of fact

21:02 ↗ for amendment number one

21:04 ↗ so the motion on the floor is to adopt

21:06 ↗ the finding of facts for amendment

21:08 ↗ number one excuse me may I expand a bit

21:10 ↗ on that and that's to rezone

21:13 ↗ um parcel to zero two four zero six nine

21:16 ↗ one one nine

21:18 ↗ um from commercial Community facilities

21:20 ↗ to multi-family residential and a rezone

21:23 ↗ from Community facilities Recreation to

21:26 ↗ Village Residential

21:28 ↗ long as I don't have to repeat that we

21:31 ↗ are we are good

21:33 ↗ um

21:33 ↗ so um all in favor of the motion to

21:36 ↗ recommend please raise your hand

21:39 ↗ okay so we have five in the room I see

21:42 ↗ um commissioner voice has his hand

21:43 ↗ raised as well so that's one two three

21:45 ↗ two three six in room seven so that's

21:47 ↗ seven

21:49 ↗ um

21:50 ↗ yays any all opposed yeah but yay so I'm

21:54 ↗ assuming no

21:55 ↗ um so the motion passes with a vote of

21:57 ↗ seven to zero

21:59 ↗ so I will now um ask uh chair voice to

22:02 ↗ step away

22:03 ↗ um and so staff will make him an

22:05 ↗ attendee and we'll move ahead with the

22:06 ↗ public hearing on the Wildwood

22:09 ↗ proposal and so commissioner Longoria

22:11 ↗ since

22:13 ↗ you are our kind of alternate tonight

22:15 ↗ you'll be serving as a voting member as

22:17 ↗ I mentioned before in the next two items

22:20 ↗ so we'll move on to the Wildwood rezone

22:22 ↗ and again Kristen go ahead with your

22:25 ↗ presentation

22:26 ↗ hi I'm handing this one over to Valerie

22:29 ↗ Porter all right thanks Valerie

22:31 ↗ hello my name is Valerie Porter I'm

22:33 ↗ associate planner with the community

22:34 ↗ Planning and Development Department so

22:37 ↗ the next free zone we'll be discussing

22:38 ↗ is the parcel located on Wildwood

22:40 ↗ Boulevard

22:42 ↗ this parcel is a vacant and it's located

22:45 ↗ within the squawk Mountain sub area in

22:47 ↗ it it's about four acres inside

22:49 ↗ next slide please

22:53 ↗ so the applicant is requesting the

22:55 ↗ parcels land use designation be changed

22:57 ↗ from low desert low density residential

23:00 ↗ to multi-family residential and the

23:02 ↗ zoning from single family small lot to

23:05 ↗ multi-family medium

23:07 ↗ as you can see from the maps the single

23:09 ↗ family development is located on the

23:11 ↗ East and the west side of the parcel

23:12 ↗ while the development to the South is

23:15 ↗ multi-family so changing the zoning to

23:18 ↗ multi-family would extend multi-family

23:20 ↗ development into the single-family

23:22 ↗ neighborhoods

23:23 ↗ slide

23:26 ↗ so the image on the left shows the

23:29 ↗ entire parcel which is divided by one

23:31 ↗ single family lot the two images on the

23:34 ↗ right show the close proximity of squawk

23:36 ↗ Mountain axis Trail which runs parallel

23:38 ↗ along the west side of the site which is

23:42 ↗ the walkway in the pictures and this

23:45 ↗ image also shows that the site is

23:46 ↗ heavily vegetated

23:48 ↗ next slide

23:51 ↗ so this slide shows the uses that are

23:54 ↗ allowed in the single family small lot

23:56 ↗ zones

23:57 ↗ should the parcel be rezoned to

23:59 ↗ multi-family medium the list on the

24:02 ↗ bottom of the slide would be allowed in

24:04 ↗ addition to the list above so some of

24:06 ↗ the new users would include a high

24:08 ↗ school a library a Triplex housing and

24:12 ↗ an apartment

24:14 ↗ next slide

24:16 ↗ so this slide shows the proposed

24:19 ↗ District standards and the existing so

24:22 ↗ if you're looking at the chart you can

24:24 ↗ see that the district standards are

24:26 ↗ pretty much the same but the main

24:28 ↗ difference is the maximum density that's

24:31 ↗ allowed on the parcel and the minimum

24:33 ↗ lot size

24:35 ↗ next slide

24:37 ↗ so next I'm going to discuss the

24:39 ↗ environmental constraints impacting this

24:41 ↗ site so according to City GIS and not a

24:45 ↗ certain on-site survey approximately 80

24:47 ↗ of the site is encumbered by critical

24:49 ↗ areas and their Associated buffers City

24:52 ↗ Records show over half of the site being

24:54 ↗ impacted by steep slopes and Associated

24:56 ↗ buffers which is the image on the left

24:59 ↗ so all steep slopes have a 50-foot

25:03 ↗ buffer unless a Geotech report has been

25:05 ↗ provided demonstrating that the buffer

25:07 ↗ can be reduced this information

25:09 ↗ typically is confirmed with development

25:12 ↗ should development occur on the site so

25:15 ↗ the applicant would be required to

25:17 ↗ provide a site survey in a geotechnical

25:19 ↗ report with for the city to review

25:22 ↗ the image on the right oh the image on

25:26 ↗ the right shows the location of two

25:29 ↗ streams impacting the site the first

25:31 ↗ stream which runs east and west on the

25:33 ↗ site is a class 3 stream with the

25:35 ↗ 50-foot buffer and the second stream

25:37 ↗ which is Issaquah Creek is located off

25:40 ↗ site along the east side of the site and

25:43 ↗ has been classified as a class one

25:45 ↗ stream with a 100 foot buffer it's also

25:49 ↗ worth noting that

25:50 ↗ all of these critical areas have a 15

25:52 ↗ foot building setback line that's

25:55 ↗ starting from the edge of the buffer so

25:58 ↗ should direct development occur it could

26:00 ↗ not occur within 150 feet 15 feet of the

26:04 ↗ ordinary high water mark of Issaquah

26:07 ↗ Creek

26:08 ↗ next slide

26:11 ↗ so Issaquah Creek is one of three

26:13 ↗ streams regulated by the shoreline

26:15 ↗ master program and due to the site's

26:17 ↗ location to Issaquah Creek portions of

26:19 ↗ the site are regulated by the shoreline

26:21 ↗ master program and has been classified

26:23 ↗ as Issaquah Creek Urban Conservancy

26:26 ↗ environmental area in this particular

26:29 ↗ environmental area single-family

26:31 ↗ development cannot be constructed within

26:34 ↗ 100 feet of the Issaquah Creek's

26:36 ↗ ordinary high water mark and

26:38 ↗ multi-family development cannot be

26:40 ↗ constructed within 200 feet of

26:43 ↗ issaquah's ordinary high water mark so

26:46 ↗ the image on the left shows the 200 foot

26:49 ↗ buffer from the center of Issaquah Creek

26:52 ↗ and the image on the right shows all

26:55 ↗ critical area constraints impacting the

26:58 ↗ site

26:58 ↗ the area in green is considered

27:00 ↗ developable developable area and then

27:03 ↗ the area in Gray is undevelopable air

27:06 ↗ area so if you're looking at the image

27:08 ↗ you can see that the developable area is

27:10 ↗ limited but this is just an estimate

27:13 ↗ next slide please

27:16 ↗ during the September 29th meeting a few

27:19 ↗ questions were raised one question was

27:21 ↗ about the discrepancy in the staff

27:22 ↗ report which has been revised so just to

27:25 ↗ be clear commercial uses are allowed or

27:28 ↗ not allowed within 100 feet of the

27:30 ↗ Issaquah Creek and multi-family

27:33 ↗ development

27:34 ↗ are not allowed within 200 feet of

27:37 ↗ Issaquah Creek

27:38 ↗ the second question was regarding the

27:40 ↗ shoreline master program and whether or

27:43 ↗ not there was some flexibility in some

27:45 ↗ of the requirements an applicant can

27:48 ↗ apply for a variance with the city but

27:51 ↗ the final decision is actually made by

27:53 ↗ the department of ecology

27:55 ↗ and the third question had to do with

27:57 ↗ health and safety so there was a

28:00 ↗ question and this rezone request does

28:04 ↗ not hinder public health safety welfare

28:06 ↗ or Community benefits but any

28:09 ↗ development proposed on site must comply

28:11 ↗ with all applicable public health and

28:14 ↗ safety standards

28:16 ↗ next slide

28:18 ↗ so after reviewing everything staff will

28:22 ↗ not be recommending approval for the

28:24 ↗ land use and Zoning designation changes

28:26 ↗ here because the site does not meet all

28:28 ↗ the approval criteria specifically

28:30 ↗ number two and number four which are

28:33 ↗ listed in the staff report the proposed

28:35 ↗ rezone does not provide a public health

28:37 ↗ safety welfare or other community

28:39 ↗ benefit and no circumstance on this site

28:43 ↗ has changed and it's not appropriate for

28:45 ↗ reasonable development due to the

28:46 ↗ Shoreline master program requirements

28:49 ↗ also many of the parcels surrounding the

28:52 ↗ site are single family lots

28:54 ↗ so changing the site to multi-family

28:56 ↗ would not be compatible with surrounding

28:57 ↗ uses and then also due to the

29:00 ↗ environmental constraints impacting the

29:01 ↗ parcel the parcel is not appropriate for

29:03 ↗ multi-family development

29:06 ↗ next slide

29:09 ↗ um so before we take questions I just

29:10 ↗ want to point out

29:12 ↗ um that the commission has received

29:14 ↗ several comments received via email and

29:18 ↗ there is also a petition just recently

29:20 ↗ sent just a few minutes before the

29:23 ↗ meeting that I believe we'll be sharing

29:24 ↗ with you guys

29:26 ↗ um and that concludes my presentation

29:34 ↗ thanks Valerie

29:35 ↗ um I think we have kind of a general

29:37 ↗ question here about um what the petition

29:39 ↗ is about

29:42 ↗ the petition was from a Community member

29:45 ↗ who um is against rezoning the Wildwood

29:48 ↗ Boulevard site and it looks like

29:52 ↗ um

29:56 ↗ it's a two-page petition from residents

30:00 ↗ within the neighborhood

30:04 ↗ thank you

30:06 ↗ Commissioners any clarifying questions

30:10 ↗ hey Valerie Joy here I am I'm a little

30:13 ↗ stuck on the petition right now maybe

30:14 ↗ you can help me out

30:16 ↗ um without seeing what you're talking

30:18 ↗ about in front of me isn't that third

30:19 ↗ party hearsay we're able to take

30:21 ↗ comments from people individually I

30:23 ↗ guess it's more of a point of order but

30:25 ↗ to have someone collect the opinions of

30:27 ↗ other community members and then

30:28 ↗ represent them

30:30 ↗ is uh is a different format

30:34 ↗ so

30:35 ↗ I'm going to defer to someone in in the

30:38 ↗ in the chambers Kristin or Minnie we

30:40 ↗ have so we've received many comments I'm

30:42 ↗ so grateful for the community

30:43 ↗ involvement that we've had in this

30:45 ↗ process we've certainly read the emails

30:46 ↗ that we've gotten but a petition uh

30:49 ↗ represented by one member representing

30:51 ↗ multiple people is what could be

30:54 ↗ considered

30:55 ↗ would not be something we would consider

30:57 ↗ other than the one member would say I I

30:59 ↗ have the opinions of others but to

31:01 ↗ present it as a formal petition I don't

31:02 ↗ think that

31:05 ↗ um so for the record this is mini dolly

31:06 ↗ world Community planning and development

31:08 ↗ director I think what Valerie is

31:09 ↗ referring to is an email that was sent

31:11 ↗ out to all the planning and policy

31:13 ↗ Commission

31:14 ↗ members and there are signatures in the

31:18 ↗ petition from all the property owners

31:20 ↗ that are objecting to the rezone so it

31:22 ↗ is part of the record for you to

31:24 ↗ consider

31:25 ↗ um and you know we're happy to bring it

31:28 ↗ up on the screen if you'd like to see

31:30 ↗ the actual email since it just came in

31:33 ↗ before your meeting so I don't know how

31:35 ↗ many of you actually had a chance to

31:37 ↗ practice so if yeah Valerie can you do

31:40 ↗ you have those remain to us have more

31:43 ↗ details

31:56 ↗ hmm

32:00 ↗ it's booty

32:05 ↗ oh did you print it out

32:08 ↗ I've got it right here I can share it

32:09 ↗ real quick thank you oh perfect yeah

32:16 ↗ [Music]

32:35 ↗ um

32:37 ↗ there we go that's the end of it

32:44 ↗ so they're about 17 names on here well

32:48 ↗ 17 addresses

32:51 ↗ oh yeah

32:52 ↗ and I could show you the email as well

33:03 ↗ stop sharing one second

33:06 ↗ oh command do you mind if I just read

33:07 ↗ you the email okay thank you uh dear PPC

33:10 ↗ and council members and this came in at

33:11 ↗ 5 53 today

33:13 ↗ uh drppc and council members several

33:16 ↗ residents on Ridgewood Circle and

33:17 ↗ wildwood Boulevard Boulevard got

33:19 ↗ together to sign a petition against

33:21 ↗ rezoning of Wildwood Boulevard

33:24 ↗ we feel strongly that this should be an

33:25 ↗ un that this would be an unwise move

33:27 ↗ given the amount of land and previous

33:29 ↗ erosion we hope that you factor our

33:31 ↗ petition into your discussion on this

33:33 ↗ matter happy to email or deliver

33:35 ↗ petition if you need it

33:38 ↗ signed Dr Martina dove

33:43 ↗ thank you that is very helpful

33:47 ↗ I have a question for Valerie or for

33:50 ↗ Kristen and it's about our findings of

33:51 ↗ fact tonight Pam looking at page 77 of

33:54 ↗ 83 and we have a statement of whereas

33:57 ↗ environmental review was done on the

33:58 ↗ proposed amendment and a determination

34:00 ↗ of non-significance for a non-project

34:02 ↗ action was issued on September 30th of

34:05 ↗ 2022 for this amendment the comment

34:08 ↗ period for this decision ended on

34:09 ↗ October 13th of 2022 and the appeal

34:11 ↗ period ends on October 28th of 2022. I

34:15 ↗ was hoping that you could go over a

34:17 ↗ little bit about the language of that

34:18 ↗ and how it pertains to the two

34:20 ↗ amendments we have in front of us the

34:21 ↗ three amendments you have in front of

34:23 ↗ you well we've already voted on yes okay

34:24 ↗ we have two more in front of us um

34:27 ↗ I are you so are you asking about the

34:30 ↗ environmental checklist are you lost

34:31 ↗ about asking about findings effect I'm

34:32 ↗ asking about findings of fact okay so

34:34 ↗ findings a fact lists

34:38 ↗ it's a record of what's been done and it

34:40 ↗ is eventually sent to the city council

34:42 ↗ so in the findings of fact we always

34:44 ↗ send the city count or the planning

34:46 ↗ policy commission a draft

34:47 ↗ and then it is amended as necessary or

34:50 ↗ if it's perfect then it gets signed but

34:52 ↗ it states that we that we had a draft

34:56 ↗ docket PPC heard it Council heard it

34:58 ↗ Council took action we Then followed up

35:01 ↗ we did our research we sent the

35:04 ↗ information to Department of Commerce

35:06 ↗ State Department of Commerce we notified

35:08 ↗ Property Owners with 300 fee we

35:09 ↗ advertised it in the paper we held a

35:11 ↗ public we presented it to PPC for

35:13 ↗ discussion we it just does everything

35:15 ↗ um held a public hearing Senate to

35:17 ↗ council or that we're sending to council

35:19 ↗ and then based on all the information in

35:21 ↗ the staff reports and what we have found

35:22 ↗ these are the planning policy

35:24 ↗ commission's recommendations that get

35:26 ↗ signed and it goes to council

35:28 ↗ so does that help yes thank you yeah I

35:32 ↗ think it's important to point out uh the

35:34 ↗ thoroughness that's been going on and so

35:36 ↗ I think sometimes some of these wordings

35:37 ↗ need to be pointed out a little bit to

35:39 ↗ help us remember everything that goes

35:40 ↗ into some simple wording okay

35:45 ↗ any other clarifying questions

35:48 ↗ any questions

35:49 ↗ very virtual

35:52 ↗ I've won

35:54 ↗ um statement regarding the

35:57 ↗ um the document where you received at 5

35:59 ↗ 53 PM is there a protocol on how many

36:03 ↗ names we would have to receive on one of

36:05 ↗ those documents

36:09 ↗ or just for consideration it's just for

36:11 ↗ consideration I think if you're trying

36:13 ↗ to turn it into a bill or some kind of a

36:14 ↗ law then yes there has to be a certain

36:16 ↗ number but for this it's just a

36:17 ↗ representation

36:26 ↗ clarifying questions

36:28 ↗ okay so hearing none and we'll now move

36:30 ↗ into public comment

36:32 ↗ um and so I will open the floor for

36:34 ↗ public comments at 7 10. P.M

36:38 ↗ please remember that each person has

36:39 ↗ five minutes to speak

36:41 ↗ and so Jared has anyone from the public

36:43 ↗ signed up to speak on the Wildwood

36:45 ↗ proposal

36:46 ↗ yes we do we have several in room and

36:49 ↗ several online so would it be possible

36:51 ↗ if we could get a show of hands within

36:52 ↗ the room and online uh who would like to

36:55 ↗ talk about Wildwoods tonight

37:02 ↗ first

37:04 ↗ sure

37:06 ↗ please state your name

37:09 ↗ can you hear me yeah I live at 385 Front

37:12 ↗ Street and we have some concerns about

37:14 ↗ the Wildwood project and that is there's

37:16 ↗ there's two year-round streams I heard

37:18 ↗ her mention there's one but there's

37:20 ↗ there's two that come down off the

37:21 ↗ Hillside and there's a mine shaft below

37:24 ↗ the subject property uh their surface

37:27 ↗ water runoff that we've seen

37:29 ↗ every year and there's limited uh site

37:32 ↗ retention possibility for the the

37:35 ↗ surface water runoff uh we're concerned

37:38 ↗ the impervious surface of multi-family

37:40 ↗ will create more of a problem for the

37:42 ↗ river below

37:44 ↗ there is a steep slope uh we've seen

37:47 ↗ landslides on the property and we're

37:50 ↗ just not sure that's a great piece of

37:52 ↗ property to be developed in multi-family

37:54 ↗ because you're adding to the the density

37:56 ↗ of construction on a piece that already

37:58 ↗ is very fragile environmentally

38:01 ↗ thank you

38:12 ↗ alrighty we have two people online we

38:15 ↗ have David toyer who indicated he would

38:17 ↗ like to speak and we also have uh Peter

38:21 ↗ condyle so Peter I am going to make you

38:24 ↗ a panelist

38:27 ↗ um just make sure to

38:29 ↗ um

38:30 ↗ lower your hand when you're done and you

38:32 ↗ should see the option to unmute when I

38:34 ↗ make you a panelist

38:39 ↗ alrighty go ahead

38:41 ↗ can you hear me

38:42 ↗ yes we can okay perfect my name is for

38:45 ↗ the record my name is Peter condolius

38:46 ↗ with Tori strategic advisors we

38:48 ↗ represent the applicant

38:50 ↗ um I I sent a letter into the the

38:52 ↗ commission earlier this week so I don't

38:54 ↗ want to go over all that in the interest

38:56 ↗ of time but I did want to just go over a

38:58 ↗ few key points before you make your

39:00 ↗ decision this evening the the slide that

39:03 ↗ Valerie showed with the the little green

39:05 ↗ boxes that shows the portion of the site

39:08 ↗ that's usable is really important here

39:10 ↗ because

39:12 ↗ it's not like there's going to be a

39:13 ↗ bunch of development all over the site

39:15 ↗ it's really just a small portion of the

39:17 ↗ site that's actually developable and

39:19 ↗ that they'll be actually be seen any

39:20 ↗ difference it's far away from any slopes

39:22 ↗ it's far away from the stream

39:23 ↗ and it's further down the road from the

39:26 ↗ the single family closer to the the

39:28 ↗ portion of Wildwood that is already Zone

39:30 ↗ multi-family so it's not like there's

39:32 ↗ going to be major apartment complexes up

39:34 ↗ and down this Corridor it's really just

39:36 ↗ a corner of this property

39:39 ↗ um and then you know there's there was a

39:42 ↗ question in the last meeting promote

39:44 ↗ other Commissioners I don't remember

39:45 ↗ which which one it was about the the

39:47 ↗ flexibility of the rezone gives and

39:49 ↗ that's I think the the key reason that

39:52 ↗ the owner is Seeking a rezone it just

39:55 ↗ gives more flexibility what can be done

39:56 ↗ with the site the type of housing that

39:58 ↗ can be put there just because the single

40:00 ↗ family zoning puts kind of limitations

40:02 ↗ on there and and

40:04 ↗ um he would like to have a little bit

40:05 ↗ more flexibility with that respect and

40:08 ↗ then finally that you know there was a

40:09 ↗ few comments last meeting about this

40:12 ↗ proposal's

40:13 ↗ um connection to the central Issaquah

40:15 ↗ plan and how it relates to that and I

40:18 ↗ think that it needs it it Bears

40:20 ↗ repeating as I said in my letter though

40:21 ↗ that that any development that were to

40:23 ↗ take place on the Wildwood site would

40:25 ↗ not hinder development in the central

40:27 ↗ Issaquah area

40:28 ↗ um housing is housing and housing more

40:31 ↗ housing is a good thing

40:32 ↗ um especially you know multi-family

40:33 ↗ housing that creates a diversity of

40:36 ↗ housing you know for people that are

40:38 ↗ maybe just getting into the market or

40:39 ↗ lower income

40:41 ↗ um so these two areas can work in

40:43 ↗ concert with each other to create a more

40:46 ↗ diverse housing stock in issaquan I

40:47 ↗ think that that both at the end of the

40:49 ↗ day would be would be helpful for the

40:50 ↗ city so that's all I have for this

40:52 ↗ evening thank you

41:00 ↗ next we have Brad book I'm going to make

41:04 ↗ you a panelist now please

41:07 ↗ um lower a hand once you're done

41:08 ↗ speaking and then uh I will let you know

41:11 ↗ when you can go ahead and start

41:16 ↗ you're in our panelist

41:24 ↗ uh good evening Commissioners thank you

41:26 ↗ for taking the time to hear us out on

41:29 ↗ this

41:29 ↗ uh my name is Brad book I reside on

41:33 ↗ Ridgewood Circle

41:35 ↗ and I've been living on squawk mountain

41:38 ↗ now for just over 38 years

41:41 ↗ I'm here to oppose the rezone of

41:44 ↗ Wildwood Boulevard

41:46 ↗ uh and just for further transparency

41:50 ↗ I want to make it clear that I am not

41:54 ↗ here

41:55 ↗ um representing the park board however I

41:58 ↗ have been a member of the park board now

42:00 ↗ for over 10 years which gives me

42:03 ↗ um a different perspective on our land

42:05 ↗ use Management in the city

42:09 ↗ really one of the main things you know I

42:11 ↗ really probably could make this a lot

42:13 ↗ briefer because it doesn't look like the

42:15 ↗ city is actually

42:17 ↗ recommending this from what Valerie said

42:20 ↗ but I'll still make a few comments

42:24 ↗ um

42:25 ↗ the Issaquah has been evolving over the

42:27 ↗ years to provide different types of

42:30 ↗ diversity of housing and essentially we

42:33 ↗ have five different zones

42:35 ↗ Old Town squawk Mountain are the older

42:37 ↗ zones

42:38 ↗ and have

42:41 ↗ predominantly been

42:43 ↗ single-family housing for a long time

42:46 ↗ more recently we have kallus and high in

42:50 ↗ the highlands which have created more

42:53 ↗ diversity

42:55 ↗ and more multi-family housing and and

43:00 ↗ also the central Issaquah plan was

43:01 ↗ essentially developed to allow further

43:03 ↗ development and growth in Issaquah and

43:06 ↗ primarily is going to be set up for

43:09 ↗ higher density family of multi-family

43:12 ↗ housing

43:13 ↗ I think the main thing that I would want

43:15 ↗ to say about neighborhood character is

43:17 ↗ that we that there's an importance to

43:19 ↗ preserve the character that is within

43:22 ↗ each Zone and I think by adding

43:25 ↗ multi-family housing on squat Mountain

43:28 ↗ uh would deplete its um uh advantage to

43:32 ↗ the city

43:33 ↗ and certainly it's character within the

43:36 ↗ neighborhood

43:38 ↗ um there is some multi-family housing in

43:41 ↗ the area just south of this Raleigh

43:43 ↗ which has been there for decades and

43:46 ↗ kalkari which also been there for a long

43:48 ↗ time and it's currently developing

43:50 ↗ further the key thing there is that both

43:53 ↗ of those developments are tucked away

43:56 ↗ far off for the most part off of

43:58 ↗ Wildwood Boulevard and not noticeable as

44:01 ↗ you come up the city road

44:04 ↗ Wildwood Boulevard is one of the main

44:07 ↗ entry points into the squawk Mountain

44:09 ↗ area and I think it would be a frankly

44:12 ↗ an eyesore to actually have multi-family

44:15 ↗ housing at one of the entry points to

44:18 ↗ squawk Mountain

44:21 ↗ um

44:22 ↗ this is a Gateway area quite frankly in

44:26 ↗ the squawk Mountain

44:27 ↗ both for the squawk Mountain residents

44:30 ↗ as well as the squad Mountain Trail and

44:34 ↗ so higher density housing along those

44:38 ↗ two areas just does not seem to be very

44:40 ↗ suitable

44:42 ↗ you know I think one of the most

44:43 ↗ important factors is capacity

44:46 ↗ um

44:47 ↗ Center Issaquah essentially was designed

44:50 ↗ for more multi-family housing and it

44:53 ↗ doesn't seem like there's been as much

44:54 ↗ effort or emphasis to make that occur

44:58 ↗ and I think if we start um

45:01 ↗ uh changing zoning into areas that are

45:06 ↗ already single family housing we're

45:08 ↗ never going to get to a point of

45:09 ↗ actually developing Center Issaquah like

45:12 ↗ it was intended so I think that the

45:16 ↗ capacity shows that there's plenty of

45:18 ↗ opportunity for developers to put in

45:20 ↗ multi-family housing in the valley floor

45:24 ↗ without penetrating into single-family

45:27 ↗ housing areas like squawk Mountain

45:29 ↗ sorry even stated there are certainly

45:31 ↗ some environmental issues here this

45:33 ↗ entire property is adjacent to Issaquah

45:35 ↗ Creek there has been a prior Landslide

45:39 ↗ significantly on this property back in

45:41 ↗ 1989

45:42 ↗ I think that increasing to higher

45:46 ↗ density is is very challenging in this

45:49 ↗ area

45:51 ↗ probably one of the last things I like

45:53 ↗ to mention is the park strategic plan

45:55 ↗ that was adopted in 2018.

45:58 ↗ part of that plan was to preserve

46:03 ↗ forested hillsides and our waterways Mr

46:06 ↗ book dealer of five minutes has expired

46:10 ↗ um

46:11 ↗ okay and one additional item that's

46:15 ↗ already in the in the part of Master

46:18 ↗ planning is a creek Corridor and part of

46:20 ↗ the green necklace

46:23 ↗ um it was the Greek corridors intended

46:25 ↗ to have a trail system that runs from

46:28 ↗ squawk Valley Park all the way to Lake

46:30 ↗ Savannah State Park and any multi-family

46:33 ↗ housing entered close to the Issaquah

46:35 ↗ creature Creek Corridor would certainly

46:37 ↗ be adverse to that intention

46:39 ↗ I hereby requests that the PPC not

46:44 ↗ accept a rezone of this area thank you

46:47 ↗ very much

46:51 ↗ perfect next we have

46:53 ↗ iluyana maranov I will make you a

46:57 ↗ panelist

46:58 ↗ um just remember you may lower your hand

47:00 ↗ when you're finished speaking and you

47:02 ↗ also may turn on your video if you would

47:03 ↗ like

47:08 ↗ alrighty go ahead

47:10 ↗ hi

47:11 ↗ um my name is Juliana marinov I live at

47:14 ↗ 185 Southwest Hepler Lane I've been here

47:17 ↗ for 16 years I have I'm here to to

47:22 ↗ oppose the rezoning of the wild world

47:25 ↗ Boulevard I have three main reasons and

47:28 ↗ I'll go fast

47:29 ↗ I have three young daughters that walk

47:33 ↗ run and ride their bikes up and down

47:36 ↗ this path along along the side of the

47:39 ↗ road on Wildwood Boulevard and I'm

47:42 ↗ concerned that developing that will will

47:46 ↗ impact my family

47:48 ↗ um

47:49 ↗ I also see a lot of wildlife that goes

47:52 ↗ up and down Hepler Lane uh two words

47:55 ↗ Wildwood Boulevard and crosses the

47:57 ↗ street to reach the stream and

48:01 ↗ um there's Bears there's deer there's

48:03 ↗ there's a lot of wildlife that passes

48:06 ↗ through that zone and I'm concerned that

48:09 ↗ developing it further would prevent them

48:11 ↗ from reaching the food and the water

48:15 ↗ they need and then the third reason is

48:17 ↗ that the road the Wildwood Road is is

48:19 ↗ small and so I'm concerned about

48:22 ↗ increased traffic that's all thank you

48:27 ↗ next we have David toyer I will make you

48:30 ↗ a panelist and you should see the option

48:32 ↗ to unmute and I will let you know when

48:34 ↗ you can go ahead and speak

48:39 ↗ alrighty go ahead

48:42 ↗ yes thank you very much David toyer with

48:44 ↗ toys strategic advisors I also work with

48:47 ↗ the applicant for the Wildwood rezone

48:50 ↗ and wanted to address a couple of items

48:52 ↗ here this evening in addition to what my

48:54 ↗ colleague Peter condelius covered

48:56 ↗ earlier the first of it is that

48:58 ↗ regardless of zoning on this site the

49:00 ↗ development area of the site is the

49:02 ↗ development area so when it develops in

49:05 ↗ the future whether it develops into the

49:07 ↗ existing zone or the future Zone what

49:09 ↗ part of that site will be developable is

49:12 ↗ the part that's developable the zoning

49:13 ↗ that's applied does not change that

49:16 ↗ additionally I know there's been a

49:18 ↗ number of concerns that have been raised

49:20 ↗ here this evening about things like

49:22 ↗ landslides or critical areas and those

49:26 ↗ sorts of things all of those particular

49:28 ↗ items are items that are reviewed during

49:31 ↗ the development review process and

49:33 ↗ they're backed up with studies and

49:35 ↗ Analysis that's performed by the

49:36 ↗ applicant and reviewed by technical

49:38 ↗ professionals either at the city or that

49:40 ↗ the city retains and so those things are

49:43 ↗ always questions regardless of

49:45 ↗ development whether it's this side or a

49:47 ↗ different site and those things get

49:49 ↗ addressed to the development review

49:50 ↗ process not through the rezoning process

49:52 ↗ I think the other two things that are

49:54 ↗ really critical in my mind is I do not

49:58 ↗ agree with uh staffs

50:02 ↗ theft findings and specifically in

50:05 ↗ criteria two and criteria four the

50:09 ↗ criteria two addresses whether it Bears

50:11 ↗ the substantial relationship to the

50:12 ↗ public health safety and Welfare or

50:15 ↗ other community benefit I think there's

50:17 ↗ a number of community benefits one

50:18 ↗ housing we have a substantial housing

50:22 ↗ shortfall throughout the entire region

50:24 ↗ and we're talking about hundreds of

50:26 ↗ thousands of units and having a dramatic

50:30 ↗ amount of diversity is really key and

50:32 ↗ important to this and multi-family

50:34 ↗ housing that would develop at this site

50:36 ↗ will be distinctly different from the

50:38 ↗ type of multi-family housing that would

50:40 ↗ develop in the central Issaquah plan and

50:42 ↗ they're not competition with each other

50:44 ↗ additionally this presents an

50:47 ↗ opportunity at this site to locate some

50:49 ↗ additional housing units close to some

50:52 ↗ existing trails close to existing

50:54 ↗ Transit very close walking distance to a

50:57 ↗ number of your small businesses in that

50:58 ↗ particular portion of your community

51:00 ↗ that I'm sure would love to have some

51:02 ↗ more people willing to walk down and

51:04 ↗ spend money in their stores and their

51:06 ↗ restaurants and Etc and also the fact

51:09 ↗ that you would redevelop this site with

51:11 ↗ additional housing units takes some of

51:13 ↗ the pressure off of other development

51:14 ↗ sites and potential for displacement of

51:16 ↗ folks that are in more affordable

51:18 ↗ housing

51:19 ↗ um as far as change circumstances go one

51:21 ↗ of the biggest changes is that there's

51:23 ↗ been no change at all we still have a

51:25 ↗ housing deficit throughout the region

51:27 ↗ and we're trying to address that and so

51:29 ↗ we don't start making actual changes to

51:32 ↗ zoning policies and Zoning designations

51:34 ↗ we're not going to be able to actually

51:36 ↗ address the problem that we've gotten

51:38 ↗ ourselves into as a region it's not just

51:40 ↗ an Issaquah problem it's an everywhere

51:41 ↗ problem uh in a

51:44 ↗ proving this rezone gets us closer to

51:47 ↗ solving some of those challenges the

51:49 ↗ other thing that um we submitted an

51:51 ↗ exhibit with our original application I

51:54 ↗ believe we resubmitted it in one of our

51:56 ↗ recent comment letters as well there are

51:58 ↗ 11 other multi-family housing

52:00 ↗ developments that are within the

52:01 ↗ immediate facility of this site and this

52:04 ↗ site abuts other zones of the same

52:07 ↗ nature of what we're asking to go to it

52:10 ↗ is not abnormal for the area it's not

52:12 ↗ inconsistent with what is already in

52:15 ↗ that area

52:17 ↗ um again

52:18 ↗ I just want to emphasize that uh because

52:22 ↗ it's been brought up regarding tree

52:23 ↗ canopy and a variety of other things uh

52:26 ↗ the developable portion of this site is

52:28 ↗ developable and regardless of what the

52:30 ↗ zoning is that developable area of the

52:33 ↗ site is not going to change it's how

52:36 ↗ well we maximize the efficiency of the

52:38 ↗ development that goes there and creating

52:40 ↗ housing units that could contribute to

52:43 ↗ the diversity of unit types that are

52:45 ↗ needed in Issaquah and throughout the

52:47 ↗ region and we really hope that you'll

52:49 ↗ see the bigger broader picture on this

52:50 ↗ and understand that this is a key part

52:53 ↗ of supporting your community and we

52:56 ↗ outlined in another one of our reset

52:58 ↗ letters consistency with the mobility

53:00 ↗ master plan and a variety of other

53:02 ↗ planning efforts that the city has gone

53:04 ↗ through this rezone really works in

53:07 ↗ concert with all of that and it should

53:09 ↗ not be viewed as competition against

53:11 ↗ other development opportunities in the

53:13 ↗ City of Issaquah so thank you for your

53:15 ↗ time and I'm happy to answer any

53:16 ↗ questions

53:19 ↗ alrighty that was the last individual

53:21 ↗ online who indicated that they would

53:23 ↗ like to speak at this time

53:25 ↗ so I'll do one final call if there's

53:28 ↗ anyone else who would like to speak um

53:30 ↗ if so please raise your hand

53:33 ↗ um in the room seeing none um if

53:34 ↗ attending virtually you can erase your

53:36 ↗ virtual hand or let us know through the

53:38 ↗ chat

53:40 ↗ you get any takers

53:44 ↗ we have no takers okay

53:47 ↗ um so if there are no more public

53:49 ↗ comments I will close the public comment

53:51 ↗ portion of the public hearing at 7 28 pm

53:55 ↗ so it's now time for us to deliberate

53:57 ↗ um on this and so in order to begin

53:59 ↗ deliberations on this topic someone must

54:01 ↗ first make a motion and it must be

54:03 ↗ seconded

54:04 ↗ um PPC anyone like to make a motion

54:13 ↗ um so I may interpret before emotion is

54:15 ↗ made

54:17 ↗ yeah go ahead

54:19 ↗ um I just want to bring the

54:20 ↗ commissioner's attention to the agenda

54:24 ↗ packet

54:25 ↗ um page 12 that actually has stats

54:30 ↗ recommendation and I just want to be

54:32 ↗ clear that it's a number four criteria

54:37 ↗ that doesn't meet um

54:39 ↗ um that this project doesn't need

54:43 ↗ and I think that will help with the

54:44 ↗ motion as well

54:47 ↗ thanks Valerie

55:01 ↗ we have emotion or is a motion being

55:03 ↗ prepared

55:11 ↗ but I'm gonna make the same motion I'm

55:14 ↗ gonna make uh because I'm gonna make

55:16 ↗ Kristen actually say all of my fancy

55:18 ↗ parcel numbers for me uh for our

55:21 ↗ esteemed court reporter who does such an

55:23 ↗ excellent job I'm going to make a motion

55:25 ↗ to approve the findings of fact for

55:28 ↗ amendment number two regarding the land

55:30 ↗ use map and zoning map of the Wildwood

55:32 ↗ parcel

55:34 ↗ and then I can go ahead and read off

55:35 ↗ that it's three three two four zero six

55:38 ↗ nine one two one

55:43 ↗ so then the recommendation would be to

55:45 ↗ not approve the redesignation

55:47 ↗ redesignation rezone of personal number

55:50 ↗ three three two four zero six nine one

55:52 ↗ two one

55:53 ↗ um the land use designation from

55:55 ↗ multi-family uh from

55:57 ↗ low density residential to multi-family

55:59 ↗ residential and

56:01 ↗ the um excuse me zoning I'm doing this

56:04 ↗ off top of my head uh the zoning

56:06 ↗ designation from single family small lot

56:08 ↗ to multi-family medium

56:11 ↗ foreign

56:17 ↗ ERS Lewis and Milligan

56:20 ↗ um and so we have a motion on the floor

56:23 ↗ um would anyone like the comment

56:29 ↗ okay thank you

56:33 ↗ uh I have seconded the motion indicating

56:36 ↗ perhaps that I agree with the

56:39 ↗ recommendation from staff to not approve

56:41 ↗ this um

56:44 ↗ rezone and I'm trying to find my notes

56:47 ↗ in here because you made me go to page

56:48 ↗ 12 when I was on page 24.

56:52 ↗ and that you know I really appreciate

56:54 ↗ all the comments that were made and the

56:57 ↗ information that was provided uh but

57:00 ↗ there's uh this is a site-specific

57:02 ↗ rezone and we have very specific

57:03 ↗ criteria by which we can make a

57:07 ↗ determination and the staff has pointed

57:09 ↗ out number two and number four which I

57:12 ↗ tend to agree with them but I would also

57:14 ↗ like to add that growth controls number

57:16 ↗ three make this so that it does not

57:20 ↗ comply with the criteria to say that we

57:23 ↗ have not met our housing targets that

57:25 ↗ are yet over 20 years in advance is um

57:28 ↗ is irrelevant to this the capacity for

57:32 ↗ us to meet our housing targets is four

57:36 ↗ times as much as what is required and

57:37 ↗ it's all in the centralized plan so I

57:39 ↗ would just add for consideration that

57:42 ↗ number three as well as number two and

57:44 ↗ four make it so that we are not able to

57:49 ↗ approve because the approval criteria

57:51 ↗ requires and let me read from the packet

57:55 ↗ a Zone request shall be granted only if

57:59 ↗ all the following approval criteria are

58:01 ↗ met

58:03 ↗ thank you

58:07 ↗ thanks commissioner Milligan any other

58:10 ↗ comment

58:16 ↗ I think that was very well stated I I

58:19 ↗ also agree with the opinion of staff for

58:22 ↗ this particular rezone and I don't find

58:24 ↗ that it meets the criteria that we that

58:26 ↗ we apply to this I what I would

58:28 ↗ encourage the applicant to do is to

58:30 ↗ think about

58:31 ↗ um if Council should agree with that our

58:33 ↗ recommendations whatever that be the

58:35 ↗ applicant think of different ways to go

58:37 ↗ about this parcel

58:39 ↗ um lot line adjustments being able to

58:42 ↗ put a piece of the property into

58:43 ↗ conservation there's a lot of different

58:45 ↗ ways that they can still achieve their

58:48 ↗ goals be a part of the community and be

58:50 ↗ able to be working together and I think

58:52 ↗ that this parcel for this applicant

58:55 ↗ application just does not meet our

58:57 ↗ criteria in particular but that doesn't

58:59 ↗ mean that there isn't more to be done to

59:02 ↗ be able to have a productive use of this

59:03 ↗ parcel

59:05 ↗ thank you

59:06 ↗ and I would add as well based on our

59:09 ↗ growth plan in the city and to focus

59:12 ↗ more on Central Issaquah as well for

59:15 ↗ that growth I'm sure the area can still

59:19 ↗ be developed to a certain extent within

59:21 ↗ its current land use and rezone as well

59:31 ↗ may I quickly interrupt and just clarify

59:35 ↗ that the site does meet number two it

59:38 ↗ just doesn't meet number four

59:42 ↗ thanks Valerie

59:55 ↗ another last call for

59:57 ↗ um

59:58 ↗ commissioner Clements I just want to

1:00:00 ↗ thank Valerie for pointing that out yeah

1:00:06 ↗ Okay so

1:00:08 ↗ hearing none

1:00:09 ↗ um if no one else would like to comment

1:00:11 ↗ then we'll take a vote

1:00:12 ↗ um and send the motion on the floor and

1:00:15 ↗ I'll ask um those to correct me if I get

1:00:16 ↗ anything wrong here I'm going to kind of

1:00:18 ↗ abbreviate all of that as to approve the

1:00:21 ↗ findings of fact for proposal number two

1:00:23 ↗ which is to not approve the rezone

1:00:27 ↗ um as stated in our packets for the the

1:00:29 ↗ what we're calling the Wildwood parcel

1:00:32 ↗ okay so um all in favor of that motion

1:00:36 ↗ um please raise your hand

1:00:40 ↗ it's in the room and we also have um

1:00:42 ↗ commissioner Longoria virtually raising

1:00:44 ↗ her hand so that's um

1:00:46 ↗ seven wait I think we did that wrong

1:00:48 ↗ right we just all voted to approve the

1:00:50 ↗ motion I'm I'm with you I'm there

1:00:53 ↗ um okay so we have um seven

1:00:56 ↗ um to recommend

1:00:58 ↗ um

1:00:58 ↗ given that we all voted to recommend

1:01:00 ↗ I'll assume that none of us are voting

1:01:02 ↗ I'm changing our votes to a nay

1:01:04 ↗ um so that motion passes um with a vote

1:01:06 ↗ of seven to zero

1:01:10 ↗ okay at this point um we are going to

1:01:13 ↗ come to the Our Savior Lutheran Church

1:01:15 ↗ proposal next I'm going to request that

1:01:16 ↗ we take a brief five minute

1:01:19 ↗ um pause and um we will get on with our

1:01:22 ↗ agenda um as soon as that five minutes

1:01:25 ↗ is over so at 7 40.

1:01:30 ↗ thank you

1:01:41 ↗ [Music]

1:06:31 ↗ foreign

1:06:47 ↗ alrighty we'll go ahead and restart here

1:06:51 ↗ okay

1:06:52 ↗ all right welcome back and thank you and

1:06:54 ↗ for bearing with us or me especially

1:06:56 ↗ during that um that break

1:06:59 ↗ um so we're going to go to um the final

1:07:01 ↗ rezone we have

1:07:03 ↗ um this evening which is um for Our

1:07:05 ↗ Savior Lutheran Church property

1:07:08 ↗ um so Kristen um go ahead with the

1:07:10 ↗ presentation

1:07:13 ↗ okay I'm back and as a reminder

1:07:17 ↗ excuse me I'm Kristen Leeson a senior

1:07:19 ↗ planner with the community Planning and

1:07:20 ↗ Development Department

1:07:22 ↗ and yes I'm about to talk about our

1:07:24 ↗ Savior Lutheran Church

1:07:26 ↗ um it's about 3.35 Acres on Front Street

1:07:29 ↗ South it is currently loaded low density

1:07:33 ↗ residential and the property owner is

1:07:35 ↗ requesting to be multi-family

1:07:37 ↗ residential the current zoning is single

1:07:39 ↗ family small lot and they are requesting

1:07:41 ↗ multi-family High

1:07:42 ↗ and as you can see here's the parcel

1:07:45 ↗ it's English only small lot to the north

1:07:48 ↗ is city-owned property Community

1:07:50 ↗ facilities open space

1:07:52 ↗ to the sort of Northeast and to the

1:07:55 ↗ south and east is multi-family high and

1:07:57 ↗ to the West is

1:08:00 ↗ multi-family medium these are all

1:08:02 ↗ Condominiums and apartments this is a

1:08:04 ↗ nursing home Condominiums and apartments

1:08:06 ↗ over here and as I mentioned open space

1:08:11 ↗ here you have the aerial view

1:08:13 ↗ here's the church the existing Church

1:08:14 ↗ there's also a single family house on

1:08:17 ↗ the property back here the church also

1:08:19 ↗ owns this property right here which is

1:08:21 ↗ currently used for parking it is zoned

1:08:23 ↗ multi-family High

1:08:25 ↗ and here's a street and street view

1:08:29 ↗ you have the list of uses in single

1:08:31 ↗ family that could go here from housing

1:08:34 ↗ churches obviously day care centers

1:08:37 ↗ Sports Fields office up to 4 000 square

1:08:41 ↗ feet the additional uses would include

1:08:43 ↗ denser development denser residential

1:08:45 ↗ development including Triplex fourplex

1:08:47 ↗ and multi-family Assisted Living Library

1:08:50 ↗ I don't think it's big enough for a

1:08:52 ↗ driving range but that's a possibility

1:08:54 ↗ a grow in a grocery store up to 4 000

1:08:57 ↗ square feet and also high schools and

1:08:59 ↗ colleges

1:09:01 ↗ the development standards here they're a

1:09:04 ↗ little bit different so the single

1:09:06 ↗ family oops

1:09:11 ↗ well I put the wrong one on here I

1:09:12 ↗ apologize single family small lot would

1:09:14 ↗ actually allow for about four 14 and a

1:09:16 ↗ half dwelling units per acre and the

1:09:19 ↗ height it's 50 and 50 the multi-family

1:09:22 ↗ high would allow 29 dwelling units per

1:09:25 ↗ acre and would the maximum height there

1:09:29 ↗ is 40 feet it's currently under single

1:09:31 ↗ family small lot just like single family

1:09:32 ↗ Suburban it's uh 30 feet it's under 40

1:09:35 ↗ feet under this one with a maximum of

1:09:38 ↗ potentially 65 feet but in order to do

1:09:40 ↗ that the property owner would have to

1:09:43 ↗ increase the pervious surface from 50 to

1:09:46 ↗ 60 which would reduce the developable

1:09:48 ↗ property and also would have to do step

1:09:50 ↗ backs on the property as well there

1:09:52 ↗ there are some other conditions that are

1:09:54 ↗ included

1:09:56 ↗ there are some environmental constraints

1:09:58 ↗ in this site so this is adjacent to

1:10:01 ↗ Issaquah Creek

1:10:02 ↗ and as Valerie mentioned it is Falls

1:10:05 ↗ within the

1:10:07 ↗ Issaquah Creek Urban concern Conservancy

1:10:10 ↗ environmental District which means that

1:10:12 ↗ our designation which means that there

1:10:14 ↗ is a 200 foot buffer here from the creek

1:10:17 ↗ and also as Valerie mentioned what we

1:10:19 ↗ show here is from the center of the

1:10:21 ↗ creek but when a project comes in it

1:10:25 ↗ would be reevaluated and it would be

1:10:26 ↗ looked out from the high water mark

1:10:28 ↗ and then there's an additional 15 foot

1:10:30 ↗ buffer from that so commercial

1:10:33 ↗ properties are allowed within 100 feet

1:10:35 ↗ from the creek and resident or

1:10:37 ↗ multi-family properties are allowed

1:10:39 ↗ outside the 200 foot buffer

1:10:42 ↗ Oops I did that wrong so commercial

1:10:44 ↗ families cannot go within 100 feet of

1:10:46 ↗ the creek multi-family properties cannot

1:10:48 ↗ go within 200 feet of the creek on the

1:10:50 ↗ site single family property is also 100

1:10:52 ↗ feet there's a little bit of steep slope

1:10:55 ↗ here let's see the original buffer here

1:10:57 ↗ is 100 feet on this Creek there is a

1:10:59 ↗ little steep slope here that has a

1:11:00 ↗ 50-foot buffer along with it this over

1:11:02 ↗ here shows the the urban Conservancy

1:11:05 ↗ buffer of 200 feet on both sides

1:11:10 ↗ so again Valerie mentioned these but

1:11:13 ↗ September 29th follow-up

1:11:15 ↗ I just went over the Issaquah Creek

1:11:17 ↗ Urban Conservancy changes about

1:11:19 ↗ multi-family within 200 feet and

1:11:21 ↗ Commercial within 100 feet Shoreline

1:11:24 ↗ variants

1:11:26 ↗ the city is processed through the city

1:11:27 ↗ but it's really the department of

1:11:29 ↗ ecology who makes the final decision on

1:11:31 ↗ whether or not certain uses would be

1:11:33 ↗ permitted within that 200 feet

1:11:35 ↗ and then the health safety welfare and

1:11:37 ↗ Community benefit the city has

1:11:39 ↗ determined that actually it does this

1:11:40 ↗ doesn't hinder public benefits so it

1:11:42 ↗ does meet that criteria

1:11:46 ↗ Community character you all asked about

1:11:48 ↗ that last time

1:11:49 ↗ the surrounding Condominiums and

1:11:51 ↗ apartments are arranged anywhere they

1:11:53 ↗ were all the Condominiums and apartments

1:11:55 ↗ were built anywhere from 1987 to 1990 so

1:11:57 ↗ we don't have records on them but based

1:11:59 ↗ on what we know for three-story

1:12:01 ↗ Apartments they're generally about 35 to

1:12:03 ↗ 45 feet in there there's one that's a

1:12:04 ↗ little bit taller the nursing home to

1:12:06 ↗ the South is just 20 to 25 feet the

1:12:08 ↗ church itself ranges from anywhere from

1:12:10 ↗ about 20 to 30 feet

1:12:11 ↗ any future development of surrounding

1:12:14 ↗ properties those that are Zone

1:12:16 ↗ multi-family high would also have to

1:12:19 ↗ comply this one and those would have to

1:12:20 ↗ comply with all existing standards which

1:12:23 ↗ are more a more pedestrian friendly sort

1:12:26 ↗ of human scale kind of field than they

1:12:28 ↗ are than they were back then

1:12:30 ↗ they may come closer to the street I I

1:12:32 ↗ don't know I don't know what would

1:12:33 ↗ happen but any of those could develop

1:12:35 ↗ that way and as I mentioned increasing

1:12:36 ↗ the height above the base height of 40

1:12:38 ↗ feet to potentially 65 feet would

1:12:40 ↗ increase the minimum impervious surface

1:12:42 ↗ from 50 feet to or 60 50 to 60 percent

1:12:45 ↗ which then decreases the amount of

1:12:47 ↗ buildable land and surface area of a

1:12:48 ↗ building

1:12:51 ↗ traffic that also came up how much

1:12:53 ↗ traffic well as I mentioned you can't

1:12:56 ↗ just look at one thing you have to look

1:12:58 ↗ at every possible use on the site

1:13:01 ↗ um

1:13:02 ↗ so we looked at existing single family

1:13:05 ↗ and if you were to have 10 units on this

1:13:06 ↗ property which is about what would fit

1:13:08 ↗ you'd have in the p and peak hours which

1:13:10 ↗ are from 4 pm to 6 p.m you'd have nine

1:13:13 ↗ additional trips

1:13:15 ↗ multi-family if you had 30 dwelling

1:13:17 ↗ units you'd have about 15 additional

1:13:19 ↗ trips

1:13:20 ↗ grocery store which can only go up to 4

1:13:23 ↗ 000 square feet you might get 36

1:13:24 ↗ additional trips office space about also

1:13:27 ↗ 4 000 square feet about nine additional

1:13:29 ↗ trips and an animal hospital Veterinary

1:13:31 ↗ Clinic 4 000 square feet about 14

1:13:34 ↗ additional trips

1:13:40 ↗ UL also asked about conditions could it

1:13:43 ↗ be conditioned so we have had ongoing

1:13:45 ↗ conversations with our City attorney

1:13:48 ↗ they're not easy to do they they can be

1:13:51 ↗ problematic however if they can be done

1:13:53 ↗ so they must however be tied to the

1:13:56 ↗ property for future owners they would

1:13:58 ↗ need to be related to the approval

1:14:00 ↗ criteria and they must be linked to

1:14:02 ↗ evidence that there is something unique

1:14:04 ↗ about this property in particular that

1:14:07 ↗ warrants a condition being tied to it

1:14:11 ↗ so our recommendation is that this

1:14:14 ↗ property meets the criteria and we

1:14:18 ↗ recommend approval of the land use

1:14:20 ↗ designation and zoning

1:14:22 ↗ and I'll state it for you it's a parcel

1:14:24 ↗ actually I'm not Monica uh I believe

1:14:27 ↗ it's three four two four zero six nine

1:14:29 ↗ one one nine from low density

1:14:32 ↗ residential to multi-family residential

1:14:34 ↗ and the zoning from single family small

1:14:37 ↗ lot to multi-family High

1:14:41 ↗ and happy to answer any questions

1:14:43 ↗ I'm sorry Kristen did you get the parcel

1:14:45 ↗ number correct

1:14:48 ↗ I don't have my piece of paper in front

1:14:49 ↗ of me it does matter it's in the fact

1:14:51 ↗ it's in the findings effect if it's the

1:14:53 ↗ first four numbers I mess up every time

1:14:55 ↗ but I can tell you really quickly let's

1:14:56 ↗ see

1:15:00 ↗ three four two four yes three four two

1:15:02 ↗ four zero six nine two one

1:15:07 ↗ two one seven you're right I got it

1:15:08 ↗ wrong two one seven thank you for

1:15:10 ↗ correcting me

1:15:12 ↗ teach me hey

1:15:15 ↗ so now

1:15:16 ↗ I have a question about the site

1:15:19 ↗ um

1:15:20 ↗ two questions uh based on the map you

1:15:22 ↗ showed us is the current single family

1:15:25 ↗ home right now would be now in the

1:15:27 ↗ buffer would you not be able to build

1:15:29 ↗ that home where it is

1:15:31 ↗ I am looking at the overlapping I know I

1:15:35 ↗ don't have one map that shows I was

1:15:37 ↗ trying to compare my my GPS map and then

1:15:40 ↗ I was trying to get the overlays right

1:15:42 ↗ now is this would you be able to build a

1:15:44 ↗ single family home where it is right now

1:15:46 ↗ okay maybe half of it it looks it looks

1:15:49 ↗ like and and again our it would prob the

1:15:51 ↗ buffer would probably extend out further

1:15:52 ↗ than where we show it and so probably

1:15:55 ↗ not okay yeah um what percentage of the

1:15:57 ↗ site would you say right now is

1:15:58 ↗ impervious surface pardon is impervious

1:16:00 ↗ surface ooh

1:16:03 ↗ speaking of someone who's been on this

1:16:05 ↗ site it's pretty it's pretty high but I

1:16:07 ↗ would love to have if you guys have a

1:16:09 ↗ recommendation of right now at the site

1:16:10 ↗ what you believe I hate to guess I mean

1:16:12 ↗ yours is as good as mine

1:16:14 ↗ we're gonna we're gonna call it pretty

1:16:16 ↗ high right about 70 maybe yeah

1:16:20 ↗ you can call it that I'm not going to

1:16:22 ↗ call it anything

1:16:24 ↗ um

1:16:26 ↗ thank you and then the adjacent lot that

1:16:30 ↗ they're going to be developing that's

1:16:32 ↗ mainly pervious I believe

1:16:35 ↗ right

1:16:37 ↗ and and another question there the food

1:16:40 ↗ bank that was proposed to be moved from

1:16:43 ↗ its current location to over there can

1:16:46 ↗ it be can it be moved

1:16:49 ↗ with the current Zone in

1:16:52 ↗ or does the new does the proposed Zone

1:16:55 ↗ in

1:16:57 ↗ um relegate it to be used the existing

1:17:00 ↗ zoning would allow would allow for the

1:17:02 ↗ food bank okay

1:17:05 ↗ now you all received a letter that says

1:17:08 ↗ that they would go like to go higher

1:17:09 ↗ with the food bank than the existing

1:17:13 ↗ zoning allows but again no application

1:17:15 ↗ has been submitted so that's just

1:17:18 ↗ a possibility okay and then from a

1:17:21 ↗ traffic or

1:17:23 ↗ pedestrian safety perspective where the

1:17:26 ↗ current food bank is and and how people

1:17:29 ↗ walk out of the facility and the

1:17:31 ↗ proximity to like if you're heading up

1:17:34 ↗ to Clark Elementary and whatnot would

1:17:37 ↗ that benefit that area

1:17:39 ↗ if that food bank was moved to the new

1:17:43 ↗ area that's not something that I've

1:17:45 ↗ looked at because when we look at these

1:17:46 ↗ we look at every possible use and the

1:17:48 ↗ best high intended use we don't look at

1:17:49 ↗ specific uses so that's something that

1:17:51 ↗ would be looked at when if they came in

1:17:52 ↗ with an application okay very well

1:17:55 ↗ that's it for me

1:18:00 ↗ uh not really a question but can you go

1:18:02 ↗ back to the condition slide please

1:18:10 ↗ this one oh no the condition slide I

1:18:13 ↗ apologize

1:18:14 ↗ there you go

1:18:24 ↗ I'm curious Kristen um

1:18:27 ↗ it can be difficult I think sometimes to

1:18:28 ↗ separate out the issues that are in

1:18:30 ↗ front of us and

1:18:33 ↗ it's important I think to think about

1:18:35 ↗ this property in terms of

1:18:38 ↗ what we are possibly recommending the

1:18:41 ↗ allowed uses and I'm curious how

1:18:45 ↗ um

1:18:46 ↗ because we would be uh changing this

1:18:48 ↗ without without any kind of conditions

1:18:51 ↗ regardless of who the applicant is and

1:18:53 ↗ the Fantastic wishes uh that we're so

1:18:56 ↗ excited about to see on the property

1:18:57 ↗ without that tie to it when we talk

1:19:01 ↗ about the possibility of a rezone and a

1:19:04 ↗ resale let's say for

1:19:07 ↗ the ability to then not do the State

1:19:10 ↗ admission that is hopeful but not

1:19:12 ↗ realized uh how one of the things that I

1:19:16 ↗ mentioned that I saw is a Transit stock

1:19:19 ↗ would be able to be added if we rezoned

1:19:21 ↗ this into multi-family High

1:19:23 ↗ on our list of things that would change

1:19:25 ↗ it said transit stop

1:19:29 ↗ so

1:19:32 ↗ I missed that one

1:19:33 ↗ Transit stops are determined by Metro

1:19:36 ↗ they're not determined by the city okay

1:19:38 ↗ and Transit stops require a lot of

1:19:40 ↗ density yeah a lot

1:19:43 ↗ so that's something that would have to

1:19:45 ↗ be discussed with Metro

1:19:47 ↗ but I so I I don't know do you mind

1:19:49 ↗ bringing back that slide that had the

1:19:51 ↗ change that we would be going from to

1:19:53 ↗ being multi-family High

1:19:55 ↗ sure

1:19:56 ↗ this one or no yeah so our changes so

1:20:00 ↗ park and ride would now be able to be

1:20:03 ↗ put on the site

1:20:05 ↗ um

1:20:06 ↗ and

1:20:08 ↗ we um and then you want to also the

1:20:11 ↗ triplex4plex five plus

1:20:13 ↗ would then be allowed on the site right

1:20:15 ↗ based on the size of the site if we

1:20:18 ↗ added the adjoining site since we had

1:20:20 ↗ the two Parcels as being one owner

1:20:23 ↗ um what is the maximum amount of density

1:20:26 ↗ if there was a resale well I mean it's

1:20:28 ↗ 29 dwelling units per acre and then you

1:20:30 ↗ need to factor in environmental

1:20:32 ↗ constraints and parking

1:20:36 ↗ driveways

1:20:39 ↗ but

1:20:40 ↗ that's why you look at the big picture

1:20:42 ↗ right yeah

1:20:43 ↗ so thank you

1:20:51 ↗ as they move further in the process from

1:20:55 ↗ planning and then if it gets past that

1:20:57 ↗ the city council to design

1:21:00 ↗ in looking at the list of uses that they

1:21:04 ↗ could have right now on the screen

1:21:06 ↗ wouldn't it be limited to the acreage of

1:21:10 ↗ the actual site

1:21:13 ↗ what they could actually do with the

1:21:15 ↗ site as well with the environmental

1:21:17 ↗ factors as well

1:21:19 ↗ right so any right so any permitted uses

1:21:21 ↗ that would be allowed now are limited to

1:21:24 ↗ that property

1:21:25 ↗ alone is that what you're asking yeah

1:21:27 ↗ I'm asking like even though it states

1:21:29 ↗ all of these things can be done but

1:21:33 ↗ given how much acreage is there

1:21:37 ↗ right exactly right so yeah like I

1:21:40 ↗ mentioned driving range probably didn't

1:21:42 ↗ happen that site's not big enough I mean

1:21:44 ↗ there's a golf course

1:21:45 ↗ um baseball soccer fields probably not

1:21:47 ↗ because you again you need to factor in

1:21:49 ↗ things like parking yeah and lighting

1:21:51 ↗ and all those other things that go

1:21:52 ↗ there's so many things that go into a

1:21:54 ↗ project that have to be factored in very

1:21:57 ↗ well yeah yeah

1:22:05 ↗ just for the sake of clarity even though

1:22:07 ↗ it says Wildwood on the screen that does

1:22:08 ↗ apply still to our St Lutheran correct

1:22:12 ↗ it does okay just wanted to make sure

1:22:13 ↗ I'm sorry uh I do have a question though

1:22:16 ↗ um uh commissioner Lewis mentioned the

1:22:20 ↗ single-family home on the lot I'm

1:22:22 ↗ assuming that was a precursor to the

1:22:24 ↗ master Shoreline plan is that safe to

1:22:27 ↗ say okay the plan was updated in 20

1:22:31 ↗ actually it was updated most recently in

1:22:32 ↗ 2021 I believe okay

1:22:35 ↗ so then if it did come down to

1:22:37 ↗ Redevelopment of that portion of the lot

1:22:40 ↗ that would not be able to be rebuilt on

1:22:43 ↗ is that correct again I don't know I

1:22:46 ↗ mean what we've shown you is what we can

1:22:47 ↗ do from GIS and likely not it would it

1:22:50 ↗ would push it out probably past that

1:22:52 ↗ house gotcha okay thank you

1:22:57 ↗ just to note right now that that house

1:22:59 ↗ then would be would be there as a

1:23:01 ↗ legally non-conforming use so it's it's

1:23:04 ↗ still legal to be there yeah

1:23:09 ↗ any other clarifying questions

1:23:15 ↗ hi this is Jamie online

1:23:17 ↗ um I was wondering if you could go back

1:23:18 ↗ to the slide that shows

1:23:20 ↗ um where those 200 foot

1:23:23 ↗ um

1:23:24 ↗ places would be on either side of the

1:23:26 ↗ property uh the environmental factors

1:23:30 ↗ there you go

1:23:33 ↗ so I just use it this is my marker right

1:23:36 ↗ here

1:23:36 ↗ um

1:23:37 ↗ so this is the 200 foot here's the

1:23:39 ↗ center of the creek so the high water

1:23:42 ↗ mark would be further out from here

1:23:44 ↗ and then this is the 200 feet just for

1:23:47 ↗ reference this is 100 feet and then

1:23:49 ↗ that's the 200 feet over there

1:23:52 ↗ okay thank you you're welcome

1:24:00 ↗ okay last call for clarifying questions

1:24:03 ↗ yeah I just want to clarify the

1:24:06 ↗ conditions you mentioned that

1:24:09 ↗ they're an option they're not

1:24:12 ↗ necessarily

1:24:14 ↗ a favorite because they're challenging

1:24:18 ↗ other than them being challenging is

1:24:20 ↗ there a reason to not put conditions on

1:24:22 ↗ it

1:24:27 ↗ can phone a friend

1:24:32 ↗ so this is mini Dollywood for the record

1:24:35 ↗ um so you know like you asked the

1:24:38 ↗ question that they at your last meeting

1:24:40 ↗ and so we've kind of given the

1:24:43 ↗ information it's not illegal to require

1:24:45 ↗ these but they can be problematic if you

1:24:48 ↗ want to go down the path and make a

1:24:50 ↗ recommendation that you want to approve

1:24:51 ↗ it with a condition then it has to be

1:24:54 ↗ tied to what criteria you feel is needed

1:24:58 ↗ what's so unique about this property so

1:25:01 ↗ they have to be done very carefully

1:25:03 ↗ generally for the public greater good so

1:25:07 ↗ you know it's not meant as a contract so

1:25:09 ↗ that you make a deal with with a

1:25:11 ↗ property owner to do things so that's

1:25:13 ↗ where it gets tricky it also gets tricky

1:25:15 ↗ when you're trying to implement it over

1:25:18 ↗ the long part of years right so the

1:25:20 ↗ property can sell the new property owner

1:25:22 ↗ how would they know the the we get a

1:25:25 ↗ call at the front counter what's allowed

1:25:27 ↗ in the zone and it shows one thing on

1:25:29 ↗ the zoning it's generally something

1:25:31 ↗ that's recorded on the title of the

1:25:32 ↗ property so the implementation can be a

1:25:35 ↗ challenge

1:25:36 ↗ um but but if you want to recommend with

1:25:40 ↗ some conditions they need to be

1:25:42 ↗ thoughtful they need to meet all these

1:25:44 ↗ things of tying them to the criteria so

1:25:46 ↗ we just wanted to kind of get you the

1:25:49 ↗ right information because this was a

1:25:50 ↗ question asked at the last meeting

1:25:52 ↗ great thank you

1:25:55 ↗ and um and I had asked that question at

1:25:57 ↗ the last meeting but I think based on

1:25:59 ↗ what I've heard tonight just to be clear

1:26:02 ↗ is that

1:26:03 ↗ um I think the

1:26:05 ↗ um almost point that even though all of

1:26:07 ↗ those things are permitted uses under

1:26:10 ↗ that land use designation that the site

1:26:13 ↗ really doesn't accommodate like you know

1:26:15 ↗ a brand new Amazon warehouse or

1:26:17 ↗ something right just because it's zoned

1:26:19 ↗ um that way correct just because it says

1:26:21 ↗ it can go there doesn't mean it can it

1:26:23 ↗ has to meet all the criteria yeah

1:26:30 ↗ okay last call take two four

1:26:34 ↗ okay so hearing

1:26:37 ↗ um

1:26:38 ↗ uh no more clarifying questions I'm now

1:26:40 ↗ going to open the floor for public

1:26:42 ↗ comments um at eight o'clock on the dot

1:26:45 ↗ pm

1:26:46 ↗ and so please remember again that each

1:26:48 ↗ person has five minutes to speak

1:26:50 ↗ um so Jared has anyone signed up to

1:26:51 ↗ speak yes we have about five individuals

1:26:54 ↗ on the in-house sign in sheet will all

1:26:57 ↗ those who are looking to speak tonight

1:26:58 ↗ raise their hands in person and online

1:27:03 ↗ perfect we will go ahead and start in

1:27:06 ↗ person with I believe Dave Ricketts if

1:27:09 ↗ you would like to speak

1:27:12 ↗ no

1:27:13 ↗ 10K

1:27:17 ↗ perfect

1:27:26 ↗ can you um just hit the microphone

1:27:28 ↗ button in concerns of any traffic first

1:27:31 ↗ um just remember that any proposal for

1:27:34 ↗ development would have to go through all

1:27:37 ↗ the normal process in which traffic

1:27:39 ↗ would be evaluated that's not an issue

1:27:41 ↗ that really is to be addressed as part

1:27:44 ↗ of the rezone but I would also ahead

1:27:47 ↗ think about where the food bank is now

1:27:48 ↗ right here think about where the church

1:27:50 ↗ is about a block or two away whatever

1:27:53 ↗ traffic is there at the food bank now is

1:27:55 ↗ the same traffic that will be at our

1:27:57 ↗ church you're really not adding a

1:27:59 ↗ traffic impact in the future yes with a

1:28:02 ↗ rezone and if we can go a little higher

1:28:05 ↗ 30 feet is not very high with the

1:28:07 ↗ existing zoning 40 feet

1:28:10 ↗ allows if you dream big things like the

1:28:14 ↗ together Center in Redmond which is

1:28:16 ↗ social services on the lower floor and a

1:28:20 ↗ food bank with affordable housing above

1:28:23 ↗ I don't know if that will ever happen it

1:28:25 ↗ takes a lot of money but it would give

1:28:28 ↗ us the flexibility as a city and as a

1:28:31 ↗ site to be able to do something like

1:28:33 ↗ that that's what this is all about

1:28:36 ↗ I can't ever imagine that that property

1:28:39 ↗ would turn into condos or you know

1:28:42 ↗ high-end apartments that's not what

1:28:44 ↗ anybody wants for that site

1:28:47 ↗ so that's where we're trying to go

1:28:50 ↗ that's what's behind it and I urge your

1:28:52 ↗ support

1:28:55 ↗ foreign

1:28:59 ↗ next we have Gary Hansen

1:29:08 ↗ my name is Gary Hansen and I need to

1:29:12 ↗ give my address is that it

1:29:14 ↗ yeah 1601 247th Avenue Southeast in

1:29:18 ↗ Sammamish

1:29:21 ↗ a

1:29:23 ↗ little better

1:29:25 ↗ uh I I was on the team at my former

1:29:28 ↗ Church Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran

1:29:30 ↗ Church that worked to recognize and

1:29:32 ↗ acknowledge our ongoing Community

1:29:34 ↗ relationships during the process of

1:29:36 ↗ merging with Our Savior Lutheran Church

1:29:39 ↗ which is the applicant for this rezone

1:29:43 ↗ Like Our Savior Lutheran Church Shepherd

1:29:45 ↗ of the Hills was a longtime Community

1:29:47 ↗ institution based right here in Issaquah

1:29:50 ↗ for 30 plus years there was always a

1:29:53 ↗ shopping cart for the food bank for Food

1:29:55 ↗ Bank collections at the church

1:29:58 ↗ when Shepherd of the Hills was making

1:30:00 ↗ the decision to join our savior one of

1:30:03 ↗ our most important considerations was

1:30:05 ↗ ensuring that our congregation members

1:30:07 ↗ would would be able to maintain their

1:30:10 ↗ strong support

1:30:12 ↗ for for and connection to Issaquah food

1:30:18 ↗ and clothing bank at our savior

1:30:20 ↗ now that the merger has been completed

1:30:23 ↗ and I am a member of our savior I have

1:30:26 ↗ been happy to see that this commitment

1:30:29 ↗ is continuing just like we had hoped I

1:30:32 ↗ know that our Savior Lutheran Church is

1:30:35 ↗ steadfast and devoted in its work to

1:30:38 ↗ bring its beloved campus to the greater

1:30:41 ↗ service of the larger Issaquah Community

1:30:43 ↗ this is why I hope you will support the

1:30:45 ↗ church's application to allow rezoning

1:30:51 ↗ foreign

1:30:57 ↗ next up that we have written down is

1:30:59 ↗ Josh Friedman

1:31:05 ↗ good evening my name is Josh Friedman

1:31:07 ↗ I'm the attorney for Our Savior Lutheran

1:31:10 ↗ Church I had a few remarks written out

1:31:13 ↗ but I want to try and address some of

1:31:16 ↗ the questions that came up earlier so

1:31:18 ↗ I'm throwing my plan out the window and

1:31:20 ↗ gonna try and give you some more

1:31:22 ↗ information that I'm hoping will be

1:31:23 ↗ helpful

1:31:25 ↗ one of the things that the commission

1:31:27 ↗ asked about was impervious versus

1:31:30 ↗ pervious on the site in the existing

1:31:33 ↗ condition

1:31:34 ↗ a substantial part of the site is

1:31:37 ↗ impervious as it's built now simply

1:31:40 ↗ because it was designed as a church I

1:31:42 ↗ believe in the early 1960s when

1:31:45 ↗ everybody was who was going to church

1:31:46 ↗ was going by car

1:31:48 ↗ A new

1:31:50 ↗ development proposal when one comes if

1:31:54 ↗ one comes would be connected with the

1:31:57 ↗ standards of today both in terms of what

1:31:59 ↗ the city will allow in its uh parking

1:32:03 ↗ limits in its pervious versus imp

1:32:05 ↗ verbias and of course in its uh

1:32:08 ↗ Shoreline related setbacks of various

1:32:11 ↗ kinds

1:32:12 ↗ so one of the things that's exciting

1:32:15 ↗ about the property just from a

1:32:18 ↗ perspective of what's built there today

1:32:19 ↗ is If a Redevelopment could happen that

1:32:24 ↗ would be an opportunity for more of the

1:32:27 ↗ site to return to impervious conditions

1:32:30 ↗ oftentimes when someone goes up on a

1:32:33 ↗ site that's widely paved in order to go

1:32:35 ↗ up they need to restore laterally so

1:32:39 ↗ that's something that could and I would

1:32:42 ↗ presume be likely to happen in a future

1:32:44 ↗ scenario where an applicant would want

1:32:47 ↗ to build upward

1:32:49 ↗ um

1:32:51 ↗ also it was asked about

1:32:53 ↗ um whether a food bank could be

1:32:55 ↗ permitted on the site in its existing

1:32:57 ↗ zoning that's correct uh food bank is is

1:33:01 ↗ permissible

1:33:02 ↗ um just like a driving range or a golf

1:33:04 ↗ course

1:33:05 ↗ um actually no you said that was the

1:33:07 ↗ proposed zoning it's not permitted there

1:33:09 ↗ today but I guess the metaphor still

1:33:12 ↗ stands that the use is permitted

1:33:15 ↗ that doesn't necessarily mean that the

1:33:17 ↗ site can accommodate it so one of the

1:33:20 ↗ reasons why our saver is asking for the

1:33:22 ↗ additional height is because food banks

1:33:25 ↗ to grow need to use things like rooftop

1:33:27 ↗ Refrigeration they need to use equipment

1:33:30 ↗ like forklifts

1:33:32 ↗ um the additional height of going from

1:33:35 ↗ 30 to 40 we're hoping would

1:33:38 ↗ give the food bank flexibility to grow

1:33:40 ↗ in the medium term in addition to

1:33:42 ↗ potentially offering additional Social

1:33:45 ↗ Services uses in the long term

1:33:49 ↗ um

1:33:51 ↗ I think that about covers it I think

1:33:53 ↗ your questions about

1:33:55 ↗ maximum units and single-family home

1:33:57 ↗ were pretty well answered the

1:33:58 ↗ single-family home that's there I

1:34:00 ↗ believe was built as a parsonage as part

1:34:02 ↗ of the original Church campus but

1:34:05 ↗ probably would not be rebuilt if a new

1:34:08 ↗ church was being built there today

1:34:10 ↗ and as well the the maximum units the

1:34:14 ↗ zoning sets the permissible density but

1:34:17 ↗ it doesn't actually tell you what can be

1:34:20 ↗ built because you have to look at is the

1:34:22 ↗ lot square or is it kind of wonky how

1:34:25 ↗ much access to the road does it have is

1:34:28 ↗ there enough of a fire lane to safely

1:34:31 ↗ fit 100 people there or only 10 so

1:34:34 ↗ that's why the permissible density from

1:34:38 ↗ a per unit occupancy perspective

1:34:42 ↗ is not a complete measurement of what

1:34:44 ↗ actually could be built there the uh the

1:34:47 ↗ golf course or the grocery store is a

1:34:48 ↗ good example

1:34:50 ↗ um this new zoning would technically

1:34:52 ↗ make a grocery store permissible I

1:34:56 ↗ wouldn't want to be the architect trying

1:34:57 ↗ to shoehorn a grocery store onto that

1:34:59 ↗ lot and I can't imagine how it would

1:35:02 ↗ ever be done but that's why I'm not an

1:35:05 ↗ architect so um thank you for

1:35:07 ↗ considering the proposal I can't speak

1:35:10 ↗ to the

1:35:12 ↗ as compellingly to the church's

1:35:14 ↗ commitment as its members have so I hope

1:35:16 ↗ you've had a chance to listen and the

1:35:19 ↗ church has been a neighbor to this Creek

1:35:22 ↗ to this road and um

1:35:25 ↗ to the community for 50 years on this

1:35:28 ↗ site they're not looking to cut and run

1:35:31 ↗ they're looking to expand their service

1:35:33 ↗ in the future so um thank you for taking

1:35:35 ↗ the time to consider this and thank you

1:35:37 ↗ for volunteering your service on the

1:35:39 ↗ commission

1:35:45 ↗ all righty next up we have Lori s

1:35:48 ↗ looking to present

1:35:53 ↗ hi I'm Laurie sperber I live in

1:35:56 ↗ Arlington Place which is across the

1:35:58 ↗ street on 700 Front Street South

1:36:02 ↗ and I am very very very much

1:36:06 ↗ a person who stands behind helping their

1:36:09 ↗ Community helping the poor helping the

1:36:12 ↗ unfortunate

1:36:13 ↗ and I'm all for the food bank our

1:36:16 ↗ biggest concern is the fact that and

1:36:19 ↗ everybody keeps saying that nothing's

1:36:21 ↗ gonna impact Front Street

1:36:25 ↗ but I would like to ask how many people

1:36:27 ↗ get on Front Street at 6 30 in the

1:36:30 ↗ morning and aren't getting let in

1:36:31 ↗ because the volume of traffic coming

1:36:33 ↗ from Hobart and out Hobart Issaquah road

1:36:36 ↗ is so full of people the speed is

1:36:41 ↗ increased because they're tired of

1:36:42 ↗ sitting in the back up for Endless you

1:36:46 ↗ know what should be a 15-20 minute drive

1:36:48 ↗ is now a 45 minute to an hour drive

1:36:52 ↗ I can sit there for 10 minutes in my

1:36:54 ↗ driveway waiting to get out on that

1:36:56 ↗ street to go to work

1:36:58 ↗ coming home it's even worse

1:37:01 ↗ people you try I just want to go down to

1:37:04 ↗ the Country Store to go get some small

1:37:06 ↗ items instead of going into town I can't

1:37:08 ↗ get into traffic nobody will let me

1:37:11 ↗ they'll flip me off they honk at me

1:37:13 ↗ they're not going to let you in they

1:37:15 ↗ don't want to deal with that traffic

1:37:17 ↗ anymore and unfortunately

1:37:21 ↗ Front Street has become

1:37:24 ↗ at the

1:37:26 ↗ fourth

1:37:28 ↗ transportation for people from the west

1:37:32 ↗ side or the north side of I-90 to get to

1:37:36 ↗ the south side of I-90

1:37:39 ↗ 900 is a parking lot 405's a parking lot

1:37:44 ↗ and nobody wants to drive all the way up

1:37:45 ↗ by 90 to get on Highway 18.

1:37:48 ↗ trying to get on Highway 18 is a parking

1:37:50 ↗ lot so they they do go use Front Street

1:37:54 ↗ Granite I know we've done studies and

1:37:57 ↗ probably 70 percent of the traffic on

1:37:59 ↗ Front Street doesn't spend money in

1:38:01 ↗ Issaquah

1:38:02 ↗ and I don't blame the City of Issaquah

1:38:05 ↗ for saying we're not going to spend the

1:38:07 ↗ money to improve Front Street we're not

1:38:10 ↗ going to widen it because with the money

1:38:13 ↗ that we're putting forth we're not

1:38:15 ↗ recuperating because those people don't

1:38:16 ↗ spend money in Issaquah

1:38:19 ↗ but I'm a homeowner and I also lived

1:38:22 ↗ here when the developer came to develop

1:38:25 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands

1:38:28 ↗ and one of the stipulations that was

1:38:30 ↗ made upon him was that he had to come up

1:38:32 ↗ with a plan to improve the

1:38:33 ↗ infrastructure up there and he had to

1:38:35 ↗ pay for it

1:38:37 ↗ and he came through for the highlands

1:38:39 ↗ and the infrastructure up there is great

1:38:43 ↗ it boggles down when it gets back onto

1:38:45 ↗ the city parts of Issaquah up there and

1:38:48 ↗ down to the one Lanes again

1:38:50 ↗ if they're gonna do if they want to

1:38:52 ↗ build something other than just moving

1:38:55 ↗ the food bank over there and I really

1:38:58 ↗ you know I appreciate the lawyer saying

1:39:00 ↗ oh they're not going to do anything more

1:39:01 ↗ than to build this phenomenal food bank

1:39:04 ↗ over there with

1:39:06 ↗ health care and everything else for

1:39:09 ↗ these people and other resources which I

1:39:11 ↗ used to dedicate my time to the Hammond

1:39:13 ↗ House in Seattle which is a shelter for

1:39:16 ↗ 50 homeless women I would feed them I

1:39:18 ↗ would put Christmas bags together for

1:39:20 ↗ them so I'm part of that I know all

1:39:22 ↗ about that I applaud it

1:39:25 ↗ but I don't believe that something's not

1:39:27 ↗ going to happen down the road that's

1:39:29 ↗ going to put

1:39:30 ↗ multi-level living units on that

1:39:33 ↗ property that is just going to totally

1:39:35 ↗ annihilate Front Street and me as a

1:39:39 ↗ homeowner in Issaquah and a taxpayer and

1:39:44 ↗ the fact that nobody's going to look at

1:39:46 ↗ us and help us out

1:39:49 ↗ is upsetting to me

1:39:51 ↗ so I don't approve this I approve the

1:39:54 ↗ food bank wholeheartedly I'll even go

1:39:57 ↗ over there and give them my time to it

1:40:01 ↗ but I do not approve them zoning it to

1:40:05 ↗ be able to put housing on it for the

1:40:08 ↗ lower income people unless they're

1:40:10 ↗ willing to put the money out and improve

1:40:13 ↗ Front Street and improve our

1:40:15 ↗ infrastructure thank you

1:40:23 ↗ alrighty everyone else uh drew a line

1:40:27 ↗ through their name so I'll give another

1:40:28 ↗ second shot to anyone else who would

1:40:30 ↗ like to present during this time in the

1:40:32 ↗ room

1:40:34 ↗ no one has also indicated that they

1:40:37 ↗ would like to speak online

1:40:41 ↗ um we'll do one more just kind of call

1:40:42 ↗ to make sure that no one either virtual

1:40:45 ↗ or in the room would like to speak

1:40:47 ↗ and we know the drill by now if you do

1:40:49 ↗ raise your hand

1:40:51 ↗ um we'll let it go once

1:40:53 ↗ twice

1:40:55 ↗ three times sold perfect okay

1:40:59 ↗ um and so if there are no more comments

1:41:01 ↗ I will close the public comment portion

1:41:04 ↗ of the public hearing at 8 15 pm

1:41:07 ↗ and so it's time for us again to

1:41:09 ↗ deliberate on this topic

1:41:11 ↗ in order to do that someone must first

1:41:13 ↗ make a motion and it must be seconded uh

1:41:15 ↗ PPC would anyone like to make a motion

1:41:20 ↗ I would like to move to approve the

1:41:22 ↗ findings of fact for the recommended

1:41:24 ↗ approval of the proposed land use

1:41:26 ↗ designation and Zoning amendments for

1:41:28 ↗ proposal three for the Our Savior

1:41:30 ↗ Lutheran Church parcel 343-206-9217

1:41:37 ↗ second perfect

1:41:39 ↗ okay so we have a motion on the second

1:41:42 ↗ on the floor

1:41:45 ↗ um but anyone like to comment on that

1:41:46 ↗ motion

1:41:55 ↗ you guys are just waiting me out

1:41:57 ↗ [Music]

1:41:59 ↗ I would like to comment and I want to

1:42:01 ↗ thank again that everybody who came to

1:42:03 ↗ speak and who spoke online and allowing

1:42:06 ↗ us this time to consider this proposal

1:42:09 ↗ and I love the proposal I really do but

1:42:12 ↗ what the proposal that I'm speaking to

1:42:15 ↗ is the

1:42:17 ↗ re-development of the property in a

1:42:20 ↗ mission-driven way for the community I

1:42:23 ↗ think it's just great

1:42:24 ↗ however what's in front of me is a

1:42:28 ↗ rezone and an up Zone in a higher

1:42:31 ↗ density of residential and according to

1:42:35 ↗ our criteria and the only defensible way

1:42:38 ↗ that we can do a site specific

1:42:40 ↗ rezone in this

1:42:43 ↗ um

1:42:44 ↗ process is if all the approval criteria

1:42:51 ↗ our request will be granted only if all

1:42:53 ↗ the following criteria are met and again

1:42:56 ↗ number three growth controls

1:42:58 ↗ say that

1:43:00 ↗ you would need to show that you couldn't

1:43:04 ↗ achieve your growth goals which we can

1:43:06 ↗ and we talked about that earlier how we

1:43:09 ↗ have four times the growth capacity in

1:43:11 ↗ the central Issaquah

1:43:12 ↗ plan than the residential that we need

1:43:15 ↗ so the simple reason to multi-family

1:43:18 ↗ High which is all that's in front of me

1:43:20 ↗ really and I love hearing all the other

1:43:22 ↗ stories because that's the stuff that

1:43:23 ↗ interests me but all I can approve or

1:43:26 ↗ disapprove today is should I up Zone it

1:43:30 ↗ and I don't think I can because of that

1:43:34 ↗ criteria number three

1:43:36 ↗ now another thing that it says under

1:43:38 ↗ criteria number three is that unless the

1:43:42 ↗ city approves a development agreement as

1:43:44 ↗ part of The rezone Proposal well that's

1:43:46 ↗ not before me today if it were before me

1:43:48 ↗ I'd have a little bit more something to

1:43:50 ↗ talk about but I don't have that

1:43:53 ↗ I am pointing to that though I wish I

1:43:56 ↗ did because that way we could include

1:43:59 ↗ the

1:44:01 ↗ um

1:44:02 ↗ the

1:44:04 ↗ objectives that are being brought before

1:44:06 ↗ us the services the food bank the all

1:44:10 ↗ the other things simply rezoning it to a

1:44:13 ↗ higher Zone I can't support so just

1:44:17 ↗ putting that out there and what I hope

1:44:19 ↗ is the most constructive way

1:44:21 ↗ I'm not shooting down the idea that the

1:44:24 ↗ Lutheran Church has but rather

1:44:25 ↗ responding to the process before me

1:44:28 ↗ thank you

1:44:37 ↗ I will jump in and say that uh I think

1:44:40 ↗ this is something that we've all

1:44:41 ↗ struggled with

1:44:42 ↗ um

1:44:42 ↗ we come at this from a very particular

1:44:44 ↗ perspective in a very narrow lens

1:44:49 ↗ right now the request for the up Zone

1:44:52 ↗ gives us some serious challenges it

1:44:55 ↗ would be lovely to be able to float

1:44:59 ↗ along with the with the community I

1:45:01 ↗ think all of us see the huge potential

1:45:04 ↗ in this on so many levels and I wish

1:45:08 ↗ very much that we were in a different

1:45:10 ↗ situation than we were in but I keep

1:45:13 ↗ going back to what we're being presented

1:45:15 ↗ with and I I struggle with up zoning

1:45:18 ↗ this area to multi-family High

1:45:21 ↗ I agree that the map looks nice when you

1:45:24 ↗ Zone in real close but if you zoom out

1:45:26 ↗ there is plenty of single family around

1:45:29 ↗ the area

1:45:30 ↗ um

1:45:31 ↗ I uh

1:45:33 ↗ the only redeeming thing that I would

1:45:35 ↗ love to hear from my Commissioners is

1:45:37 ↗ that when um when I've been on site

1:45:40 ↗ I've been able to see that there is a

1:45:42 ↗ huge amount of impervious surface and so

1:45:46 ↗ the ability to rezone and up Zone I

1:45:49 ↗ don't know that would have that much of

1:45:51 ↗ a detrimental effect because I do trust

1:45:53 ↗ that staff will do the due diligence

1:45:56 ↗ that they need to do to preserve the

1:45:57 ↗ creek bed to be able to adjust for the

1:46:00 ↗ additional trips that would be coming on

1:46:01 ↗ depending on whatever that ends up being

1:46:02 ↗ I don't look at it from that perspective

1:46:05 ↗ however I don't know that this

1:46:07 ↗ particular proposal in front of us is

1:46:09 ↗ the right time for this

1:46:12 ↗ there was a mention in some of the

1:46:15 ↗ dialogue that we had about a delay from

1:46:18 ↗ this recommendation at this time should

1:46:20 ↗ Council not pursue this on on the advice

1:46:23 ↗ of the administration would cause a

1:46:25 ↗ multi-year

1:46:26 ↗ seven year delay to this right and I

1:46:28 ↗ think that that was an instinct of mine

1:46:30 ↗ to go whoa that's not what we want right

1:46:33 ↗ um but it's also something that's not in

1:46:35 ↗ front of us today and so when looking at

1:46:36 ↗ what's in front of us I have serious

1:46:39 ↗ concerns about it I wish that I had

1:46:41 ↗ easier answers for it because

1:46:43 ↗ man would I love to have this site

1:46:46 ↗ actualized in the way that the community

1:46:48 ↗ wants and desperately needs it to be

1:46:51 ↗ so I would love to hear more from the

1:46:53 ↗ commissioners

1:46:56 ↗ I agree this one's been a bit of a

1:46:58 ↗ struggle I mean nine are really pointed

1:47:00 ↗ out

1:47:01 ↗ you know what we have what we're

1:47:03 ↗ supposed to look at versus that that

1:47:05 ↗ bigger picture of what they want to do

1:47:06 ↗ with the food bank which I think we're

1:47:08 ↗ all super excited about

1:47:10 ↗ um but I do think one argument that came

1:47:14 ↗ out

1:47:15 ↗ um within our materials was that all the

1:47:18 ↗ zoning around this area is all

1:47:20 ↗ multi-family and it this is kind of a

1:47:23 ↗ funny little piece that's zoned

1:47:26 ↗ differently than the surrounding area

1:47:28 ↗ so it seemed like a pretty logical

1:47:31 ↗ argument to have it zoned

1:47:34 ↗ similarly to the areas around it that it

1:47:37 ↗ is sort of odd that this piece

1:47:40 ↗ sits in its own little island of more

1:47:43 ↗ limited zoning

1:47:44 ↗ so you know there's that argument to

1:47:47 ↗ making it consistent with the rest of

1:47:49 ↗ the area

1:47:52 ↗ I might add even just dealing with the

1:47:55 ↗ efficiency of the land use as well from

1:47:58 ↗ a cluster perspective and I'll to be

1:48:00 ↗ able to make it that multi-family

1:48:03 ↗ density per se the one it is right now

1:48:07 ↗ would actually benefit as well

1:48:10 ↗ um I think you brought up a good point

1:48:12 ↗ commissioner regarding about the

1:48:15 ↗ surrounding zoning around that parcel as

1:48:18 ↗ well which is actually pretty important

1:48:20 ↗ to note we do also note of course the

1:48:24 ↗ the growth control aspect of course and

1:48:28 ↗ um that's something that like both

1:48:31 ↗ Commissioners have noted as well as the

1:48:33 ↗ rest of us have noted has been something

1:48:36 ↗ that's been

1:48:38 ↗ provided some heartache in the sense of

1:48:40 ↗ us reading these letters that you guys

1:48:42 ↗ have said to us to testimonies you guys

1:48:43 ↗ have given to us so it is a hard

1:48:47 ↗ um decision you know to be able to make

1:48:49 ↗ a recommendation so what we'll do

1:48:53 ↗ um what we can

1:48:55 ↗ according to the information that we

1:48:58 ↗ have we have right now

1:49:00 ↗ thank you

1:49:03 ↗ I have um a question if I can just as

1:49:08 ↗ I've been listening to this

1:49:10 ↗ um given what the surrounding land uses

1:49:12 ↗ are given the public benefit of a food

1:49:15 ↗ bank if they were

1:49:17 ↗ is there a possibility I'm not asking

1:49:19 ↗ for a commitment but is there a

1:49:21 ↗ possibility to

1:49:23 ↗ like at a variance or something like

1:49:26 ↗ that to go to a higher height for a food

1:49:28 ↗ bank sort of development within the

1:49:30 ↗ existing land use

1:49:32 ↗ so that makes sense

1:49:34 ↗ so right now the maximum height in

1:49:37 ↗ multi-family high is

1:49:40 ↗ 40 feet

1:49:42 ↗ no that's the base height I apologize

1:49:43 ↗ that's the base height they could go up

1:49:45 ↗ to 65 feet so that's not a variance but

1:49:48 ↗ there are conditions tied to that so you

1:49:50 ↗ have to do step backs it's like a 25

1:49:52 ↗ step back for every floor over the

1:49:54 ↗ second floor and you have to increase

1:49:56 ↗ your pervious surface so that's a

1:49:58 ↗ possibility but no I don't believe a

1:50:00 ↗ variance going above that maximum height

1:50:02 ↗ is allowed within the existing land use

1:50:04 ↗ So within that single family within the

1:50:06 ↗ single family no okay that's uh 30 feet

1:50:09 ↗ 30 feet is the maximum

1:50:11 ↗ all right thanks

1:50:14 ↗ yeah I think if you um this is mini

1:50:16 ↗ again I think what you're asking is can

1:50:20 ↗ anyone apply for a variance uh yes they

1:50:23 ↗ can everyone has a due process but to

1:50:26 ↗ meet the criteria it's it's going to be

1:50:28 ↗ very difficult what's the unique

1:50:30 ↗ circumstances that that apply to this so

1:50:32 ↗ it's a hearing examiner process that you

1:50:35 ↗ can go through a variance process but

1:50:37 ↗ the likelihood of it being approved

1:50:40 ↗ um Is Not Great okay

1:50:50 ↗ uh thank you I I'm glad Carolyn you

1:50:52 ↗ brought up the adjacent uses because

1:50:55 ↗ it's interesting to me about the

1:50:57 ↗ multi-family high that is around there

1:50:59 ↗ and why is it there

1:51:01 ↗ everybody kind of Wonders how do they

1:51:02 ↗ get there but if you um if I recall that

1:51:07 ↗ and correct me Kristen if I'm wrong

1:51:09 ↗ about in gay um Park was a single-family

1:51:13 ↗ residential before it was purchased and

1:51:15 ↗ turned into a park and as part of a kind

1:51:17 ↗ of a Promenade a stretch a single family

1:51:19 ↗ uh small lot that runs along is

1:51:22 ↗ Creek for a reason so you could you

1:51:25 ↗ could say you could dial into the one

1:51:26 ↗ little picture that we have in our

1:51:28 ↗ packet or you could look at that that

1:51:29 ↗ whole Corridor and evaluate the adjacent

1:51:33 ↗ uses but still I think that my

1:51:39 ↗ um challenge is that under these

1:51:43 ↗ circumstances I don't think I can

1:51:45 ↗ approve an up Zone to multi-family High

1:51:47 ↗ because the definition of that does not

1:51:50 ↗ necessarily achieve the objectives that

1:51:53 ↗ I'm hearing in the room that I would

1:51:55 ↗ really like to achieve

1:51:57 ↗ so

1:51:58 ↗ that's where I'm going with that thank

1:52:00 ↗ you

1:52:02 ↗ I think what's interesting for us to

1:52:04 ↗ debate and consider is what our options

1:52:06 ↗ are in front of us right we have the

1:52:08 ↗ recommendation of the administration but

1:52:11 ↗ our role in advising Council can really

1:52:13 ↗ be one that says what's presented in

1:52:15 ↗ front of us does is does not make sense

1:52:19 ↗ however

1:52:20 ↗ under the particular conditions whether

1:52:23 ↗ that be and understand a memorandum of

1:52:25 ↗ understanding that we very much support

1:52:27 ↗ this project right I think that there is

1:52:30 ↗ a way for this commission to be able to

1:52:32 ↗ support this movement as we communicate

1:52:34 ↗ to council our feelings about this

1:52:37 ↗ parcel while still being able to stay

1:52:39 ↗ within the guidelines of criteria so I

1:52:41 ↗ think that's something that would be

1:52:42 ↗ open for debate about how we want to

1:52:44 ↗ address

1:52:45 ↗ Council as we're advising them about

1:52:47 ↗ this property right uh and so I I don't

1:52:50 ↗ know the exact criteria of what city

1:52:52 ↗ staff and what the council would need to

1:52:54 ↗ be able to say this is um the different

1:52:56 ↗ agreements and legal binding situations

1:52:58 ↗ to be able to allow this

1:53:00 ↗ um because it's not in front of us right

1:53:02 ↗ it's not for us to decide but I think

1:53:04 ↗ that's something that's interesting for

1:53:05 ↗ this commission to decide is uh to say

1:53:07 ↗ you know I think we have strong feelings

1:53:10 ↗ about the possibilities that are here

1:53:11 ↗ and yet that's not what's in front of us

1:53:13 ↗ tonight unfortunately

1:53:23 ↗ any other question

1:53:25 ↗ not a question I think that's that's why

1:53:27 ↗ I brought up my question earlier about

1:53:29 ↗ the conditions is is there a way as we

1:53:32 ↗ struggle with this one is there a way to

1:53:33 ↗ put conditions around it either

1:53:37 ↗ conditions for approval although I

1:53:39 ↗ totally understand why those you know

1:53:42 ↗ are very challenging for the city

1:53:44 ↗ but even conditions in an mou to the

1:53:47 ↗ council

1:53:49 ↗ regarding our vote you know where we

1:53:51 ↗ stand with this so that it's not

1:53:54 ↗ they understand where we're coming from

1:53:56 ↗ both sides of us we are sort of limited

1:53:58 ↗ but we're very interested how can we

1:54:01 ↗ find middle ground on this

1:54:09 ↗ thankfully the city council loves to

1:54:11 ↗ watch our meetings and of course they

1:54:14 ↗ play it at one and three quarter speed

1:54:16 ↗ on YouTube but uh and and I think and

1:54:19 ↗ that's one reason why I'm being

1:54:20 ↗ particularly noisy and redundant tonight

1:54:22 ↗ about a development agreement because

1:54:23 ↗ that's for somebody like the city

1:54:25 ↗ council to do and the administration to

1:54:27 ↗ support

1:54:29 ↗ um I I think they'll hear us I did have

1:54:33 ↗ Kristen put the conditions back on the

1:54:35 ↗ screen with my familiarity and

1:54:37 ↗ development agreements and then looking

1:54:39 ↗ at how can I or it just didn't look like

1:54:41 ↗ I could do that tonight

1:54:43 ↗ now perhaps with the time the

1:54:45 ↗ preparation time between now and when

1:54:46 ↗ the city council sees this themselves

1:54:47 ↗ maybe they could figure something out

1:54:49 ↗ we're sending them a recommendation and

1:54:51 ↗ I and I trust the staff to characterize

1:54:53 ↗ our deliberations as well as their Keen

1:54:56 ↗ ear uh to what we're saying um

1:54:59 ↗ that's what I think that's that's

1:55:01 ↗ totally opinion but that's what I think

1:55:04 ↗ and I think in that recommendation to

1:55:06 ↗ the council we can highlight the benefit

1:55:09 ↗ to the community and I think that's

1:55:11 ↗ really the one of the main things here

1:55:13 ↗ as opposed to that growth control the

1:55:16 ↗ intent that the church is actually

1:55:18 ↗ looking at per se I think that's

1:55:21 ↗ something that we need to be able to

1:55:22 ↗ look at we understand the guidelines

1:55:25 ↗ that we have to address every one of

1:55:28 ↗ these uh things that come up to us but

1:55:31 ↗ we also have to factor in in each and

1:55:34 ↗ every one of those criterias as well and

1:55:37 ↗ give it give them that importance as

1:55:39 ↗ well

1:55:46 ↗ foreign

1:55:48 ↗ I would like to make a motion I would

1:55:51 ↗ like to um on them we have a motion

1:55:55 ↗ already on but I should be able to

1:55:59 ↗ um make an amendment to the motion and

1:56:02 ↗ what I'd like to do is make an amendment

1:56:04 ↗ to the motion at hand that the planning

1:56:08 ↗ policy commission recommends that

1:56:10 ↗ Council engage with the applicants to

1:56:12 ↗ form a development agreement to be able

1:56:15 ↗ to pursue the finer details on this

1:56:17 ↗ property

1:56:19 ↗ you do need a second before you can

1:56:21 ↗ discuss this okay

1:56:22 ↗ okay let's look at that

1:56:28 ↗ so we now have an amended motion on the

1:56:31 ↗ table

1:56:34 ↗ yeah thank you for the opportunity to

1:56:36 ↗ have debate on this I think that uh from

1:56:38 ↗ where I sit looking at the variety of uh

1:56:42 ↗ benefits that this proposal could have

1:56:44 ↗ for the community uh it's it's hard to

1:56:46 ↗ dismiss I very much want to see many of

1:56:50 ↗ these dreams realized and I want to make

1:56:52 ↗ sure that it's done in a way that

1:56:53 ↗ supports the community to its fullest I

1:56:55 ↗ really believe this applicant is a

1:56:57 ↗ fantastic partner in this community and

1:56:58 ↗ I want to give them every chance to

1:56:59 ↗ pursue what they think is appropriate

1:57:01 ↗ for serving the needs of our community

1:57:03 ↗ and want to encourage Council to be able

1:57:06 ↗ to have the full support of the

1:57:09 ↗ community behind that as well

1:57:11 ↗ uh and this seems to be the best way for

1:57:13 ↗ us to be able to um to make the case uh

1:57:18 ↗ separately from the motion to council if

1:57:21 ↗ people agree

1:57:23 ↗ I would like to support that statement I

1:57:25 ↗ feel like at this point in time we have

1:57:28 ↗ an idea but it's not we don't have

1:57:29 ↗ enough details in front of us in

1:57:31 ↗ particular to make a a decision that

1:57:34 ↗ will you know move forward correctly I

1:57:37 ↗ think and and so if we can take an

1:57:39 ↗ opportunity to get in front of the

1:57:41 ↗ council with this and maybe look at

1:57:43 ↗ continuing the conversation versus

1:57:45 ↗ resetting that counter to the six or

1:57:47 ↗ seven years that was kind of thrown out

1:57:48 ↗ as as having to reapply like I want to

1:57:51 ↗ avoid that but I also don't want to rush

1:57:52 ↗ to a decision on this for you know the

1:57:55 ↗ sake of of

1:57:56 ↗ um you know Goodwill and so I think if

1:57:58 ↗ there's any opportunity that we can make

1:58:01 ↗ a formal recommendation to continue this

1:58:03 ↗ discussion without making a super formal

1:58:06 ↗ decision tonight

1:58:07 ↗ um I think it would be for the best of

1:58:10 ↗ everyone involved

1:58:14 ↗ I'm in uh thank you commissioner Lewis I

1:58:17 ↗ agree uh of course

1:58:20 ↗ and they um

1:58:22 ↗ to your point the opportunity of the

1:58:26 ↗ city to work on developing or creating a

1:58:28 ↗ development agreement will allow them us

1:58:31 ↗ to work out those finer details that we

1:58:33 ↗ aren't really admittedly addressing

1:58:36 ↗ tonight it may allow for a different

1:58:40 ↗ kind of zoning configuration than the

1:58:44 ↗ just the flat multi-family high and

1:58:46 ↗ those uses that are in here I think the

1:58:49 ↗ creativity and the allow uh the

1:58:52 ↗ allowable specificity of a development

1:58:55 ↗ agreement could be well applied in this

1:58:57 ↗ in this place I appreciate the amendment

1:59:00 ↗ uh thank you commissioner Lewis

1:59:04 ↗ yeah and nothing to add for me other

1:59:06 ↗ than I agree um

1:59:10 ↗ Mr langoria to you I just wanted to say

1:59:15 ↗ that I I fully support uh commissioner

1:59:18 ↗ Lewis's Amendment and and I'm on board

1:59:21 ↗ with that

1:59:25 ↗ so it sounds like um

1:59:28 ↗ we can move forward on a vote on that

1:59:31 ↗ Amendment and so

1:59:33 ↗ um I don't want to say this wrong so the

1:59:35 ↗ motion on the floor is to

1:59:39 ↗ play so the amendment

1:59:40 ↗ um is to recommend that the applicant

1:59:43 ↗ engage with Council on a development

1:59:44 ↗ agreement

1:59:46 ↗ and so all in favor of that Amendment

1:59:50 ↗ correct me I just need a little

1:59:52 ↗ clarification on what that was I didn't

1:59:54 ↗ hear the whole thing and I need to know

1:59:56 ↗ clearly what what the

1:59:59 ↗ what the new motion is or what the

2:00:01 ↗ amended motion is

2:00:03 ↗ so it's to recommend that the applicant

2:00:05 ↗ engage with the city council and

2:00:09 ↗ discussions on a development agreement

2:00:13 ↗ okay

2:00:21 ↗ I'm sorry

2:00:24 ↗ um yeah so just so we are clear in terms

2:00:26 ↗ of taking forward your recommendations

2:00:28 ↗ so your recommendation is

2:00:30 ↗ to not approve the reason without we

2:00:34 ↗ haven't voted on the motion yet so we

2:00:36 ↗ haven't made a recommendation on that

2:00:37 ↗ the only thing we're doing right now is

2:00:38 ↗ the amendment to the motion

2:00:40 ↗ next will we do the motion

2:00:43 ↗ we haven't made a recommendation to

2:00:44 ↗ staff right now we're only voting on the

2:00:46 ↗ amendment okay so the amendment was to

2:00:51 ↗ uh we're recommending the planning

2:00:53 ↗ policy commission is recommending to

2:00:55 ↗ City staff and to the council to further

2:00:58 ↗ engage with the applicant and enter into

2:01:00 ↗ a not to discuss I would thank you to

2:01:04 ↗ discuss a development agreement and that

2:01:06 ↗ we support

2:01:11 ↗ yeah so that's that's

2:01:14 ↗ our discussion here is that that's not

2:01:16 ↗ necessarily an amendment to the motion

2:01:18 ↗ that's an additional motion

2:01:20 ↗ okay

2:01:22 ↗ it could be or it could be an amendment

2:01:24 ↗ so that an amendment to the motion would

2:01:27 ↗ be to yeah let's do that let's make

2:01:29 ↗ another emotion later okay it's

2:01:31 ↗ something like we recommend yeah

2:01:33 ↗ approval let's that if and keep in mind

2:01:36 ↗ too that development Agreements are

2:01:37 ↗ voluntary so this is not something that

2:01:39 ↗ can be required of the applicant they

2:01:41 ↗ would have to buy into this okay yeah

2:01:44 ↗ okay

2:01:47 ↗ uh chair I would like to rescind my

2:01:49 ↗ Amendment

2:01:51 ↗ and chair chair is getting a little out

2:01:54 ↗ of her depth here so and instead I'm

2:01:56 ↗ gonna I'm gonna make a a second

2:01:57 ↗ amendment will be so we have one

2:01:59 ↗ Amendment we have one motion on the

2:02:00 ↗ floor I'm gonna make a second I'm gonna

2:02:02 ↗ I as the author I'm withdrawing the

2:02:05 ↗ amendment and I'm now going to propose a

2:02:07 ↗ second motion uh which will be that the

2:02:10 ↗ planning policy commission uh encourages

2:02:13 ↗ to further the work on this parcel by

2:02:16 ↗ having a discussion of City staff and

2:02:19 ↗ the council with the applicant to enter

2:02:21 ↗ into

2:02:23 ↗ a development agreement

2:02:26 ↗ to create a legally binding framework

2:02:34 ↗ it's a development agreement

2:02:41 ↗ do I have it oh yeah I second that

2:02:43 ↗ motion if it's about discussions on the

2:02:45 ↗ development agreement between the city

2:02:46 ↗ and the applicant

2:02:51 ↗ okay so now do we vote on both of those

2:02:54 ↗ two numbers just the one but I mean we

2:02:56 ↗ vote on the first one and then we vote

2:02:58 ↗ on the second one

2:03:00 ↗ yeah

2:03:02 ↗ all right let me just finish writing

2:03:04 ↗ this down

2:03:05 ↗ as to

2:03:06 ↗ and the original motion is the staff is

2:03:09 ↗ approving it's approving yeah

2:03:14 ↗ would it make sense to withdraw the

2:03:17 ↗ original motion

2:03:19 ↗ no we would need to vote it down because

2:03:22 ↗ there's stuff there are several ones we

2:03:23 ↗ still need to be able to present City

2:03:24 ↗ staff of the finding effect for number

2:03:27 ↗ three so we either need to vote an

2:03:30 ↗ agreement that it is or disagreement so

2:03:33 ↗ we still have to vote on the finding a

2:03:34 ↗ fact

2:03:36 ↗ and I hope we'll have a restating of

2:03:37 ↗ that original motion when it comes time

2:03:39 ↗ to the vote we will we will try

2:03:41 ↗ um

2:03:42 ↗ so are we good to vote we feel ready to

2:03:45 ↗ vote commissioner Longoria virtually

2:03:47 ↗ feel ready to vote yeah I'll restate

2:03:50 ↗ okay there any further discussion on

2:03:53 ↗ those diet

2:03:54 ↗ yeah that's what I'm checking I'm ready

2:03:55 ↗ to vote or

2:03:58 ↗ okay so we have two motions on the floor

2:04:01 ↗ we'll vote on the first one first

2:04:04 ↗ so all in favor of the motion to

2:04:06 ↗ recommend approving the findings of fact

2:04:09 ↗ um for the

2:04:11 ↗ um our lady

2:04:13 ↗ um our

2:04:15 ↗ savior

2:04:16 ↗ um Lutheran Church

2:04:17 ↗ parcel which is to approve that rezone

2:04:23 ↗ um if you're in favor of that motion now

2:04:25 ↗ please raise your hand

2:04:29 ↗ no yays

2:04:31 ↗ um if you are opposed

2:04:37 ↗ okay so we have

2:04:38 ↗ um that motion does not pass

2:04:41 ↗ um with a vote of zero to seven in favor

2:04:44 ↗ of the Nays

2:04:45 ↗ we now have a second motion

2:04:48 ↗ um on the floor

2:04:50 ↗ and so all in favor of the motion to

2:04:52 ↗ recommend that PPC encourages

2:04:55 ↗ um to further the work on this parcel

2:04:57 ↗ for city council and staff to enter into

2:05:00 ↗ discussions with the applicant on a

2:05:02 ↗ development agreement

2:05:04 ↗ um if you are in favor of that motion

2:05:06 ↗ please raise your hand

2:05:09 ↗ being unanimous um seven years on that

2:05:12 ↗ motion so that motion passes with a vote

2:05:14 ↗ of seven to zero

2:05:22 ↗ not get what they need from us

2:05:30 ↗ go ahead

2:05:31 ↗ so I think what would be helpful for

2:05:34 ↗ city council is uh to understand your

2:05:36 ↗ thought process for the development

2:05:37 ↗ agreement

2:05:39 ↗ um you know you suggesting the

2:05:41 ↗ development agreement like one of you

2:05:44 ↗ made a recommendation that it doesn't

2:05:45 ↗ comply with criteria number three

2:05:47 ↗ therefore a development agreement is the

2:05:50 ↗ path I mean there's their consensus

2:05:52 ↗ among the Commissioners but also what

2:05:55 ↗ are the terms or what are some concerns

2:05:58 ↗ that you'd like to be addressed as part

2:06:01 ↗ of the development agreement I think

2:06:02 ↗ that information would be helpful for

2:06:03 ↗ city council I think I'm going to come

2:06:06 ↗ right out of the gun if it's okay so

2:06:08 ↗ criteria number three was why I couldn't

2:06:09 ↗ approve the up Zone

2:06:12 ↗ it doesn't it's not necessarily linked

2:06:15 ↗ to the encouraging city council or and

2:06:18 ↗ the staff to talk to the applicant about

2:06:20 ↗ a possible development agreement the

2:06:22 ↗ possible development agreement is where

2:06:24 ↗ the rich discussion and commitments and

2:06:29 ↗ exchange of

2:06:32 ↗ um

2:06:37 ↗ yeah just to protect the vision over a

2:06:40 ↗ period of time that it takes for these

2:06:42 ↗ things to happen

2:06:43 ↗ that's what the development agreement is

2:06:45 ↗ for and the

2:06:48 ↗ criteria number three and the UPS on to

2:06:50 ↗ multi-family high is a separate thing

2:06:53 ↗ and the reason why I did not feel I

2:06:56 ↗ could approve of the

2:06:58 ↗ um comprehensive plan up zone change

2:07:03 ↗ it's a long time planning policy

2:07:05 ↗ commissioner I fully support the

2:07:07 ↗ proposal that's in front of us that is

2:07:09 ↗ not in front of us to so to speak right

2:07:12 ↗ if we were looking at different

2:07:13 ↗ information I would be able to vote

2:07:15 ↗ differently if I was counsel we are not

2:07:18 ↗ we would be able to be into a different

2:07:19 ↗ discussion but what's in front of me

2:07:21 ↗ right now is an up Zone to multi-family

2:07:23 ↗ high and that is what I can't support

2:07:25 ↗ what I can support is to say that I full

2:07:28 ↗ support have full support for this

2:07:30 ↗ applicant and their plan for the

2:07:31 ↗ property and encourage them to enter

2:07:33 ↗ into agreements with Council to be able

2:07:35 ↗ to realize their dream I want to support

2:07:38 ↗ that in every way but right now that's

2:07:41 ↗ not in front of me

2:07:44 ↗ foreign

2:07:45 ↗ so I'd like to do a straw poll or vote

2:07:48 ↗ an informal voter um

2:07:52 ↗ commissioner Milligan stated that she

2:07:56 ↗ could not vote on the original motion

2:07:58 ↗ because of criteria number three and

2:08:00 ↗ growth targets but I did not hear but

2:08:03 ↗ would support it in exchange for seeing

2:08:07 ↗ the vision of

2:08:09 ↗ this public benefit happening on the

2:08:11 ↗ site

2:08:12 ↗ but commissioner Milligan was the only

2:08:14 ↗ one who stated that so if this is going

2:08:16 ↗ to go into a findings effect that goes

2:08:19 ↗ to council it needs to be supported by

2:08:21 ↗ the whole Commission so if I could see a

2:08:24 ↗ I I didn't a show of hands of those but

2:08:28 ↗ wait a minute didn't you get it with the

2:08:30 ↗ motion the motion said but it did

2:08:32 ↗ encourage the develop a development

2:08:34 ↗ agreement to be discussed it did but it

2:08:37 ↗ didn't tie it remember we said with the

2:08:39 ↗ conditions that it needed to be tied oh

2:08:41 ↗ I didn't put conditions on what the

2:08:43 ↗ development agreement needed right I

2:08:45 ↗ thought it needed to be in the condition

2:08:46 ↗ of a development agreement and I didn't

2:08:49 ↗ I wasn't you know on purpose being

2:08:51 ↗ specific about what the conditions are

2:08:53 ↗ okay that's a for that's a future

2:08:55 ↗ discussion that we're not having

2:08:57 ↗ right all we had tonight was would you

2:09:00 ↗ like to change the zoning and the use on

2:09:03 ↗ this site and I for once said no

2:09:08 ↗ yeah so we're just trying to capture the

2:09:10 ↗ intent of your no so if you all voted no

2:09:14 ↗ on the up the rezone

2:09:17 ↗ because of the however many criteria we

2:09:20 ↗ have so we heard it doesn't comply with

2:09:22 ↗ criteria number three because the growth

2:09:24 ↗ targets are a 20-year growth Target and

2:09:27 ↗ we're on track of Meeting those

2:09:30 ↗ um and and we don't need an up Zone to

2:09:33 ↗ to meet our and there's enough capacity

2:09:35 ↗ so that was one finding for your denial

2:09:39 ↗ is there also another criteria for

2:09:43 ↗ Community benefit and yeah thank you

2:09:46 ↗ Minnie I'll just jump in uh okay we only

2:09:48 ↗ needed one

2:09:49 ↗ sure and so I was for the sake of time

2:09:51 ↗ and simplification focusing on one but

2:09:54 ↗ there are many the central Issaquah plan

2:09:55 ↗ is a

2:09:59 ↗ is a

2:10:02 ↗ um I'm not going to commissioner Lewis

2:10:04 ↗ is going to come up with a word but

2:10:06 ↗ it also directs not just what the

2:10:09 ↗ capacity is but where it is sure and it

2:10:13 ↗ is very important to recognize that it's

2:10:16 ↗ on the other side of town so it wasn't

2:10:19 ↗ just that we have the capacity to put it

2:10:21 ↗ somewhere it's where it was and the

2:10:23 ↗ reason why it's there the reason why

2:10:26 ↗ it's there is because of so many

2:10:27 ↗ complicated issues about Urban growth

2:10:30 ↗ centers mass transit funding all sorts

2:10:33 ↗ of things we could have gone down that

2:10:35 ↗ path but it don't didn't have to because

2:10:38 ↗ it only needed one thing that didn't fit

2:10:41 ↗ sure and so we're just trying to capture

2:10:43 ↗ do the rest of your

2:10:46 ↗ um the Commissioners support that

2:10:49 ↗ finding that it doesn't comply with that

2:10:51 ↗ number three criteria

2:10:54 ↗ yes thank you

2:11:01 ↗ all right

2:11:03 ↗ so I'm going to ask um if he's still

2:11:05 ↗ there with us cheer voice to come back

2:11:09 ↗ it's been refused for quite a while

2:11:12 ↗ um and I will pass this back over to him

2:11:16 ↗ um to walk us through the rest of this

2:11:18 ↗ meeting

2:11:19 ↗ thank you Vice chair Bader Jared am I

2:11:22 ↗ out of the Penalty Box that's all I want

2:11:23 ↗ to know yes you are

2:11:26 ↗ all right well I want to thank all of

2:11:28 ↗ the Commissioners all of the petitioners

2:11:30 ↗ and all of you commenters uh on

2:11:33 ↗ tonight's fantastic discussion I've been

2:11:36 ↗ listening uh intently it's been great I

2:11:38 ↗ think it was a master class in city

2:11:40 ↗ government and

2:11:42 ↗ um yeah just very

2:11:44 ↗ knowledgeable everybody participating

2:11:46 ↗ that was fantastic I want to say a very

2:11:49 ↗ very big thank you to our fantastic Vice

2:11:52 ↗ chair uh commissioner Bader who is just

2:11:55 ↗ phenomenal tonight

2:11:57 ↗ we had this whole thing worked out I was

2:11:59 ↗ going to pass the Baton and of course

2:12:01 ↗ because of technology and and you know

2:12:04 ↗ good plans

2:12:05 ↗ um completely failed and she still was

2:12:07 ↗ able to take it and run with the ball in

2:12:10 ↗ a fantastic way so so thank you very

2:12:12 ↗ much uh Vice chair Bader uh we are going

2:12:15 ↗ to move along to reports this evening as

2:12:18 ↗ far as city council updates staff do you

2:12:21 ↗ have anything to provide us this evening

2:12:23 ↗ show good evening Commissioners so

2:12:27 ↗ um One update I can provide you on Title

2:12:29 ↗ 18 so all that excellent work that you

2:12:33 ↗ all have done on that project

2:12:35 ↗ we've been briefing our Planning

2:12:38 ↗ Development environment committee and

2:12:41 ↗ they have looked at the sixth bucket the

2:12:44 ↗ last of the six pieces for the new

2:12:46 ↗ members we divided the whole you know

2:12:49 ↗ land use code into six different uh

2:12:51 ↗ groupings or we call them buckets but

2:12:55 ↗ um

2:12:56 ↗ so they've looked at the last piece and

2:12:59 ↗ the next steps we've engaged with the

2:13:02 ↗ testing

2:13:03 ↗ um I don't know how much if we actually

2:13:04 ↗ kind of shared where that process is

2:13:07 ↗ with all of you so we had a call for uh

2:13:10 ↗ the testers within everyone who's been

2:13:12 ↗ in the community

2:13:14 ↗ um you know interested parties list for

2:13:16 ↗ Title 18 as well as uh you know anyone

2:13:19 ↗ that applied for a land use application

2:13:20 ↗ in the last year

2:13:22 ↗ and we had a good response of about 17

2:13:26 ↗ 20 to 20 people so we had about six or

2:13:30 ↗ seven categories of uh projects that we

2:13:33 ↗ wanted to test you know single family

2:13:34 ↗ home remodel that is next to a wetland a

2:13:39 ↗ multi-family development or a mixed use

2:13:41 ↗ development in central Issaquah

2:13:42 ↗ development on a forested hillside next

2:13:45 ↗ to a shoreline a commercial project

2:13:48 ↗ outside of the central Issaquah so we

2:13:50 ↗ came up with the categories that were

2:13:52 ↗ spread out and then you know then

2:13:54 ↗ commercial remodel on in Old Town so it

2:13:57 ↗ was going to touch different pieces of

2:13:58 ↗ the code and there were seven folks that

2:14:02 ↗ are were part of this core team of uh

2:14:05 ↗ testing team

2:14:07 ↗ that are evaluating and coming up with

2:14:09 ↗ projects sites and then staff will be

2:14:12 ↗ working with them to come up with that

2:14:14 ↗ ones that goes through that whole

2:14:16 ↗ process will come back to this

2:14:17 ↗ commission and share the findings what

2:14:19 ↗ we learned yeah you know how we tweaked

2:14:22 ↗ the code based on that feedback

2:14:25 ↗ so that's happening we're also looking

2:14:28 ↗ at cipa determination coming up soon

2:14:31 ↗ once those pieces are done we intend to

2:14:34 ↗ have the public hearings on Consolidated

2:14:36 ↗ draft with this Commission in November

2:14:39 ↗ so a lot of reading coming your way but

2:14:43 ↗ in terms of the council updates that's

2:14:45 ↗ what we've done the other part I think

2:14:48 ↗ the council was involved in was looking

2:14:49 ↗ at the Whiteboard list I think we shared

2:14:52 ↗ that with all of you if we haven't we'll

2:14:54 ↗ set some time up to have a conversation

2:14:57 ↗ with you on the Whiteboard

2:14:59 ↗ and the council committee for the

2:15:02 ↗ purposes of the budget for the next two

2:15:04 ↗ years prioritized a few items from from

2:15:06 ↗ that list that are part of the budget

2:15:09 ↗ that the council is considering this

2:15:11 ↗ year

2:15:12 ↗ for the next two years and you know one

2:15:15 ↗ of them is the stream buffers more

2:15:17 ↗ in-depth analysis of on this on the

2:15:20 ↗ grounds assessment

2:15:22 ↗ missing middle how are we meeting our

2:15:25 ↗ strategy adopted housing strategies for

2:15:27 ↗ diversity of housing choices

2:15:30 ↗ and parking so those are the three tops

2:15:34 ↗ that the council put forth in in terms

2:15:37 ↗ of prioritizing from the Whiteboard list

2:15:40 ↗ so that's all I have

2:15:41 ↗ did that miss anything okay

2:15:44 ↗ thank you welcome to the new members

2:15:46 ↗ it's great to see uh all of you can ask

2:15:50 ↗ a quick question uh I want to put in an

2:15:52 ↗ official request for a printed version

2:15:54 ↗ of the 2018. we can accommodate and if

2:15:57 ↗ you guys can let us know when they're

2:15:58 ↗ available to pick up I'm happy to pick

2:16:00 ↗ it up

2:16:01 ↗ for the Consolidated draft absolutely

2:16:04 ↗ we'll get you a pretty copy

2:16:08 ↗ yeah so how many of you actually wanted

2:16:11 ↗ a paper copy

2:16:14 ↗ all of you yeah yes okay we'll get those

2:16:18 ↗ to you and do you have an expected date

2:16:21 ↗ um

2:16:21 ↗ uh you know we have a release to the the

2:16:24 ↗ folks that are testing but we are

2:16:26 ↗ calling it a preliminary draft uh so

2:16:29 ↗ we're working on cleaning up the

2:16:31 ↗ document and a few things here and there

2:16:33 ↗ that are still missing so I believe

2:16:36 ↗ we're targeting

2:16:38 ↗ end of October

2:16:43 ↗ yeah it makes it easier to have the

2:16:46 ↗ document than to go to each and every

2:16:48 ↗ tab on the website so sure sure no we'll

2:16:52 ↗ we'll get you a Consolidated piece in a

2:16:56 ↗ binder and a folder and

2:16:58 ↗ with tabs if you want tabs

2:17:01 ↗ the benefit of the electronic is you

2:17:04 ↗ know you yeah once you get the we'll

2:17:06 ↗ give you both so feel free you could

2:17:09 ↗ click on the link and it'll you know

2:17:11 ↗ from the table of contents it takes you

2:17:13 ↗ to that so there's some pros and cons

2:17:15 ↗ but it's always good to go back and

2:17:17 ↗ forth if you're trying to compare things

2:17:18 ↗ so we'll get you both a digital copy and

2:17:21 ↗ uh and a paper copy

2:17:23 ↗ and one more question to what you had

2:17:25 ↗ said we did have the Whiteboard come to

2:17:27 ↗ us but uh so there was something about

2:17:29 ↗ it that I didn't feel like I was

2:17:32 ↗ um either either brief before it came or

2:17:35 ↗ something like that I wasn't really able

2:17:36 ↗ to engage in the conversation so I

2:17:37 ↗ appreciate you saying that the

2:17:39 ↗ Whiteboard would be coming back to us

2:17:41 ↗ is that right well uh I'm you know I

2:17:44 ↗ missed that meeting when we when or you

2:17:47 ↗ weren't there okay so

2:17:50 ↗ um

2:17:51 ↗ we're happy to schedule another meeting

2:17:53 ↗ on the Whiteboard

2:17:55 ↗ um because I think we had said as you

2:17:57 ↗ conclude the conversation and all six

2:17:59 ↗ buckets we'll bring it back to you so

2:18:01 ↗ we'll we'll figure out a date and then

2:18:04 ↗ bring it back to you absolutely yeah I'm

2:18:07 ↗ wondering Vinnie if it's applicable for

2:18:10 ↗ um you know we've made as we went

2:18:12 ↗ through

2:18:13 ↗ um preliminary planning first draft it

2:18:16 ↗ became a little bit of a catchphrase

2:18:17 ↗ right put it on the Whiteboard right put

2:18:19 ↗ it in the garage

2:18:20 ↗ and so as we've now formalized that

2:18:23 ↗ process there were particular things

2:18:25 ↗ that the administration had put on the

2:18:27 ↗ official whiteboard and I'm curious as

2:18:29 ↗ we go through the final draft for Title

2:18:31 ↗ 18 if basically as we're going through

2:18:33 ↗ things we're able to say hey and we'd

2:18:36 ↗ like to put that on the Whiteboard and

2:18:37 ↗ we'd be able to basically come up with a

2:18:39 ↗ little bit of a more formal list that

2:18:40 ↗ PPC says Hey we'd like Council to look

2:18:43 ↗ at these additional items and be able to

2:18:46 ↗ kind of we didn't we weren't able to

2:18:48 ↗ kind of add to the process in a more

2:18:49 ↗ formal way when we had the meeting and

2:18:50 ↗ if we're able to kind of have that

2:18:52 ↗ movement when we're going through the

2:18:53 ↗ draft code might be easier as we're

2:18:55 ↗ going through piece by piece sure I mean

2:18:57 ↗ you know we'll maintain that list

2:18:59 ↗ regardless of uh how you know if there

2:19:02 ↗ are things you find that are missing we

2:19:04 ↗ would be happy to add add to the list

2:19:06 ↗ yeah I'm sorry I say this only to be

2:19:09 ↗ helpful is it is it is the Whiteboard

2:19:12 ↗ ready enough to be with this next copy

2:19:16 ↗ this next version so that no it's not so

2:19:19 ↗ that we could say oh good that's on the

2:19:21 ↗ Whiteboard

2:19:22 ↗ oh yeah I mean we have a copy and we've

2:19:24 ↗ briefed the committee yeah yeah I don't

2:19:27 ↗ know Kristen has some okay input

2:19:30 ↗ well I just think that with the with the

2:19:33 ↗ public uh participation and the runs

2:19:36 ↗ that there will be additional things

2:19:37 ↗ added to the Whiteboard so yeah I mean

2:19:40 ↗ we can we can give you what we have okay

2:19:42 ↗ yep

2:19:44 ↗ it's not quite ready for prime time huh

2:19:48 ↗ okay it's this is very difficult for me

2:19:50 ↗ because oh and I need a shot of the disc

2:19:52 ↗ because I can't tell who's talking or

2:19:54 ↗ who wants to talk there we go that's

2:19:56 ↗ what I'm looking for

2:19:58 ↗ um thank you staff does does staff have

2:20:00 ↗ any additional city council updates

2:20:04 ↗ no that should do it

2:20:06 ↗ all right is there any other business or

2:20:09 ↗ announcements from staff

2:20:15 ↗ all right hearing none go ahead

2:20:19 ↗ I just said there are none

2:20:21 ↗ okay thank you Kristen

2:20:23 ↗ all right well does anyone have anything

2:20:25 ↗ else Commissioners for the good of the

2:20:27 ↗ order

2:20:29 ↗ Nina does can we say it did we say it

2:20:33 ↗ enough thank you for coming thank you

2:20:36 ↗ for coming to join us in our little

2:20:38 ↗ party all to all the new commissioners

2:20:42 ↗ here let's we can't say it enough

2:20:45 ↗ right no thank you Carolyn thank you

2:20:47 ↗ Alma I'm looking forward to meeting you

2:20:49 ↗ guys in person when I don't have a cold

2:20:50 ↗ and I can't get you sick

2:20:53 ↗ um and also with Jamie so any other

2:20:56 ↗ uh business items for the good of the

2:20:59 ↗ order

2:20:59 ↗ for the good of the order to staff mind

2:21:01 ↗ reminding us when we'll be seeing each

2:21:03 ↗ other next I believe our next meeting

2:21:04 ↗ was canceled and so if you could give us

2:21:06 ↗ a quick

2:21:07 ↗ reminder

2:21:09 ↗ on when we'll be back together

2:21:13 ↗ right the October 27th meeting is

2:21:15 ↗ canceled that is a holiday or cultural

2:21:17 ↗ holiday

2:21:18 ↗ and so the next one Falls in November

2:21:21 ↗ and it's

2:21:23 ↗ I believe it's no November 10th November

2:21:26 ↗ 10th is the next one yeah right and then

2:21:29 ↗ we have one on the 17th both public

2:21:31 ↗ hearings and then we have a final public

2:21:33 ↗ hearing on December 1st so we got our

2:21:35 ↗ December 1st meeting

2:21:36 ↗ he's very good all right I looked at my

2:21:40 ↗ calendar I read my package

2:21:42 ↗ so all right everyone well without any

2:21:45 ↗ further business we will adjourn this

2:21:47 ↗ meeting tonight at 8 56 PM good night

2:21:50 ↗ everyone

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 (joined virtually at 00:07)

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Esemuede

Kennedy

Lewis

Longoria

Milligan

Patterson Absence: Commissioner Altimore (Excused)

Staff (2)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Valerie Porter, Associate Planner Minnie Dhaliwal, CPD Director 2. Approval of Minutes VICE-CHAIR BADER asked for changes or comments regarding the September 29, 2022 Minutes. There were none

the Minutes were approved. The October 3, 2022 Minutes were on the agenda for approval but were not addressed. 3