Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Do we have Commissioner Ferris online? Okay. Perfect.

Good evening and welcome to the June 10th meeting of the City of Bellevue Planning Commission. This evening meeting is held via hybrid format with both in-person and virtual option via Zoom. Tonight's meeting will provide an opportunity for public comment during the oral communication portion of the agenda. All written comments that have been submitted prior to 11 a.m. today, Wednesday, June 10th, will be summarized into the record. We have three study sessions on the agenda tonight, two comprehensive land amendments to consider, and the introduction of a new land use code amendment. The transportation... conformance comprehensive plan amendment, the events and plots are comprehensive plan amendments, and the introduction of the high-density housing land use code amendment. Now let's move forward with the roll call. Commissioner Kennedy and Commissioner Neal-Chon have notified me that they will be absent today. Council Member Liaison Bart Gava is also absent today. Vice Chair Liu?

I'm present.

Commissioner Gepholdt?

Present.

Commissioner Velazquez?

I'm here.

And Commissioner Ferris will be late. And I'm Chair Han Liu. Can I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Our ballot states that we elect officers at our first meeting in June. That is this meeting. I move that we add the election of officers to the agenda immediately following the approval of the agenda. Is there a second for the amendment?

Second.

All in favor of the amendment of the motion, say aye.

Aye.

The amendment carries. All approve of the amendment agenda, say aye.

Aye.

The Planning Commission follows the state that there shall be a chair and vice chair elected at the first regular meeting in June. Bylaws are specifically using Robert Rule's newly revised procedures. This process identified that nomination do not require second. The acting chair will close the floor to nomination when no other chair nomination are forthcoming. Nominees will be voted on in the order in which they were presented. As soon as one of the nominees receive the majority vote, the current acting chair will declare that person elected. No votes will be taken on the remaining nominees for the office of chair. Commissioners must cast their votes, either aye or no, for each nominee. Failure to cast a vote means that your vote will count as an affirmative. Nominations for the chair are now in order.

I'd like to nominate Commissioner Liu for chair.

Any other nominees? Okay. Okay. Commissioner Johnny Liu nominated. Are there any other nominees for chair? Hearing no further nomination, nominations are closed. We will vote on the nominees in order in which they have been pressed, which is only one. Please signify your vote by saying aye or no when the question is called. The first nominee and the last one is Commissioner Johnny Liu. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. There's no. The vote is four in favor. The ayes have it and Commissioner Johnny Liu is elected as a chair. Congratulations, Chair Johnny Liu. I will pass the gavel to you to chair the remaining of the meeting.

And before nominations for Vice Chair, I just want to say a couple words. So it's been an honor to serve as your Vice Chair over the last year. It's been really great. I think you managed meetings with a very even-keeled hand, even when they got a little contentious throughout some of the topics here. You were able to kind of move us along, and I really, really appreciate the efficiency at which you ran the meetings. I think you now hold the record for both the fastest meetings that we've ever done or the shortest meetings that we've ever held. It's been great. I also want to say I appreciate your enforcement of the bylaws, especially during some of the public comments. And I think that that's something that's going to live on in infamy. And I hope to follow your footsteps in that regard as well. So thank you.

Thank you, Jack.

right so just as the election uh just as for the election of chair the bylaws specify using robert's rules newly revised procedures for the election of the vice chair this process identifies that nominations do not require second the chair will close the floor to nominations when no other nominations are forthcoming nominees will be voted on in the order in which they were presented as soon as one of the nominees receives a majority vote the chair will declare that person elected No votes will be taken on the remaining nominees for the vice chair at that point. Commissioners must cast their vote, either aye or no, for each nominee. Failure to cast a vote will mean that your vote will be counted in the affirmative. Nominations for the vice chair are now in order.

I'd like to nominate my learned colleague, Commissioner Villavasis.

Great. Any other nominations? So Commissioner Villavaces has been nominated and hearing no further nominations, nominations are now closed. We will now vote on the nominees in the order in which they were presented. So please signify your vote by casting an aye or no when the question is called. The first nominee is Commissioner Villavaces. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All in favor, all opposed, say no. The vote is four in favor and zero against. The ayes have it. And Commissioner Villavaces, congratulations on being elected chair. Looking forward to serving with you this coming year.

Likewise. Thank you.

All right. So, uh, commissioner Bargava council member Bargava is not here to provide an update on council. However, I will note that, uh, commissioner Conley would deliver the planning commission recommendations to council on the omnibus Luca last night and council adopted commission's recommendations on the Luca. So. I hope that went well. Any comments on that?

Yeah, we got six aye vote and no against, one against. And there was some conversation about the fee and lieu that came out. And one of our council members was not agreed with the fee and lieu for that specific East Main for some history of that section. But the council voted and approved that one. Great.

Thank you. Kate, are there any other reports from boards and commissions?

Nope.

Staff liaison Kate Nessie will now provide us with updates to the meeting schedule for 2026.

Yeah, I just wanted to note that the Bell Red LUCA, you decided not to set a public hearing. You will still hear about the Bell Red LUCA on July 9th. It will just be a regular study session. And I'm working with staff to move some topics around in the fall. So the September topics may change a little bit. Yeah, it's always the calendar is always tentative, but likely those will change.

Got it. Are there any questions for Kate? No, if not, then let's move on to oral and written communications. Kate, could you provide a summary of the written communications received?

Yeah, you I sent you four letters, two of them were related to Evans Plaza this afternoon. Since then, I've received one additional comment related to Evans Plaza and the author is here tonight. So he will provide comment, I assume, on what he sent you.

Great. So we will have a total of 30 minutes for oral communications. Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak. Staff liaison Kate Nessie will call on speakers in the order in which they have registered either in person or online. If anyone from the public has missed the 6 p.m. registration deadline, you may still provide public comment if there's remaining time. Please use the raise hand function in Zoom if you're attending virtually or motion to staff if you're in person to indicate that you would like to speak. Like you all to remember, there are rules adopted by the City Council limiting the topics about which the public may speak during our meetings. Under Ordinance 6752, the public may only speak during the public comment period about subject matters that are related to the City of Bellevue government and are within the power and the duties of the Planning Commission. Additional information about the rules of decorum governing conduct of the public during our meetings can be found at Ordinance 6752. So let's get started. Kate, can you call our first speaker?

Yes, I wanted to note, Chair, sorry, I'm looking in the wrong place, that Commissioner Ferris has joined us online.

Oh, great. Welcome, Commissioner Ferris.

Our first commenter is Norm Hansen, followed by Pamela Johnston. Oh, I do see Pamela. Thanks. So, Norm, you can come up. Oh, can you turn on your mic?

You've got to press the button. Life is pressing buttons, isn't it? My name is Norm Hanson. I've lived in bridal trails for over 50 years, and I'm I want to thank the Planning Commission for serving. I know that it's a very intense commitment, as it is from the neighborhood when they are challenged with changes. So I'd like to present to the Planning Commission tonight for your consideration an option three. City staff has presented two options for you, and we thought that there should be a third option. This is the neighborhood option. It's requested that the Planning Commission consider substantial community engagement during the upcoming Bridal Trails sub area update. It's not too far off. Discussion here is that Bridal Trails and surrounding neighborhoods want to keep the unique neighborhood heritage characteristics that have served the Bellevue community for over 50 years. It continues to be a thriving and needed business area. Bell Red currently offers many opportunities. That's the adjacent sub-area. The developer already has substantial residential up-zoning just a few steps from Sound Transit Station on 130th Avenue Northeast. Bellevue has already invested heavily in the needed infrastructure there. Bellevue needs to concentrate on property already designated as high density rather than create sprawl in some of the neighborhoods. I think we need to find out how it works out in other neighborhoods to have some of these mixed-use facilities. Bellevue has a process for significant density changes as the recent opportunity in the 2024 climate comprehensive plan process. And we were heavily involved in that, and I guess we're also involved in this. So I would hope that you would make a recommendation to allow us to have a review at the appropriate time in our sub-area update. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Pamela Johnston. And she will be followed by Joe Kunzler, who is virtual.

Just a second. Got to fit into the desk. OK, thank you. I'm Pamela Johnston. There are several things I want to talk about Pine View that I never heard of Pine View until it was stuck on a map. So this is what we didn't really see it as a neighborhood center because we've never been taught or talked to about what we wouldn't want in a neighborhood center in bridal trials. During the comp plan, The general commercial parcels were retained as general commercial throughout Bridal Trails, Cougar Mountain, Lakemont, Bell Red, Factoria, Bridal Trails in particular was retained. Pine View had the third highest number of retail visits from all neighborhood centers. Pine View was the fourth highest number per dollars per square foot. 21 properties were considered redistricting in the FEIS. Only one Overlake Farms that had been talked to before the following week was moved. State Bill 6026 will mandate that all general commercial are allowed housing. We're going to do that work anyway. Why are we doing it twice for this one special place? HB 1491 is transit oriented. They're going to change a little bit about transit oriented. What exactly is transit oriented? Will the general commercials in red be affected? Bridal trails general commercial was retained without concern for housing and bridal trails because the episodes along 148th and 40 acres of overlay farm. We're not desperate for new houses. We're only supposed to have to get about 300 in total for the next 40 years. What makes the neighborhood center work? Well, this is what your retail study, the city's retail study said. Vibrant, walkable, mixed use space where residents can work, live, play are desirable, but difficult to create. How are the difficulties going to be created in this neighborhood center when it's only one person participating in it and one person deciding what it is? Again, Pine View, there's no pines that are native to this area, so we object to the name. So the other thing I like to have is I have a few seconds. Is yes, both my neighborhood. We're around 660 to 300 needed for housing. The city of Bellevue has passed its rate for affordable housing. So we're on track for that. We don't need to add new housing zones for that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Joe Kuntzler, followed by Alex Zimmerman, who is in person. Joe, just give me a moment and I'll allow you to speak. Joe, can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair Cork. Congratulations to your new chair. This is Joe Kuntzler here.

Joe, you are breaking up. Can you hear me? You're breaking up, and we can't hear you anymore. I'm going to move on to our next speaker.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you now. OK. Go ahead.

Okay, the cell phone might cut out. But first off, I want to say very bluntly that we need more transportation development all over because we spent a lot of money on public transit, we should get Are you still there? I think let's maybe go to the next.

Mr. Krimzler, you're cutting in and out, and we're unable to hear you for probably 80% of what you're speaking. So we may move on to another public speaker, and then, Kate, I guess if that's the procedure, then we can come back to you if you're able to get better connection.

Yep. I could just conclude. I asked you to enforce your rules and tell Alex and your members to stop this goddamn thing. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. All right. Next, we have Alex Zimmerman, followed by Alex. I can't read your last name. Another person named Alex.

Thank you very much. I disabled, but I cannot sit in floor. Yeah, I need a chair. Yeah, little bit chair is okay. Thank you very much. You're very welcome. Stay, baby, stay. Yeah. My name Alex Zimmerman. Yeah, my name Alex Zimmerman. I want to speak about something that I speak for the last 10 or 15 years every day. First, you never show people's faces. And I speak from Tacoma, Seattle, for the last 30 years, more than 5,000 times, council chamber, different city. I never see like this before, and I'm talking about this more than 10 years, zero reaction from you. I think that you are mentally sick people. That's number one. Number two, 12 years ago, Mayor Robinson established a new policy only for Alex Zimmerman. So he can speak only 30 minutes, and only 10 people. But there's another correction. What is you forgot about this? Nobody who have Somebody who have speak six months ago cannot speak. It's never happened before in America. I cannot understand. Need be absolutely degenerative idiotic, a pure Nazi pig who totally destroy us constitution and freedom of speech. You never talking about this correction, but this correction exactly only about Alex Zimmerman. So situation right now very simple. Mayor Robinson by definition a pure criminal. Why? Because for three years they cut my right go to council meeting and speak, trespass me. And because we have a candidate, a candidate against her. Situation absolutely idiotic, including something what they cut my... Statement. Totally. You know what I mean? It's never happened before in state Washington. Never. I'm not too sure I understand how many times it happened in America. Probably zero. We have another point that is absolutely critical. We have Mohammed, a mayor who signed a document It's a joke. Who sign a document, not legal name? When you sign something, official document, not legal name, it's a crime, it's a felony. And everybody acting like a idiot, include you. You are a idiot. You play the generative, the idiot. Stupid, play stupid. Chaos is possible. A mirror.

Okay, could you pause really quick on this? Mr. Zimmerman, what does this have to do with the Planning Commission? What does it do with government? It's planning commission specifically. No, you're talking about government. No, we're talking about the planning commission. So I'd like you to stay on topic.

Absolutely. Planning commission make a decision. A decision for mayor who?

This is your first warning on staying on topic, but we'll go ahead. We can unpause now. Thank you.

This is exactly what I want to speak to you. You're involved in every business. This cannot be not legal, something. You will be quiet about this. But it's not only not legal. It's a nightmare. You know what this means? I cannot understand. Men sign at the... Document, you know what it means? City document. People can go in jail for one year, for example, what's happened a couple of weeks ago. And he signs this, but not legal name. It's not legal name. His legal name, Muhammad. I talk about this for four years. Why are you talking about? You commission. You have these rules. What is cons? Mayor delivery to you. You will do this. So what is this? It's not city business. It's not... Mr. Zimman, your time is up. Thank you for speaking. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm so sorry.

Next, we have Alex Sergolo followed by Jesse Klassen.

All right. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Alexi Gergalo. I'm a representative with North Coast States Carpenters Union. And we represent over 10,000 members just here in Western Washington. And I'm here to speak on behalf of our organization. about Everglen Village Project. So we as carpenters, what we do is build, and we are in support of the Everglen Village Project and the affordable housing that it will bring to the city of Bellevue. As you consider this proposal, we encourage you to ensure that The project of this size and its significance is to be built with strong labor standards and apprenticeship utilization requirements. Everglades Village is being described as a legacy project. Legacy projects would leave more than just buildings. They should create pathways into families, family wages, careers, and help develop the next generation of skilled construction workers. Apprenticeship programs provide opportunities for local residents, such as veterans, women, and young people who get to learn while they earn. Building careers strengthen our workforce and the economy. Requiring apprenticeship participation helps address the ongoing skilled labor shortage while ensuring high-quality construction long-term community benefits. This project has potential to deliver over 1,000 affordable homes. It should also deliver workforce development opportunities that invest in people and create lasting economic impact. North Coast States Carpenters Union with 10,000 members respectfully ask commissioners to support this project with a strong labor standards and apprenticeship utilization so that benefits the community throughout and local economy. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you.

Next, we have Jesse Klassen, and that's the end of our registered speakers, but I do see a hand online, and we should have time for that.

Great. Chair Liu, planning commissioners, I'm Jesse Klassen. Good evening. I'm here to talk in favor of the Evans Plaza comp plan amendment to move ahead as we applied for it, which is to say to change the designation to low-rise 2. We saw the staff recommendation about low-rise 1. It sounds like that would be a good middle ground, you know, between the general commercial and the low-rise 2 that we proposed. I will say there are problems with the low-rise 2 designation. The implementing zones that are associated with the low-rise 2 designation are much lower in intensity and in density. Again, that doesn't sound all that bad on its face. However, I know one of the neighborhood wants and one of our wants and one of the city's wants is really good commercial space. In order to achieve really good commercial space, you really have to have a good ground floor, Florida height, Florida floor height of the concrete mixed use development. And that really eats up about two stories of your project, about up to 20 feet. The implementing zones under the low-rise 1 zone or designation only allow you to go up to either 45 feet or 60 feet, so really only four stories or six stories. That doesn't allow you to have the apartments above that help subsidize the commercial space below. The low-rise 2 designation allows you to go up to eight stories. And it also has other benefits like higher FARs and also lot coverage requirements that are, you know, you can have unlimited lot coverage requirements rather than only 75% in the low-rise one zones. So we think in that area, it really makes sense if you want the commercial development and you want the mixed-use development. You saw an email from Evans Wakefield, the folks that we are representing, saying, At the low-rise one designations, it's really not going to develop anytime soon. This is a long-term project. These rezones take a long time. This is something that we're looking out for a long time. So we do hope that you go with the low-rise two designation, and we are always available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Nicole, I see your hand raised. I will allow you to speak. Can you hear me? Can you hear me, Nicole? I'm not able to hear you. Let me see if there's any other folks that want to comment in the room, and I can come back to you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment?

I'm Patricia Hansen. And I'm a resident of the Bridal Trails Bellevue area. And we live off of 140th. So I have some idea of what it's like. And we've lived there for over 50 years. The transportation and that's what I would like to cover. just simply stating that the streets and the roads and the area are not suitable for this proposed Evans proposal. The traffic that will be created will be great, and that area is not set to handle this kind of traffic from the people who would live there. So I ask you to take into consideration all of these things that have been brought before you. There are things that are suitable right now. It is a suitable area. And I think that the Evans proposal is such that it's not designated for this kind of thing. And where Evans Plaza sits right now, they have a designated area. for this kind of housing. And it would be right near the train station where people could get on and off. And it also is located right between Bell Red Road and, pardon, makes me nervous, the other road that is in our area. So, you know, please, when you, When you take on these things, I know there's big business, but there are people who live in these areas and deal with the various traffic situations on a regular basis. And I ask you to please take into consideration these things. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Nicole, I will ask you to unmute. Can you hear me?

Yes. Is that working now?

Yes.

Go ahead. Wonderful. It's such a pleasure to be able to speak with you. And I really appreciate the time you're paying, the attention you're paying to this Evans Plaza work. I am concerned that it is not something that meets the significantly changed conditions requirement. And I hope that you will scrutinize that part in particular. I do appreciate the fact that there is an alternate recommendation by staff, but I think we haven't fully ensured that the amenities for the area, as well as the potential for significantly changed conditions on the Dunlumber site, would not result from making a change now. I'd also like to call your attention to something that's also on the agenda today, which is that the transportation element is going to be referring to 20 years now instead of 12 years for the TFP. And that's because there are funding limitations that are making it hard for us to accomplish all the things on the transportation side that we'd really like to do. important, essential upgrades to the transportation network that honestly are going to be stretched even more because we have so much growth happening. And again, that takes us to something else that's on the agenda for tonight, which is the high density residential network. I think the idea of having additional density on over lake farms that jumps all the way from the large lot one to LDR three is it's not really explained why there would be such a large jump. And I hope you'll ask about that. I do certainly support the idea of clustering on the site. But I have questions about why the clustering would no longer allow, say, a five-acre property to participate in that. And I hope you'll take a look at this carefully because, again, the additional density is something that will be hard for us to support with our existing transportation network thank you thank you that is the end of our speakers

Great, thank you. I guess there is no public hearing, so. All right, our first study session, the Transportation Conformance Amendment was proposed by the city to amend references in the comprehensive plan to the mobility implementation plan and the transportation facilities plan and to ensure conformance with the city's process for planning for active transportation across plans. The amendments have no policy impact. Plane Director Tara Johnson and Senior Planner Tunduling will provide the presentation. Welcome both.

Good evening, Chair Liu, Vice Chair Villavese and Planning Commissioners. Staff are very pleased to be here this evening. We're going to be presenting two separate study sessions on the 2026 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. As part of our process, Thank you. Part of our annual amendment process, as you know, will go into more detail as part of the overall presentation. We're allowed under the Growth Management Act to amend comprehensive plans just once a year. We've gone through the threshold review process. And as part of our presentation tonight, we're going to start off, Tin and I are going to tag team this evening. We'll start off and provide an overview of the comprehensive plan amendment process. We'll go over the final review criteria. And then we'll cover some of our proposed amendments that were included in your packet and then conclude with our direction that we're requesting from the commission this evening. So tonight, we'll go over some of the details of the staff recommendation that's also included in your packet materials on some of the changes to the transportation element. And finally, our request is if the commission is prepared, provide direction to set a public hearing on July 22nd for the transportation conformance amendments. So with that, I'll turn things over to Tung.

Great. Thanks, Dara, and good evening, commissioners. So city-initiated amendments like this transportation element conformance comprehensive plan amendment, or CPA, sort of skips threshold review and goes straight to final review. That's different than the Evans Plaza, which is privately initiated and earlier this year went through the threshold review process. So for a final review, it's sort of a two-step planning commission studies and evaluates and holds a public hearing on the proposed amendment and then makes a recommendation to council for their consideration. on the cpa and then city council reviews that and takes final legislative action on the planning commission's final review recommendation council included this particular cpa in the 2026 work plan at their march 10th meeting so a few months ago And these are the criteria for final review that are provided in land use code. So I'll just go through them quickly. We'll touch upon these again at the Evans Plaza CPA item that's up next. So the criteria are, and there's like an attachment in your packet as well. So the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Secondly, that it addresses the interest and the change needs of the entire city. The third one is that it addresses significantly changed conditions. That is a term that is also further defined in the land use code as well. Fourth is that the proposed amendment is sort of in general conformance with adjacent land use and development patterns. And then lastly, that the proposed amendment demonstrates a public benefit and enhances the public health, safety, and welfare. Yeah, so these amendments that are part of the CPA are very limited in scope and are meant to ensure conformance between the comprehensive plan and two recently updated transportation-related functional plans, the mobility implementation plan and the transportation facilities plan. And transportation department staff identified the need for a subsequent CPA when these two plans were updated and those updates were brought to city council for their consideration and adoption back in November of last year. So, concretely, what were the changes or what sort of requires these amendments now? The 2009 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan was incorporated into the Mobility Implementation Plan that covers all modes of transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle transportation. So, there's no longer a need to reference that plan because it's incorporated in the MIP and the Mobility Implementation Plan. So, therefore, the recommended amendments are to remove those references in the narrative portion of the transportation element in the comprehensive plan, as well as one reference in policy TR, and then TR stands for transportation, number 96. So the second element to those conformance amendments related to the transportation facilities plan, that is one reference, updating that reference, because that referred to the old timeframe for the TFP or transportation facilities plan that was 12 years and that is now updated to 20 years in the transportation facilities plan that was adopted in 2025. So just to make sure that everything sort of is again in alignment with these functional plans. Transportation Commission reviewed these amendments to the transportation element. Their review really is limited to the transportation element itself. And after reviewing those amendments, they made a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The recommendation is also included in the packet last month. And staff also reviewed other parts of the comprehensive plan sort of beyond the transportation element that was already part of the Transportation Commission recommendation to Planning Commission so there are a few additional references to the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan elsewhere in the comprehensive plan specifically there are three definitions provided by the glossary that right now mention the pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan or the record staff recommendation is to remove those references and then lastly there's also in a Text box in the sort of vision and introduction element of the plan, there's also a reference to that pedestrian and bicycle plan. So, that recommendation is not sort of different from the Transportation Commission recommendation. It's sort of complementary. It sort of builds on that because it focuses on other parts of the comp plan. And all the recommended changes, they're quite limited, but they're all outlined in detail in the attachments that were part of the meeting packet. So with that, staff asked, like after the review of both the staff and Transportation Commission recommendations, which again are complementary to each other, to provide direction on the proposed amendments, those conformance amendments. And then lastly, also asking to provide direction to schedule public hearing for final review when the Planning Commission is ready to do so.

Great. Thank you. I will now call on each commissioner sequentially, and when you ask any questions, let's keep it to our burning topic of the day. So I'll start with Commissioner Goebbels.

I'll be easy. I have no questions, and I'm fully supportive of moving to a public hearing.

All right. Commissioner Farris.

I 100% agree with Commissioner Goebbels. I have no questions, and I'd like to move it forward to the public hearing.

Great. Commissioner Conloup.

Thank you so much, Leon. I'm the same. Thanks.

And Vice Chair Villaveses?

Likewise. I plus one. Commissioner Angle pulls comments.

Great. I just have a quick one. Was there a reasoning behind the 12 to 20 year shift or just some, is it aligned to the comprehensive plan or is it some other reason?

So two reasons. One is, I think, aligning with some of the public comment you heard, it's an ability to fund additional projects. So 12 years is a shorter time frame. The other component is actually that's a recommendation from the Puget Sound Regional Council that we have a longer time frame.

Right. Thank you. No further questions for me, and I'm ready to move this to a public hearing. So I guess...

I'd like to make a motion that we direct staff to set the public hearing on July 22nd for this topic.

Second.

Great. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nope. And that passes. So thank you for the presentation. Sounds like we can move to public hearing. All right, next topic, and I guess both of you stay here. The landowner of the 10-acre Evans Plaza property in Bridal Trails neighborhood has proposed an amendment to the comprehensive plan future land use map from general commercial to low-rise to mixed use on approximately a 10-acre site. Planning Commission held a public hearing for the threshold review and recommended moving it forward to final review. Council agreed, and this is now in final review, and so... Planning Director Tara Johnson and Senior Planner Tune Dooling will once again present information to us about this site. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Liu. So similarly, we'll go over the amendment process here. As you just highlighted, it's a two-step process. So council has provided direction that this be considered as part of our 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle. We'll again touch on the final review criteria that we just discussed. We'll talk about the Evans Plaza scope within their application request. We'll talk about some additional analysis that's been done by staff, and then our staff recommendation, which includes two options as was highlighted by some of the planning... public comment this evening and then move on to our request for Planning Commission direction. So after we complete the presentation, opportunity for the Planning Commission to ask staff any questions on the proposed map change, and then if the Commission is ready and prepared, provide direction for us to schedule a public hearing again for July 22nd. So with that, I'll turn things over to Ton.

Yes, thanks, Sarah. Um, yeah, this is a familiar slide by now. Um, so. I think here are the biggest differences between a city initiated CPA and a privately initiated CPA is that the ladder goes through two steps of the process threshold review, and then final review threshold review, um, was sort of completed with council, uh, um, deciding to, uh, include the CPA in the annual work program. other CPAs that are on that work program and of course the CPA that we just discussed as well as the Eastgate and Victoria neighborhood area plans. So right now and this is something that came up in January, February when there were like a study session and public hearing for a threshold review at Planning Commission is that final review really focuses on an evaluation of the merits of the proposal. Threshold review really focused on should a proposed amendment be included in the annual work program. So planning commission made a recommendation to council to include it. Council unanimously adopted that recommendation. So it's now part of the work program. So tonight at this study session item, the evaluation of the merits of the proposal is very much central to this item. Um, so during this step, final review, similar as what I had mentioned about the transportation element, CPA, sort of a two-step process with planning commission, uh, issuing a recommendation to city council for their consideration and final action. And then planning commission, um, when they evaluate the proposals with like a study session and then a public hearing, also hearing from community members, uh, on this particular proposal and then making that a recommendation to council. Again, familiar slide, the criteria provided by the land use code and staff will develop a staff report, including a final review recommendation ahead of the public hearing based on evaluation of these criteria. Well, I've just gone through this 10 minutes ago, so I think we might be able to skip ahead. So, the Evans Plaza CPA has a proposed MAP amendment that entails a requested change in land use designation from general commercial to low-rise to mixed use on an about 10-acre site. And the site is located in the Bridal Trails neighborhood area immediately north of 520 and Bell Red. some maps that give a little bit more context. So, what I said, immediately north of 520, and it's basically a block that is, you know, bound by 136th, northeast 24th, and 140th, but then 520 again on the southern side. And that I think it's January 14, meeting Planning Commission provided direction to expand the geographic scope of the application to include the one corner property that's outlined in green. So Evans Plaza is under so outlined in red is under common ownership by the applicant, and is currently occupied by commercial buildings and A range of large and small commercial services, retail, restaurants, a wholesale grocer is located there as well, and a motorcycle and car dealership. And here you can see the future land use map as it exists today. And just for context, the future land use map is policy oriented and a future land use designation represents the community's long-term vision for a specific area. And the future land use designation links to comprehensive plans vision with specific zoning classifications or land use districts that are in the code and implement that vision. We went over this at earlier sessions as well or earlier meetings. But the proposed land use designation low rise to mixed use was created with the 2024 update to the comprehensive plan and a new zoning classification that goes with that land use designation. mu8 or mixed use eight story was created by the recently adopted homa luca or housing opportunities in mixed use areas language code amendment so that one goes with the low rise to mixed use designation and there was something that was in front of planning commission not too long ago um And since the related zoning classification at MUA did not exist at a time of this application for a CPA, the CPA application is not a concurrent rezone application. If council were to approve this or adopt this CPA, then at some future point, there would need to be a rezone application in order to build anything different than what is currently allowed. So, as Tara mentioned, staff conducted a site analysis looking at the proposed amendment site and its immediate surroundings. And the proposed amendment site is, as you know, in the Bridal Trails neighborhood area and also within the Pineview Neighborhood Center, which is one of 13 identified neighborhood centers in Bellevue, as outlined in the comprehensive plan. And neighborhood centers, per the ComPlan, are commercial mixed-use areas in locations that are otherwise primarily residential, and they are envisioned to serve at least some of the daily needs of people living in the area surrounding it. Pineview has a more office-focused character, as you can see on the photo included on the slide. This is looking north from the proposed amendment site on Northeast 24th. So what I said, like, it has a more office-focused character with limited community gathering spaces, and most of the retail uses within that neighborhood center are confined and limited to the proposed amendment side. And lastly, There's limited transit access. So the two line runs parallel to 520, not far from the site, but the nearest stations are about a mile away. Over Lake Village and Redmond to the northeast and then to the southwest, the Bell Red Station. The site is equidistant between the two light rail stations. The nearest bus stop is sort of due south. If you go south on 140th, it's a half-mile walk south to that bus stop on Bell Road Road. And then, of course, as part of the staff analysis, also review of the comprehensive plan. As I mentioned before, when sort of the slide that had the cutout of the future land use map, the existing land use designation general commercial does not encompass residential uses. Sort of the land use district or zoning district that goes with that does generally not allow residential uses there. And they're both a state of need and established policy in the comp plan for accommodating Bellevue's housing and job growth within areas that are designated for compact mixed-use development. And those are a number of different centers, including neighborhood centers that are identified for that. And with that, allowing that type of development, so mixed-use residential development is generally considered consistent with the comprehensive plan. And based on that staff analysis, so looking both at site conditions as well as the policy direction provided by the comprehensive plan, staff recommends considering an alternative low-rise one mixed-use land use designation for the proposed map change. And that recommendation is based on a review of other neighborhood centers and their land use designations in the comprehensive plan. as well as Pine View's characteristics as a neighborhood center that's much more focused on office uses with limited retail uses and residential uses. And then lastly, the site's limited transit access. So right now in the comprehensive plan, there are only three neighborhood centers where a portion of it is designated as the low-rise two mixed-use designation, which is the designation that is applied for, which allows for greater residential densities through the zoning districts that implement it. Jan-Willem Wasmann, Access to nearby frequent reliable transit can be a rationale for allowing higher densities and but, as I pointed out on the last slide considering the sites limited transit access access future development cannot be. Jan-Willem Wasmann, Considered transit orient development on this side because it's not within a one or a half mile walking distance from bellevue's frequent transit work.

hmm.

And then a little bit more detail on what that means, that staff recommendation, and how it sort of compares to what the applicant's request is for. So option one is the staff recommendation for a low-rise one mixed use. It really encompasses the same sort of mixed use and type of uses that you see in low-rise two mixed use. I think the main difference here, and you see that in the sort of the fourth line, of the description is that low-rise 1 mixed use is at the lower end of a low scale and density, where low-rise 2 mixed use is at the higher end of a low scale and density. If you then look at the associated zoning that goes with that, You're familiar with that through all your work on the HOMA, LUCA recently, but low-rise one-mix use translates into a maximum building height, for instance, of 60 feet, where low-rise two-mix use translates into a maximum building height of 85 feet. So that is sort of in short. The difference also like lower FAR, permitted FAR for the related zoning on a low-rise one-mix use. During threshold review, there were some concerns both from planning commission and the community about business displacement. Evans Plaza has a wide range of existing commercial uses on site. And business retention is a council priority and also reflected in adopted policies, both in the comprehensive plan and the economic development plan, both like fairly recently updated. The economic development plan and sort of staff also lead initiatives such as a small business development center to support businesses, for instance, relocate or find assistance. And then lastly, there are also land use incentives in the code, particularly in what was adopted per the HOMA LUCA to encourage the location or retention of specific uses. And that's, for instance, affordable commercial space, grocery stores, daycares, sort of specific uses that are particularly relevant and important to the community. In terms of public comments, so as required by code, notices go out at different sort of milestones as part of the CPA process. There was also engagement at a Bridal Trails Community Club meeting and a follow-up meeting earlier in the year. And so far, well, this is slightly updated now, I think, with the written comments that came in yesterday and today. I think the current tally is 21 written comments that were submitted today. It's a mix with most of the comments are sort of against this proposal. And with that, sort of staff asking direction from Planning Commission that after review of the staff recommendation to provide direction on the proposed map change, and then secondly, to provide direction to schedule a public hearing for final review.

Great, thank you. I'll go through each commissioner sequentially. We'll go in opposite order, so I share via basis.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I think I can relate to both sides of the argument for low-rise two and low-rise one. However, I think for this property in particular, which is surrounded by institutional office use and a major highway with 520, the difference between six and eight stories is not going to be significant. and impact on surrounding properties. That combined with the fact that a low-rise two is a developable property, makes it developable by having enough density to support the development of mixed uses that are desired, I think my I would like to recommend that we proceed with low-rise too. I think it's the best option for this site. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Caldwell?

I walked in that area. It's basically not walkable. One mile to Barrett Highway, it's not like really TOD in my opinion. And then to the Overlake, it's not walkable either because 520 is cutting there. My only concern is all we are hearing from Bridal Trail residents.

after february there was no engagements because now we are in june or there was engagement um there have been updates provided by staff about what are the next steps in the in the process but not in terms of like um meetings um as happened like earlier in the year or not okay i don't have any question maybe second round thank you commissioner affairs

Yes, thank you. I would say, A, I'm in support of the change in zoning, and I would say I'm leaning towards the lower density. However, I wonder if we have an opportunity. I mean, one of the goals that we have is to provide affordable commercial space. And I know this makes it complicated, and I'm going to apologize ahead of time, staff, but I'm imagining what if we set the zoning at the low-rise 1% But offered essentially an incentive to say if they provide, and I'm going to make up the number, 20% of the commercial space as an affordable commercial space, they're allowed to go up to the low rise too. It might be a win-win just because, again, we know we want to provide more affordable commercial space. And maybe this particular site is an opportunity to do just that. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Goeppel.

Yeah, thank you for the thank you for the presentation. I am stuck on something that I wonder if you could help me on. And it's the significantly changed conditions. And when I read that definition in the land use code it's a high standard, you know it says demonstrating evidence of change, such as unanticipated consequences of an adopted policy or change conditions on the subject property. or its surrounding area or changes related to the pertinent plan map or text. And then it goes on to say where such change has implications of a magnitude that need to be addressed for the comprehensive plan to function as an integrated whole. I mean, especially that qualifier at the end, you know, where such change has implications of a magnitude that need to be addressed for the comprehensive plan to function as an integrated whole. I'm struggling to see how we meet that standard for a change here. And I guess I'd like to understand how staff is thinking about this. Because I raised this question when we were doing the threshold analysis. And now we're looking at the substance. And again, that's one of the criteria we have to address. And I feel like we just... approved the comprehensive plan amendment update in 2024. And the land use, you know, map that went along with it, and the zoning map that went along with it. And so I'm, I'm, I'm struggling to see what changed here. And I, I'll be honest with you, if this was closer to transit, and we felt like we had made a mistake, And especially on that, I would be inclined to say that this is really important, but I'm struggling to get over that criteria. So I'm wondering how you're thinking about it and if you can share your thoughts to help me figure out a path forward on that.

Yeah, I can speak to that. I remember the discussion that Planning Commission had on that specific criterion at Threshold Review. It's a criteria that is both part of the threshold review criteria as well as the final review criteria. It is something that hasn't really been the center of sort of the staff agenda memo for tonight, but it is something that needs to be addressed. in the staff report that would go out for the public hearing. So I can just mainly speak to sort of my recollection of what was in the threshold review staff report in our discussion at the time, and that mostly centered around sort of a discrepancy in a comprehensive plan between having a land use designation that doesn't allow for residential uses while also having a growth strategy and policies that were focused on accommodating residential or mixed use residential development in those same neighborhood centers. So that was sort of the discrepancy that sort of central to that review or staff review of that criterion specifically at the time. But again, as I mentioned before, it would be something that, again, needs to be reviewed and addressed in the staff report for a final review that will be part of the public hearing materials.

Okay.

Thank you.

Again, I just kind of come back to the fact that what you described, I would be much more I'd be much more persuaded if this was closer to transit, you know, to really look at going big here. So I'm thinking about option three or maybe option one at the most, you know, so that's my view.

Great, thank you. I just had one question around the any impacts from the proximity to 520. Because, you know, on the map, when you looked at the, the comprehensive land use, the comprehensive plan land use map, there's a section just south of 520 there that's designated mid rise mixed use. Do you know what designation like actual, like, height that area is?

That is in the Bell Red area, and Bell Red area has its own land use districts and zoning, which I am unfortunately a little less familiar with.

So I guess then the other question is just, you know, are there any impacts from that proximity to 520 around building residential? We talked a little bit about this when we went through the comp plan amendment initially, because I think we were discussing I-90 and Factoria, but I think this feels very similar. So any impacts to building residential in the area?

Yeah, what I can say is like for instance, like any impacts around like air quality or something that was covered in the Wilburton TOD Luca at the time, I think it was sort of a code provision that encourages developers to cite sensitive uses. So things like play areas, daycare, uh housing sort of like places and and buildings where people spend a lot of their day to cite those further away uh preferably from uh four or five um And then I think it's also something that was part of the discussion or prior discussion on Bell Red recently in front of Planning Commission. It is not a provision that was part of the HOMA, Luca, and indifferent of whether Planning Commission decides to go for the staff recommendation or for what the applicant applied for. both those districts or but although related zoning districts are covered by HOMA. And so there's no provision about citing sensitive uses away like residential away from 520. Got it.

Thank you. I'll do another round. So if I share my basis.

Thank you. I just want to make sure that we keep everything in perspective because transit oriented development is a much higher density. It's usually high-rise or something like that. And if we were discussing between mid-rise and low-rise, and then that's the discussion, that makes sense. But we're discussing two different gradients within low-rise and having the opportunity to provide housing and having an opportunity to get the project developed and provide that housing that makes use and kind of dilute the ability of the project to perform just by virtue of reducing its capacity by let's say by a shade of gray if that makes sense I think it's a little bit shy I would like to ask you though is like What other low-rise two projects or developments we can see in the city that are not exactly within half mile of transit? I'm sure there's a lot of developments like this that are successful, and they're not necessarily placed near transit. And I wanna reemphasize the fact that this is surrounded by, uses other than residential. You have 520, which is huge, and you have a church on one side. You have offices, which is essentially a suburban park. On the north, you have empty, vacant land on one side. So I think this is going to be good for the city to have this thing developed. So I'd like to know where else is a comparable project to the size that we're looking at that is not necessarily near transit, if that makes sense.

That is a good question. So I think staff would have to look at sort of comparable developments that maybe predate the last update to the comprehensive plan, because specifically low-rise to mixed use was a land use designation created with the 2024 update to the comprehensive plan. And then the zoning that goes with that has only been put in place three months ago. So there will just not be any like, you know, relevant development that happened since then. I mean, it's too short of a time span, but staff could look into what sort of other sort of relevant development Bellevue has seen that sort of meets the general.

Similar scale kind of impact. Right. And, and, My guess is that this type of development will work on its own well without having to have a direct connection to transit, which would be ideal. But of course, not everybody can get direct access to transit. That's it. Thank you.

I would say that probably the comparable zoning is NMU, what was existing neighborhood mixed use. So we can definitely look and see if there are comparable examples when we come back.

Great. Thank you. Great. Commissioner Gondelman.

I think I'm, as Commissioner Geppel, I think Commissioner Kennedy and you brought up last session. I'm still not sure. I remember doing comprehensive plan hours, hours until 11 p.m. in this room and other room. We specifically decided to keep those as general usage. Those are there on the north and south side of the 520. Like as a commission, we decided about that. And I remember that. I was actually looking at my phone. I have a folder for City of Bellevue maps. And I was like literally looking at those. We wanted to keep them as a commercial. This was a commercial. Then I'm still not convinced what have been changed. And I'm with Commissioner Ferris on the other hand. Commissioner Valdez is about like we need housing and all of those. But I just want to come up with something that our neighborhood will be like agreeing with it and then not have the displacement of the businesses that we have there. And then on the other hand, housing. I don't know, maybe we need option three, option four. And I understand we should have public hearing. I don't know how we can have brighter to our residents more involved. I know Pamela Johnson can do that. in the public hearing if the Planning Commission wants to go. But I just wanted to see how we can be creative to have something in the middle that is good for the neighborhood and our small businesses, on the other hand, for housing. Again, I'm not convinced about what has been significantly changed since our last conversation, except... only couple buildings that we up zone in Wilberton is building. As we know, the market is not as much as feasible for building either.

Thank you. Commissioner Farris.

So now that I put my thought out there before about doing potentially this baseline zoning proposal with the incentive to go to the higher density as long as you provide affordable commercial space. I'm going to ask staff, what do you think? Is that even feasible?

I would say that's something staff would have to evaluate, but That's a fairly challenging approach to tie conditions. We typically don't do that. Tie conditions to land use map change or even a zoning change like that.

That's too bad. Seems like there's a great opportunity. And if that can't be done for lots of different reasons, then I would land on being able to go with the mixed use one. just to be able to have it be less of an impact. I do think that we, because we had a large discussion in our meeting in January, whenever it was, we talked about the threshold review. I think we edged our way over the line to say, yes, this does meet the change condition criteria. So I'm okay with that. But if we can't tie greater height to affordable commercial space, then I would land on the mixed use one.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Commissioner Geppel.

Yeah, I had a Really a two part question. I'll make it into one compound question. I'm wondering if you can address something that came up in the public comments tonight about what would be the opportunities potentially to look at this issue more holistically in terms of neighborhood planning? you know, rather than respond, you know, to a privately initiated comp plan amendment. And I wanted also your help to just refresh my recollection on, you know, that the comp plan policy that I believe is in there that is trying to encourage, you know, residential development away from, you know, away from uh you know major highways i mean i i think we we saw that in other places like um you know in the factoria area and um you know and also um in places like uh you know along 405 as well so i'm just trying to um i'm just trying to recollect that as well because i think that is a relevant factor here because i think part of the reason that we um provided for these being commercial spaces was in light of that um in light of that criteria and now we're moving in a different direction which is to or there's a proposal to move in a different direction which is to um which is to add significant amounts of housing right near 520.

Would you mind taking the second part of the question? I can discuss the first part. So, yeah, I think the comment that was made, also a written comment, an oral comment about sort of going, like, Having a broader discussion with informed by extensive community engagement, like through our sort of neighborhood area planning process for bridal trails. That is something that came up during threshold review. And that is the question. I can't quote the land use code. Yeah. But there is a question about can you handle this problem? proposed amendment through an existing work program. That is one of their criteria. Great Neighborhoods is an existing work program that is initiated by council. They initiated that in 2018. And council has provided direction on which neighborhood areas or like existing sub area plans to update right now. The updates are to Eastgate and Victoria, which are very familiar with. And then the there's two more iterations where neighborhood areas are identified to be part of great neighborhoods the bell red is our bell run sorry bridal trails is not one of those neighborhood areas and therefore because council has not provided direction on going through the neighborhood planning process for bridal trails um if i remember correctly staff report sort of mentioned like well we cannot sort of postpone Jan-Willem Wasmann, Handling or like reviewing this amendment proposed amendment sort of indefinitely because we don't know when we would do that and sort of like unfair to the applicant to be like well we'll get back to you, but we don't know when sort of short.

Just to add on to that, I'd say I think what would be helpful for the Planning Commission is once staff goes through more detailed analysis of whether this application and proposal meets the CPA criteria that we outlined. I think that's the criteria that the Planning Commission should be using to evaluate whether whether this application meets the criteria. If the Planning Commission finds that the application does not meet the criteria, then that can be that can be a recommendation to that it does not meet final review criteria. And then that ultimately is council's call.

Right all right, I so I guess point of order here where we I didn't hear any opposition to moving towards the public hearing, I did hear a number of direction that we want to give. Staff but i'm just gonna get a quick look from the other Commissioners where it seems that we're comfortable moving that direction, but i'll also reiterate the the points that we've made for direction, but any opposition to moving towards the public hearing. Okay. The points that I have on my notes list here is one is the conversation we just had about the review criteria and significantly changed conditions. I think we want to hear a more detailed list or a more detailed answer about that if we're at the next session. I think I also heard we want to see a couple of comparable low-rise two zones that were developed that were a little bit further from transit, if that's capturing what you're saying. Also, additional community engagement, if that's possible, between now and the next one. And then also potentially any incentive programs that could, you know, as an alternative. I know it's tough to add maybe the complexity of an additional option, but I think hearing minor tailoring that we can do within this to help incentivize things would be helpful as well. But I think that's, hopefully that captures everybody's points here. right given that i think do we okay do we uh we make a motion to move it okay i'd like to make a motion that we um direct staff to have a um public hearing on july 22nd second all in favor any opposed Great. Sounds like we'll move it to a public hearing. Thank you. You guys open to a quick break before we start our next one? Great. Let's meet back here in five minutes. So 45. All right. Let's meet back in five at 45. I think he will break for us. 55. Yeah. Easy.

Sorry, I got the...

All right, let's move to our third topic of the day, the High Density Residential and Planned Unit Development Land Use Code Amendment. So this will implement updates to the future land use map in the Bellevue 2044 Comprehensive Plan to align with new land use designations primarily in the Crossroads and Factoria neighborhoods. Planning Manager Christina Gallant and Senior Planner Sean Edgehill will provide the presentation. Welcome both.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair Liu, Vice Chair Villaveses. This evening we are here with an information only update reporting back after initiating this project with Council just last month. So we're about to embark on our extended engagement analysis process and have the chance to check in with you before we go away for quite a little while here. So this project incorporates three scope elements that are separate but all kind of unified by supporting flexibility for housing production and implementing some specific updates to our 2024 comp plan. So these three major components, Sean is going to be walking through for you in just a moment. But we are including a implementing zoning for the new high density residential future land use designation. This was introduced to the future land use map in 2024 applied to two specific locations. And this, while it's called high density residential, it actually kind of helps bridge the gap between our lower density residential neighborhoods and our mixed use centers. Density wise sits in that middle gap. We're also going to be talking about some updates to our planned unit development tool. This is a commonly used tool in many different flavors in lots of communities, including Bellevue. Ours, however, has been very rarely used. And in good circumstances, to be clear, PUDs should be pretty rare. But they're really great for certain niche cases. And we've seen that our existing code just really has some issues that don't make it as helpful as it could be in those niche cases. So this is a great opportunity for us to better align this tool for its great uses. And finally, we'll also be talking about some rezones. First, simple, just implementing zoning for those areas designated as high-density residential once that zoning is available. And secondly, also upzoning the Overlake Farms property consistent with the comprehensive plan. So while this action is specific to the rezone, this property owner is really optimistic about the PUD opportunity. We'd call this, you know, a classic case for PUD, a real opportunity to look at clustering and see some real enhancements to open space and tree retention. So it will be a nice case example to kind of show what the opportunity can be with PUDs. So with that, I will pass to Sean for more details.

Thank you, Christina. As mentioned, I'm Sean Edgehill, Senior Planner over in Code and Policy. Tonight, our presentation is going to be broken up to kind of give over a clear overview of the proposal, along with its key components. We will also discuss the initiation with City Council that we had in May, finishing up with our engagement plans and proposed schedule. To kind of reiterate a few of the items that Christina did mention, this is going to be three separate parts, high density residential, planned unit development updates, and legislative reasons. I'm going to provide the policy background for each item, detail the specific scope of the amendments, and share the policy directives that we did receive during their initial, during City Council's initial notification. So, here, we're going to go ahead and dive into our 1st topic high density residential back in 2024 city council formally added this designation to the comprehensive plan. The core policy purpose is to allow for residential development as scale and density, like, closer to low rise mixed use, but focused more purely on residential. While the policy was adopted in 2024, we currently lack the actual land use district within our existing land use code to make it actionable. This look is the implementation process, giving us a functional tool to apply the future land use map intentions into the zoning map reality. to kind of help visualize what high density residential means with context. This slide does include a contrast of the scale metrics used within the comprehensive plan itself. When we look at our existing medium density residential scale here, you can kind of see that it is more of a mid-scale housing transition from middle housing up to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. And then you kind of see from there that the HDR sits just above that, and that one is going to be that bridge between mid-scale residential and more mixed use, low-rise mixed use. The technical scope of the high density residential land use district is focused on building out development standards, transition standards and code alignment with development standards. We are drafting regulations focused around the building heights, setbacks and floor area ratio. We're going to be working from the existing medium density residential scale and kind of working to Inform it, um, to a higher density of maximum of sixty dwelling units per acre. Um, but we do recognize that edge conditions do matter. Uh, we are analyzing options for specific transitional protections, uh, whenever, wherever, uh, the district itself sits adjacent, uh, to lower density residential zones. This will also involve standard cleanup procedures to ensure that any cross-references across the entire land use code do remain consistent and legally sound. Now we'll pivot over to item number two, updating the planned unit development framework. An important note here is that this is an update of existing code rather than creation of anything brand new as we are seeing through HDR. So, as a quick refresher of the utility of this tool, PUDs are designed to achieve flexible site planning, allowing for custom deviations from standard zoning envelopes to achieve better overall design. Clustering benefits, by clustering buildings tightly together on one part of a site, we can efficiently utilize the land while saving the remaining space. There's also environmental preservation. The primary mechanism here is that it helps to save contiguous open space, protect mature tree canopies and insulate sensitive critical areas or natural features, and also housing diversity. It can help to encourage developers to mix housing types, moving away from single product subdivisions and projects. The primary issue that we are facing with our current PUD framework is that it is outdated. We have some regulations remain largely unchanged since the 1990s because the code reflects economic and development assumptions from over the last 30 years. There's more limited usage and its effectiveness has lessened over time. About 10 PUDs have been established over the last 20 years. Our goal here is that we can help make this a more viable tool for broader application. And so marching orders for this update stem directly from the comprehensive plan policy, LEU 41, which explicitly instructs us to provide clear opportunities for increased density and height to accommodate building clustering and efficient site planning. Crucially, the policy itself ties these dimensional bonuses directly to significant preservation of trees in open space, specifically targeting larger parcels. To satisfy this policy, the proposed PEDU update introduces several changes to our code. We are considering an acreage threshold, discussing the increase of thresholds from five acres up to 10 to align directly with the comp plan policy. We also are wanting to strip away old, more subjective design criteria and help to replace them with more predictable, objective performance metrics and also explicitly strengthen clustering provisions and introduce clear regulatory incentives that can help to trade height and density flexibility for increased tree retention and affordable housing. Ultimately, developers will find new flexibility in setbacks, lock coverage, building placement, and height, but only if they deliver verifiable environmental and community benefits in return. And this brings us to our third and final item under this LUCA, implementing legislative rezones. Map amendments are where policy meets reality. So we are looking at two distinct types of rezones here. First, applying the newly created HDR designation to specific nodes within the Crossroads and Factorius subareas. And secondly, applying a low density residential designation to the Overlake Farms area within the Bridal Trails neighborhood. The primary purpose of the HDR rezones is direct map alignment with our future land use map designation. I do want to make sure that I'm explaining here. This is part of our future land use map. The areas that we are focusing on are the highlighted brown parcels. They are located directly around the crossroads and factorium walls. respectively, to give some context as to the impacted areas under consideration for HDO reason. And so if you do want to have some better context, attachment A for this packet does include the full future land use map. And it can give you an idea as to where it's located within the city itself.

Additionally, we are looking at the

Over Lake Farms Rezone as well. This one we are considering going from the existing LL1 to LDR for the Over Lake Farms portion of Bridal Trails. This one, what makes this amendment unique is really how it coordinates with the PUD code changes by ensuring that this land is uh, rezoned to meet up with what the future land use map is, uh, anticipating, uh, together with what we compare with our modern PUD clustering rules, we can help to create a framework that more maximizes the environmental benefits for the space. The city council formally initiated the this process on May twelfth during that discussion. There was support for these updates with council viewing the changes as a modern extension of the city's long for a long term vision. Uh, this they specifically did, uh. point out the approach to the PUD flexibility noting that using the height and density incentives to protect our mature tree canopy and open spaces complies with agreements that have been made in the past. Council also gave staff a clear set of practical considerations that we have to account for as we build out this code. They were explicit that density increases cannot happen in a vacuum, that they have to move in tandem with verified utility capacity to these changes as we look at upzoning. They also provided emphasis for multilingual outreach, particularly focusing on diverse immigrant communities within the crossroads area. And finally, Council did recognize the reality of resident density fatigue, the ongoing tension that surrounds state level housing mandates, reminding us to be empathetic and clear in our messaging throughout the process. From those considerations, council did issue four directives to guide staff and this commission moving forward. First, they asked us to explore more bold, modern incentives within the PUD framework to maximize the environmental protection. Additionally, they asked us to evaluate specific applicant requests that were received for building heights up to 65 feet in PUDs, provided that the extra height functions as a strict trade-off, ensuring the preservation of significant green space. Third, we were asked to design a tailored engagement strategy to reach underserved populations in the crossroads, emphasizing connections with residents who lack representation by formal neighborhood associations. And finally, they did ask that we deliver the finalized engagement plan directly back to them for review. Since these actions do fall under a process for review, we will execute all standard legal requirements, including formal notices of applications, notices of public hearing, and the public hearing itself before this commission. But we are planning to go a step further. We are trying to organize direct information sessions and targeted meetings with residents, neighborhood associations, and the development community alike. On the digital and print side, we are launching dedicated city webpages, localized notices of reason, and more critically, multilingual information sheets and FAQs. And looking at our roadmap moving forward, this slide outlines our proposed schedule. Following tonight's study session, we will continue drafting code language for both the HDR and PUD updates, incorporating input from future community engagement findings as they come forward. And then we are planning to return to the Commission with updated drafts as we march towards a formal public hearing, ensuring that the Council's outreach directives are fully realized before any final recommendations are cast. And that does conclude our presentation for this evening. So both Christina and I are very happy to answer any type of questions that you may have. Thank you.

Appreciate the presentation. I'll go through the commissioners in order. So Commissioner Goeppel, would you like to start?

Yeah, thank you, Christina and Sean, for a great presentation on many different topics tonight. Appreciate that. Just a comment to begin with and then a question. First, on the PUD, I'm really excited about that, and I'm excited that you're leaning into that to try and figure out how to make that work. I think that's a fantastic idea. on the high density um residential and the um the increases in zoning density high residential i have some questions about that and how that works in particular it would be helpful for me to know what the building height is for the high density residential, what are the limits for that? You know, and some of the far information related to that. It would also be helpful for me to know more about the transition zones in relation to those. And in part, In part, for me, this is kind of an equity question as well when it comes to the city of Bellevue, because we've had a lot of discussions about the wedding cake designed for downtown Bellevue, and that seems to be a well-established principle for downtown. I don't always see that reflected when it comes to other neighborhoods in the city, And I have concerns about people who have single-family residential lots. And if you look at the map for these, some of them abut on the high-density residential areas. And I... I appreciate the desire to go big when it comes to housing development, but at the same time, I think just out of basic fairness for people in other parts of the city, the affluent people of West Bellevue shouldn't get different treatment than people in other places when it comes to these very same issues. So I'd like your help to... City Council Chambers, answer those couple questions about the high density residential you know, related to building heights, and you know transitions and setbacks to see if you know some of what's being proposed. City Council Chambers, can help address some of those concerns.

Sure. So the height and FAR is informed by a couple pieces. One element will be looking at what was modeled through the EIS and then also having those models kind of surrounding districts as benchmarks to keep between. Right. So we know it could potentially be a little higher or at least higher far than our mid-rise districts. But the vision is that it would still be at an intensity that's lower than those centers. So there's definitely a lot of kind of fine tuning and tweaking that can happen there as we proceed and as we come back with those recommendations. And then on the transitions, that's well heard. Council was really concerned with that piece as well. I think part of this will be looking at, I think there's plenty of different ways we can get there, but we did get that specific direction. So whether it's looking at kind of daylight plane tools or different buffers, those standards can be aligned to those locations where the HDR lines up. with those single family neighborhoods so um yeah not not certainly not resolved yet but within our scope to move forward yeah great great thank you yeah all right commissioner ferris just finishing my bite of dinner so sorry um

I plus one Commissioner Goldpool's comments. And this is, I know you can't change it. I personally think it's unfortunate that we call it high density because it's really not. People think about high density being like the supra dense and it's not. So I wish that we could come up with a different name for that. Similarly, the PUD. I mean, I think PUD, that's a public utility district. It's not this. So I don't know whether it's possible to... think about how we communicate this in a way that everybody can understand clearly. That's, that's my only point, but Mr. Gopal, I appreciate. Thank you.

All right.

Commissioner Caldwell.

Thank you so much. I have a quick question. A lot like over like farm will be, will be like part of this project, right? How big is that lot? Okay, like let's say 20 acres. Large, yeah. 50. Let's go 50. What does that mean? How many dwelling units they can build there? And how do you calculate that? Can you walk me through that? What's happening in that?

Sure. So there's one piece is we'll be increasing the zoning that's allowed, the base zoning. So today, the property is under a district that only allows for single family residential or... or middle housing is an option. The up zone brings it into a district where a multifamily can be allowed outright. I believe it's permitted at 15 units per acre, which is actually a pretty modest density.

That's what you see, 15 per acre.

But that's the base. So what we're saying is there's one layer with a PUD. You might say, Of course, because we're talking about clustering here, that's 15 across that really large site that could perhaps be consolidated into a smaller area. And then the PUD, what we're looking at are options to say, perhaps if you're meeting some of these distinct outcomes that we can name, such as um certain uh percentages of open space or better outcomes for tree for tree preservation etc um that can grant you more flexibility uh potentially for height would be the big one because of course if we're trying to build on a smaller footprint to avoid those trees you're going to need more height in order to accommodate the same density of units but that question of how much lift and how much flexibility could be possible through the pud is all going to be analyzed through the process.

Can I ask a follow-up question? Okay, I have a 50-acre land. I'm going to go preserve all my trees. Can I go high-rise there in the middle of bridal trail?

Well, we don't have any 50-acre sites assembled in bridal trails.

20.

Well, I mean, another consideration here is there are specific decision criteria for a PUD. So it's not a by-right process. you do have to demonstrate that by being granted this flexibility, which will be defined specifically in the code, you can demonstrate that I'm achieving a better outcome for the city than would be possible under base zoning. So a great example of this would be to say, under this base proposed zoning, perhaps you can get some maybe mid-rise kind of lower scale multifamily, but you're going to have to take up a bigger footprint to get the same number of units. With a PUD, you can say, hey, because I'm building on a smaller footprint, I have been able to retain all of this open space, which there can be provisions about how that works. Other outcomes, there are many things that can be set up there in exchange for that additional flexibility.

And then we changed the threshold from five acres to 10, right? That's part of the proposal, yeah. I would love to, when, are you guys coming back to planning commission, right?

Oh yeah, well, this is the night, this is, we just initiated the project, so we still have engagement and analysis to continue.

I think I personally want to know how many, with changing from five to 10, how many lots get qualified for this beauty? And then I would love to know where are they located? For example, I can literally, if I have a 20 acres in Bridal Trail, I'm going to go have a high rise there. I want to go build a high rise, make it half affordable housing and just have a good view of the Bridal Trail. That's the best place to build. I will do that if I have that lot. But I just want to know how the community feels about it. And then the second, I just want to case study, like really like literally go with this assumption. I have a 20 acres in the Bridal Trail. What's happening there? what are the scenario A, B, C, D, because I think that's going to help all of us to understand the impact in the community. Thank you.

Commissioner Villavesis.

Thank you. Could you go to slide 16, please? You're talking about density needs to go in tandem with capacity? That's why I take 12 minutes. 16, yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, so the first key consideration, density increases must move in tandem with wastewater and utility capacity. I guess this is council directive.

And it makes sense. Council comment, yeah.

The question is, how is this actually practically enforced? And who is enforcing this? Are you a staff member? making sure that you propose density where capacity already exists? Does the applicant need to confirm the capacities there before they propose a project that has density that's permitted under the code? Like how is this working?

in reality, this process itself is just the implementation of kind of a rezone itself. When it comes to actually implementing the capacity for utility, that would generally occur as part of the building process, as part of a review that comes forward as far to clarify.

Just to put a point on it, it is confirmed as part of that permit process. Our comp planning processes do consider, you know, that the adequacy of those kind of system scale utilities and that that has to be demonstrated at the project level as well. So we do have processes in place to make sure, yeah.

So is demonstrated, let's say I'm an applicant, I need to demonstrate the capacities there, or I need to demonstrate that I'm gonna provide the capacity, or both, or either. Like what's the, or do we not know yet?

We know. I think we, it's late to kind of walk through the specific mechanics. I don't do project review at the City of Bellevue, but we can come back with some specific examples of how that works because it is done.

This was a conversation that was had during the middle housing as well. We can talk about density and more units and all this stuff, but if... we don't have enough capacity in the stormwater, then nothing's going to happen. And if you're a developer or a homeowner that wants to develop your own property to put more units in it and you have no idea of what the capacity is like how like who helps you figure that out that's the question I have right like because otherwise you're going to be halfway through the process and you have to provide additional someone that's just going to increase the costs of your project astronomically. And for small developers that want to do infill housing and middle housing or this type of work, that's just not going to allow the project to work through. So I'm just wondering, how is the city moving this in tandem? Is density being proposed here and presented to us? And then on a separate meeting somewhere, there's a proposal for increasing capacity on stormwater and utilities. So that's the question I have. Thank you.

Great. And so in the spirit of kind of, I know you guys are just getting this process kicked off. For the next time that we talk about this, I'd love to see kind of the current state of those areas. If you go back to that map, that'd be helpful. Because if I look at that map, that area north of Crossroads and then the area south of Factoria, I used to think Crossroads, that's already multifamily, I think, right now. And in the area south of Factory, it's a mix of both multifamily, some affordable housing, and single family. And so I guess my questions are, what is the real kind of actual impact of rezoning it this way? I think you guys can probably get to some projected number of what is the real impact. like increase in density that we're actually looking at here. And the second thing is also I'd be curious on the maybe the current starts on any middle housing that's being developed in those areas, because that does also kind of sit in this, you know, more dense than what we're currently seeing, probably, but, you know, probably not to the degree of the high density housing that you guys are proposing. So I just love to see the data around what is it currently, what is kind of like in the pipeline already because of the recent things that we've pushed through. And then what is the total proposed capacity that you're actually looking at here? I'll do another round here. And again, it'd be great to just kind of focus our comments around what we want to see next time, just given that this process is starting to just getting kicked off. I'll start with Commissioner Goebbels.

Yeah, I just wanted to plus one your last comment because that was the other thing that I was thinking about was just how does this, how do something like this high density residential, how does it interface with things like mental housing and what we're expecting there? Because we've got a lot of tools, you know, and just trying to figure out how we think about those working together. And that's it for me. Commissioner Ferris.

I have no other things to add. I appreciate all of my commissioners for asking great questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Condon?

I have just two more comments. One, can we really care about small footprint and preserving tree canopies. And then the second one, I want the affordable housing will not be viable with fee and lieu. I really want, if we are focused on affordable housing, we focus on affordable housing, no fee and lieu. I don't want like six months later, again, fee and lieu comes on the plates. Like we had an objection in council yesterday too. And I kind of, my heart is there. And I think I have echoed that so many times. Like I want, if we want to have incentive affordable housing, we should have incentive affordable housing.

Yeah, I do want to clarify the first question. Could you repeat your, was that a question? No, it was just a comment.

Just like, let's keep that like a small footprint and like preserving a tree, like a really core. Yeah. Prioritize on site. Yeah.

Commissioner Vivesis.

Yeah. So I wanted to see, you said there's only a few PUDs in the city.

Yeah, only about we could find 10 have been done. And we've also found examples of cases where projects that seemed like classic cases of a PUD, you know, heavily encumbered by critical areas actually went through going for a variance instead of a PUD, which is in most cases a a much more, I mean, it is a much more rigorous process. So that shows that, you know, the payoff you're getting through the PUD, even for a very classic example, just isn't worth it in that case.

So is there, is there, there's a, like a development of like maybe eight homes, just what is this West of Bellevue square? Is that one of those PUDs?

Do you know what I'm talking about? But there's, there's really not many. I don't know if you might know what he's talking about. Yeah.

You know what, no, just like, I guess one of the questions too is what is the, excuse me if you already covered this, what is the difference between high density residential and PUD? I mean, we're going to have a density of a number of units on a large lot, right?

Yeah.

And I'm wondering, is this going to be like a cookie cutter development that's just going to be repeating? And it's going to be a little bit going against what you've been looking for, which is kind of variety and density and human scale mix by having almost like what happens a lot in Issaquah, just... And that's one part, but the second one is like, what is really the difference? Like, why do we have two different zoning approaches now as opposed to just one that allows us to develop with more density in certain parts of the city?

Yeah. And, um, uh, so, so there's kind of, we've got a couple different topics somewhat related by being related to housing development, but PDS and the high density residential are in kind of two different, um, types of land use tools. So the, the HDR zone is going to be a new, um, kind of by right zoning designation. That'll just be a base zoning applied to these, uh, properties. The PUD tool is one that is a tool that a property owner can ask for, kind of regardless of where they're situated. It's kind of the class, I keep saying the classic example, but typically what we see is it's, a large site with a lot of critical areas where they say, hey, I've got all this land, but I really practically only have this small area to build on. And then a PUD is a tool that basically defines a separate specific process that kind of pulls away from the base zoning to apply some specific flexibility to kind of consider the merits of the site as a whole to, again, say, are we getting a better outcome for the city overall compared to the base zoning? Kind of the inherent assumption there is that we want the base zoning to be working as well as it can be. This is not something that should be used to fix underlying issues. So that's why I say, you know, we don't want to have a scenario where we're seeing tons of PUDs because that suggests something's wrong. But for those really unusual cases where you're running into that kind of thing, they're a really helpful tool. Ours is just very, very, very subjective, lots of really confusing language. So could work a lot better in those cases.

That answers the question. Thank you so much.

Thanks. All right. The last thing for me is I'd also really appreciate if you could give us a bit of an overview of any related state law that might be coming down the pipeline as it relates to basically higher density zoning. Because I think, you know, we're not here deciding on that, but it's really helpful context for us to also kind of prepare mentally for. So if you're able to just give us like a briefing or an overview about that as you continue this process, that'd be really, really appreciated.

We'll bring that back with a future session.

Awesome. Thank you. All right. There's no other business on the agenda, so thank you both for presenting. I saw you guys taking notes. I'm not going to rehash everything here. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right. We have some minutes to approve. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from our May 13th meeting? So moved. Is there a second? Great. Any discussion? I'll approve. Say aye. Aye. Great. Anybody would like to motion to adjourn?

I would like to make a motion that we adjourn our meeting. Second. Second.

All right. Any discussion? I'll approve. Say aye.

Aye. Great. Meeting's adjourned.