Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This meeting of the Kirkland Planning Commission is called to order. Let's start with a roll call.

Aaron Jacobson?

Here.

Gina Medea? Here. Julia Nolan? Here. Scott Reiser?

Here.

Angela Rosman? Here. Rodney Rutherford?

Here.

Let's make sure our technical okay. All right. Okay, we're technically better now. And with a majority of commissioners present, we have a quorum and may conduct business. The next item is, I believe, comments from the audience. And this is the portion of the meeting where we hear from the public about items that are not scheduled for public hearing tonight. Tonight's public hearing is about proposed code amendments for two sites in Winita. If you would like to address the Commission at this time, not about the public hearing, then please raise your hand, do we have a sign in raise your hand if you're remote. Click the raise hand button. We have a sign in sheet for?

Yes. No one has signed up on this.

No one signed up for comments. And I do not see any hands raised at this time for the virtual audience. So I will move on for now, and I'll give the remainder of the introduction of public comment when we get to that point, which is coming up quickly because the next item on the agenda is special presentations. There is none. And then we're on to the public hearing.

So I'd like to ask staff to go ahead and Ms. Should I go ahead and open the public hearing at this time? Yes, please. All right. We open the public hearing for JBD IV zoning code amendments and the North Wenita Center zoning code amendments. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So planning permission tonight, we have the public hearing for the zoning code amendments. You've discussed these several times at previous meetings. The last time you talked about this was back in, I think it was April, and you had quite an extended discussion about these. We were able to garner some sort of consensus around certain items, and then you asked us to bring other items forward as options. And so, with that, Leandra is going to give you an overview of the draft code amendments in your packet.

Thank you. Good evening, Commission and attendees. My name is Leandra Baker Lewis. I'm a senior planner with the Planning and Building Department, and I will be here tonight to give the staff presentation ahead of the public testimony portion of the public hearing. Excited to be here tonight.

Just making sure. Okay. Thanks for bearing with us. So for the agenda, I plan to give a pretty brief staff presentation, go over some of the updates to the draft code that you will see in your packet. We will then ask the Commission if there are any questions before moving on to public testimony.

After public testimony, there will be a separate portion of the meeting for deliberation. And if the Planning Commission feels ready to make a recommendation, that will be the final step. All right. So this is where it all started. So the property owners for two sites in Juanita had submitted requests for zoning changes during the twenty twenty three-twenty twenty four update to the comprehensive plan, and that also included the Juanita neighborhood plan update.

The requests were to amend the zoning code to allow for residential capacity increase at their properties in order to eventually design and build more housing, specifically multifamily housing, which is a limited resource both locally, regionally and even nationally. The Juanita Neighborhood Plan identifies these sites as locations that are appropriate and suitable for more housing opportunities as they are within both of Juanita's neighborhood centers and have access to goods, services and other amenities more so than other parts of the city. The policies that support the additional capacity are policies J16 and J20 of the Juanita Neighborhood Plan. Those were adopted on December 10. And those policies that support the additional capacity also direct the zoning changes to occur at this site, and they should include other components such as providing neighborhood serving commercial retail opportunities, encouraging and facilitating safe walking, biking and transit use.

The policies also call for us to preserve our critical ecosystems and nearby wetlands as well as remain mindful of the existing neighbors and nearby uses. So that's a brief summary of policies J16 and J20. Those are available in Attachment one of your packet. So to kick off 2025, we've been working with you, the Commission, to create zoning that does all of those and more, in which that's what we'll work through tonight. Starting with the JBD-four Zone, this is commonly referred to as the Michael Site.

Previous direction from the Planning Commission had expanded the study area for this request to encompass the entire JBD-four zone. That is both parcels shown in the image on screen that encompasses the existing Michaels site and the Kothikali restaurant site. It's largely impacted by critical areas. The existing zoning is for commercial mixed use with a maximum height of 26 feet. The minimum lot size for housing is 3,600 square feet and then 1,800 square feet per unit.

Those are kind of the density limitations that exist on the site today. 80% lot coverage, and it requires Design Board review. The applicant request includes the removal of those density requirements, an increase of maximum height to 75 feet, as well as a request for reduced parking requirements, flexible design requirements and increased lot coverage, just to summarize. Similarly, the BC1 zoning amendments are applicable to the three parcels shown on screen. The changes here will not be applicable to the entire BC1 Zone, which is our North Juanita commercial neighborhood center.

But the BC1 Zone, as it exists, is a commercial mixed use zone that does not allow attached dwelling units or townhomes, as we'll call them later, more commonly. The height today, maximum height is 35 feet. There is a density limit of 900 square feet per unit for residential development. Again, 80% lot coverage, some required yards or setbacks of ten and twenty feet, and there are no design review requirements that apply to the site today. The applicant request includes expanding allowed housing types to include townhomes, removal of density requirements to accommodate about 500 to 600 units, 75 foot maximum height and, again, increased lot coverage, reduced parking requirements and flexible design requirements.

So that's what came to us through the Neighborhood Plan process. This slide is meant to show where we're talking about and where these changes will apply. So within the JBD-four zone, the zoning changes apply to both parcels within the JBD-four zone in areas that are outside of the shoreline management area. I tried to note that with the purple hatching in the image, but it's not the complete JBD-four zone. These changes will apply to development outside of that.

And then for the BC-one zone, study area, again, this will apply to mixed use development for three adjoining parcels on the corner of Northeast 130 Second And 1 Hundredth Avenue Northeast but will not apply to mixed use development within the rest of the zone. So we have worked with you since March to brief you on the recommended scope and timeline of these projects. We got some good feedback from you regarding the specifics of the project timeline as well as what you'd like to see for the next session. On April 24, we had a marathon meeting to go over several development standards. In fact, we provided you with a range of options for each development standard each applicable development standard for both sites.

The column on the left is to note which development standards the Planning Commission gave initial direction for, and that's helpful because it allowed us to draft a code that reflects those preferences for you to respond to and for the community to respond to tonight. There were some development standards that you opted to not provide a preference on but asked us to continue to bring options forward to the hearing tonight, and those include uses, density that apply to the BC1 study area, options for high performing building standard requirements at both sites, and then options for affordable housing specific to the JBD IV zone. We also briefed the City Council on May 20. The Council had a good discussion on these amendments, and this slide kind of serves to summarize general takeaways from that. This does not reflect individual Councilmember stances or thoughts, but it's a main takeaway slide to describe where the feedback kind of landed.

And we heard a lot from them. Main takeaways are really around density and housing types, with some Council members expressing concerns for allowing townhomes for the BC1 zone as it is associated with the decrease in density and impacts the general affordable housing stock, meaning housing that is generally more affordable to folks who don't make as much money, not affordable housing in the sense of income restricted. I just wanted to clarify that. They also had some later expressed uncertainties about implementing parking requirements, specifically the parking requirements outlined in Senate Bill 5,184 ahead of the mandated implementation date of January 2027. So we heard that from them on the twentieth.

Otherwise, some more general summarized themes are listed on screen, and we can go into those if you'd like later. Hopping right into what is in the packet. The JBD IV zone, again, the Michaels Study area and the Kothikali site, has several development standards adjusted for the zone. They are all listed here. These are ones that you did provide initial direction on.

I'll emphasize just a couple. For building height, we drafted code that reflects a 75 foot maximum height as directed. Increasing that allowed height unlocks the vertical capacity needed to establish more residential units, specifically apartments, which are crucial for our affordable housing stock in a high cost community like ours. The ground floor requirements are reflected in Attachment two of your packet, specifically in KZC 52, the use zone chart. We took the feedback that was given from April 24, and we made some decisions on things like ancillary uses and residential uses on the Ground Floor.

Those are allowed on the Ground Floor but not fronting Northeast Juanita Drive, which we heard from you at the April 24 meeting that retail and active frontage should really be the focus there. So these ancillary and residential uses are allowed on the Ground Floor if they are not fronting Northeast Juanita Drive. We also employed a 15 foot height minimum. That's pretty consistent with our other commercial zones and then a 20 foot depth requirement for commercial uses as well. Design regulations were also drafted.

Those are reflected in Chapter 92, and those are those really just say that we should be relying on existing regulations that we have applied in other parts of the city and our other design districts to achieve human and architectural scale at this site. Some other notable ones are that we opted for no land use buffer requirement between the park and the JBD-four zone, considering the wetland and critical area buffers that will be required. There was an increase in lot coverage drafted and reflected in the code to 100%, retaining the zero foot setbacks or required yards. The pedestrian oriented right of way and open space requirements were drafted to mandate pedestrian oriented streets, pedestrian oriented corner treatments, and open space and plaza requirements near the building entrance. And those are also in Chapter 92.

Site will with the draft code, the site would be subject to administrative design review to allow those Chapter 92 edits to be applicable, and then parking requirements were reduced to align with state mandates as you requested. Still need further input, as I mentioned, on those outstanding development standards that include inclusionary zoning requirements for this zone as well as high performing building standard requirements. And the fun part, the more fun part of this all was really imagining and requiring what, like, possible public benefits that we could require or incentivize through these zoning changes. So these are some of the above and beyond public improvements and public benefits that would be required that are going to be required in the draft code, and they are captured in the rezone because of the added capacity that we're giving the zone. So recognizing that since these requests, if granted, will result in additional development capacity, this is the appropriate time to consider what new public benefits should be required, which we've worked with you on since your initial briefing in March.

They include enhanced frontage improvements with the sidewalk dedication to increase the safety and create a bike protected or a protected bike lane or shared use path along the intersection of 90 Eighth Avenue and Northeast Juanita Drive and Northeast 100 Sixteenth Street as well as the provision for easements and improvements to begin establishing a pedestrian pathway between Juanita Bay Park and Juanita Beach Park, and those are reflected in the Chapter 52 amendments in Attachment two of your packet. Moving on to BC I. With the larger study area, there were some additional considerations to make, but the summarization of the development standards that are changing are on screen as well. I won't go into all of them, but feel free to ask about those or we can elaborate on them further with your direction. But the main takeaways here, I would like to cover, again, the 75 foot building height maximum.

The ground floor requirements for this study area are similar, but they have a bit of some adjusted requirements as far as quantity. So for this study area, 70% of 1 Hundredth Avenue Northeast is required to have active commercial frontage. We are allowing residential through the draft code, it allows residential ancillary uses for 20% of the total building frontage, and that's aggregate building frontage, so the combined total of all building frontage as opposed to like, right of way frontage or street frontage. These are just measuring the building facades and taking in a percentage of those. The 15 foot height minimum is reflected in the draft code, and that's to enhance the retail kind of pedestrian experience at the Ground Floor.

And then a 20 foot depth minimum as well as a 25 foot average depth minimum for the commercial uses along one hundredth apply as well. Something different that is reflected in the draft code for this site as opposed to the Michael site are height transitions. So since there are low density zones nearby and single family homes to the north, we have a draft provision that requires a height transition between this development and those neighbors to mitigate potential visual impacts, taking into account this dramatic height difference between what exists for them and what could be for this site. Everything else is pretty straightforward. Again, we'll need some further input on the allowed uses regarding housing types, minimum density requirements and high performing building requirements, which I'll get into in just a moment.

Public benefits that we added with capacity increases include expanded requirements for bicycle facilities, so kind of some additional or added bike parking requirements above and beyond what we normally require for multifamily and mixed use developments of this size. There are requirements for wayfinding to increase the use and make it easier for people to get around and get to the places that they need to go and know how far things are from each other without or with ease when you're biking. We're requiring, through the draft code, a gateway feature to anchor the North Juanita Neighborhood Center that will be at the corner of 1 Hundredth Avenue Northeast and Northeast to 130 Second and then some publicly accessible and amenity rich common open space requirements for the site as well to promote placemaking. So moving on to the alternative code options, as I mentioned, the Planning Commission requested that some development standards move to the public hearing with multiple options for the community to respond to. Since the draft code is generally intended to reflect a complete build out of potential amendments, Some of these alternatives and some of these options are baked into the draft code of Attachment two, and those are indicated with a gold star.

So as we go through the next couple of slides, you'll see those, and that gives you an idea on when we get to the point of choosing alternatives. If you choose to choose any of them, you will know which alternative would require an amendment and which wouldn't require an amendment. All right. So first and foremost, allowing attached dwelling units, aka townhomes, the BC1 zone. Over time, the request for the BC1 study area has evolved to include housing variety in the form of townhomes.

Those are currently not allowed in the BC1 zone, which is a commercial zone within our city. There are three options reflected in Attachment five of your packet. The first option I've listed all three on screen with some points of consideration for you. I'll go through those quickly. To prohibit townhomes really aligns with our neighborhood center vision generally and our commercial zone vision for the citywide objectives, and it allows us to increase more affordable housing stock with apartments, again, affordable in the sense of attainable versus income restricted.

The prohibition of townhomes also means that more market rate housing could be built that serves a wider array of people in a similar vein. But housing may not be developed in this leasing cycle due to the conditions that exist for large mixed use and multifamily development as expressed through the comments you've received from the applicant and from the property owner thus far. Another option would be to allow townhomes and attached dwelling units within the context of one mixed use development. So under this option and this alternative, townhomes would be restricted to the western half of the study area. We have a provision within the draft code that says attached dwelling units should not be located within 200 feet of 1 Hundredth Avenue Northeast.

That's about the halfway mark of the site if you move from east to west. Doing this provides flexibility for both housing types to be developed. It requires townhome development to comply with some of the additional provisions that we've drafted up for mixed use development at this site, which include things like reduced parking ratios to align with Senate Bill 5,184, those open space requirements I talked about, and then those kind of above and beyond bike facilities. So under this version or this alternative, townhome development would also be required to produce those amenities and those standards. The administrative process for this is a little bit complex, as phasing could lead to an unknown ETA for the mixed use development, so allowing the townhomes to be built within the same development but in a phased fashion.

Confirm and solidify a mechanism for phasing. And so that's something that we'll be looking for guidance on later tonight. And then allowing them as an independent use, this is what's reflected in Attachment two of the packet. This also includes that provision for townhomes to be restricted to the western half of the study area. That's the site that abuts the fire station.

Doing that still leaves the corner and the eastern half of the site open for mixed use development at a higher density along 1 Hundredth, and that captures the commercial ground floor requirements that we've drafted. Doing this provides the most flexibility for future applicants as it would allow for independent townhomes to be built, and then at a later date or sometime in the future, the mixed use development could be built. It reduces the density overall at the site, as you've come to understand. And as you've heard probably through the public comments you've received, doing that reduces the overall market rate housing options in the neighborhood and citywide, and it could potentially result in less housing at the site overall. Paired with that, there is an option in Attachment five of your packet for minimum density requirements.

This isn't something that we have done at the City before for our commercial zones. But the options reflected in your packet align with allowing townhomes. So if you were to allow townhomes either within the context of a mixed use development or as an independent use, you could also employ a minimum density to help address the concern of not getting the envisioned density or the amount of housing that we had originally or we have come to desire from the site. So Option one of the minimum density alternatives or alternative one aligns with allowing townhomes as an independent use. So just keep that in mind.

Those are kind of connected. If you would like to allow them as an independent use, we can work to create language that does that. You have some possible language drafted in your packets. We would probably request a little bit of flexibility to adjust that language as necessary since development sites exceeding 1.5 acres could mean townhomes as well. So since we're splitting under this draft code, if you split the lot in half, it's about two acres on each side.

Since it exceeds 1.5 acres as written, this doesn't really allow townhomes as it's intended to. So we'd be looking for some additional ability to finesse this, if that's your intent. If you do want to apply a minimum density and allow townhomes as an independent use, we would take that direction and form some language that is a little bit more accurate. Right. Allison, do you have any additional input on that?

I don't think at this time. I think during deliberations, like Leandra mentioned, we will be looking to get at your intent and might ask for some flexibility to make sure all the language syncs up to meet your intent. But I think we can dig into it when we get there. Alternative two is, if you

would like, is intended to pair with allowing townhomes in the context of a mixed use development. That's also reflected in Attachment five of your packet, and this is a little more straightforward but would still, as I mentioned in the last slide, it would still require a mechanism for phasing and timing to ensure that the minimum density is achieved sitewide since it's likely that townhomes would be built before the mixed use development, given what we've heard from property owners at this time. And then last but not least, the minimum density alternative number three is no minimum density for townhomes as an independent use. That's reflected in the packet. Regarding the affordable housing flexibility or inclusionary zoning requirements for the JBD IV zone, the Attachment V of your packet provides you with an option for additional flexibility for the renter occupied inclusionary zoning requirements.

So our standard, as shown in Alternative two, is a 10% set aside of all units to be affordable to folks making 50% or less of the area median income. We heard from you last meeting that there was interest in exploring additional flexibility there, so we've provided Alternative one as a possibility. So you could do a 10% set aside at 60% with an additional ratio, so they would need to actually provide more than just the 10% and so on. As you decrease the affordability metric, there would be a higher unit requirement there. So that's something to consider, and we'll be looking for some guidance for that specific standard.

Also in your packets, you'll notice the high performing buildings gap analysis that we put together. We heard from you at your April meeting that we can draft a code that doesn't require them, them being the high performing building standards that we typically apply to sites in similar rezone situations as these, but providing for requiring an them at the public hearing. So if you would like to require them, that would require an amendment as the current draft code reflects them as not required. You will see that in the staff memo, there is a recommendation from staff to incorporate these standards into the zoning requirements at both sites. And we feel that it's not only important to the community and as a community benefit, general energy reduction, it furthers our decarbonization goals within the built environment.

But it's also our recommendation due to established kind of adopted planning guidance within our sustainability strategic plan that calls for this requirement in large mixed use developments. The gap analysis revealed that the State Code, while efficient and while kind of ahead of its time a little bit, our high performing building standards do exceed those requirements in multiple categories. We're not sure about the added costs to development, the exact numbers, but we've heard from both property owners that it's considerable and it could affect project feasibility. As I mentioned, there is a precedent set with prior rezones, most recently in the station area and within the Bridal Trails Neighborhood Center rezone. These are requirements that we have applied to both sites.

So just something for you to consider as you deliberate. Hopping into public comments. So we received over 30 comments since your last meeting on this topic, with more coming in probably right now. But as of two p. M, there were 36 comments that were sorted for analysis.

The first chart here shown on screen shows common themes of feedback, so not meant to encompass every support point raised or any specific every specific request in the comments, but common themes were reflected of feedback, specifically feedback on what the community supports or what they want to include in the draft zoning code. So this chart is just meant to reflect that. You have community support for reduced parking, a couple of people supporting the idea of more retail at both sites, active transportation improvements, support for minimum density requirements, those that we just went through, and then some mixed opinions on supporting or limiting townhome development within the BC 1 zone. Comments often had multiple themes, so I counted them by theme, so one comment could reflect more than one theme here. And then there were some comments that were more concern related, and these ones are important to note as well.

The second chart here reflects themes of the feedback that relate to community concern. So if opposition or uncertainty was expressed, it was counted here. You have community members expressing concern about the environment as it relates to both sites and their full potential redevelopment, infrastructure capacity, safety concerns, concern of scale and loss of retail at both sites, as well as neighborhood character considerations. But as you can see here, the majority of the comments of the 36 did mention concern or opposition regarding these future developments because of traffic concerns. So the City, since the neighborhood plan process, staff has been hearing concerns for, and we get a lot of questions about vehicular congestion, and the community has continually expressed uncertainty about how we could accommodate more neighbors and more businesses with these current conditions.

So just to review, we talked about this a lot at your April 24 meeting, but the City does have checks and balances, like the concurrency system and our transportation review process. They are designed to make sure that new development doesn't make things worse without providing a source of mitigation. So the next slide has a couple of common questions that we've received. They're shown here on screen, and I'd like to take a couple moments to just address them. Moving from left to right, but we'll go down, so left down, right down.

Number one, how will the City make sure that future development won't overwhelm our roads and intersections? This is probably our most common question, and it's a very valid one. Any development of these sizes, future development of the sizes proposed through these zoning requests, would be required to complete detailed transportation impact analysis. This is commonly referenced as a TIA. The TIA identifies how much additional traffic the project would generate.

It evaluates impacts to nearby intersections and determines if those intersections would still meet the city's adopted level of service standards. And those levels of service standards are multimodal, meaning they take into account not just the vehicular network but also our active transportation network, too. So recognizing that the streets do serve more than just cars, Kirkland uses a multimodal level of service framework, and that's reflected in the Transportation Strategic Plan. This means we look at not only how cars move through intersections, but also at whether sidewalks are connected, if there are safe bike facilities and if the transit access is reliable at the site. Moving down to question two, what happens if the future development causes those intersections to fall below those levels of service?

So if those if the intersections would fall below the standards that are codified within the capital facilities element, that's where our levels of service are codified. The developer would be required to mitigate that impact either by constructing specific improvements or contributing towards capital projects that the city has identified that already are designed to address those deficiencies. Without the acceptable mitigation in place, the project can't be approved. What when or excuse me, what's the connection between these proposals and the city's concurrency projects? I try to describe concurrency as a sort of like a citywide bank of trips.

So new multimodal and road projects add to the total trip capacity, and new development uses those trips up. So it's kind of like a bank of give and take Concurrency projects that are identified through our long range plans are things like transportation improvements that the city has planned in order to accommodate expected growth and maintain an acceptable level of service. So we know through the city's comprehensive plan update last year and the transportation strategic plan that there were specific concurrency projects identified to update intersections that are directly adjacent to both study areas. And those projects are meant to handle both general citywide growth as well as developments like this one. So these developments were factored in at their full capacity to make sure that we account for all possible impacts.

If the development was to move forward, it would either rely on already funded concurrency projects to maintain those levels of service, or it would have to provide us additional site specific mitigation if the traffic impacts exceed what the concurrency projects could absorb. Question four, wondering if this new development or future development at these sites would include improvements for pedestrians, bikes and transit. The answer to that is yes. The TIA also, as I mentioned, assesses impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. So depending on the findings, the development would maybe be required to fund or build improvements such as new sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks or transit stop enhancements, if applicable.

Any time we add a new bike lane, sidewalk or vehicle lane, we are adding to our multimodal capacity to the overall transportation system. These requirements would be established during permit review based on the TIA findings and our city standards. We've also gotten questions on the timing of the TIA and the timing of the concurrency and a lot of folks wondering why not conduct these traffic assessments now. It's a fair question, but the city's concurrency system has already accounted for them through the long range planning that I described earlier. So the concurrency system proactively plans for future growth enabled through the zoning.

Through the TSP and the capital facilities plan update, we anticipated growth and land use changes that are modeled over a twenty year planning horizon. So the concurrency project, including the ones identified at the intersections affected most by these zoning changes, are incorporated into the plans based on anticipated growth to make sure that the transportation network evolves as our zoning evolves and as land use changes occur.

So

since no development has been proposed at this time, preparing a TIA for a hypothetical project introduces a level of uncertainty and risk of inaccuracy. Estimating trip generation and site access without a specific development scenario would lead to either it could lead to an overbuilt infrastructure, which is costly to the city, or it could lead to undermitigated impacts later. Requiring a TIA at the zoning phase would likely mean redoing the analysis at a later date and possibly redoing an entire mitigation plan once an actual development proposal is submitted, which is not efficient either. So that is the main reasons why it's more appropriate in our processes, wait until an actual proposal is on the table to assess those site specific traffic impacts. And last but not least, where can the public see those traffic impacts assessments and that data for these developments?

And that is all going to be submitted at the time of permit applications, so those will be submitted with development permits and the documents would be available for public record and available to comment on through public review of the permit application process. This slide was meant to kind of illustrate everything I just said. It's a timeline that shows the stops and the checkpoints for transportation milestones in new development. So after the zoning amendments are in effect, a permit application for development would come in. The concurrency test would be conducted to ensure that the entire transportation system can handle the additional trips given the specific uses, the unit count and the access points at the site.

If that all looks good and the numbers jive, then a traffic impact analysis, that TIA would be submitted and reviewed by City staff to understand the specific impacts to the local roads, the intersections, the safety conditions. It includes crash data and things like that and our levels of service. Permit approval only happens when transportation capacity is confirmed. With that, I will pass it to the Commission for questions before deliberation.

Yes. Public All right.

Would any Commissioners like to ask any questions at this time? Commissioner No? Medea?

Thanks. So thank you on the traffic thing. I understand carpet for the horse, sorry, all that stuff. But it seemed to me that any of the proposed projects for the site that sounds like are needed before that extent of study could be accomplished would deviate to some sort of predetermined mean, right, I. E, a 75 foot ABE or something that's otherwise allowable within the construct of the code, right?

It's not going to be like a hotel, right? It's going to be something that would fit. So I guess it's just a little frustrating that it would be on the backs of the developers to have to conduct that study and that their permit approval would be contingent on that versus, I don't know, using AI in the future to render some scenarios that would provide a potential TIA output to reduce that timeline and have some sense ahead of time. I know I'm kind of off topic, but it just it strikes me that that's a big sticking point and there's an unfortunate I wish there was an alternative to solve that issue, right, because there is a predetermined set of things that could or could not happen on that site. Is that not true?

It's true to an extent. There are some many undetermined things as well. So, like, for example, access points and exact uses at the site. So while we are allowing for commercial, which could encompass retail, it could encompass restaurant, tavern, entertainment facilities, things like that. Those all generate different types of trips.

And I won't pretend to be a transportation planner, but the impacts of those can and mixed with the site access could considerably change the TIA findings is my understanding. So there are some things that we could plug in at this point, and I think that that's what the transportation consultants for each team has each property owner has tried to supply kind of an initial findings, but there are some other things that would come out later that would make it more accurate.

Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Nolan?

I was curious if we have these were both mentioned as part of the comprehensive plan, but I was curious what the if a traffic impact study or a traffic study has been conducted on either intersection recently, just as these are both intersections that I go through fairly frequently, one probably at least twice a day because it's on my way to and from work, and I know both are already fairly congested, at least at peak hours. So I was curious whether they're already considered to be meeting acceptable levels of service or whether that is something we just don't know or whether we acknowledge that they are maybe not optimal as is.

Yes. So for the transportation strategic plan update, which was part of the comprehensive plan update, we did do some city studies to figure out the current or most recent levels of service. I think the numbers were from 2022. And at that time, both intersections that are, you know, directly adjacent to these study areas were operating at acceptable levels of service. But it's important to note that acceptable levels of service doesn't mean ideal.

We have and then multiple prongs to what levels of service are. So while it may be congested with vehicular traffic, it could be still operational because of the other connections, multimodal connections that are nearby. But as of 2022, if my memory serves right, they were operating at acceptable levels. But the forecasting also modeled that in twenty years, over a twenty year horizon, with all the growth that we're anticipating, they won't be. And that's where those concurrency projects were identified as hoping to or identified to improve them to acceptable levels of service.

And then if I could just pile on to that a bit. The additional step that happened, in addition to what Leandra just stated, during the transportation strategic plan update was that we also modeled how the transportation network would perform with the potential for added capacity at both of these sites. So both of these sites, the full amount that was requested by the applicants a couple years ago was factored in to a scenario for 02/1944, and that was another thing that helped identify which projects could be necessary to support the growth in these locations. So we we have modeled how up to the potential capacity you are considering tonight would factor in and impact the city transportation network as a whole.

Any further questions from the Commission at this time? Seeing none, I think we're ready to proceed on to public comment. With that, I would like to start with comments hearing comments from the applicants because I think that would be beneficial to everyone to get a better understanding of their thoughts going into this. We have, I think, multiple people signed up from each of the parties, so we'll hold them to the same we might actually hold them to the same three minute as unless anything's been communicated with them previously. Okay.

Alright. So with that, the first applicant on the list is Carl Peterson, followed by Jeremy Eckert.

Hello. My name is Carl Peterson, I own the property that is currently leased to Michaels. I would like to thank you for your work over the past year in support of policy J-sixteen and your continued work to implement that policy, which promotes housing opportunities. This Michaels property, located at the gateway to Juanita Village, is outdated, ugly and poorly maintained by a tenant that caters mostly to clients that drive there from outside of Kirkland. Additionally, it has a narrow sidewalk that does not conform to current codes and no bike lane.

Residents city commissioner and and residents and city planners are calling for increased housing, a better pedestrian experience linking Juanita Bay to Juanita Beach Parks and higher environmental standards and a bike lane. Our team continues to work together with residents and city staffs to meet these goals. While no project can meet all of the goals of this city, our proposal can meet many of the most important goals. A few years ago, I submitted a citizens' amendment request and completed phase one, asking for four stories. I withdrew before phase two after learning of new wetlands regulations and how this restriction would make development no longer economically viable.

Now I am asking for 75 feet as that is what will be necessary to make the project worth developing. If our proposal cannot be achieved, I will be seeking to re lease for a term of twenty years with additional twenty year lease options. This would ensure that the issues that plague this property and their possible solution would no longer be up for discussion. Kirkland is running out of land like this to work with, which is near parks, adjacent to mass transit and in an urban village. Additionally, needs for housing are only going to increase in the future.

I believe that there is an outstanding opportunity here to realize a win for Kirkland by providing increased housing, improving the pedestrian experience between Juanita Bay and Juanita Beach Parks, adding a bike lane, bringing the property up to current environmental standards and changing the gateway to Juanita from a dilapidated old building into a vibrant development that meets many more of the needs of the people. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Harald. Next, for the redevelopment of the Michael site, believe it's Jessica Rowe. Is that right? Correct? So and then after that, are there any further that are speaking about the Michaels site?

There are a couple on the sign up sheet.

Okay. I just make another comment on that, too, just to make it a little bit more clear as to why we are having them go first? We talked about this in advance of this meeting, and the thought here was that by allowing the folks associated with these properties to go first, It allows that other folks that are here to give public comment can hear their comments first. So if you want to reply or comment on anything said, we wanted to give you the chance to say that versus if other folks go first and then we hear from the property owners, then we can't hear how you're feeling about all of that. So I just wanted to make that super clear so it it you know, there's a reason and a purpose for them to go at the beginning.

Thanks.

And then so after Jessica will be, I believe, Meredith? Meredith Everest and Jeff Schramm. Okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Jessica.

Thank you, Chair Rutherford and Commissioners. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. Thank you, staff, for your presentation and all your work again on all of this. I'm Jessica Roma, land use attorney for the applicant for the Michaels site. I wanted to say, in general, we support the staff's recommendation for the code amendments.

I do I'm going to focus my comments on in the same theme that I've been talking about, focusing on ensuring feasibility for housing development on the site, which is constrained by the wetlands. It's not a huge site. It's going to be not the easiest site for access. And so, again, picking the planning priorities. I've been hearing from you all over the course of this that affordable housing is a priority.

Wetland mitigation is a priority. It might not be the case that we can get all the other extras of the planning priorities out of this site, but we can get the things that Carl just talked about, improving the corner, landscaping, housing, which would be really exciting, some affordable housing and maybe a pedestrian connection. But that's the first thing I want to talk about. We do support the idea of the pedestrian connection, but we want to recommend that you consider directing staff to add language into that section, making it clear that the connection won't reduce the developable area of the site. I believe that's the intent and the idea that we that I heard from staff when they explained that, but it's not clear yet in the code, and I think it could be a bit clearer just to say, provided that this connection is located within the wetland buffer.

And that's currently allowed for in your wetland codes. I think that could be a workable solution. And again, we like the concept of that, but that's our recommendation on the pedestrian connection. If we lose unit count because of that, that would be a shame, and it could be an unintended consequence that diminishes the ability to do housing on the site. Regarding affordable housing requirements, I appreciated the options that staff presented.

Another option we would recommend is considering 80% AMI for the larger units, like the two to three bedrooms. Would recommend that over the staff's option. But in any case, certainly, that option over only 50% AMI across the board, that is a pretty deep affordability level, and we understand that's where you're at in the code right now, but that's just our recommendation on that. And it's just, again, facilitating feasibility over the short term. I'm about to run out of time.

But on the energy code, Commissioner Rosman is the expert on that, and I just want to echo her comments in the last meeting on that, that I don't view that as a priority. It could be just an added cost. Thank you.

Thank you, Jessica. Next up is Meredith Everest, followed by Jeff Schramm. And I believe Jeff will be the last of the in the commenters on the Michael's site representing the Michael's site. Go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Meredith Everest, I'm with Bayless Architects. And I've been working with the applicant to essentially evaluate development opportunities on the site. And one of the questions that has come up that I just wanted to shine some more light on is regarding the wetlands. And we are currently in the process of gaining more information about the wetlands by a wetland consultant to both delineate and classify.

The information that we have right now, we understand there is going to be at least a 110 foot buffer and then a 10 foot building setback beyond that. And that accounts for approximately a third of the site that can be then enhanced for future. And the current building and the current parking area does encroach on the current buffer. Yes, so leaving about twothree of the site for developable area, which roughly could equate to about 150 units. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Jeff Schramm.

Good evening, Commission. Jeff Schramm, transportation engineer with 10W. I've been in front of you before on the same matter, so hello again. What I'd like to do is focus my comments on some of the previous conversations we've had. We know there's always a lot of questions about traffic and transportation.

When I was in front of you before, we talked a lot about what does this site bring and what would the impacts be. And as staff, as Leander very adequately described, normally, some person like myself or our company would get involved as, once a project is has an active permit. Well, what mister mister Peterson has done by hiring us is try to, help you make a good decision by bringing some of the transportation information that normally would be provided at the time of a TIA to try to bring that in front of you as well as address some of the public comments. So a couple of things I wanted to highlight what we what I introduced last time, which is important for the site. And that is when we're looking at the impact of traffic, we have to account for the fact that there's an existing use, the Michaels store that's generating traffic.

So it's not just what would occur there with the rezone, but it's how does it compare to what's generated today. And last time, if you remember, I talked about the fact that we use industry wide trip rates, to do that comparison. I brought that same information and presentation to the city council last month. And councilmember Pascal, as you know, is a transportation professional like myself, had some good comments. And one of the things he asked for was, can we get some data that actually describes the actual Michaels, what it's generating, not just what a general retail use would do.

We've done that. We've also he also asked, can we have that information available to you and to the public? So I've drafted a memo. I don't know if it's made it to you. We've given it to staff and certainly can can send it along.

But basically, that data, what we did is we looked at how much traffic is the Michaels generating today throughout the day as well as peak hours. And what we confirmed is that a Michaels store, which is probably under operating as maybe a normal retail use, is about 10% to 20% less than what a normal just standard retail use would. But by applying that and comparing it to what a rezone would generate, when mister Peterson indicated as he if if he were to develop this as about a 170 units with maybe three three to 4,000 square feet of retail, on an average daily basis, it would be about a wash, meaning the site would generate about a similar number of trips as the current Michaels. And that's important because the concerns about traffic getting in and out of the site are real. During the morning, it would generate more traffic because the Michaels doesn't open until nine But in the PM peak hour, have a lot of the traffic congestion, there would actually be a slightly reduced number of trips.

And I also wanted to just offer that as last time, if questions come up, I have if you have more detailed questions after you hear from public, I'm happy to answer those as well.

Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. All right. And then I think do we only have one commenter from representing the goodwill side? Correct.

Jeremy Eckert. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Jeremy Eckert. I'm with Tharsis Law. It's a small boutique law firm in the Northwest. We are land use counsel for Balboa, and Balboa owns that 4.3 acre assemblage, commonly known as the Goodwill Site. I want to thank staff and Planning Commission for all of your work so far. Previously, you heard from Alison Warner, who is the senior vice president of Balboa. She talked about how to make retail work at the site.

Right now, Alison is out moonlighting on her unpaid job as an Uber driver for her kids. So many can relate, I'm sure. But she might be available at the end of public comment to answer any questions. But right now, she's driving around town. I want to hit on a big picture here, which is we have an opportunity to do something very cool here.

Right now, the Goodwill site is a sea of asphalt, two commercial buildings and no housing. And with redevelopment, as you saw, we have a chance to provide hundreds of units of housing, provide lots of public benefits that include things like mixed use along 100 Ave. Northeast, 15 foot ground floor clearance, generous sidewalks and landscape buffers, public open space, expanded bike infrastructure, a gateway feature. The list goes on. And what's particularly cool here is that the timing is perfect.

Elbowa's leases for the site end in January 2028, which means that once the zoning is in place, we have time to get entitlements and move. The timing works great. Now here's the challenge that we have. In today's capital markets with a marketplace, it is impossible to finance a 4.3 acre, 600 unit apartment. Can say this because I represent multifamily developers, I represent townhome developers, and I represent the banks and lenders.

So this comes in handy here in a quick second. So the key point here is that we will miss this cycle if only stacked dwelling units are allowed. If we miss a cycle, this means that leases will likely remain in place, things will get released, and you continue to have that sea of asphalt there. So what's needed for redevelopment during this cycle? Authorizing townhomes as an independent mixed use is the key for unlocking mixed use development at the site.

I need to be really clear on this. Independent townhomes are the key that make it work. If they aren't there, redevelopment will not happen during this cycle. And to be also very clear, all options in front of you that you've seen limit townhouses. Each one has limits. The code in front of you restricts half the site prohibits townhomes on half the site. There are five questions in front of you for alternatives. Alternative one regarding attached dwelling units. Strongly encourage you to support Alternative three. Options one and two mean that we miss the cycle.

Question two regarding density. Again, we encourage you to support Alternative three. Options one and two will make us miss the cycle as drafted. And if I may, just for a few more seconds because there's only one of me. I also question three about high performance building standards. We support alternative two. And question four regarding affordable housing. We do want to provide affordable housing, and what we'd ask just out of fundamental fairness is that whatever is allowed at the Michaels site would also be allowed at our site. Two parting thoughts, and then I'll be out of your hair. Transportation.

You read the room, a lot of comments. We have Mike Swenson from Transpo Group has prepared a memo. It was in your packet that was before the Planning Commission in April. And it concludes there's capacity there, but it needs to be married up with the planned improvements. So there's a memo in your materials there. And parting thoughts: We do want to redevelop this corner this cycle. Authorizing attached dwelling units is the key. And what we encourage you is just keep things simple. If the code is simple, that means we have a better chance of redeveloping this time. I'll be available if there's any questions after public comment, and hopefully Alison Warner can join us afterwards. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. I we have

question before you. When you're talking about option three for the townhome flexibility, can you explain why option two would be an issue?

And are we talking about

For the townhome flexibility.

Yes. If I'm understanding, there's attachment A and there's question one, right, which says regarding attached dwelling units. There's three options. Is that what we're talking about?

Sorry to

get so wonky here. But, yeah. Okay. Great. So Option one, if I recall, says prohibit them outright. So that's we're not talking about that. Option three is allow them as independent use. And Option two said allow townhomes if they're part of a mixed use site. Is that a fair the issue with that is that it needs to make the project work. You need to find a multifamily developer that knows how to work with townhomes.

And I know, Commissioner Rosman, that some of those exist, but they're very hard to find. Typically, what you'll find are that there are developers who are townhome developers and there are developers who are multifamily developers. And so to make the site work, ultimately, what we need to do is create two development sites so we have two different developers coming in. Marrying those together makes it very challenging and makes it less likely the site will redevelop.

Thank you.

Thank you for your question.

Is this another question for Akhir? Okay.

Yeah. So this is, again, I'm probably slightly silly, but if we divide them into effectively two sites, how do we know, in that case, that both of them will be fully developed, that, you know, we won't just have the townhouse site and then the other site goes off into some sort of limbo?

That's a really good question, and that's a challenge that we've been struggling with, with staff. We've had many, many conversations with staff hours, presume, at this point. One of the ways that we did this key point number one is make sure the capacity is always there for the mixed use development. So markets change. We know that.

You've been on the planning commission long enough. They come and they go. So the key point here is, if we do, with the site, make it so there's always the ability to have townhomes there plus the mixed use development, and that's how it's drafted in the code before you. One of the ways that staff has attempted to address this is with the density provision, saying, Hey, look. The townhome site can have a lower density, and townhomes are typically cap on at about 24 dwelling units per acre.

Staff have said, well, we can potentially have a density requirement where if townhomes went first, that density provision would mean that you're forced to do multifamily on the corner there. There is a question before you, which is in attachment five a question two. We encourage you not to have that density restriction to let the marketplace work, to have that flexibility. But if you did want to have a density provision, I can say that the two as drafted don't work. What we would ask you to do is have staff work with Balboa to craft a density provision that does work to address that concern.

That's a good question. Thank you. Thank you, Jeremy. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

And with that, I think we are ready to move into the general public comment, and so I will go ahead and read the formal introduction at this point. In order to hear from as many people as possible tonight, we're allowing any individual wishing to provide comments to speak for a maximum of three minutes. The timer on the lectern will flash a yellow light when thirty seconds remain and a red light when your time has ended. To be fair to all speakers, we will adhere strictly to the three minute limit. The Commission wants to hear from as many different views and opinions as possible.

If you have already heard another speak another speaker state your comment, please consider not repeating the comment and instead provide a comment or perspective that is unique to you. In making your comments, we ask that you please direct them to the commission. But this is not a time for give and take with the commission. Furthermore, obscene, profane, threatening, harassing, or abusive language toward the commission, the city staff, or those in the audience are not allowed. As audience members, please refrain from any demonstrative agreement or disagreement with the speaker, such as clapping, cheering, or booing.

These actions are not only disruptive, they may also intimidate or have the effect of excluding others in the community whose views may differ. We will begin the comment period with the list of people here who are in person who have signed up to speak and, when I call your name, approach the dais to address us. Online audience members may indicate that you wish to speak by raising your hand in the Zoom meeting now. When it is your turn to speak, we will admit you into the virtual room as a panelist. And please remain muted until I call your name.

And then you may unmute to address the commission. All right. So the first I have on the list here is Lauren Hall Steigerts.

Hello, Commission. I'll keep this brief because my little one is here with me and she needs to go to bed. So good evening and thank you for all of your service and dedication to Kirkland. I know you volunteer a significant amount of time and energy to guide our city's future and I'm grateful for your work. My name is Lauren Hall Steigerts and I live in less than a mile away from the Michaels site.

I'm here tonight to voice strong support for the proposed redevelopment of the Michaels and Goodwill sites in Juanita. As a nearby resident who shops at both stores, I understand the value of their current use, but I believe these properties are far more valuable as vibrant community centered spaces. This is a once in a generation opportunity to reimagine our urban centers with more housing options, safer pedestrian and bike infrastructure, and welcoming public spaces. I especially urge you to include retail frontage on Juanita Drive and prioritize a a corner market. We need more walkable essentials in this area and safer biking for families like mine.

I'd love to be able to work or or to walk or ride safely with my kids to a thriving neighborhood hub. This is a fantastic opportunity to reengineer our already congested roads in this area, in these areas. Please work in partnership with transportation to reduce congestion in future development, reduce car dependency by bringing more frequent and diverse transit service lines through the area and along Juanita Drive and provide parking requirements aligned with SB 5,184. Also, please consider alternatives one or two for the Goodwill site as they will allow for higher housing density. Kirkland needs more housing options and this location with transit access and proximity to services is ideal.

Finally, don't let fear hold us back. You have an exciting vision before you. Please keep it moving forward. I'm excited for the future of Juanita and the ideas you're proposing. Thank you.

Thank you, Lauren. The next on the list is Kate Conant, followed by Katie Gibbons.

Hello, Planning Commission and staff. I'm Kate Conant. I'm a Winnetah resident of Kirkland. And my comments are regarding the JBD IV zoning code, Michaels and Kath Callie. I'd like to thank you for including provision for conditional easement for a park to park pedestrian connection in the zoning code.

I appreciate you embracing and supporting the vision, but it's not a straight path. And I appreciate the hard work of staff members who have written a truly intelligent piece of script to incorporate phase development contingency plans and flexibility as we go forward. We can't see how this is going to roll out, but at least you've put in place a placeholder that continues to make it a possibility for the future and enables us to preserve the possibility for a park to park connection for future residents. Thank you.

Thank you, Kate. Next is Katie Gibbons, followed by maybe we should start pointing people from the online audience. So shush me to Shrikanth. Hi.

I am also a resident of Juanita, and I, you know, walked past that Michaels on the way to the beach and go to the Goodwill. And I also strongly recommend redeveloping because we need more housing, and we need housing that we can get and housing that we can build and housing that we can build soon because costs escalate. I am also strongly for the easement because I think that would make the whole area but walkable, and I like building housing next to existing transit, and the more we could do to bulk up that transit in the future to support that and the existing residents would be fantastic. So please build more houses.

Thank you, Katie. I think we have our panelists is lined up, so you can go ahead and unmute and introduce yourself.

Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Sushmita Srikanth. I've lived in Finhill neighborhood for sixteen years now. I'm raising two young kids, ages 10 and four, and every summer, we host extended family for weeks. During the pandemic, I started a small support group for postpartum moms in our neighborhood.

Today, that circle has grown into a thriving thriving community of over 800 families from all walks of life, families who come together to celebrate holy and Halloween and the everyday magic of raising children and kids. I'm not just a resident. I'm someone deeply invested in how the city grows and who it includes. And while we've built community, we've also had to improvise around shrinking infrastructure. I commute home from work in Redmond every day Monday to Friday, a trip that's grown longer and more stressful since the pandemic.

Cuts in transportation have left many of us increasingly stranded. With the possible k line not expected until 2030, families like mine are patching together solutions, especially when relatives are visiting for weeks over the summer. Even joy brings challenges. Take the Wanita Friday market, something we truly enjoy as a family, but it adds fifteen minutes to an already long commute with stop and go traffic and the hunt for parking. When paid parking was briefly introduced at the Vanita Village, even that small change hurt nearby small businesses and restaurants, showing how delicate the balance truly is.

Add in charity runs, festivals, and seasonal events, and the strain becomes undeniable. Where will new residents, many with just 0.5 parking spaces per unit go when the pressure hits? There's no clear answer. For months, we've asked for moderation, not resistance to growth, but a fair, balanced, and community centered approach. We've asked to be represented, not overrun, in decisions that reshape our city.

Tonight's proposal up zones the Michaels and Goodwill sites for 77 affordable units, 60 at Goodwill and 17 at Michaels, but at what cost? More traffic, less parking, larger building, and added strain on one of Kirkland's busiest corridors. This isn't a debate about whether affordable housing matters. It absolutely does. The question is whether this plan provides enough public value to justify this impact.

There's still no traffic analysis, no clarity on peak hour volumes, and no data on emergency access, especially with park shows nearby. The last study mentioned was 2022. There's been a lot of changes since then. Even the developer feasibility claims haven't been independently verified. If this up zone is essential, show us the math because it looks like financials work for them, but not for us. We're asking single family homebuilders who can't pass the new tax on to others to absorb rising costs while developers face no limits on profits or obligations to prove financial need.

Thank you, Sushmita. Yeah. Next up is here in the audience, Kyle in the live audience, Kyle Sullivan. And then following that, I see I think Debbie Lacey is the next online commenter.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I live in the Bridal Trails neighborhood. That's with my parents. That's where I grew up. That's where I lived my whole life. Our neighborhood center is currently being largely partially redeveloped. So these two places are in neighborhood centers. Everything that we discussed during this whole comp plan process we landed on. We want to build in neighborhood centers. That's where this type of growth is supposed to happen. Are both of these sites perfect? No. I don't think there is a single perfect site left in Kirkland. If you go somewhere that has lots of transfer transit options like downtown, well, there just aren't vacant parcels in downtown.

We wanted people wanted a low downtown. So unless we are going to raise the height in all of downtown or, you know, pave a park, which I don't recommend we do, there isn't really capacity in, like, you know, the most core of downtown. But we have all of these neighborhood centers that are at low density uses uses. So we can achieve the housing supply that we need by building in these places. I, in general, always support more affordable housing, but I recognize the need to be flexible.

And there is a housing cascade effect where, you know, if not everyone that moves into these places is gonna be moving from outside the city, they may move from other older apartments and that would free them up for other people and that can in turn eventually bring costs down. So I support it for that reason. Though it's also intention with, you know, again, I understand the need for flexibility, but that's intention with how do we get the most housing out of these sites. Because, again, there are only so many places that we can build. So I understand the desire to have townhomes in the Goodwill site.

But I worry that we need to carefully craft this because, you know, there's already that project on the 80 Fifth Street Station area that is going to be all townhomes. And no one that I've talked to at the city is super pleased about that happening. So I I think it's in our best interest to ensure that that doesn't happen. I think there are a lot more places where townhomes are possible or feasible to be built, either in current regulations or in the future. So I think it's really in our best interest to try to get as high density in these neighborhood centers as possible.

I can understand some flexibility, but I think the priority needs to be on the most housing in these places. I also support aligning with the lower state parking minimums because, you know, this time frame that we're talking about, it's a tight time frame. We don't want developers to be sitting on projects because they think the state requirements might kick in if they want to take advantage of those. And there's no guarantee that they even will. You know, if they think everyone will drive to their development, they will provide the parking spaces. If they don't provide the parking spaces that their customers will need, they won't have customers, and then they go out of business. So it's in their best interest to do so.

Thank you. Thank you, Kyle. Next is Debbie Lacey, online, and then after that will be Luke Travis. Debbie, you can go ahead and unmute.

Thank you so much. Good evening, everyone. I am Debbie Lacey, a twenty year homeowner here in Juanita. And as someone who passes through these areas several times a week, I believe there are appropriate places for development that can help meet Kirkland's housing and affordability goals. I do appreciate hearing about the city's plans for addressing assessed transportation impacts.

Transportation impacts throughout the region are important to all of us. The improvements that would be made possible with the added capacity look like they would enhance pedestrian experience and mitigate some safety concerns. So personally, as a mom too, I'm in support of where the city is heading and excited about the public benefits. But I'm also speaking on behalf of my role with East Side for All, a nonprofit that supports racial equity and belonging in East King County. We do that through programs, convening communities, and engaging with urban planning efforts.

We prioritize the needs and hopes of community members who have been most impacted by the lack of affordable housing and who are at high risk of displacement, as well as people who work here but can't afford to live in Kirkland and the adult children of Kirkland residents who aren't able to continue living in Kirkland, for example. So we do support more multifamily housing and hope for developments that go beyond the minimum inclusionary requirements for affordability. With regards to townhomes, as the previous speaker said, we believe that building a lot of townhomes makes it harder for Kirkland to meet the majority of housing needs. So we encourage the full use of the allowed density that can be affordable to lower and middle incomes. Overall, we look forward to more mixed use pedestrian oriented neighborhoods and we see Kirkland poised to incorporate more innovative and community oriented developments with affordable commercial spaces as well to support small business owners and more community gathering spaces, which are known to enhance well-being, health, and civic involvement.

Thank you, commissioners, and thank you to staff for all your hard work and making sure that your presentations are easy to understand. I especially appreciate that. Thank you all very much.

Thank you, Debbie. Next is Luke Travis, followed by online commenter Krusi.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm a resident of Juanita. I have lived there as both a homeowner and a renter. I'm also a member of my neighborhood association there in Juanita. And incidentally, we just had a Garden Tour last weekend, and thank you to everyone who came out for it. Specifically, I think I remember Scott's name on our sign up. So thanks for coming out for that, Scott. I also want to stress that I'm not speaking in my capacity as a Board member for our Neighborhood Association, just like I am not speaking in my capacity as a member of the Design Review Board here in Kirkland. I want to say that I think that the staff draft is, in general, pretty good. It's a good balance of sorely needed housing, including affordable housing, and balances out with public amenities.

I think that, as someone who goes past Michael's site twice a day on my way to and from work in peak hours, mind you, and as someone who has to go past the Goodwill site every time I go to Safeway, I think that increased height and density make a lot of sense. In these prime walkable locations, They have good access to local transit, bike facilities, shops and schools. A sign that has been brought up a lot is traffic, and that is quite understandable. Affordability is also a prime concern. And I think that the obvious solution to both these things is ideally exactly the same, which is reduce parking.

As the previous speaker mentioned, we don't we're not concerned about having new neighbors. We welcome them in Juanita. But what people are worried about is the cars that new neighbors might bring with them. If we reduce the amount of parking here or, at the very least, give the developer the flexibility to have reduced parking, then we are going to have less cars. This is not saying that everyone in Juanita can't have one, two, however many cars they want to have. This is just saying we need to find like 100 people who are willing to forgo a car, people who are just out of college, for instance, people who have a limited income, people who are older, maybe have a disability. One third of Americans don't drive, so this really isn't difficult. Yeah. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Luke. Next is Shruti, followed by James Kosalos, who will be in the audience. Shruti, you can start by introducing yourself.

Hi, everyone. Thank you so much, first of all, for the opportunity for public comment. I am Shruti. I live in the Juanita neighborhood, roughly a mile from the Michael site along with my husband and my 14 old. I think I wanna thank the staff for all of your work on the proposal so far, and I wanna start by expressing strong support for the opportunity to redevelop the Michael site.

It's a highly visible corner that has seen years of turnover, and I agree that it has great potential to bring new energy as well as, like, vibrancy to the community. But that said, I do have concerns about how the current proposal aligns with the area's infrastructure and the environmental context. It's not a simple site. It introduces the proposal introduces significant height and intensity, but I worry that it's without the infrastructure in place to support it. And I wanna echo what others have raised in terms of the traffic issue, but highlight something that seems to be a little overlooked, which is the pedestrian crosswalks themselves.

It's one of the most congested intersections in Kirkland and during peak hours, the pedestrian activated signals are flashing left and right. It it's actually hard to cross the road, and I think traffic suffers as a result too already. With more residents, reduced parking, increased food traffic, I think we need a clear and proactive plan for managing not just the vehicle flow, but also the pedestrian safety before this project moves forward. Concurrency planning is meant to anticipate growth. I completely understand that.

But this feels like a major intensification that exceeds current system capacity, especially without player traffic mitigation or environmental safeguards in place. And, environmentally, the site is kinda nestled between Punada Bay and Punada Beach Park, both of which are beloved community spaces. They're vital wildlife habitats. And I was surprised that there wasn't, much of a buffer requirement that was required or even stronger environmental standards in place to protect the current kind of layout. I am not opposed to growth.

In fact, I strongly support it when it's done well. I think those both of the sites offer an excellent opportunity to add more vibrancy to our community. But I am requesting and asking for development that is thoughtful, proportional and responsive to the current character and ecological sensitivity of the neighborhood. Thanks again for your time and for encouraging community voices in the process.

Thank you, Shruti. James Kosalos is next.

My name is James Kosalos, and I'm speaking to you as a long time resident of Finn Hill, the top of the hill. And I can assure you all that the traffic is not acceptable now. If we think that twice a day, a half kilometer to a kilometer long line at the bottom of the hill is acceptable, then I think we need to redefine the word. So as far as I'm concerned, there are three really important things that we need to consider if we're gonna take this road of development. The first is bulldoze everything, plant some trees, and turn both sites into park.

Even if we do that, there's too much traffic, and we need to figure out how to fix the traffic. At the present, it's unacceptable. So development going forward is gonna make the traffic worse. That's obvious. So traffic is first on the list for me, and I think you'll find that from everybody who lives on Finn Hill. Parking is another issue, and affordable housing is another issue. I think we should any path we take, if it isn't turning those sites into park, it's making sure we maximize the affordable housing. Thank you very much. Thank you, James.

Next let's see. It looks like Alison Warner is ready to be just well, will be ready to speak after we promote her to the panelists. So get her ready. In the meantime, Liz Hunt is the last one on my list, and I'll ask Steph to check if there's anyone else who's signed in since then. So Liz Hunt, you can go ahead and come and then or maybe I'll I don't know. Either way, from a moment I saw, also was on the screen, but now I don't. So I guess, Liz, go ahead and come forward.

Good evening. I'm Liz Hunt. I'm a resident. I live fairly close to the Michaels site. I go through there on foot, on bike, occasionally on car, so pretty familiar with it. I was hoping to have one more speaker so I could collect my thoughts better. But that's okay. I'll go. So first of all, I agree with the comment that we need more walkable essentials in that area. There's a real shortage of them there.

I think redevelopment at these sites is a good idea. The devil is going to be in the details. I do have a question, though. Is Kirkland getting enough public benefit for what we're giving away with these up zones? That's my question one of my questions. The properties have some value today. These changes that are being proposed are going to increase that value quite significantly. We do get some public benefits, but is there a good balance? Let's take the Michaels site, for example. Height is going to probably go from 26 foot to 75 foot.

That's almost 3x the volume. There will be reduced parking requirements, which will be a cost savings. There will be an increased lot coverage from 80% to 100%, most likely. So think of a development box. You've got 20% more land area, and that whole area adds 75 feet. So that's an added value of development to the property. So that's a pretty hefty chunk of additional development capacity. I hear there are going to be benefits, which is great. There will be more housing, which we know we need, which is great. It won't be free, but we will have more.

This pathway that's being discussed, I think, is a fabulous idea. Those of us that live near there have been talking about that for over twenty years as a need. So yes. Improving the corners, the sidewalk, the bike path, that's all good. Affordable The housing, the incentive, the inclusive zoning, the amount of that is not really changing from what I hear.

There can be some variation on how it's calculated, but that's not a big change. So that's the summary of the benefits. And is that really a good tradeoff for the amount of increased development capacity? That is something I'd like to hear more about. Traffic, I echo a lot of the comments that have already been made.

I'm confused about how the there isn't enough information yet to do a traffic study, but yet the comprehensive plan studies have shown that the infrastructure can handle the increased growth if we add a second turn lane off of 90 Eighth or the northbound road. That turns left, so now you have two left turns, but it only goes to one lane after about 20 feet. So I'm not really sure how much that helps. So thank you very much for your time. I'm out.

Thank you, Liz. And next is Alison Warner, followed by Ben Gross. And that's the end of my list. Allison, go ahead.

Hello. Good evening, chair Rathe Bird, planning commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to speak as part of the public comment. As a single working mom with pickup duties, I'm sure many, many people in the room can understand the many demands that all of us are under, but I definitely wanna make sure that, I talk a little bit about our goodwill site. I am the senior vice president of Balboa Retail Partners.

We own the goodwill site in North Juanita. Quick blurb on Balboa Retail Partners. We own, we operate, we invest in retail shopping centers, mostly grocery anchored community centers. We're very invested in in many communities out the country. What makes us a little bit different about a lot of shopping center owners is we also recognize that a lot of retail space is obsolete and very challenging to release and in much need of redevelopment.

The goodwill site is one of those where it's a large surface parking lot, and it's positioned really well to be redeveloped for multifamily housing. And that is one of a very small handful of properties that we own in our portfolio where that's the right answer to serve the community. And so I come to you not not as a residential developer, you know, looking to maximize the number of units to maximize, you know, the money that we make, but I I come to you as someone who actually wants to make that property a better property in the community. That being said, a handful of our properties ripe for redevelopment are for very large 500 plus unit developments that are currently actively falling apart because there just isn't financing or capital available to build those projects. Because of that, we've been working very closely with staff to craft very particular zoning standards that address the goals that we understand the community and the city would like to see while allowing for flexibility for redevelopment to respond to current market demands.

And so a couple things that I wanna point to are, one, allowing townhomes as an independent use, However, restricting the portion of the site where they're allowed, is a first step towards making sure that the remaining portion of the site still develops in a way that really anchors the North Juanita neighborhood with a fantastic development on the corner of A Hundredth And A Hundred And 130 Fourth. You know, in regards to the question about why phased multifamily and townhomes, or a single project would or wouldn't work. I think that when you tie the two together, you're basically bogging down the bill the ability to build any housing by waiting for when multifamily is ready to move forward. So then we're in a position of no housing or releasing the obsolete retail space for the next ten to twenty years. Whereas if you allow for a townhome project to move forward first, that really does truly help her flexibility with financing a project as well as provides a variety of housing.

I think I only have three minutes tonight, and not five, so I'll kinda leave it there. But quickly, if you'll allow, I do just wanna say that we have full intentions of doing a traffic impact analysis when we have a full project built out, whether that's 600 apartment units or 300 apartment units and 50 townhomes. But we do plan to do that and address all of the community's concerns in regards to traffic. And we do fully support staff's recommendations and look forward to working with you all in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Allison. The last commenter I have on my list here is Ben Gross.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate everybody's hard work here. A lot of my comments would mirror what other people said, so for the sake of time, I'll keep it brief. A little bit of background of who I am. I'm an active Board member of a commercial real estate company that operates in five states. I'm also personally a commercial real estate owner. I'm pro development but not in both sides. I'm a longtime resident on Finn Hill. And I think anybody that drives the road twice a day during peak hours can tell you that it's pretty inadequate as it is. And I'm curious about some of the comments that were made during about the last traffic study.

It seems like it was done during COVID when there wasn't as much traffic going in and out. And I'm also curious to hear more about the thresholds for what the traffic study, like, what the guidance is of what it should be to allow acceptable traffic. That's probably something I can read about as we go, but something that would be interesting to hear the council talk about and express their opinion about. And for some of the other real estate numbers, like strong COFIC counts are usually a huge basis for commercial real estate property value. So the fact that these are being looked at means that the traffic is really good.

I don't know that I would maybe there was a comment about it being a wash overall last time. But I think that's like an aggregate. It's not during those peak studies. Going to Juanita Beach today with my kids is a little bit dangerous. I'm always nervous because of all the road traffic that's there. Somebody correctly mentioned that the pedestrian walking through, the pedestrian crosswalks are always really busy. And there's always people that they happen to merge right there at Juanita Village. And then I appreciate all the comments about the we needing more vibrant community centers. Like, agree. I love it here.

I just think that like we have Juanita Village there. Probably my position might be a little bit different. I think one development makes a lot of sense, especially the Goodwill. I think it can be a really good spot for commercial real estate. I think it would really brighten that area. For people that come in and they want to live there, the schools are right across the street. It's a very walkable place if you can develop it that way. But my biggest concern is, as someone that lives on Finn Hill, is if you put development in both of those spots, you're going to clog up ingress and egress. There's not going be a way for me to escape. I'll have to go all the way up north through Kenmore or I'll have to go through Simons just to not hit the traffic that's going to be generated.

So thank you for your time. I appreciate everybody's hard work. And, yeah. Thank you, Ben.

All right. I think that brings us to the end of public comment. So I will, at least for now, go ahead and close public comment. And we will now start with commission deliberation unless there's further guidance from staff.

Just a quick question. Just for staff and commissioners and staff downstairs that are running video equipment, we try to take a break every couple of hours. We're almost at two hours. I'd ask the commission if you want to go ahead and take a short break before you begin your deliberation conversations.

I also wondering the same if you want to do a break now. If not, I would say, like, we could do one round of initial round of comments while everything is fresh in your mind and then go to break. Wanna take the temperature now or after what? After a round? After a round? Do a round while everything's fresh. Sounds good. Who would like to kick things off? And and also, should say, I'm anticipating that we will not have a motion in this initial round. I just want everyone to have a chance to get their thoughts in the air.

Commissioner Reisser? Okay.

While looking at this and one of the things that do have more concerns on the Michael site than I have on goodwill. I think goodwill I hate the fact that we wouldn't be putting as much density as we can there, but I also understand that we need flexibility to get something going. I do have concerns that we might not see what we really want for another ten or fifteen years, and that is a huge concern on goodwill site that we would get townhomes and then it's stagnant for and we're not going to be getting the affordable housing that we need and the density that we need. On the Michael site, this is my strongest reservations. And it is traffic, the reduced parking minimums, the horrible egress from this property.

And one of the things I would like to bring up and at least have a thought on is that if the I am so sorry that I'm going to say the restaurant wrong. The Caffakali, I apologize. It's so hard to look at the way it's written and say the word correctly, and I don't want to offend anybody. But that there wouldn't be some type of incentive or benefit to have both properties developed together. And being that, hey, if we want 75 feet, we already have that the we were allowing zero lot line.

It just seems if the both properties develop together, there could be such benefit for the retail frontage, also benefit for entering and exiting the property. I would be much more in favor of giving 75 feet if the properties develop together. Otherwise, I don't see how it can be taller than what we have at Juanita Village, which is six stories. And I realize, hey. Even though you it says in this to allow for a 100% lot coverage, the wetland buffer will never allow that.

So that's misleading to the public, I think, when it's presented as 100% lot coverage. Neither property can ever get 100% lot coverage. But I would like a proposal that, yes, they could get the full 75 feet if there is a way to have the properties developed together because even if it's under different ownership, because you could get a better traffic flow so that it could enter and exit off of both Market Street and off of Juanita Drive. So those are my initial comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Reisser. Commissioner Medea?

Thank you. I would actually like to echo Scott's concerns. But before I do, I want to just talk about what I do like about the JBD4 zoning proposals. I am a big fan of the pedestrian improvements. The park connections between the two parks is definitely a benefit.

I agree with counsel's noting the importance of striking a balance to avoid hindering near term housing development and allowing flexibility in the AMI thresholds for the rental occupied units. And I think we do need to reconsider the high performance building standards in that space. I do agree with Commissioner Eisor about the increased benefit if we could develop both those parcels at the same time that could mitigate some of the traffic challenges by allowing for better ingress and egress. I'm still not convinced that the, traffic mitigation, proposals are going to be enough to mitigate the challenges at that site today. And it is a little concerning potentially if those studies were done during COVID.

I could see why those numbers would have been lower at that time. I will throw this out now just in case it comes up later because it is one of the alternatives that we have think about with the Michael site. Whatever happens at that site, I think in particular, that deserves more of a DBR design board review versus an administrative design review. I could support that more at the, goodwill site. I am less concerned about development at the goodwill site, and I agree as well that, while it's unfortunate, with the economic environment that we might not be able to get the max capacity at goodwill, I'm really hearing what the developer is saying about the need to unlock the potential there by starting with townhomes.

It's not the ideal. I was more in favor of alternative two, but I think alternative three is what's going to be necessary.

Commissioner Nolan?

Just on the goodwill side, and this would again be probably a question for staff, but I'm curious if there's a way to have kind of Option three, the most flexible option, that still in some way puts in provisions that would at least reduce, preferably eliminate the possibility that we end up with kind of this half of the site is townhomes and then the other half of the site is in limbo for the next, as noted, very long period of time, potentially fifteen, twenty years. I don't know if that's possible, but I'd certainly be far more in favor of Option three if that particular concern was alleviated.

Would staff like to reflect on that?

I can jump in briefly, and I think, Commissioner Nolan, that that's what staff has tried to present in Option two, be requiring some sort of phasing or review process or approval process that would sort of approve the townhomes and an apartment building as a whole. But that is what we tried to put together an option to. As Leandra noted during her presentation, it is kind of complex to think procedurally how to codify that type of assurance into it while acknowledging that townhomes might happen first. As you start deliberating, we can try to kind of jump in where we might be helpful as you weigh those options in more detail.

Commissioner Jacobson?

Few comments. I'll start with that since it's fresh on the mind. My understanding is the concern for the locking the site away from redevelopment for the next ten to fifteen years is if the developer decides to do nothing. And I would guess that if they're going to build the townhomes, they have to demolish the goodwill and that would essentially commit them to doing something with the other site. And so there wouldn't be, I'm guessing, that concern with the releasing possibility.

At a very high level, I think one of the things that we haven't focused enough on is that as part of the comprehensive plan, we said that we would build on these sites. We told the state that we would build on these sites to the maximum capacity. As I understand, we are basically barely meeting our HB twelve twenty affordable housing requirements. So and we may even not, given some of the changes that happened with the Southern Industrial sub area, comparing the original proposal to what we eventually recommended. So any conversation of reducing the scale of either of these sites, I would be very curious to hear from my fellow planning commissioners where else you would like the development to go if not here.

These these are not the best places in Kirkland, they are far from the worst. I could think of a lot of places that have significantly less access to transit. For example, up on Finn Hill where we would just be creating the exact same traffic problem with sending cars down these streets. I don't see that as a reasonable solution. I would love it if we could maximize density at both of these sites, but I think we do need to account for the economic reality that if we, given how leasing schedules work, if we don't make it feasible within the next few years, these sites will be locked away and we will see no affordable housing for the next ten, fifteen, twenty years.

And that might technically comply with HB twelve twenty, but in practice it would result in not enough affordable housing. So I am gonna be looking for everything that we can do to make the projects feasible to even a partial redevelopment. Obviously, more apartments at these sites would be better for affordability, but we have to recognize that that's not that's not a 100% practical right now. And then I think on the parking, I find it so interesting how sometimes people will say that they want to maximize housing this decade, not the next decade, and then try and slow walk complying with state law. So I think we should just comply with SB five thousand one eighty four.

It's, my view, not reasonable to try and drag our feet on that. And I might have more comments, but I think that covered all the important things.

Thank you, Ana Jacobson. Commissioner Rosman? Vice Chair Rosman?

Sure. So I'm going to start with the Michael site, and then I'll talk about Goodwill and then a couple of comments generally. For starters, I would really love to see the Waterside pedestrian path. I don't want it to be a reason why this project doesn't happen, but I think we can be creative and find ways to make that go forward. It's something that the city and the community has talked about for a really long time, so I think that would be great.

And I do also want to say that I'm a Finhill resident. I bought my home fourteen years ago now. I'm a born and bred Kirklander, but I've been in Finhill for fourteen years. So I'm extraordinarily aware of what it's like on those roads, morning and evening, both in my car and on my bike. I do want to say, though, that the traffic is already there.

And as we've seen with the studies, that redevelopment would not increase traffic over what it is. That doesn't mean that it is great right now, but I see that more as a city responsibility in terms of traffic flows and not a site that is not going to increase that traffic. And if, you know, the study is a couple of years old and we are saying that traffic is worse than it was, that means that the intensity is going to go up and down in tandem. So if a redevelopment is still not going to increase the amount of traffic, it I don't know that I think it really matters whether traffic is at x or y amount other than, I think, as a city, we need to talk about that on, you know, public roads. And then as far as the wetland mitigation, I do see that as an important piece of this, and I hope we will see redevelopment on this site because we're going to have a better environmental situation at the point that the project is redeveloped.

Right now, it goes quite a bit into the wetland buffer that with redevelopment, it would actually be a better site environmentally. And then I did want to note that there was a comment about the two to three bedroom affordability requirement, and I know that the City of Bellevue and others have talked about that as potential having a higher requirement for two, three bedroom units. And we really need family sized units and the affordability requirements have been the reason why a lot of projects have really focused on the studios and ones because financially that is how that works, especially when there are inclusionary requirements. So I would love to at least talk about a consideration about having a slightly higher affordability requirement for two and three bedrooms. And then as far as the Goodwill site, I definitely don't love the townhome situation.

I've been pretty vocal about how I feel like we lost a really big opportunity in the station area with townhomes going in there instead of mixed use. However, I also don't want to wait twenty years. So with that as the situation we are in now, I think I would rather see a split site of townhomes and the potential of mixed use someday rather than nothing happening and having a lease renewed for twenty years and knowing that for at least twenty years and probably longer we won't see anything happen there. So I want to be careful and make sure that we write code that doesn't preclude development on the Goodwill site while making sure that we have some pretty strong protections that it won't be a 100% townhomes only situation like we've seen off eighty fifth. And then more generally for both sites, I am in strong favor of approving parking per SB 5,184 right now.

Any project that is going to start permitting in the near future, eighteen months is not that long from now. Really, it's like seventeen months now. And so any project that's going to happen is going to be under those 5,184 requirements, whether we put in interim parking code and then have to do a rewrite next year and put 5,184 in place, it's not going to change the amount of parking that's going to be built anywhere around here. So I would like us to be prudent on staff time and city budgets and do the parking rules one time. That's it for now.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rosman. I guess I'll go ahead and I think I'm the last one. I'll go ahead and wrap up with my comments. For the Michael site, I see this as a unique opportunity to restore the wetlands buffer. That's what I see is so compelling about trying to figure out what are the ways that we could make this a viable project.

Also, just making it a more useful place for people, especially people who are going to the park, be they living there or using retail that's useful for people who are visiting the parks and the opportunity for creating a connector that's more pleasant between the parks than the existing sidewalk. On about the thoughts around requiring sites near Michaels to be developed together, I think that those concerns can be addressed. I anticipate that at the time of permitting, they'll likely be required to negotiate easements potentially with the Kothikali site that maybe would require access across their site. And that's something I think I expect that that would be handled through at the time of permitting and figuring out what sort of access do they need at that site and without requiring the sites to be developed together. As I think it's well known by many, I'm a fan of nurturing incremental development and smaller scale increments of development, and I see this as an opportunity to figure out how can we enable that and even enabling just one of these sites to proceed without the other for the time being.

In a similar vein with the goodwill site, that's I'm thinking about that as well. There's always talk about townhomes. I'm hopeful that we might see new forms of attached and or stacked smaller scale incremental forms of housing on that site, especially with building codes that are, I believe, in the course of being updated or being updated soon to make those more viable. Maybe we could even be a pioneer in nurturing that and find some way of getting some utility out of that beyond the sea of asphalt that is there today. And yeah, ultimately, there's a lot of interest in retaining or recreating open space.

Having the housing here obviously will prevent more open space from being taken if we don't build here or if we don't nurture building of homes here. And instead, as a result, far more trees get taken down in places that are not yet developed. So by absorbing the growth here and allowing people to be closer to the places they need to be, we can make better use of the existing developed land we have today. So as to the question of where else could housing go if if this isn't built to the full extent, I anticipate we'll be digging into that question with the update of the neighborhood centers plans in which I think is on our work program next year.

It's not on the work program, but when Planning Commission recommended the currently adopted work program to Council, you indicated that you wanted to consider adding it to the next year's work program. So we have it bookmarked, we'll bring it forward as a potential addition.

Great. Okay. Yeah. So yes, especially if we find that we're constrained on the opportunities here by practical realities of economics, then that I see as a way of that we could flex and take advantage of those upcoming opportunities. So I think that's it, unless anyone has any need for pressing responses before we take a break?

No? Do you want a ten minute or a fifteen minute break? If a break can be also useful to, like, reflect and gather your thoughts before we start the next round. So what do you think? Fifteen minutes? Ten? Ten. Ten. All right. Ten it is.

So 08:15. We will be back here to resume. All right. This meeting of the Planning Commission is called back to order. And we will now resume our deliberations on the two Juanita rezoning proposals.

Mr. Chair? Yes. Could just interject for a moment. We're going to work on getting we have some slides that might guide your discussion or motions when you're ready. Before that, I think, just given the conversation and to help clarify for anyone listening in, we had just a couple points that we wanted to kind of provide some clarifications on in case that's helpful to you or any community members tuning in.

Great. Thank you.

Yes. So just to clarify kind of the scope of the amendments, the JBD 4 zone encompasses the Kothikali site as well as the Michaels property, so comments regarding developing together, just wanted to elevate the fact that they will be under similar zoning as these amendments move forward and eventually go to adoption. And then regarding the BC 1 study area, through allowing townhomes as an allowed independent or available within a mixed use development, the zoning would still allow a possibility for apartments. In other words, the maximum capacity is still 75 feet across both all of the study area, and so the capacity would still be there, just in case anyone is unclear on that.

Great. Thank you. Can I ask a clarifying question on that? Once townhomes are built, does that change capacity needs in other areas? Other areas of this Greater study capacity once the once it's underutilized from what capacity it could have, does that mean we have to increase capacity in other areas?

Yeah. I can take a stab at that, Commissioner Reiser, and I'd invite Adam or Leandro to jump in. So granting the capacity gives us sort of the credit or it's what the State is reviewing as the capacity, what the site is zoned for. Now, we would, when we look at our next comp plan update and have to rerun our capacity analysis. So when the State is looking at our existing units on the ground in Kirkland and what our next set of growth targets might be, then they're looking at actuals.

So down the road, they'd be looking at actual units on the ground. But for this comp plan cycle we just completed and the state requirements that are currently being certified, the zoning capacity is what's being reviewed.

Yeah. The only thing I would add to what Allison said is that there's also a five year check-in after the comp plan is adopted as well. And so, you know, we will be looking at that point at, you know, the number of units that have been developed over the course of time between the update of the comp plan and that five year mark after adoption of the comp plan. Now, it's likely that for this cycle, a lot of things are gonna be happening in the housing market that are going to stymie housing development. Right? So all those things will be taken into account in existing how our in addition to how our existing zoning is performing as well. So it won't be, like, a very straightforward you've down zoned here. You need to add capacity elsewhere. There'll be other factors that we'll be taking into account to figure out how well our zoning is performing,

if that makes sense. So the reason I was asking is because it's not as dire as sometimes we feel the you know, if we don't do the capacity to the fullest extent that we're not meeting standards. So that is basically my question. Does that mean that, okay, now we have to do it someplace else in the neighborhood?

If the if the capacity isn't granted, we would need to we we may need to find other places for the capacity for the zoning.

Okay. Great. Yeah. All right. So our next round of questions or comments, I guess we're comments really at this point, deliberation.

Commissioner Jacobson? In terms of how it would be best to proceed, do we want to, like, make a motion for the entire staff recommendation and then go through at least the all the points where staff highlighted the predrafted multiple options?

Yeah. We took the liberty to create some kind of queued up suggested motions should we should you decide to utilize them. So we were thinking of going through the zoning amendments first chapter by chapter as it's relevant to each site. So Chapter 35 governs the BC1 zone. Within that recommendation, we have another slide that offers suggested amendments if you are choosing to move forward with alternatives presented in Attachment five.

Again, the same idea for the JVD-four zone, which is regulated by Chapter 52. Then the third recommended motion onscreen is kind of a miscellaneous bucket of all the other code chapters that we've drafted amendments to. There are, I think, just one suggested potential amendment should you decide to move forward with those. Then a final recommended motion to approve the design guidelines and the KMC edits that are in Attachment four, I believe, in your packet. So if that's appropriate, we can proceed like this or any way else the Commission sees fit.

Commissioner Jacobson?

I think that's totally reasonable. Do we want to start with 35, which was goodwill, or 52, which is Michael's?

35.

This slide is the amendments that you could offer after making a motion that would address each of the outstanding regulations that we have yet to receive direct Planning Commission guidance on. So there is one for whether or not to allow townhomes and to what degree and then a minimum density alternative amendment and, again, for high performing building standards, if that's helpful.

Go ahead and continue. Just to

get us going, I move that we recommend the approval of the proposed zoning code amendments to Chapter 35 as drafted.

Second.

All right. We have a motion on the table. Any further discussion? Commissioner Jacobson, do you want to speak to your motion?

Yeah. Like I said, I support the redevelopment of the site, and I think we need to be considering feasibility, and that means not getting things that we may want. Like I said, I would much prefer full build out of apartments. But with the current economic environment, that's I don't think that's realistic. As I understand, the there there might be one or two concerns with the minimum density requirement.

I think the 200 foot requirement that townhomes can't be built within 200 feet of a hundredth is totally reasonable. I am look I would want us to allow or direct staff to give flexibility on the exact minimum density requirements both for what the minimum parcel size that it applies to and for the density the units per acre as well.

Commissioner Rasmus?

So I

think I am with Commissioner Jacobson on this piece. I also what you mentioned earlier about the potential of other types of middle housing with, you know, stacked flats and 12 unit condominium updates to state law, I would hope that maybe there's a possibility of doing something a little bit more dense than townhomes that will be a bit more affordable. But at the same time, I definitely don't want to mandate something like that and not see something happen. I would definitely want to check-in with the property owner and make sure that they can they generally are good with the idea of the 200 foot, basically, townhome setback. You know, I wouldn't love to see just the townhomes go and not the mixed use upfront.

But, you know, if it's phased and that's what happens and, you know, maybe the townhomes happen now and the front parcel happens in five or ten years from now, that's still a lot sooner than twenty plus years from now if the lease gets re upped. So I'd like to keep the flexibility, but making sure that at least that first 200 feet is more densely developed. I I don't think we wanna talk about it right here, but before I forget, I would love to also talk about a potential adjustment on the affordability requirements for family sized units, so for both sites, but this one, too, basically.

And a question for staff. The affordability unit requirements, would that be in Chapter 112, or do we have to specifically address that within each of the chapters for those zones?

We would need to make the adjustment in Chapter 112, which is generally where we kind of house all of our affordable housing requirements, sorry. But we'd want to maybe ask for some flexibility in any amendments that you make to just make sure that it's cross referenced properly. But the amendment itself would be in 112, which is where we kind of have all of our flexibility and affordable housing requirements.

So that amendment should go with the chapter with 112, and then that would include updates of cross references and relevant chapters. Is that what I hear?

Yeah, I think that we could accept that as a motion. If we get there, we can help make it really, really clear.

Okay. Sounds good. Commissioner Medea?

I need to ask a clarifying question, at least for myself, maybe for others. We are talking here about Chapter 35 for BC1, but Commissioner Rosman just referenced it is better than a twenty year lease, which refers to the JBD IV. So we are talking about the goodwill site here, correct?

The goodwill site would be a twenty year re lease, too. It is the same.

Okay. I thought that was just a JBD I thought that was just the owner of No. Both of

With both of them, if they re lease with big retail tenants, you're going to have a twenty would be twenty.

Okay. Then my follow-up question to this is what's drafted by staff would be which of the three alternatives? That's not clear on this slide in what we're saying potentially yes to Commissioner Jacobson's motion and Rosman's second.

Could we maybe review the slides that we went over during the presentation

just to

please. Be clear what's in the We've got a temperamental mouse situation over here, so thanks for your patience.

So this is the slide that provides visual aid to all the alternatives of whether or not to allow townhomes in the BC 1 Zone and to what degree. And then the next slide, if you choose to do so, these are the options that we presented for minimum density if you want to employ that as well in relation to allowing townhomes and in what capacity.

I actually have a question. So I have a question on the density. Where did it go? Is it the next?

The next one.

We concerned at all that we would see under 70 units an acre? You know, if you know, I'm wondering if two and three, if there's really a difference because it's not like I don't think we would see single family homes there. So, like, if we're going to see townhomes as of, like, minimum regardless, like, are we is there a concern that we might not hit that 70 units an acre?

I would say so and I will let Allison hop in as well. For development fronting one hundredth, you have to have commercial ground floor. So that does kind of guarantee some sort of mixed use development. But at what scale would be up to the developer to suggest. So there is a chance that they could propose a three story building with, you know, just a couple of units or a couple of stories of residential units.

So it's not with Option three, there's no guarantee for a certain, like, high density development in terms of unit count. But we've also heard that that's typically what's feasible for mixed

use Well, development. That's what I'm saying. Like, I in, like, what in reality would get built there, I I don't know. Like, as long as there's gonna be townhomes in one half and mixed use in the other, like, I don't know if I'm horribly concerned about minimum units per acre just because I would be surprised if we don't hit that just, like, naturally. And is that, like, an extra requirement that we would have to, like, pay attention to and calculate when it's not a concern.

And if really we would only be under that 70 units an acre if we going see, like, a three story mixed use, like, I am not worried about it. We are not going to see three stories. If that was what was allowed there, it wouldn't get built. So I think I'm not concerned about that piece.

And I'll just clarify before you continue that the draft code reflects Option three, so that would require no amendment. And then if we go back just one slide, the draft code also reflects Option three for this, just to orient you on the amendments that you choose, if any.

Any other questions or points from other commissioners before we come back to Commissioner Jacobson? No? Okay. Go ahead.

It's my understanding that the minimum density requirement is intended to ensure that we don't get both halves as townhomes. And that if we don't have the minimum density requirement as which is the code as drafted, it is it would be possible for both sites. Well, no, never mind, because we if we ban it from 200 feet.

Right. Is

the 200 feet in the allows an independent use or would Okay. We I thought so. I just wanted to make sure because it's not on the like

first bullet. Restricted to Western.

So but that specifically is the 200 feet? Yeah. Okay.

Sorry. I'll go

ahead and ask a question about the 200 feet. I was comparing that against, say, perhaps not requiring as much depth along one hundredth and perhaps in exchange requiring that also along one hundred thirty second. I think that might be a net approximately the same, but with a bit less building depth for more light and airflow. Now, I know that light and airflow can be met in other ways with the site design and within the 200 foot footprint. But I'm curious if staff is thinking about the 200 feet along just one hundredth versus spreading that along a longer street frontage combined street frontage?

I don't think it's something or I know that it's not something staff has explored specifically. We heard from the property owner that typically the mixed use development, whether that be like I think it was referenced as a wrap construction or like certain types of multifamily buildings need a certain amount of space for their footprint. So if what I'm you're suggesting what I'm understanding is, like, instead of two boxes that differentiate, it would be like an L?

Yeah, yeah. An L that belts

around the intersection At least. For mixed

Yeah, yeah. And I wouldn't necessarily expect that to all be built at once, once again. But just trying to think through, like, why what is the benefit of requiring all that depth along the frontage of one hundredth and not requiring it at all along onethirty second, of course, other than the first 200 feet of 132.

I can jump in here. So one of the things that we considered when we were drafting this was that when we were specifically talking to the Commission in April about where you wanted to make sure we were requiring an activated commercial frontage, our understanding of the consensus that you reached was that you wanted to make sure that we had activated commercial frontage on one hundredth, but you felt more flexible about happened on one hundred thirty second, which is why we focused that set that townhome setback on one hundredth rather than wrapping it around. So that that was the thought in how the code came to be drafted. Of course, Planning Commission can offer amendments. But that's how we got to where the draft code is at.

Okay. So if we were to instead say that there could be a maximum, like a square footage maximum as well as perhaps for townhomes or for lower density low density isn't even the right term, but less than the maximum build out, limiting the amount of square footage of the site that could be built at less than the full build out, but not requiring necessarily the full 200 foot depth entirely along one hundredth. Basically giving the flexibility to put some of it also along one thirty second and not have require as much depth of the building.

A cap and trade type program for townhome allowances on the I

guess so. Yeah. I mean, hopefully it doesn't become that complicated, but

Yeah.

I because it's just it you know, it's just one.

We could certainly attempt to draft something like that. I think the reason the staff recommendation ended up with the 200 foot setback was for its simplicity.

Okay. And I also recognize we may very well come back to explore this further before and maybe what we'll do, we'll end up providing a more elegant way of providing that flexibility in the future. So this is a for now code, and when we come back and work through the neighborhood centers update in a year or two, then we can further refine it, get that nuance. But, yeah. Unless any other commissioners want to jump on that, then I'll just let that be.

And, you know, if there are other things you'd like to discuss, please jump in. Any other Commissioners besides?

Commissioner Reiser? Okay. When I first looked at this, I Option two and three seemed so similar. Why would Option three be more desirable?

I mean, I can answer that It's too, I the fact that Option two would require one owner or one project to do both at once. And so option three allows that they could, like, carve off half the site and sell it to a townhome developer who could do it separately because there are very few people that do both townhomes and mixed use. And if they do both, it's usually not a four acre sized kind of

Because I was comparing it to, when I was looking at this, what happened at Totem Lake where the multifamily was a different organization, you know, still owned by the same company, you know, owned the property, but it was too different. And when it came to us in design review, it was presented by two different organizations.

Yeah. You just basically have to find a unicorn group that would do both.

And I think from just a city and staff perspective, it provides the most flexibility. All to say, it provides the future applicant with the most flexibility on their ability to do townhomes.

Commissioner Jacobsen, do you have more?

I was just going to ask if we can move on because unless anyone wants to make an amendment from what is drafted as drafted seems good to me for these two points.

Yeah. Any further any proposed amendments on what's drafted?

Just making clear that what's drafted are the asterisked items, number three in both the slides.

Thank you.

All right. With that, I guess I'll call for a vote. All those in oh, wait, yeah?

Was there anything else that we needed to deal with in Chapter 30

Oh, yes.

We're going to go back to that slide. Sorry about the flipping. Next one. Yes. So I think we have the first two potential amendment topics covered, although there was no official motion or amendment yet, is my understanding. And then we will still need, if you want to give us guidance on a potential amendment to the High Performing Building Standards. Right now, as drafted, the code does not require them. So amendment would be offered if you wanted to require them.

Commissioner Medea?

Well, I move that we amend the high performance building standards to not be a requirement.

I second that.

That's moved and seconded.

Yeah, I think that it's already not, right?

It's not required. We would have

to move to require it. That's my understanding.

I'll withdraw.

Withdraw the motion is withdrawn. Okay. All right. With that, any discussion on the third amendment discussion or the discussion around the third point, the potential amendment there, or any other points in Chapter 35? Krishnamadeya.

Do you want Krishnamadeya to go first since I just spoke silly? Go ahead. Okay.

I'll forgive it.

Okay. Thank you. So it's not on here, but it was brought up in the letter and from the developer, the attorney this evening about if we're providing flexibility in affordable housing requirements to JBT4, we should consider that for BC1. Is that something we can consider now?

I think that would be in the next motion on the next chapter for Riela DeMichaels.

Right. The motion to approve the miscellaneous bucket of code amendments would be the appropriate time to offer amendments to Chapter 112.

Okay. Right. Commissioner Rosman?

I think maybe we're already all in agreement here, but I am good with not including the high performing building standards, which, again, I've been a lead AP since 2012. This is, you know, my undergrad degree, my grad degree, but I also realized that environmentally, the best thing is for us to get housing and not have people drive, you know, an hour or two to their jobs. And so between that and the fact that the state energy code is extraordinarily far along compared to, you know, most of the country. I am totally good with, you know, the standard. The standard sounds like, you know, we could do better, but we're really talking about, like, fractionally better here.

And I would rather see the housing happen and see it happen more affordably than push our housing into our forests and farmlands and onto our freeways.

All right. Now we're ready to take the vote on the motion to adopt Chapter 35 or recommend the approval of what's proposed by staff in Chapter 35. All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That appears to have passed. Six zero.

Wonderful. This next slide is in relation to the JBD IV zoning code amendments. A potential amendment would just be to clarify if you would like high performing building standards to apply.

I motion to approve the proposed zoning code amendments for Chapter 52 as drafted.

Second. Any further comment on that, Commissioner Rosman?

Nope, other than, you know, seconding what I said about the high performing building standards for Chapter 35.

All right. Any further comments on this from other commissioners? Commissioner Jacobson?

I just want to check with staff if there are any other alternatives that would be specific to Chapter 52. And also note to my fellow commissioners that this would be the time for anything like height limits or design review board for Michael site.

No other open ended development standards are applicable to Chapter 52.

I might just jump in to make clear that the code, as drafted per the Commission consensus from the last time we brought this to you, has the parking requirements calibrated with the State Senate Bill five thousand one eighty four requirement. So just because it's been a topic brought up, just wanted to make that clear that, as drafted, it's that lower parking requirement.

Thank you, Allison.

And I'm sorry to hop in and correct myself, but if we wanted to explore an amendment to the easement language as suggested by the property owner's representative earlier, staff has prepared a marked up version of that to respond to that. I think there was some interest expressed in seeing that, so maybe we could pull that up.

Sure. Yeah. I'd be happy to see that.

Alright. It'll be just one second.

This relies on me being able to share my screen, so

patience is appreciated.

All right, and I'm happy to take just a moment and walk you all through this. And so on the screen, you see the language requiring a public pedestrian easement and walkway construction for that park to park connection as drafted. The whole thing is underlined because it is all new text within the code. The markups that you see have strike through for removed language, and I have highlighted the added language, so and I'll note this this hasn't been shared with the applicant because we we kind of just wrote it, but what we would do is sort of firm up the language that says the pedestrian walkway may be approved within the critical area buffer but are clarifying that. We would need to run it through Chapter 90, which is required.

It's already on the books. We're not talking about Chapter 90, which is our critical area ordinance tonight, but trying to make it a little more clear that the city could approve that walkway in the critical area buffer. So, verse proposed, we're saying we may approve it.

Commissioner Jacobson?

I believe the concern from the applicant was that they wanted language that would ensure that they would not be required to put that pathway in outside of the buffer, which the comments from the community are that, generally, that we the buffer that the walkway should be as close to the water as possible. And so that shouldn't be a concern, but I believe that when I look at this, it's just saying that it may be approved within the critical area, which is different than the concern being it doesn't have to be outside of the buffer or in the developable area.

Yeah. Commissioner Jacobson, I think we could just change May to Will because I think the concept would be, like, that the the walkway would be within would be approved within the buffer if adequate mitigation is provided. Right? Looking for staff for the okay. But I think I what we need from the applicant, though, is adequate mitigation. So if the applicant were to say, we're not gonna provide adequate mitigation, and we don't wanna put the walkway anywhere else besides the buffer, that's a problem. Right? But I think if we can guarantee here that there's adequate mitigation, I think we can say it will be approved. That makes sense?

Right. And as drafted, if we say will be approved if adequate mitigation is reviewed and approved pursuant to Chapter 90, I think that accomplishes what Adam was just stating.

In that case, I move to amend our recommendation to amend the language as displayed on screen for Chapter 52. Second.

Any further discussion on this? Commissioner Rossman?

I guess my only concern is the cost of the mitigation. I hope it's a reasonable thing, and I would hate it to be a reason why this project doesn't happen. I'm hoping not. I hope it's not a huge cost to the project. But when we're talking about all the things that are required on this site, I wonder if requiring the cost of the construction and all of that to be on just this site when it is a, you know, a very big public benefit and, like, a city connection.

It might be beyond tonight's, like, scope of this, but I would love there to be some discussion about, like, you know, this is a, like, a city infrastructure project in part, I think. So, you know, it also just depends on how much cost we're talking. I'm not sure how long that path is, but I don't think it's, like, a it's not going to be a super, super cheap endeavor.

So the part about and construct pathway improvements. Yeah,

I think that's the part that I'm a little concerned about.

And especially it's not clear how that will end up being connected or useful at the time of construction and the complications of trying to get that, like I don't know. Yeah, it seems

For me, I'm more concerned about the easement than the actual construction.

You're concerned about securing the easement?

Securing the easement is my top priority here, more than the requirement of one individual parcel to put in a big, you know, public pathway.

Commissioner Reisor? Okay.

So I've had to do these pathways. It all depends on the standard because, yes, if it is, you know, shaved wood, it's different than if it's a boardwalk. So I I'm I'm okay with the way it's written because I I don't think the city's gonna require them to do the most expensive pathway. I think they want a pathway. And there is going to be on the site no matter what, there would have been wetland mitigation.

I wonder if there's any language that we could have to, like because I know something you always bring up is, yeah, we trust right now if this were to happen, that wouldn't be a concern, but let's protect against future uncertainties of whoever's in charge at that point. Is there some language that we could put in to, like, make it clear that this isn't going to have to be this, like, big, fancy boardwalk and more just like a pathway that exists? I don't know.

Yeah. It's a really good question. I think we're probably struggling a little bit with how to characterize that. That could be something that you could direct staff to consider and refine a little bit before we bring it back to the city council. I tend to think that this needn't be a under any scenario, it needn't be a super expensive endeavor. It's not like this path would be constructed within a wetland itself, right, which is can be a really, really expensive thing. And we think the mitigation is primarily gonna be just planting requirements, which, like, should not be very expensive in the context of the project. But you could give guidance to staff to consider ways to formalize the intent to make it as cost effective as possible or something like that.

I don't see that this is going to be the major expense. And it is just on their property. It's not crossing, you know, before and after. From my reading this, it's just the section on their property. So I don't see that's going to be as big a concern as I think the wetland planting and mitigation is going to be more expensive than the pathway.

I don't know if it might be clearer to say construct essential pathway improvements or something to that effect. I don't know.

Not to add yet another aspect to it. I mean, I think that especially the community desire, like, yes, this language is about just on this property. But given that we're talking about a zone that contains two properties, the the intent behind this is to create a path through both properties. So I I'm not sure I don't know what language would be necessary, but I also wanna make sure that we're not leading to a situation where it gets built, has a dead end, and then there's complications because the other property wasn't considered.

Requiring it to be built with, say, wood shavings, and then it sits there for fifteen years. Not a very useful

Yeah, if we could clarify, too. Sorry to interject, Chair. But, yeah, there's a provision of this code, right, that would allow us to get a financial security from the applicant if the connection if it's not reasonable to develop just a segment of the trail immediately. So that would also provide some more flexibility to doing it in a more cost effective and holistic manner.

I guess I'm comfortable with that. I think it might be helpful if we did direct staff to try and rework it to create some sort of language to ensure that we're not requiring a gold plated pathway. I'm comfortable just giving staff direction to rework the code and include the code as drafted and including this amendment. I'm comfortable with that.

Cold plated pathway might also have environmental implications.

Do we need to amend this beyond that in order to direct you to look into that piece? How do you how how do you want us to

We're hearing you, and we can do it, I think, to be very clear on the record. I might ask you to retract the original motion and restate it with the language to direct staff to work on some language to ensure what you're what you've discussed.

All right. Mr. Jacobsen, do you want to

I withdraw my motion.

All right.

And I make a motion to amend the recommendation to amend the language as displayed on screen and to direct staff to work with the applicant and any other needed people to draft language that ensures that we will not overly burden the developer with a construction cost of building a pathway. Second.

That does that work All right. Okay. Any further discussion on the commission on this point? No? All right. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstentions? That appears to have been approved. Six two zero. All right. So where we at? What's next?

Yeah. We'll bring back the

Movement motion.

Oh, can you unshare? We'll bring back the slide deck. I think the next one is for the miscellaneous bucket of code amendment.

I believe we still want to vote on the main motion for '52 and allow any other amendments for anything that would be in '52.

Yep. Okay. So anything else on chapter 52 amendments? No? All right.

Then I'll call for the vote.

Sorry. It's very vague. Is this all of the JBD IV proposals as drafted? Including height, including parking, all of that? Okay, then no.

No. So not ready. Then go ahead and share.

Okay. So just to be clear, I mean, get we talked about this in the comp plan. This is where we're directing growth. Obviously, this is consistent with the Bonita Neighborhood Policies sixteen and twenty. I get all that.

Our challenge right now is that we're facing a conflict between ideology and practicality when it comes to implementation. And we have heard commentary and letters for months ever since this was first proposed. So from a the parking delay request I don't think is out of touch. The counsel themselves has requested that we do some more studying before snapping to complying with the law because it's not just about parking at that site, it's about the overflow into the surrounding neighborhoods, which is already a problem, especially during beach season, etcetera. I don't see any harm in following direction to study that further and do a phased in approach.

I think the other challenge with regard to parking is that we're also in a strange point in our evolution as a city, right? I think it was either Kyle or the other gentleman, Luke, that brought up a good point, right, that over time, perhaps 100 people will be willing to give up their cars. But when we look right now at the probable target audience for this site, it's going to be people that have cars. And yes, we to facilitate and induce alternative modes of transportation. We aren't there yet.

And our multimodal transportation analysis relies a lot on those alternative modes that aren't currently being utilized with a lot of frequency. So I have a lot of concern about reducing parking minimums at this time until that gets bolstered a little further. Additionally, that number of units, if allowed by virtue of the height variance, again, just strain on the infrastructure is a concern. So from a height perspective, I agree with Commissioner Reiser to cap it at what is currently allowed at Juanita Village. So I know I am rambling, but amendments to these effects would be, my preference, to delay the parking implementation, to cap the height, to be consistent with what's at Juanita Village at this time, to ameliorate some of the concerns about traffic and infrastructure.

And then from a design standpoint, I think this site in particular deserves DBR versus ADR. So how we want to unpack that and amend it, I'm open to suggestions. But CHRISTOPHER that's where I'm

Commissioner Nolan?

I also very strongly support the idea of this going through Design Review Board. I think that would be I mean, this is a very, very prominent site and a very nestled between two of our parks. And I would like to make sure that it is attractive.

Yeah. Mr. Kuner, Rosman?

Oh, I'd just say maybe might I propose I think I heard three separate amendments, so maybe let's take them one by one.

Should we start with the design review perhaps? That might be the easiest one. Okay. I move that with regard to JBD Foresight, that goes through a design review board process versus an administrative design review.

I'll second that.

Any further discussion? Commissioner Jacobson? Boy, how quickly we go away from making sure things are feasible the moment there's an opportunity to first throw some dirt in the gears. Design review a design review board is not actually going to guarantee that the design looks good. When you ask people in the community who are not nerds and weirdos like us who pay attention to zoning and ask them what they like and don't like about new development in the city, their answers are the very things developers do to respond to the design review board.

Additionally, the design review board has a history of really just making developments worse. I would encourage you to look at the Polaris development where an app where a neighbor asked for the window sizes to be reduced for a portion of the project, for a mixed income project, and the design review board made sure that the developer had to do that, reducing the quality of life for the residents. So I will be voting no on this amendment, and I would urge everyone else to.

Mr. Royce? I'm in favor of it. I spent eight years on design review, and

I

saw the vast majority of projects highly improved. And design review is one meeting. It is not this long drawn out process.

Commissioner Rossman?

So I just want to come back to what was passed at the state when it comes to clear and objective standards. I know we still have to come back to that. I can't remember the number right now. But when it comes down to it, the requirements that come down at the state when it comes to what is going to be required of any kind of review, be it ADR or DRB, What's actually going to be allowed to be managed by DRB is very, very small. And if we're talking about affordability and wetland mitigation and a waterside path and the, like, gateway to Juanita.

I don't quite have as strong feelings as Commissioner Jacobson here, but I think with the direction that we're getting from the State, there's such a little piece that would even go through DRB. I would rather us focus on the other pieces that I see as higher priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is. And my two priorities for this site above everything else is the wetland mitigation and path and the affordable housing requirements. So I would prefer not to add another requirement that really is not going to be much of a requirement because of the new state law.

Any further comments on this amendment? With that, I will call for the vote. All those in favor of the amendment, say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed? No. Should we do a roll call?

Aaron Jacobson? No. Gina Medea?

Yes.

Julia Nolan? Yes. Scott Riser? Yes. Angela Rosman? No. Ronnie Rutherford?

No. Uh-oh.

That is a split vote.

I'm okay changing my vote to an abstention. I don't have an incredibly strong opinion.

I think that it fails with a split vote because we have to have a majority.

That also works.

Or do we do we staff is practically checking into the rules and procedures. Please hold.

Well, it was going to happen at some point, so.

Staff is consulting the instant replay cameras.

Not a tie goes to the runner situation.

I suppose I heard Commissioner Nolan perhaps change a vote. I'm wondering, could we do roll call again?

Well, I think we still want to know, though.

We'll keep research.

But yes, we can do I it

guess it's Mike ultimate I'm less certain on taking a second round of voting on a motion than on determining think we could potentially open up more in certain

I mean,

people are allowed to change their votes.

Are are they? I I don't know where that's in our I think it's

I think a tie vote is the motion is not approved.

Not not approved. According to Robert's rules. Yeah. My that was my understanding as well that, like, you would have to have a majority to approve. Commissioner Jacobson? Just one other option.

I believe the chair is in charge of determining what counting the votes, and so you can choose whether to count Commissioner Nolan as a no or an abstain.

That's a scary amount of power.

We just pulled up the July 2024 policy and procedures for the Planning Commission and under Section six, Item 12B says, Although it is the duty of every member to vote, a member may abstain. An abstention has the same effect as a negative vote.

And is there anything about requiring a majority to approve, or that might fall back to Robert's rules?

Yeah, I think so.

That that pulls back to Robert's rules?

Right. What we haven't articulated in the Planning Commission, in your policies and procedures, it says we use Robert's rules. If not explicitly articulated in your rules and procedures, we would revert to Robert's rules.

Okay. It's and it sounds like I also have the option of taking the corrected vote from Commissioner Nolan as an abstention. So we'll go ahead and let that be reflected in the notes, Commissioner Nolan's updated vote. And hopefully that's all good. Right. Right. On to the next piece of excitement. Do we have another amendment?

I'm going to go two for three now or I motion to amend the height restriction to whatever is the equivalent ABE as to Juanita Village. I'm sorry, I did not research that exact amount.

Yes. We just looked it up, and if I can, I'll relay it. For development mixed use development at Juanita Village, a. K. A. JBD 1 Zone, it actually is tiered by the size of the development, but the highest range is from 52 to 78 feet. So the highest is actually 78 feet allowed. And then it goes all the way down to 30 if you're more towards the southern side. There's a range of right.

What are my options?

I'll second it. What

are we seconding?

Think it might be Height restriction.

Able to get a specific number if Commissioner Mardea, if you have one. On the upper range of heights allowed in Juanita, the maximum heights are 52 to 78. So if and 52 is a discrete option based on property size, 78 is a discrete option based on property size. So if you were going for a lower height, I would say that 52 is the lowest of the high allowed heights in

So at twenty fifty two feet with the minimum height for the retail or the commercial space in the bottom, that.

Minimum height is 13 feet, because that would mean No, I was wondering if you can get five. Because then you're talking 12, the others can be a bit less than 10. Okay, right.

Okay. So I motion to amend the building height parameters at JBD IV to the 52 feet. That would still allow for all the other parts of that requirement, the ground floor zone and

So second.

Second from Commissioner Reiser on that. Any further discussion?

Commissioner Jacobson? I would just point out that this is a significant reduction in the amount of housing on this site. It has the possibility of imperiling the feasibility of the project. Goes against our comprehensive plan, goes against what we told our community and what our community told us during the comprehensive plan update. So I'm going to be a no vote on this.

Also

a strong no on this one. A third of the site is not even feasible for development. And so reducing heights basically says that we're not going to do this site. And in that case, we need to find a place for another 150 units, which if we want to talk transit corridors again, we can bring that conversation up if we would rather put housing there. But I think the community told us that they wanted it in the neighborhood centers, and in which case we need to actually stick to what we've said.

But, again, if we go to 52 feet, we can always talk putting housing elsewhere. But I think this is a very appropriate site. 75 feet is lower than some of Juanita Village, as we just learned. So, I mean, if anything, we could make it 78 feet for funsies, though I don't think that that actually makes a difference for what would be built there. So noting that it is actually a lower height requirement than some of Juanita Village, I would suggest we stick with the 75 feet.

Commissioner Reiser? I do have a

question on that. Is Juanita Village at 78 feet? Because I have counted each of the buildings as six stories, and I realize that they have some retail, but

I would have to look into the permit applications that were approved, but usually we compare capacity to capacity as opposed to what's actually built. So the capacity allows for 78 feet.

Okay. Because I don't think that it is I don't think there's anything over 70 feet in Juanita Village.

No, it's more about legally allowed rather than constructed.

My question on that is then okay, so it is allowed at 75 feet. Five over two would probably be the only thing economical. What height would that be? I was asking Angela. Sorry.

Oh, sorry. Well, I know you can do, you know, the 52 feet or whatever, you can get five stories, So it might be a little less than 75, but it also depends on, you know, some projects will have a much larger, like, retail level so that you can get, you know, some retail even goes 18 or 20 feet on that First Floor. So by giving 75 feet, it allows for superior retail if if you really want it to be great and pretty. But as far as feasibility goes, you're not really gonna see more than the seven stories just because of costs and building types and whatnot.

My only other comment would be, and I appreciate Commissioner Jacobson's input, is yes, we've heard from the community that they want this. We've also heard from the community that we need to proceed with caution. So it is really a fifty-fifty split. Even the pie chart on the 36 or so emails that Leandro shared with us, showed that traffic was a huge concern, and I don't see how we get around that with maximized height at that site.

I'll go ahead and chime in a bit. So there was an observation that this is allowing 3x of the existing height, but it's also reducing the allowed building footprint by about a third. And so it's a bit of a balancing act, think, especially with the environmental remediation obligation and opportunity that is unique to the site. Any further comments? And I will call for the vote. All those in favor of the amendment? Aye. All those opposed?

No. I

think that's a four-two, but we can do a roll call if anyone would like. We're happy with that. And we'll proceed.

Shall we move on to parking? Because this is so much fun for me. I motion that we don't require to snap to the engrossed bill sorry, don't remember the number. 5184, thank you pending the outcome of counsel's direction to study that a little further.

I'll second so we can talk about it.

All right. In the spirit of talking about it, it is seconded. Would you like to speak to that more, Commissioner Bedea?

Well, I think we're in an advisory role to the counsel. Counsel already heard some of this and is asking back to us that or recommending back to us, that we really fully understand what the implications are if we were to snap to that right away versus taking some time. And I understand it might be part one and part two for staff to engage in this work. Because that is a big step. Again, I get in the evolution of us trying to entice people to take alternate modes of transportation, like that's a step in the right direction. But to snap to it that quickly, especially at this site, gives me great pause. And I don't see the harm, since we have the ability by law to wait until 2028?

'27.

2027. That we should take that time to explore that fully.

Commissioner Rasmo?

So I have two parts. I have a question and then I have a comment. So question for staff. My understanding was that that was not a unanimous direction from the council. Rodney, you were there. So I don't know. Maybe, Chair Rutherford, if you could

I was I.

I thought you were there. Maybe you had left. But my understanding was that there was support for 5184 right now with a few council members being concerned and wanting to look at it more. So I don't know that it was

And I and I thought that I remember in the packet it said that the concerns were raised by maybe one or two council after the fact, and that there was more general agreement or hesitant, but general agreement in the council meeting? I don't know.

Put you on the spot to remember Yes. What was

And I'll ask Adam or Leander to correct me if their recollection is different. But I do not think we have consensus from council on where they intend to land on going down to the parking requirements in 5184 for these code amendments. We've had that discussion with them for both in a briefing for these code amendments and for middle housing, so there's kind of two separate. But for these ones, I don't think we received consensus. We had one council member that specifically was curious what Planning Commission would think.

Yeah, do remember the conversation with middle housing. That was the one that was involved.

So then I guess part two of my question before we my comment. How long does it take right now for a project to get through? Like, this project doesn't even have any specific drawings or detail. We don't even have specific zoning for it yet. How long would it take a project to get through until they get a building permit?

Yeah. It varies, of course. But I mean, I think I would say, like, decent at a decent pace, maybe a year or something like that.

From the point that they have Signal plans.

Submitting an application, going through the design review board process, getting a permit. I mean, think that's probably like a pretty normal timeline for something like this. I think projects can move faster Right. Than

So I guess my point is that even by the time we finish this process with counsel and then they start drawing and go through the process, we're going to be at the point where we have to approve 05/1984. So regardless of where we feel about, like, whether this is moving fast or not, any project, either of these two projects, by the time they get to construction, are going to be under the fifty one eighty four purview. You know, either it's going to be a race to see which is done first And even if a project did get done, anyone who has done any kind of a development would know that that was coming and they would design to that and would come in with a correction if needed. So honestly, any project of this size is not going to be under any other parking requirements, if that makes sense. Just if this was a three or five year out update, but I think we're at, like, seventeen months now until approval.

Like, this project is under 5184 whether we do the zoning regulations twice or once. I mean, you know where I stand anyway, but regardless of that, when we are just talking objective, like, regulations, that is, you know, it is what it is at this point.

Commissioner Jacobs?

Two things. One, I want to use this as a note that when I read the staff memo and then when I went back and watched the recording, sometimes we things in the staff memo, it's like one or two council members saying it. And sometimes that's fine. If it's not like a big thing, then maybe it's just one or two council members said it and, like, actually, it's a totally reasonable thing and everyone agrees. Sometimes it's on a major thing, major question.

And in fact, the sometimes the majority of council act is opposed, but the staff memo sometimes reflects just the opinions of one or two council members. So I would hope and as I understand, there's something of confusion sometimes when council is looking at how staff describe Planning Commission recommendations, especially when we haven't come to a final recommendation. Like, for example, with the middle housing, there was some confusion as to whether we had come to a recommendation when actually staff had just glued everything together that was said by at least one person. And so I would hope that we can have a conversation about not confusing each other like this. Yes.

There's some confusion as to whether we the council discussion on middle housing compliance with fifty one eighty four and these projects compliance with fifty one eighty four. But I would hope that we could find a way to express when there is a clearly expressed majority or only a few council members have said it so that it's easier for us as a planning commission to see what council is actually directing us on. And to staff's credit,

I will note that there the staff memo says, know, first it gives a summary about there was discussion, but then a much larger section of part about parking standards refers to additional post meeting conversations between staff and individual members of council, elevating the concern about implementing the state mandated parking ratios ahead of the required deadlines. So leads me to think it could have been just two. We don't know. But that's kind of what I was getting out of my statement earlier is that it's not clear there were actually general concerns across the council about this.

And then second thing, plus one to all of commissioner Rosman's comments. The other thing that I would add is, like, this between the two sites to talk about people being more car dependent, this is the site where we're gonna it's gonna be easier to get people out of cars. There are more stores. There's a there's better buses. It's closer to to job centers. So I just find it very odd to be pushing for higher parking requirements at the site that is going to be easier to get people out of cars, And I find that very odd.

Kayak parking would be cool. But, you know, I won't go there.

All right.

Any further discussion? All All those in favor of the amendment? Aye. Any opposed? No. Right. I believe that is two in favor and four against. Unless there's any objection needed for a roll call. All right. On to the main motion, unless there's any further amendments proposed for 52.

Seeing no proposals for further amendments on Chapter 52, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Abstentions?

Okay. So we have four in favor, one opposed, and one abstention. All right. Are we ready for the next, the miscellaneous?

Yes. This is that miscellaneous code section for a potential motion with a potential amendment to adjust inclusionary zoning requirements for renter occupied mixed use development in JBD4 and or VC1 to a particular standard that you see fit.

Commissioner Reiser? Can we see the slide that was in the packet that showed the different options? Yes.

So the packet reflects the standard inclusionary zoning requirement. The ratios on the left were offered as an example of where we have existing flexibility for an exchange for less, more shallowly affordable units, But there's a plethora of options for adjusting flexibility for this type of housing.

And for clarity, I think, at least for me, it's easier to think of it and correct me if my math is wrong, but this works out to 60% at 13% or sorry, 13% at 60% of median income, 17% at 70% of median income, and 20% at 80% of median income. Right. Which is kind of convenient. The math just happens to work out to be easy to visually translate. Any thoughts on this?

Do we need to first make a motion on the overall miscellaneous?

I think we could do either a combined motion or but yeah, probably probably start with the main motion and So move on with I

motion to approve the Chapter 112 and miscellaneous amendments as proposed by staff.

And maybe just adopt the text on the screen for the motion?

I'm going to do the standard and then we can amend it from there.

Yeah, yeah. There are, like, five chapters, I think, that were listed in there.

Yeah. Do you want to go back and I can list them or just as shown on the

We're on our way back.

Sorry. There it is. Okay.

I motion to approve the proposed zoning code amendments to Chapters five, ninety two, 105, one hundred twelve and one hundred eighty as drafted.

Second. All right. I think it's clear.

All right.

All right. Would you like to speak to that?

Sure. Well, I don't know about that motion, but I would like to bring up the two and three bedroom flexibility. I don't know if we want to do that first. I guess I'll motion to amend the inclusionary zoning requirements to allow for 80% AMI for two- and three bedroom units.

Second.

All right. Any further or would you like to speak to your amendment?

Yeah. We really need affordable family sized units and 50% AMI is extraordinarily difficult to do. Like, that is less than like, well less than half of a market rate unit for that size. So part of why we see not only are the majority of new household formations single households. Studios and one bedrooms work better, especially when there are inclusionary zoning requirements.

And if we want to see more two- and three bedroom units, especially below market, we have to make it feasible. And so I think 80% AMI is something that is a lot more workable and we're more likely to see those units constructed with that flexibility.

Can I ask a question?

So You're that oh, we did second. Yeah, okay.

No, I'll second it.

You can go ahead. I think we did good. We second it. Yeah, okay.

I'll second it. Okay. I just have questions on this. Okay. So what percentage do we get of the two- and three bedroom? And so is it 80% across the board for all units?