Mercer Island planning commission recommends rezoning two city parcels to Public Institution after debate over setbacks and environmental protections

The Mercer Island Planning Commission voted 5-0 on Nov. 19 to recommend that the City Council reclassify two city-owned parcels — the vacant City Hall site and the Public Works maintenance and operations site — from Commercial Office and R8.4 residential to Public Institution (PI) zoning.

The action, taken after a quasi-judicial hearing and adoption of staff findings under MICC 19.15.0.24(c), follows presentations from the applicant (city staff), a staff report and public comment from nearby residents who raised concerns about notice, maintenance, slope stability and potential impacts to neighbors. "I did not know about this meeting until a few days ago," resident Matt Goldbach told the commission, saying he objects to changing the zone because he found PI "confusing" and feared larger-scale, commercial-scale development and continued maintenance problems on 40th Street. Another resident, Pat McGoogan, said she is worried about hill stability and repeated water-main breaks near her home if excavation occurs.

Deputy Director of Public Works Kelly Hilde, presenting the City’s application RZN-25-001, said the rezoning would align the zoning map with the comprehensive plan’s "public facility" designation and apply a single, consistent development framework to municipal parcels that have hosted public uses for decades. "Rezoning both parcels to public institution, or PI, removes the outdated split zoning on Parcel B and establishes predictable appropriate development standards," Hilde said. She added that environmental review materials submitted with the application identify wetlands and streams and that future project-level permitting will address cleanup, buffers and mitigation.

Planning Division staff summarized the record: the application was submitted Sept. 17, found complete Sept. 19, notices were mailed to properties within 300 feet and a 30-day comment period ran after a notice published Oct. 1; staff said four public comments were filed and that a SEPA determination of nonsignificance was issued Nov. 3 and not appealed. Staff recommended the proposal meets the seven rezone criteria because the parcels are designated public facility in the comprehensive plan, PI is contiguous north of the site, the change is not a spot zone, and the rezone provides no private benefit.

Commission discussion focused on two recurring issues. First, several commissioners — including Chair Dan Thompson — raised concerns that PI zoning, as written and as applied in the town center, can allow zero setbacks and scaled height increases tied to parcel acreage. Thompson noted that the PI baseline height is 36 feet and that the code allows increases "12 feet for each additional 2½ acres," observing that a 14-acre calculation could theoretically approach roughly 80 feet. Planning staff and the CPD director, Jeff Thomas, repeatedly said that critical-area regulations (wetlands, streams and steep-slope buffers) and town-center design standards will constrain actual buildable area and prevent structures from simply rising to parcel lines in the locations where buffers exist.

Second, commissioners debated whether the commission should consider the narrow zoning criteria before them or evaluate project-level questions. Vice Chair Gibson moved and the commission adopted multiple friendly amendments to the staff findings to remove project-specific wording referencing a "public safety and maintenance" building and instead refer more broadly to "public facilities," reflecting commissioners' caution about tying the rezone to a single hypothetical project. Gibson also proposed, and the commission adopted, revised language stressing that the site’s steep slopes, streams and wetlands "create a natural buffer and logical transition" between municipal uses and adjacent low-density residences.

On environmental and cleanup questions, planning staff and the applicant acknowledged that wetland and stream analyses were included with the application and that the site has been the subject of long-running cleanup work with the Washington Department of Ecology and consultation with WDFW; staff said technical cleanup status and details are managed by other city staff and will be addressed in future permitting. Commissioner Acuse specifically asked about the city’s status in the Voluntary Cleanup Program and whether Ecology had removed the site; staff said they continue to work with Ecology and that they would provide the detailed cleanup records through existing channels.

After adopting findings for each criterion (with amendments), the commission voted unanimously to recommend the reclassification to the council. The final motion to recommend the PI zoning was made by Commissioner Perez, seconded by Commissioner Acuse, and passed 5-0.

Looking ahead, the commission discussion left three practical points for the public record: (1) staff emphasized that future redevelopment will be governed by critical-area protections and town-center design regulations that will limit actual building placement and massing; (2) several commissioners urged that the City Council consider the timing of rezoning relative to any future project or bond so the public can see project parameters before or concurrent with final zoning-level approvals; and (3) the commission noted the ongoing funding challenge — the failed bond — and that project scale will ultimately depend on available funds and later permitting.

The planning commission forwarded its recommendation to the City Council and closed the hearing; the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.