The Issaquah City Council weighed in on two revisions to the Issaquah Highlands two-party agreement Monday night, voting to approve one despite conflicting opinions, and delaying the other to a June committee meeting.

Port Blakely officials had submitted a request to modify the land-use agreement on a parcel of land south of the park and ride to allow for residential units and a building height increase; they also requested an amendment that would allow for a gas station, which is currently a prohibited use in the Highlands.

A public hearing on both amendments gave residents the chance to share their opinions before the council made decisions.

The most contentious issue was the land-use modification.

The original agreement designated the area as commercial/retail only, with a maximum square footage of 12,000 feet and building height of 35 feet.

The revision allows for residential units, expands retail space up to 25,000 square feet and extends the building height to 65 feet, said Keith Niven, program manager for the city’s major development review team.

Council members and residents alike praised the amendment as a good opportunity to build affordable housing in a tough climate.

“I see this as a benefit, taking a totally commercial sector, and now adding affordable housing,” said Councilwoman Eileen Barber. “It’s mixed use, market-rate living and transit-oriented. And it also brings in permit dollars and construction work, something I think we could use in the community.”

Chris Hysom of Port Blakely Communities said the company already has a potential buyer for the site, who is currently in the feasibility phase and has proposed a piece of commercial property. Hysom said the group “expects the contract to close” and if any residential housing was built on top, it would be done in a modular style.

This raised some concerns for Council members Dave Kappler and Maureen McCarry, who were hesitant to approve a development that could possibly be all commercial, and Kappler suggested delaying the decision to the next council meeting.

But, as Niven pointed out, the piece of land could already be developed as all commercial — the amendment provides the option for residential, and without its approval, that sort of development couldn’t be done at all.

“They’re asking for an allowance,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that it will happen, it just gives an allowance.”

McCarry also expressed distress over the “modular style,” and said that it was something the council had decided against in the past.

“We clearly said we do not want modules,” she said. “We’re looking for something interesting … we didn’t like the little box look.”

Port Blakely settled on that style because of its cost-effectiveness and relative ease to put up.

However, other council members were unfazed by the style and said that as long as the option for residential units was available, they would support the amendment.

“These are difficult economic times and we’ve seen, especially with Talus and the Highlands, that what we thought was going to happen doesn’t always play out the way we thought it was going to play out,” City Councilman Fred Butler said. “We cannot predict what’s going to happen. The only thing we can do is establish rules, express a desire, and hope it turns out the way we want it to turn out.”

The council also included an addition to the amendment to provide solar panels on the roof, after receiving a request by King County.

They voted 4-2 to approve the amendment, with Kappler and McCarry dissenting, and Rittenhouse absent due to illness.

A request for the addition of a gas station was unanimously remanded to the June Land Use Committee meeting for further research and consideration.

It’s currently a prohibited use because of concern that a leak could contaminate the aquifer, Niven said. However, newer technology and better information about the aquifer have shown that those concerns may not be quite as strong.