Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to
a public hearing on the Revestown Homes SPD 15-00004 And we
have some administrative things we have to do first. So we have a couple of
minutes, but then we'll open up the meeting and have some discussion. So commissioners, we
have two sets of meetings, one for July 6, 2016, and one for July 20.
So let's look at the July 6, 2016. Have people had a chance to read
those? And they have corrections or changes or-- OK. I would accept a motion on--
Mr. Chair, I move the adoption of the meeting minutes for July
or approval of the meeting minutes for July 6, 2016. Second. All
right. Motion's been made and seconded. Do we have any discussion? All
those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. How about
the July 20, 2016 minutes? Mr. Chair, I move approval of the
July 20, 2016 meeting minutes. Second. Great. The motion's been made
and seconded. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor, say
aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Great. Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, I'd
like to make one more motion. I'd like to make the motion of the Development
Commission publicly acknowledge the tremendous work that Susan Lowe does on our meeting minutes. We've
had lots of them in the last few months, and she's done an excellent job
on all of them. I'd like to acknowledge that. Excellent. Second that motion.
Your name's going to be spelled wrong if you don't. I absolutely agree.
Outstanding work. Discussion? It's pretty amazing to get through the amount of discussion
that there is without-- and then have no corrections to the minutes for
something that is that complex. So I completely agree. Lucky to have her.
Excellent job. Thank you. Staff would agree as well. All those in favor
of approving the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed? On record. It's
on record. Thank you. Thank you, Susan. Excellent job. So now I think
we have Keith Nivens has a statement to make. I'm sure it's
a statement so much as it is an opportunity to answer
questions. So good evening, development commission. Keith Niven, development services director,
economic development director. So for those of you who may be
less connected to city politics, The city council had a meeting last
night and as part of that meeting passed a temporary development moratorium
in the city. And there were a number of reasons why they
felt it was necessary to enact a moratorium. And I'm here to
basically I can either I can do one of two things and
you guys let me know what you'd like. I can either kind of give you
the high points of the moratorium, why they felt it was necessary, what's in, what's
out. I've spent all day talking to applicants, telling them whether they were in or
out. And I can tell you some of the exclusions, so there were certain things
that were excluded from the moratorium. Or I can just sit and answer questions. I'll
let you pick a lane and I'll be more than happy to
I think we would like to hear what's in, what's out, what's
excluded and maybe as well the duration. Okay. So I'll read --
Sorry. And also the reasoning behind it. Okay. We want both lanes
apparently. So rather than read the entire ordinance, what I'll do is, so there's a
laundry list at the beginning, which is basically the reasons why the council felt it
was necessary to enact a moratorium. And does everybody understand kind of what the general
basis for a moratorium, what it is? If so, great. And then I can go
through and talk about where the line was drawn to decide who's in and who's
out. And then I can give you the list of exclusions. So we can kind
of talk about those in those three pieces, if that makes sense. So the first
piece is why they felt the moratorium was important. I'm going to go ahead
and say that it basically came out of the council had asked
for basically a three-year assessment of Central Issaquah and looking at what
projects had come through the pipeline. and to basically have a conversation about whether
we thought we were on track or not. And Lucy and I did a lion's
share of the presentation. If you want to find that meeting, the date is July
11th. So it was a council workshop. And there were at least a couple things
that I can recollect being on the agenda. One was the presentation of a dashboard.
So Development Services provided a dashboard to the council that gave some general numbers for
what had come through the pipeline so far. And then after that, we went through
an assessment of Central Issaquah, basically on a district by district basis. So there's 10
districts or neighborhoods within Central Issaquah. And we talked about what's happened in each neighborhood
and whether or not we felt like we were on target with meeting the vision
or not. So that happened on the 11th. I'm sure it was a fascinating watch
and I'll leave it up to you whether you choose to watch that or not.
So basically from that, the council felt like there were certain,
I'm just going to go ahead and read this because I
don't want to paraphrase. So indicated certain deficiencies where the vision
was not being met, comma, including, so here's the laundry list,
architectural fit with the community, urban design, vertical mixed use, affordable
housing, parking, and district vision. So those were the things that they thought
that were concerning for them that then caused them to enact the moratorium last night.
So if you want to have a discussion about any of those, what they mean
or what I think they mean, I'm more than happy to provide that at some
point. So that's the reason. Now, where they drew the line in terms of what
was... allowed to move forward and what was
basically considered caught by the moratorium was based on
a complete permit application for land use for Administrative
site development permit, site development permit, plat or short plat. So if you
already had that, so for example, Riva, Riva is considered in the pipeline
and is not being stopped by the moratorium. Other examples are things like
Gateway Senior, obviously Gateway which is under construction. So the moratorium doesn't stop
things that are already permitted. I talked to the lawyer for I keep wanting to
call it sunshine. It's sunrise. You guys issued a decision on that I think in
April. So they're in. They get to move forward with actually building their project. But
then there are other things that are on the other side of the line that
are going to have to wait until the moratorium is lifted. So the moratorium
is basically a six-month stay. So it runs for six months,
but it's a rolling six months. So what needs to happen
in that six months is the administration needs to put together
a work plan that basically puts in place procedures and actions
to alleviate the concerns that were listed in the beginning. So those things that we
talked about or that I mentioned on page one, you know, the architectural fit and
the urban design and affordable housing and vertical mixed use, we need to actually develop
a work plan on how to deal with each one of those so that there
can be tangible progress to getting to a point where the council can lift the
moratorium. Because what's happened in the past and what's ultimately been litigated not just
in this state but in other states is jurisdictions that basically run a rolling moratorium
almost in perpetuity. You cannot use a moratorium to basically just stop development. It's not
legal. You have to have a work plan that has a beginning and a perceivable
end and you need to be able to work towards that end. Okay? So,
complete application for land use was decided to be that line to figure out who's
in and who's out. And then the council also identified projects that would be excluded
from the moratorium. And I'll read you that list. And again, I can provide some
insights if you wonder why something was included and maybe something might not have been
included. So the first thing is those projects or properties that are covered by an
approved development agreement because a development agreement is a contract and unless the city put
in that contract we have the right to stop you if we impose a moratorium
then we don't have the right to stop you with a moratorium. The second thing
is transit-oriented development. So if there's a project that is a transit-oriented development project, we
wanted the ability to be able to move that forward and not keep it stalled
under the moratorium. And I can explain a little bit more about that if you
guys want, because there's a back story there. essential public facilities so this is fire
stations and hospitals specifically so if we if we needed to build another fire station
or if we wanted to if there was another hospital proposal in town and there's
not and and Swedish is actually covered by a development agreement but we figured we'd
go ahead and list it here within essential public facilities we can move forward with
those the next is publicly funded schools and the village theater That one is a
little bit weird but I can again explain that if you guys want an explanation.
The next one is projects that involve the sale of development of land currently owned
by the city or capital improvement projects so that the city can move forward with
building roads or doing things if it needed to do that. Like for example building
a water reservoir. would be something we would want to be able to move forward
with if indeed that's what was needed. Remodels and tenant improvements was listed. Single family
homes. So the idea was if you already had a piece of property and you
wanted to build your dream retirement house that you could move forward with that. Affordable
housing projects that include at least 40% of the total residential units being affordable.
And the reason the council picked 40% is that's the number in the comprehensive
plan that says is our goal for getting in this community. And then the
last item in the exclusions was emergency repairs or construction necessitated by disasters such
as fire or earthquake or something of that sort. So that was the list
of those things that kind of were outside. And that was initially the things
that caused them to want to move forward and do that last night. And
right now it's listed for six months. And the way the state statute reads
is it basically allows the jurisdiction to enact a moratorium as an emergency provision
but then requires them to hold a public hearing within
60 days to hear from potential, from the community or
egregious property owners or developers or because they could potentially
change kind of where they drew the line in terms of vesting or
they could change what's excluded. They could add some more exclusions or even
remove some if they wanted to. So so right now that public hearing
will be in the council chambers on October 17th. So that is the
entirety of what I know. But I'm more than happy to field any
questions that you might have. Question. I'll ask it. The moratorium applies within
the entire city limits or just within the CIP? This is a great
question. So everything that they identified as being concerning was really came out
of the CIP conversation except for one thing. So the one thing caused
them to go citywide with the moratorium and that's the affordable housing piece.
So basically they said, hey, we seem, you know, we're not getting our target. We're
not even coming close to our target. And one of the things that we presented
to them on the 11th of July, which if you watch that part of the
dashboard and you can find it on the city's webpage is, There's this graphic that
shows the number of housing units that have been permitted in central Issaquah over the
past three years, which is 963, I believe, and the number of housing units of
those that are affordable, which is zero. So it was a zero next to a
963, and I think it really kind of etched an image in the council's mind
that something needed to change as it related to that. And so since we
have plats moving on the periphery, I think the concern was
that we need to we need we need to figure out
what we want to do with affordable housing before too many
of those properties get permitted out. So they cast it citywide.
So um for vacation planning purposes how much is in the pipeline so how much
do we have that is still within the can proceed but would be coming to
the commission just out of curiosity yeah if you can i don't know if you
can answer that question i i know there are several permits that are in the
pipeline i mean we have one on the 21st um we have
Yeah, so I know at least two STPs that will be coming
through the commission. So what you're saying is no vacation then? No.
I imagine that the fall might be slightly slower and you'll probably
see it more in the new year than you would immediately. It's
a fairly long list of things that made the cutoff. Now, not
all of them would come to you. I mean, some of them
may... go to the Urban Village Development Commission. Thank
you. Of course, I think there's a proposed rezoned
up in the highlands for the 1,800 residential units to be built. Does
that-- There's not, actually. So just to be clear, so that property owner
has expressed an interest to do something that's not allowed under the current
zoning and entitlement. So they have been having community meetings to try and
garner some community support for what they would like to do. But
as of today, they have not made a request to what would
be analogous to a rezone. Because it's within the Highlands, it's got
a little bit different mechanics, but they have not asked for anything
at this point. Is that the former Bellevue College? No. So Bellevue
College is still Bellevue College. So this is so the property that's kind of across
the street from Starbucks and Babmo, it's actually shaped ‑‑ it's 20 acres and it's
shaped like an L. And there's going to be subdivisions and residential to the west
of it that Polygon owns and is going through permitting on. But the 20 acres
that Shelter Holdings owns, they've had now, I want to say at least three meetings
with the community. And then I know that the community, that the Highlands Council scheduled
a meeting like last Monday or something that I know Stacy attended, and I think
it was reported in the paper. Just to talk about that property and whether or
not there's any interest by the community and more housing. And so
far it does not seem like there's much interest in that at all.
And would that be if they did want to come to the city
for changes, would that be covered by the moratorium? So right now, so
it depends on timing. Let's get down to a ground answer. Excuse
me. Why don't you go ahead and answer his question. So it
depends on the timing. So if the request came in advance of
the development agreement expiring, which is planned to expire next year, then
it would be covered under an amendment to the development agreement.
If they made that request after the development agreement expired, then
it would be covered under the moratorium. Mr. Chair, I've got
a question. There's quite a bit of items that's, under the
six month moratorium. And I picked up a few architectural, vision, parking, and affordable
housing. You talk a little bit about affordable housing, you're gonna have to develop
something. But in the architectural, the vision side of it, and the parking, is
that something that development commission needs to get involved and provide input on that?
Or is the city just going to come up with some guidelines
Eventually, after that six-month moratorium project comes in, obviously we're
going to need to look at that on a different
eye side, because you're talking about architectural, and everybody has
a different view of that. What we view now, as
the council said, we're not there. So six months later,
another project comes in, I would suspect we probably want to
be in a position to view it differently or not. Could be. So part of
that Commission member is so when I said we have to develop a work
plan The work plan is going to be different for each of those items. So
for example How we deal with the architectural review piece which is a piece that's
not there now It could very well be that that that part of that process
would be one coming to DC to to talk about that and get some input
and help craft maybe the guidelines that ultimately then gets applied to Central Issaquah. You
know, what we need to do now in the next couple weeks is to start
to work on putting some timing to those work projects and then thinking about
what parties we would include in that. And it seems at least to
me that there would likely be some touch points for DC in that.
And I just don't know exactly what that is right now, but it
would vary depending on the topics. - Mr. Chairman. Was there any
discussion yet about the creation or the advisability of having an architectural review board to
address that issue? So you can do the architectural review piece a
couple different ways. One is you could create a separate architectural review
board that would review each application and then that review would potentially
happen separate from the normal DC review. That's one way you could
do it. Another way you could do it is the city could hire a consultant
to basically perform the architectural review and then we would incorporate that into our staff
reports and then you guys would react to that architectural analysis like you do all
the rest of the staff analysis and you could say, you know, I don't agree
with that, I don't understand that. And so that's another way you could do it.
So I think what we're open to, at least at this point, is talking about
the different methods and procedures. And then what we'll do is we'll talk amongst, you
know, within the administration and probably propose something to come out. But there's a couple
different ways to kind of do that. - Okay, next question is, without having seen
the video of the meeting, did the subject of staff workload come up? Because quite
honestly, the staff, there has been a lot going on. There's a fixed number of
people on the city staff that work on these issues before they even come to
the DC or any of the other commissions. I wonder if that was
a consideration at all or if you think it should be if it
wasn't. So what I would say is some of these things are in
play right now. So the city's already hired a consultant to
do the vertical mixed use study. So that is kind of
in process and right now we plan to provide at least
a presentation of the consultant on the 27th of September. So the 27th of September,
which is a council committee of the whole meeting, um, there will be a presentation
on vertical mixed use, and there'll also be a presentation on the housing strategy. So,
so they had asked us to do a housing strategy, um, which includes affordable housing,
but it also includes other types of housing that we're not getting right now. And
so the first piece of that puzzle and kind of separated that into four stages.
And the first is to just do an assessment of existing housing stock and then
do a forecast of what that might look like 20 years from now if all
the policies and all the market trends stay in play. Because what we know is
we're running out of vacant land to build single family subdivisions. And so most of
the housing that's going to come forward in the city is going to be multifamily,
whether it's ownership or rental, you know, but it's going to look different than what
we got the last 20 years. And so having that conversation that the first part
of that housing strategy is understanding what the pictures look like. And then the second
piece is doing a needs assessment. And we're talking about, you know, getting out into
the community and talking about housing and housing needs with different parts of the city,
because we feel like different parts of the city are going to have some different
voices in terms of expressing what kind of housing is important for the city to
get over the next 20 years. So that piece, starting that is the 27th. So
we've got a couple pieces of this puzzle already in play. I think we knew
that the architectural piece was coming even out before the moratorium came. There was a
lot of conversation about certain projects in town and what they look like and maybe
what they should have looked like. So that's not a surprise. Lucy and I and
some of the other staff in development services, we actually have talked about having a
meeting next week to sit down and start talking about how these things might unfold.
The district vision piece is a little bit more complicated but
my first thought is the city does an annual comprehensive plan
docket and that comprehensive plan is more of a long range
planning piece. So basically timing that district vision conversation with the
comp plan for 2017 probably makes sense for me. Parking, so
the parking one is a little bit of an interesting nut. The concern I think
from the council is that some of the projects that either have been built or
have been queued up in the pre-app cycle is still, and I'm just going to
use these are my words, not the council's, they're still looking very suburban. So the
projects, if they're not residential, so the commercial retail stuff, it's really more, it's
still surface parked. It's fairly low intensity, even though they might be meeting the
FAR requirements. It still doesn't look what I think people were envisioning it to
look like. So this is a conversation about density and ultimately structured parking. And if
we're still, and part of the conversation I think we're gonna get on the 27th
is are we still a ways away from the market supporting structured parking in Issaquah
as part of development projects or are we still a ways off from that? That
will help inform our conversation about parking. - I have one more question. What
is the effect of the moratorium on traffic, if any? So my opinion,
not the city's opinion, I'm going to give you my opinion. My opinion
is probably not much. I mean, I think, you know, the city's struggling
right now with, I think there's three pieces of traffic. One is construction
traffic that is related to projects that are under construction in the city.
The second is construction traffic that is construction traffic moving through the city.
Right now there's a landfill in Black Diamond that a lot of the
trucks are tending to use specifically like Sunset, but also going down SR
900. And so we're feeling the impact of that. I think the study
that the city did about the traffic on Sunset showed that 30% of
the trips on sunset are construction trucks. So that's crazy, right? And so the third
piece is regional traffic. And so, you know, and I don't want to be, I
don't want to call it, it's more, it's got more edges than just regional traffic
because I think what you have happening on the north side of I-90 is a
little bit different than what you have on the south side of I-90. So north
side clearly it's all the Sammamish folks that are coming down through the city and
getting on the freeway to go to Bellevue or Seattle or whatnot. On the south
side you have the communities, you have Renton and Maple Valley and others that are
choosing to come through the city to get to I-90 as opposed to maybe
18 and 90 which might be more congested. And so but that piece that regional
traffic piece and if you watch last night's meeting that definitely came up as part
of the concerns that the council has right now is we need to start having
conversations about that regional traffic piece because it's making our streets feel very full when
the reality is the impact of kind of the developments that have been approved so
far because most of them aren't occupied. I mean, you're just now getting Atlas filling
up with people, but like for example, Gateway, there's nobody living there yet. there will
be soon but not yet. And so the traffic right now, it's construction in the
city, it's construction going through the city, and it's regional that I think are the
biggest pieces. Okay. Thank you. I just have one question. I mean, doesn't this give
me a little bit of a disconnect with wanting more affordable housing than limiting the
inventory of houses? It's going to just drive up the price even further, isn't it?
So, well, so let me, so I think, so the moratorium is temporary, okay? And
so the idea is, I think part of it is, do you, you know, do
you believe, so the city create, you know, the city gets its growth projections from
the state and from PSRC. And right now, I think, I'm believe the number
that we're expected to grow over the next 20 years is like 5,500 housing units,
give or take. So if there's 5,500, we're going to get those regardless. You can
put a cork on the bottle for six months or a year, and you're still
going to get 5,500 20 years from now. They're just going to come at a
different pace. Is there something the city can do to influence whether
those come in at market or at an affordable price point? That's
the conversation that we're going to have over specifically the next six
to eight months to see if, you know, there's a lot of
tools in place. There's regulations, there's incentives, there's ways that the city
can influence what the market would otherwise provide. Other comments?
Great, thanks. Thank
you. All right,
thank you. So
I'm just gonna
do a quick
piece on quasi-judicial
that you often
see done. So tonight
you're being asked to hold a public hearing on a
site development permit based on the building size and the
parcel size. It is a quasi-judicial permit for which you
are the decision maker. A quasi-judicial matter means that you act like
a court and that the proceedings be both fair and appear fair. And there
are two components to that. Procedural due process, which has to do with the
process we go through, predominantly around notice and how the decision is made. And
substantive due process, which is using adopted regulations as the basis for the decision.
So I would ask for you to read
through these questions and I'll ask for your
responses in a moment. So she wants a
response from each one of us, correct? I
can do it as a group. How many
people answer no? Anyone answer yes? Okay.
And then the other piece has to do with ex parte contacts,
which means having conversations about this permit outside of being in these
chambers and on the microphone so that everyone can hear it. Has
anyone had any ex parte communications? No. Okay. Anyone challenge any of
the participation of any of the commissioners? Okay. Thank you very much.
I'm just going to get TJ up on the camera. Oh, yeah.
Good evening. My name is Amy Tarrs and I'm a
senior planner for the City of Issaquah. So tonight I
will be doing the presentation for what's really a continuation
of the public hearing for the Riva Townhomes SDP 15-00004.
Just to kind of provide a little bit of a
reminder or context for everyone. This project was originally
supposed to be discussed for a decision back in April of 2016
and by the request of the applicant we because they needed a
little bit more time to work with staff on one of the
conditions relating to the shared use route we pulled it out of
the agenda so we are back and now ready to provide our
recommendations and you have received the briefing response memo that
updates basically where we're at today with some minor edits
to the conditions from the original staff report and Before
I start my presentation for the record, I would like to note
that staff submitted two sets of public comments. One set was what
I had intended to submit for the April 2016 meeting. and that's
labeled attachment six to nine. And also for tonight, there's four additional
public comments after we have sent out the staff report and the
attachments. So that's called out as exhibit one to four.
So just for a quick review, this is basically
a townhouse development with 36 four-story townhomes and 85
parking spaces in 8.39 acres. Only 2.19 acres of
the site is developable due to the critical areas
on site. And what you see here where you see green
is actually the critical area buffer for this project. With the
townhomes lined up along the major circulation facility which is New
Port Way, there is a driveway that leads to the internal,
the remaining townhomes in this project. So for
tonight's meeting, I will not take you through the whole
project again. What I will do is highlight basically some
of the major topics that were the focus of our
previous public hearing discussion. Basically, there were two that were that
were that we we heard a lot of comments from the public and
also questions from the development commission. So one has to do with the
trail connection that's required for this project and how it relates to the
regional trail system. So tonight I'm going to start off with the map that's
found in the central Issaquah plan. This is a map that shows where you
see the dark green dashed lines. These are actually the streets and And then
I don't know if you can read it. It's a little hazy maybe,
but you see this solid green line and these are actually off street
shared use routes. So what we want to focus on is this area
where the Riva property is. There's two different symbols for required or significant
community spaces. that were identified in the Central Issaquah Plan. One is
this yellow circle which represents a neighborhood park and the green
and what you see here is it branches out on both
sides of the Riva property and it's a required shared use
route. So From my previous presentation, I kind of explained
that wherever you see two symbols in one property, basically
the Central Issaquah Plan identifies or provides for the staff
or the administration to select one or the other. And
basically in this particular case, because the developable area is
only two acres, we we have chosen the shared use route
as the appropriate share, I'm sorry, appropriate community space for the
REVA property. So last time we heard a lot of concerns
about requiring the shared use route through the property. And so
one of the things the Development Commission requested was somehow
we need to evaluate what are the existing, I'm sorry, the
existing shared use routes and trails, and how the future shared
route will connect to the existing ones. So what you're seeing here,
it's a little bit basically a montage of several, well in this
case two different drawings. What you see up here is the site
plan for the Gateway project which the Development Commission approved. And here
is the existing Sammamish Point condos which is basically sandwiched between
the Gateway Apartments and the future of Riva Townhomes. So
what you're seeing here is a combination of existing trails,
which is the yellow. So right now on Newport Way,
there's already an existing Mountains to Sound Greenway bike trail.
And then In the future, you're also going to
see that there's the shared use route through the Gateway Apartments.
And again, based on the Central Isoco Plan, there is also
a vision to provide another shared use route that will cross
over I-90 towards the Samat Mish State Park. So where does
that... And then for, I'm sorry, so other potential trails, right? The
Bergsma trails, this is basically a voluntary trail system for a future
residential development. And where you see the pink dashed lines, these are
all identified in the central Issaquah plan as future trails. So, we
know that there is already a trail at the Cougar Mountain
Regional Wildland State Park. So, in the future, we're also going
to see an improved parking facility that will serve future trail
users. And this is right across the Riva property. So where does
that put the Riva property with all these new developments and trail systems?
So what we have asked and recommended as far as the route for
the future shared use route under Riva property is to run along its
northern edge and then to go up north to connect
to the future Gateway Apartments, Shared Use Route and actually
at this end it becomes a boardwalk over Tibbets Creek
Wetland. We heard some comments about how about a connection
to the Rowley properties. So the The Rowley Development Agreement identified
three different locations for a connection from the Riva property to their
property. And after discussing this further with them, they have chosen a
location which is where this purple arrow is showing, which is further
north than where we originally thought. the connection will be. There are
other things that determines timing of, for all these other related connections
to the REVA property. So having said all of that, as you
may have read in our most current briefing response memo, The applicant
has provided us with two cost estimates for constructing this
shared use route. And it's a pretty significant length, you
know, about a thousand, over a thousand feet, lineal feet.
And due to the costs and weighing that cost versus
what they would have to pay in terms of a park impact fees,
staff determined that in this particular situation that it would,
the cost of requiring this shared use route is far
beyond what the property or the project would have had
to pay in terms of park impact fees. And so
we have basically recommended that condition nine, which was the, the
condition that required the construction of the shared use route to basically clarify
that the applicant will be paying the applicable park impact fees for 36
townhome units and provide a relocatable public access easement with
a width of 20 feet in the same alignment as
what's shown in attachment to of the briefing memo which
is also what's shown here and also that we will
have a signage right at the entry of the property and where the
future trailhead will be so that the future residents will be notified that there
is this expectation for this trail to be provided in the future. And
in addition to that, we are recommending deleting conditions 2.C, 10 and
11, which all relate to the requirement for the shared use route
to be constructed by the applicant. So the other
item that garnered a lot of comments from the
public is Newport Way, including traffic and safety with
the medians that are being proposed and potential
a potential four-way stop sign or in some cases a
request for a traffic signal. So I'll start off with
this diagram simply demonstrates that we have started an initial
response to, you know, looking at the site distance triangle
for both driveways. This is Oakcrest. This is an existing
driveway and for Riva for the future driveway. And this
simply to assure the development commission that during the construction
permit review, we will continue to use the city standard
for for sight distance clearances to ensure that none of
the sight distances will be blocked by any medians. So
and then the next one has to do with the
question about whether or not Newport Way is wide
enough for both for traffic and also for, I'm
sorry, for vehicular traffic and also for pedestrian safety.
So what you're seeing here is First, the existing right
of way width on Oak Crest Drive. So along Newport Way in
front of the Riva property, the right of way actually varies from
76 feet to 60 feet as you go further east. So right
at that intersection, it's at 76 feet and 6 inches. And so
we are requiring the applicant to basically provide what the basically
the frontage improvements for the full width of Newport Way within
this blue area. And what that includes is right of way
dedication of 1.5 feet on their side, the paving for full
width of the roadway with curbs and gutters, Commuter bike
lanes, this one is existing on the left, but this one will, I'm
sorry, since the center line is changing, everything's gonna change too. So yes,
I'm sorry. So this actually all three with a multi-use trail, what we're
calling a shared use trail that is raised and separated from the travel
lanes. Center turn lane or a landscape median, Repositioning of
street lights and that just comes with shifting the center line of
the street and then a temporary five foot gravel walkway to the
Cougar Mountain Trail Trailhead. So as part of
all of that, one of just for clarification and again to
address community concerns, currently there is a 10 foot shoulder that
that the community uses to walk to the the trailhead. So because
we are shifting the center line of Newport Way and we are
also adding a 10 foot multi-use trail, it shifts everything and that
shoulder will go away. And in lieu of that shoulder, we are
providing or requesting the applicant to provide a five foot gravel walkway
so that pedestrians can continue to access their trail.
So this is quite a short presentation because at least from
our end, we think that we have addressed all of the
concerns. And so based on our presentation and the staff report
and the briefing response memos and additional information that were provided
by the applicant, we are recommending the Development Commission to approve
this project. That concludes
my presentation. Thanks Amy. Commissioners? Comments? Concerns? I do have one question.
You mentioned the received two cost estimates at least twice as much
as the parking back fees. Can you tell us what those cost
estimates were? So it was ranging between $500,000 to $800,000. And
it doesn't even include the railings and the geotechnical
studies. Thank you. Question? Related to that is in
the new condition 9, you referred to it as
provide a relocatable public access easement. I'm not familiar with
the terms of a relocatable easement. So how does that work if you're defining an
easement on the property that could be moved to where and how does that happen?
So in other words, we have currently a general idea where that line is.
However, once we start looking at the site conditions where trees
are located, we may shift that line to avoid some of
the trees. So it will remain along this. It's not like
suddenly it's going to go to a different direction. It would still
follow the same direction, but it may not be at the exact
location as what's shown here. Because of vegetation or topography or whatever
for constructability that they would move it. Commissioner Harris. Amy, just clarify
for me. So the requirement to build that trail is essentially...
delayed indefinitely or they are going to be required to put it put the trail
in in a in a fixed time zone. I'm just not clear on that. Yes.
So in this particular case, staff is acknowledging that this trail is still an important
element of the green necklace. However, the applicant is not going to be required
to construct it. It may be that in the future, either the city
does it or some other applicant or some kind of maybe a not-for-profit
group would want to do it. So we don't know. We haven't identified
who might be building it in the future. Mr. Chair? I simply
recall there was an issue about parking with the trail system at one
point in time across the street from there. Was that, I don't see
that being proposed right now. Whatever came out of that. So the goodness
is the King County Parks Department is proceeding with applying for a grant
to build a 40, and it may change but right now what we're hearing
is a 40 space parking lot on the side so it would just be a
matter of timing so we are continuing to work with them on you know just
as far as coordinating on how to you know for them moving their project along
and how we can facilitate that So that parking lot would be at the
location of the trailhead then? Yes, so it will be inside their property where it's
safer. Okay, thank you. With the amount of units and the construction that's going on
as well up top and the way people drive on Newport as it is, why
isn't a traffic light required? I mean it seems like there's gonna be a lot
of pedestrian traffic as well as car traffic going through there. And in mornings
when people leave for work, it's kind of hazy and dark sometimes. It seemed
like a safer bet for us. As far as with, first I'll address
that in more of a regional or system-wide scale. So Newport Way
has always been intended as an arterial, which means that we want
the traffic to constantly move. So based on that, our public works
engineering director is not supportive of any sort of traffic signals that
will hinder that. However, so the second level of analysis and rational for that
has to do with the warrants, you know, and when you have a new project,
you identify, you know, how many trips that project will take. will add into
the existing trips and then whether that triggers a need for traffic signal. And in
this case, because of how low the number of units are, it doesn't really trigger
the requirement for a traffic signal. But if you're adding trailhead and making it
kind of a destination for people there's gonna be a lot of foot traffic there
so that's that's my concern is people crossing the street maybe the uh the people
in the apartment across the street go up to the trail the other way right
then you have all the foot traffic crossing Newport which is an artery that's moving
quickly so if if it's about the pedestrian safety we actually um recently installed a
new rectangular I always forget what rectangular flashing be yeah RFFD what is the
other F yeah beacon so it's it's it's a more enhanced pedestrian amenity
you know instead of just one of those that you you push the
button and then it lights up this one has you know something that
more visible and we also move the we also have a rate a
speed speed radar and and so I talked to
the director also about that and how we moved that in order
to kind of start reminding drivers that they're get they're approaching a
crosswalk and for them to slow down so and and and just
for clarification they're also required to improve the the crosswalks at the
intersection of Oak Crest and Newport Way - Amy,
there was one, I'm sorry. - No, go ahead. - There was
one thing that I noticed that referred to the anti-aircraft culvert relocation.
And as I read it, I believe it said that there would
be a requirement to regrade Newport in order to accommodate the culvert.
But that was all that was said, that regrading Newport kind
of sounds like a really big deal. Yeah so so
yes so due to the requirement for a fish passage
design culvert basically we have to we have to regrade
Newport Way so since the Since the applicant is already building Newport
Way, it's basically not a major change for them. And so as far
as with their site, they were able to accommodate the change in grade
by increasing the height of the garages that were tucked in garages. So
it didn't really affect their site plan either.
Mr. Chair, point of clarification, and maybe you can help us understand
it. I think there's like a 900 units development that's going on
along Newport Way there. And I guess the trails eventually will tie
into the walking trail will tie into that. And the issue is,
I guess, part traffic. I understand what you're saying about
putting some warning, you know, you hit a button and then the light flashes
so the driver realizes that you're approaching a sidewalk or a crosswalk. But with
the 900 units, that's going to generate a lot of traffic coming out of
there. I don't know, maybe it shouldn't be a burden for this project, but
I think the city, I think at one point in time talked about that and
then I thought I read something about that they were going to put a circular,
a roundabout there. Is that part of that or how, where is that at this
point in time? So the roundabout was actually identified for further, you
know, where the Gateway project is. So in fact, that's what
we're doing. We are in the process of installing a roundabout
right here. And is that still in progress then? Yes, it
will be constructed. We are currently reviewing the construction permit for
it. So just I'm seeing some skepticism. Uh, so even with
the gateway project, it did not generate enough traffic that we are allowed
to install a traffic signal. You, you have to meet a certain, it's
called tripping the warrants. You know, you have to hit that number or
you may not install a signal. These two projects are not generating enough.
And what is that number? I keep hearing, "We're not there." Does
anybody know what the number is? Is that a secret?
I would ask that you introduce yourself please. Jeff Schram, Traffic Engineer,
10W. I testified last time in the first hearing as well. So
to try to provide you a more simplified answer, there's a series
of warrants. The one that is typically triggered the peak hour warrant. If
usually if that's triggered then you know multiple warrants are triggered. You would need about
a hundred and fifty trips from the side street to be generated during a peak
hour. That's equivalent of about 200 units of multifamily housing. So a project of this
size or even the traffic on Oak Crest on the other side will probably never
have enough volume to warrant a signal at that location.
And what is the peak hours? Morning there's a peak hours and the afternoon? We
look at both the morning and the afternoon peak hour. We look at both of
them. If either of those hours are met or in some cases like in a
retail district the peak hour could occur at noon or in the afternoon. If any
peak hour, if there's a high enough volume on the side street to warrant it,
you can have, as long as there's also a minimum of traffic on the arterial
as well. In this case there's enough volume on the arterial, just the side street
doesn't have enough, would not generate enough traffic to warrant a signal. Okay and what
are the hours, the peak hours? So the peak hour, typically the peak hour is
between 4 and 6 p.m. It varies throughout the city. I think in this area
it's between 4.30 and 5.30. It's the highest 60-minute period where traffic volumes are highest.
And in the morning? In the morning it's probably 7.30 to 8.30. 7.15 to 7.45
is about the peak time, I think, along Newport. So are you saying that the
traffic on Newport is not, what would trigger the warrant, but what traffic is coming
out of the Riviera apartments? Yeah, you need a certain level of volume on both
the arterial and the side street. So both of them have to meet a minimum
standard. What I'm saying is if there's enough volume on Newport where if if
a development of about 200 townhomes let's say were were generated that that would
be right near where the warrant level would be to warrant a signal at
an intersection. So when the city says that they're not allowed
to put a stoplight unless the warrants are triggered, by whom are they
not allowed? Well, there's a -- we use an MUTCD, which is a
manual on uniform traffic control devices, which is a nationally accepted standard. There's
a series of 11 warrants. that range from, several of them are traffic
volume driven, pedestrian demand driven, safety driven, railroad crossing, coordinated signal
system. There's a variety of different standards that are required. The
most typical is traffic volume related. If an intersection or a
location is not meeting those standards, then it is a recommended
practice not to install signals Professionally speaking, there are locations where signals have been implemented
when a warrant is not met under special circumstances. But, go ahead. - So is
this more of a funding issue than anything else about whether or not you get
state money, county money, federal money for the project? - It's a liability issue. -
Liability issue. - It increases our liability if we install it contrary to warrants, is
my understanding. - So the city could be sued by who? But the parents--
If there was a court case-- Yeah. So I'm looking at
my expert over here, but my understanding is it's somewhat counterintuitive,
but installing signals, either signals or stop signs where it is
not warranted and if something happens there, then we have installed
it contrary to the professional criteria, and therefore we have created
additional liability for the city. Okay. Thank you.
I have one more question. Are there similar criteria for
a roundabout? It's a great question. roundabouts do not
have the same criteria for signal warrants but in our
profession typically if a signal is warranted one alternative to
signalization is roundabout there is not a nationally accepted criteria
for minimum traffic volume standards for a roundabout would you
incur the same liability at that point maybe that's a
question for not well I want to answer
that. There are applications, there are more common
applications for roundabouts than there are signals where
they would be placed for conditions that would
account for situations where maybe traffic signal warrants
aren't met. It's a viable alternative for things
like or reducing speeds, accounting for pedestrian activity, things like that. - And
monitoring the flow out of that development. And won't most of the cars be
coming out of that development reasonably going left as opposed to right? And does
that factor into the flow rate, the direction they're coming out? - Sure, yeah,
that factors. One other element that is, in a traffic analysis is
level service analysis. And we have, you know, we've identified how much traffic
volume is generated by this development. And we look at level service standards.
Again, a national standard, the volume of traffic coming out here would result
in a level service C, which is an acceptable condition. Depending on, you
know, we're looking at traffic modeling, there'd be a fairly, equivalent flow
depending if you're in the morning or afternoon peak hour in terms of where cars
are coming to or from. - Okay, thank you. - Amy, I have just one
question. There's probably no data on this at all, but is there any indication yet
of the and some of the other units that are coming online. Is there any
indication of how many of the renters are actually working, going to work in Issaquah?
Any percentage ballpark in terms of will they be trying, you know, Where are these
people going to work? I just wonder if there's a marketing study on that that
was presented. There may be. They haven't. Lennar hasn't shared it with us, if there
is. I think that would be interesting. I don't know whether that's something for the
Issaquah Press to do or the city to do, but to find out as these
things come online, how many of the folks that are moving into Issaquah are moving
into these central Issaquah plan projects. are actually commuting outside of the city. Yeah, and
I don't know if that, it may be the census before that kind of
data is collected. I would imagine there's probably some numbers out there. Because the
report came out says there's no impact on traffic. on the development. Same
thing as that gentleman when you made a statement, it says it's not going to
generate 150 trips. So you must base it on something. So my question is what
is that number right now? And I'm sure somebody did some study for you to
make that statement. So with the 900 units that's going further going up, you know,
further north, somebody did some study and I seem to recall one of the
meetings that we had, they said that it's not going to affect the traffic.
And there's a lot of concern, not only from the DC, but the public,
and especially when you have that accident with the kid getting killed. So there's
a lot of concern that's coming out of that. So I guess the point
to answer Commissioner Randi was that I believe there's a study done. I don't know
what it is. So I think you're confusing the studies. I mean, you're right. There's
a traffic impact analysis that's performed. based on a model because the people
who are going to live there, there's not data on
who those people are and exactly where they're working. It's
a model based on the history and operation within the
city. And so the specific data on who actually has moved in and where they're
actually working and their modes of travel, that's a different kind of study that hasn't
been performed. - And just to be clear, I didn't expect the city to be
collecting that data. I just wondered if somebody else in their marketing studies had done
that and then shared it with you. That was unfortunate. - Fortunately, no. Where is
the nearest bus stop and which direction is the elementary from this
location? Are we talking about the school bus? So the school and
probably the residents know better than me where it is now because
the last time we talked about it, it was supposed to be
close to the crosswalk at Oak Crest. But it's important to remember
that School bus stops could change every single year. And so where it
is now versus where it is once construction has taken place is hard to
predict. What schools are they zoned for? That's going to make a difference on
traffic in the peak hours, right? Because they're zoned for one that's that way.
And again, the school boundaries often change after the construction of a project. So
we don't know it right now. And it also has come out a
number of times when we've been talking about these that the school district's policy is
that the buses do not go into these projects. So they have to, according to
school district policy, the stops to pick up and discharge children are on the arterial
rather than inside the project. and depending on where the school is would determine which
way the traffic goes during those peak times so we can't necessarily know that we
won't have 150 going one way or another depending on time of day if we
don't know which school they're going to go to that's gonna make a huge difference
on which way the traffic goes and the flow and you know how many people
are heading one way or another Right. Although the traffic engineer was speaking
to actually crossing trips coming off the side streets. So if
the school bus is staying on Newport, then it would be
absolutely right, a contributor to the through traffic, but not the
cross traffic. Other comments, commissioners? So I would like to take
a little bit of time and open up open the time for
some public comment. If there are members of the public that would like to make
a statement or a comment before you do that, I would like you to sign
in and make sure that we have your name. I don't know how many people
might want to talk, so I would just ask you to be mindful of the
hour and limit your discussion if possible. Mr. Chairman, would you just double check that
the applicant doesn't care to make a presentation? I probably misspoke and I would like
to ask the applicant if he would be interested if they would be interested in
making a making a comment before we ask the public to do that so I'm
not going to open the public comment at this point so I apologize for and
I appreciate the reminder thank you apologies accepted I'm Aaron Golden with Connor Homes I'll
speak very briefly because I'm on a tail end of a cold but I want
to thank the commission members for their time and particularly staff for their diligent efforts
it's been some time and for a small project it's had its complications but
we're very excited. We feel like it's an attractive project. It's a great spot
for an infill development and it meets a distinct market niche. So thank you.
We have staff here for any additional questions. Thank you. Now unless I've made
another error we'll open the opportunity for the public to make comment if they
so choose. We'd ask
you to introduce yourself before you speak. Good evening,
Commission members. My name is Hart Sugarman. I live
at 2550 Northwest Oakcrest Drive. I'm a resident here
for over 20 years at this location, so I'm
very familiar with this site. I submitted my comments
in writing, and Amy was kind enough to provide
a reply, but I do want to bring up
some concerns. The intersection, well first of all, the decision to
build this complex adjacent to the roadway with no easement or buffer zone
will be setting a precedence for the city. There's no dwelling, whether it's
a residence or building, you know, commercial building on Newport Way from the
west boundary on Lakemont Boulevard or to the east or southeast boundary at
Front Street. This is the first building that will be right smack against the
roadway. So this is going to create a whole new dynamics and concern. So with
traffic, we have the roadway. Oak Crest Drive is not a driveway. Oak Crest Drive
is a roadway that is serving the community of Summerhill subdivision with 55 homes. Coming
out of our street, we have here Newport Way, which is like Newport Way S
curves. It might be a shallow S, but it does create some sight lines
and very limited reaction time when cars are driving. So coming out of
Oak Crest Drive right or left is a challenge for us. Putting in
this driveway directly opposite is also going to be unique for Newport Way
because every other four-way intersection on Newport Way has traffic controls. stop
lights. And if you go further west into Bellevue, the first street is 164th, it's
a four-way stop sign. So to put in a four-way intersection without some sort of
controls is a risk. Now coming out of the driveway from Riva, a driver will
be looking to their left, but there's a curve. And now today with the roadway
and the grass and the brush, you can see oncoming cars. But now with the
buildings built at that roadway and the curve, and you have to really see it
yourselves because the drawing here doesn't really illustrate this, but if you come out of
that driveway, the time and distance for you to react to make a left turn
when buildings are now blocking your view because you don't have that clear view, sight
line of the cars that are coming westbound. That is a concern. So I think
you really have to look at some sort of control. Now the roundabout further down
at Gateway, I'm not quite sure how the bike lane cues into the roundabout or
pedestrians safely cross the street when there's a constant flow of cars going around and
around. How does that pedestrian safely cross the road if there isn't a traffic control
or a crosswalk enabling a pedestrian to cross the street? So likewise here, if we're
gonna have a trailhead with a lot of foot traffic and now we're gonna widen
the street, widening the street with an additional lane, how can you safely walk across
with just the push of a button with a rectangular flashing light? That is not
going to work when the street becomes wider and the person has to cross quicker
to safely cross. We've experienced one death at our intersection. We don't want another. So
I just want you to really think about the two decisions that are setting a
precedence. road building right at the roadway and a four-way intersection that is not having
some sort of actuated control that we can you know activate a signal when it's
necessary not that it's always going to turn red for the oncoming cars but at
least when cars are trying to come out that there's a trigger that will activate
the light so people can exit safely and another final point talus is a large
community adjacent to our location here, many drivers choose to drive on Newport Way
to get to exit 13 because it's quicker than going down State Road 900 to
join I-90 at exit 15. So we have a lot of traffic coming in.
to Newport Way, it's increasing with the Gateway project and now with Riva and
it's just going to compound the volume of traffic. So I think traffic studies
in the past won't apply to this. You have to rethink and re-engineer this
whole thing. And the final point is do you build the roads first and
then the dwellings or do you build the dwellings and then tear up the
road and inconvenience all the people that just moved in one before the other?
Thank you very much for your time. Good evening everyone. My name is
Tina Conforti and I live on 1220 Oakcrest Drive. I am right next
door with the incident of the little boy. He got killed right on
my corner on Newport Way and Oakcrest Drive. So I'd like to thank
you to listen to us and Amy to do such a great job
to respond to all of the email. My concern, I
have a big concern about this project, Riva project. The
unit is too close to the road. Newport Way, it
has nothing to offer to the residents that they buy
the townhouse. It has to offer traffic. A King
County trail right across with a parking lot and a lot of cars parking
right on the front of their project. Very danger if it is an incident
over there. They can be right, falling right in there from the door. I
don't feel this project that's safe. It's too close to the road.
The traffic a new part of way. If you don't live in the area,
if people don't live in the area, they don't know what it means. We
went through a summer time with dust all over, so much pollution with the
dwell trucking going back and front. I couldn't count anymore. A mini truck each
day, they went up and down a new part of way. And
we came close to an incident. It was very unusual.
A truck from the street cleaning from Gateway Project comes
to Ococres Drive and does a U-turn on our street.
Our street is not legal to do a U-turn. He
almost came this close, and I was walking. And
I took a picture, Mrs. Lynch has the photo that I took. It
came this close to hit another car right on the local crosswalk. And
me, I was right on the crosswalk. This is not allowed in our
neighborhood. Everybody can do everything they want. They have to respect the regulations.
Now the schools are open. See children on our corner. WE
ARE GOING TO PUT UP WITH THE MOTOR ACCIDENT. YES, WE DO NEED
A STOPLIGHT. YES. BECAUSE THE NUMEROUS VALUES IT WILL BE HEADED ON TO
WHEN ALL OF THE PROJECTS ARE DONE ON NEW PORTWAY, YOU ARE GOING
TO MAKE MORE FOUR TIMES DOUBLE THAN THE TRAFFIC IT IS TODAY OVER
THERE. I CONSIDER NEW PORTWAY, RIVA PROJECT, IT'S VERY DANGEROUS CLOSE TO THEIR
ROADS, AND I APPRECIATE If you could take in consideration what
we go through with all of these projects done over there, we struggle
every day to pull up with the noise. It's Newport we can't take
all of this traffic. I propose the first alternative road to be prepared
for all of these projects. And I'm still going to work on trying
to figure out how can we help the neighbors? How can we
help to eliminate more traffic? I think before we do all of this project, we
have to think first, what is the necessity in the area? I feel very, the
project close to the road, it's very unsafe. There's no view to look. There's traffic
to look, King of County trailer, and a lot of parking lot. Thank you for
listening.
Good evening. My name is Joe Verner. V like victory ER
and ER address is 1230 Oakwood Place Northwest in the Summerhill
subdivision. I just want to take a couple of minutes to
thank you for listening to our comments and to debunk a
couple of myths about traffic control on Newport at the intersection
to our subdivision Oak Crest.
That intersection is
right here. There's
a crosswalk here.
Would you speak
in the microphone?
You can use
the mouse on
the computer. You
don't have to
touch. Okay, there's the intersection of
Oak Crest and Newport. Right here is a crosswalk. Right here is
the school bus stop. Now, Lucy, I understand your answers. The city
has been going to do something about Newport for 30 some odd
years and nothing has happened. We're going to have another four, five,
six years of development on Newport alone with just the projects that
are approved. The roadway is not going to be torn up while
those projects are working. The school districts are not going
to Burgoyne, they're going to change the lines. So that bus stop
is going to stay there. The street's going to stay the same
as it is now. The only thing that's changing is there's increased
traffic because there doesn't seem to be a control of development on
the valley floor. So I just want to debunk some myths about
the crosswalk that's there now. Our Summerhill subdivision For seven years,
2008 or 2007 to 2014, petitioned the city to reduce the
speed limit on Newport Way from 40. We wanted 25, but
it's down to 30 now. We wanted some traffic control at
that intersection. But our esteemed public works director said, "No." Took
the death of a four-year-old to get the mayor off his
chair, and get everybody going to reduce the speed limit and
to get the city to put in a new crosswalk sign that
had bigger flashing lights and that worked more frequently than the prior
one did. I don't know where you folks live, but I invite
you to come out and go across that crosswalk. You better increase
your life insurance policy before you do. It's not that it doesn't
work, it's that it's ineffective Because the drivers don't stop for it.
Now we're going to have more traffic coming up from Reba, more traffic
from the Gateway, more traffic from Atlas and Talus, all going up Newport
to go west to go to work. We're going to have another accident
to get you folks to change your minds and say, gosh, those guys
at Summerhill must have been really correct. And now what's the city's liability,
Lucy? and Mr. Traffic Control expert.
What are you gonna do when you got
some other death or more? Thanks for listening.
- My name is Mary Lynch and I
reside at 2690 Northwest Oakcrest Drive, Issaquah, Washington.
I have got some pictures I would like to also show. But before I do,
I do want to thank Amy. I think she has attempted to put together a
package that does follow the CIP and the goals brought out in it. But I
would like to remind the development commission that when the CIP was passed, the city
already had identified that it had flaws. Unfortunately, it has taken them a
while to get any sort of process to look at those flaws and to redo
any of it. And I would ask you that if you have a chance tomorrow
at Land and Shores, there's a pretty long list of to-do items where they're going
to try and rush through some more changes to the CIP. And that's about the
only chance with the few showing up in the planning and policy meeting that the
public even has to make those changes. But it's all being rushed through once again
without a lot of public comment. to what the changes have made and there are
things that should be in there. So if you have a chance I would recommend
it's 5:30 tomorrow here in the council room. The agenda is on there. I can't
attend because I've got some other work and this is my second meeting. I was
at the meeting last night. But I do want to recognize what Amy has tried
to do. That being said I would I'd like to first say, one of the
conditions of the multimodal trail that we're no longer going to ask the developer to
put in, I agree with that because I don't think the trail should be there
to begin with. And just because the CIP says we have to have it, why
are we building another trail like we did in Gateway across to wetlands? And now
it's going to be given to the city in perpetuity to have to maintain a
wetlands and then build a trail, like you heard, at what expense? Where is it
in the budget and the park budget, which we already don't have enough funds for
existing parks? How are we going to fund that and when is that going to
happen? And who's going to maintain that wetlands? That being said, in order for this
project to go forward, what really still has never been presented clearly is you have
to have the relocation of the anti-aircraft creek. And as Amy said, they're going to
move the road into an existing area where the anti-aircraft creek is going to be
filled in. Right now, when we walk from our neighborhood down to the
trailhead or when other people do, we have roughly 20 feet that we can walk
safely away from traffic. You're reducing and moving the cars over there and you're giving
us five feet of gravel. I have pictures I can send you that I've taken
over the years. When cars come around this curve here, most of them end up
three to four feet into our intersection And by the time they get here, they're
at least two to three feet still into the bike lane. Many of them in
the larger trucks come into the gravel. This summer with all the trucks that we've
had going down our route from Gateway, most of those trucks have been driving on
the gravel when they come around that curve. Because what happens? Yes, they're now saying
they're going to have a traffic circle, not a stoplight at Gateway. It's a small
traffic circle. But what's happened this summer is cars are stopped there, held up by
the street sweeper, or cars turning in. As soon as they're let go, they come
zooming around that corner. They are increasing their speeds to well over 40 miles an
hour as they come around our corner. The other thing they want to do with
Riva is, you know, reduce the, widen the, and the comments with Hart said, is
widen that side of the road here where our crosswalk is. So that we have
even a moving target. So that means cars coming around here at 40 miles an
hour can come even further into this area. So now those of us that are
down here that have to, the stop signs here, in order to see we have
to commit ourselves into the intersection. And so we have been hit or almost hit
by cars coming through here. So that's the design of that on this one. We
also will now have cars and we have bicyclists that come to this trailhead, which
are not going to have access here. They're going to have to come down, make
a turn around this corner, and in a minute I'll show you what Tina said.
But we're going to have them making U-turns here, coming back, driving in the gravel
where we're supposed to walk back to get to the trailhead. We have mothers on
bikes that I've seen this summer that they ride to this trailhead, they get off
their bikes and they walk the trails. We have people with dogs that walk along
here. Why not, if we're gonna have this anti-aircraft creek in the city, either the
developer or the city at the time of this project be required to put the
rest of the road in before anything is done. I know why, cuz you know
what is gonna be this used? This is gonna be staging area for the contractors.
Because where are they going to go in here? Where are they going
to stage any of their trucks? Right now, Gateway at least has a
flat area where the parking all supposed to go that they're using to
stage their trucks. Where are these trucks for this contractor and developer gonna
stage? It's either gonna be up our street or it's gonna be here
in the gravel area or in the, that being said, let me show
you some pictures then. That more clearly show my . Can I pull
this out? Yeah.
Hopefully it was recorded tonight. I don't know if you knew that
most of the public comments yesterday weren't recorded for the meeting unfortunately.
Open folder to view. Oh, the other thing, just to prove my
point on speed, the only way we've even maintained close to 30
is by constantly calling the city, sending them pictures. And once in
a while the police have come out. And for those short period
that they're there, we get people going the speed limit.
This I took in late June. This shows
you here is an average representation of what's
occurring. That was the truck that was going
38 miles an hour. I also caught city
trucks doing that. I caught a Federal Express
truck and a lot of other commuters. And
this was about I think 8:30 in the
morning. And unfortunately we don't have this speed sign going
from the other way, but after a year and a half of standing down
there, I can pretty well tell you what a car is going within a
couple miles an hour. Yeah, this is what Tina was trying to tell you.
That's what we had to put up with in order to at least get
a little bit of dirt off our roadway all summer versus going on to
the S900, making a safe turn and coming back. About every five minutes, this
was going by here, and then they went up to Pine Cone and did
the exact same thing without any flaggers or anybody controlling them. But we got
a little dirt off the road. The other thing I'd like to say is
it depends on which traffic engineer you talk to. After the accident last
year and much protest, we finally got the city to agree to hire a
consultant that came in and did a traffic study. If you will look at
that document, which is document 3699 on page 37 and 38 of there, they
clearly state Future volumes and proposed three lane sections and a 30
mile an hour speed limit are the threshold where improvements beyond a marked crossing
are necessary to avoid increased risk to pedestrians with a marked crosswalk alone. They
made the relocation of the speed, the other thing, reduce curb radius to reduce
the crossing length so the pedestrians are in the street for a shorter period
of time. Not widen it, reduce it. install a rectangular flashing beacons
and with new technology consider advance warning beacons on either side, considering consider
a median refuge like the new one that they installed without public comment
down on Front Street at Bush to so people can't make left hand
turn lanes anymore to do that. Let me show you. This is in
the traffic study and this is what they recommended. I since the beginning meeting
have been asking the city staff to look at the traffic report and listen
to this traffic engineer who has come out and spent a long time, a
day or two at this intersection and this is what they recommended for the
future with increased control and traffic calming. We've got none of this in this proposed
and as Hart said, we don't even have any, even if the bond were to
pass, there's no promise from the city that those monies are going to be spent
on our roadway. And so we have to put up with the existing road unless
you guys tonight make some decisions, the conditions that would help make our streets safer.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is John Fisher, 2122 Newport Way NW, Issaquah. I'm also on the
backside of a cold, so please excuse me. First, I'd like to thank the Development
Commission for their attention to this proposal, and I'd also like to thank the applicant,
who in my view has been attentive and communicative with the members of the community
and existing residents on this project. So I suppose the overarching theme of my
comments will be contradictions. And I'll try to work my way from macro to micro
as best I can. First off, let me see if I can work my way
back to the maps that were up here. Since I said I would be
macro to micro, let's see what I can put up here. Okay. So first
off, and my comments will pile on top of the eloquent comments of everyone
else here. But first off, on the Central Esquire plan, it is understandable that
you would want to concentrate development in the Valley. Development will come,
but here's where I see a contradiction. You have Tibbets Creek
that runs up north-south here, and the central Issaquah district extends
to the west of Tibbets Creek. Now the intention is for
the central Issaquah district to be a walkable urbanist community, but
I see an inherent conflict here. you have no commercial development west of
Tibbets. All of the amenities that anyone living west of Tibbets would want to access
are east of the creek. At the same time, you do want to protect the
creek. Tibbets Creek is an important resource to Issaquah. Its wetlands are an important resource
to Issaquah. How do you reconcile those two things? You want everyone who lives here
to be able to walk or ride a bus to the amenities that they
want. But I think even with all of the development that is proposed here,
you have no transit access west of Tibbets. And I do not see a
prospect of transit coming west of Tibbets. I would love to hear a correction
to that. I come to you as someone who Rides transit to commute
and also as someone who is very fond of the trail amenities
that Issaquah has to offer. But I see a contradiction here. Moving
in a little bit closer in, let's see here.
This I have submitted written comments that were rather extensive
back in March that questioned costs and other aspects of
the trail proposal here. And I'll reiterate those comments now.
So there is this trail proposal that runs in a
generally north-south direction. That is opposite
of the east-west direction that would provide any connectivity
benefit for residents of the left bank of Tibbetts.
The cost differences between the fees that the developer
would pay and what it would cost to build
a raised, lighted, 20-foot wide right-of-way bridge across the
critical area have been noted. The other thing I would note
is that if we proceed with an easement, I did argue
for the fact that this trail, this north-south trail, which gives
no benefit of connectivity to Sammamish Point residents, I would
argue that to tear out the trees that sit right against Sammamish Point is
an adversely negative impact on Sammamish Point and that the mitigation of tree removal
be to the west. If that easement proceeds, do we still have that assurance
that mitigation is toward the west rather than toward the east? So
finally some comments regarding just to pile on on
traffic and on pedestrian movements. It's a little difficult for me
to be objective because I have, you know, when the 210 used to run along
this road, it does not anymore. We lost that bus route. I got off this
bus once and a school child got off and tried to cross Newport Way and
almost got hit. That was not easy to watch. But... I
hear traffic studies that take Riva into consideration in isolation. You
also have the expanded parking in this area, the park and
ride. You do have proposals. You have Bergsma that would provide walkways on
the south side of Newport, but how long will it take for those
to come to fruition? That's a tough question. How long will people be
jaywalking across this road? How many years with the pass-through traffic that you're
seeing so much of which is not Issaquah residents. It's passed through
from south of Issaquah in particular. Finally, I would say that Issaquah is
a very fortunate community. It has a lot of resources, but that does
not absolve us from being very careful in how public funds are used.
As all these things are considered, I would
urge those involved to consider the context that
existing residents of this area have and the
concerns that we have that the city expenditures
and the use of the park fees be
responsible. Thank you. Any other comments from the
public? OK, I'll close the public
comment portion of the meeting. And any comments from staff
or commissioners? MR. Mr. Chairman, I want to just first
remind folks that there is a very clear set of
purview that defines the purview of the Development Commission. And
the concerns that individuals have expressed tonight, commissioners, members of
the public, and so on, are absolutely legitimate. But there
really needs to be an understanding of what is in the purview
of the Development Commission to address. And some of the key issues,
I would remind folks here that have been brought up tonight, are
not within the purview of the Development Commission to address. City Council,
the staff, the mayor are the ones who make the rules. That
said, on this specific application, I will
express my continuing concern about the intersection issue. I understand the data,
I understand the standards that have been used by the city staff
and by the applicant to address the traffic issue and the pedestrian
issue and the school bus issue, but there comes a time when
as an individual member of this commission with the attendant responsibilities, when
I look at that map, and I drive Newport a
lot as well. When I look at that map and the
alignment of a crosswalk with two opposing streams of traffic crossing
a major arterial, maybe out of line to say this, but
emotionally and rationally, that just doesn't work for me. The issue
of liability was brought up earlier about this reliability of the
city. And I understand that, I agree with it, but I believe
that the present alignment of that traffic flow and those intersections will result
in an additional liability because I cannot believe that over an extended period
of time as traffic increases on that arterial with the enlarged trailhead, all
of the things that have been mentioned repeatedly by a number of members
of this meeting tonight, that there will not be another fatal
accident and God forbid there are, but I have as serious
an issue with that alignment as I've had with anything since
I've been on the DC. - Other comments? - I agree
with that. - I have one question, I should have asked
this earlier, I guess. In the conditions 22, 23, 24 talk about,
you don't have to pull them up, but they talk about incorporating natural materials and
providing architectural details. So those were put in place back in March. There's certainly been
time enough for changes to be made to the plans so that they could have
been brought back to the commission at this point for us to review those changes
to have input on them as opposed to just leaving the condition, waiting for this
to finish and presumably they would go to staff for approval of
those changes. I guess I'm wondering why we didn't get those changes made
during this, you know, four or five month period. So customarily what we,
how we address or how we handle conditions is, you know, we expect
that those, once we have a condition and we have an approved
site development permit that we work out the details with the applicant after. In
some cases, the applicants would, you know, voluntarily come and offer like for the
Gateway project where a lot of their, they would rather reduce the amount of
conditions on their land use permit. So they provided us immediately with the revised
plans and elevations. So, but in this case, the applicant opted to just put
it aside for, you know, for a follow-up work after the SDP approval. I
guess just a comment then. My preference would be, given the time, that it
would have been better to have them make those changes and give the Commission
a chance to apply on the changes they did make and hopefully meeting those
that desire for more natural materials and those kind of changes like we used
to do between a community conference and a SDP you can make those changes we
could look and say yes we agree with those and would have been nice in
this case to have that opportunity and I will keep that in mind in the
future so we can advise applicants in the future of your preference thank you would
I was just conferring with the applicant. Would you would
like the applicant's traffic engineer to speak to Commissioner Harrison's
and obviously other commissioners concerns? Again for the record, excuse
me, Jeff Schramm. So I have been in front of
this Commission on several projects. I was responsible for the
traffic study for Gateway Apartments, Senior Housing and Riva. I
have been at probably all of these meetings and I have heard
loud and clear the concerns of traffic, safety, growing volumes, and I
get it. I understand. I think it's important to note that maybe
you can help me pull up that exhibit that showed, it had
a lot going on but it kind of showed some sight lines.
I think the question that you've asked Commissioner Harrison is or
at least you've questioned is, is the intersection safe? As a
professional, it's my responsibility that road design meets the standards, city
standards, established criteria. In my professional opinion, the improvements that are
going to occur at the intersection are that, they are improvements
to an existing condition. I don't disagree with the residents that
are coming to that stop sign out of Oak Crest have some limitations
and when they look left and right for cars, cars that travel above speeds,
trucks that travel as well. What this project does is it builds out the
required frontage. It builds out the city's plan for Newport Way as a parkway.
It will add turn lanes which provide safe refuge for left turners that don't
exist there today. left turners for oak grass left turners for
the riva town homes the lanes the through lanes will narrow which
will um which will have an effect of also slowing speeds which
would be complementary to the reduction in speed that the city um
you know changed there recently The recently improved rapid flashing location
and improvement over what existed before will continue to be maintained. What
this exhibit shows, and I apologize it's a little bit grainy, but
what it shows is that with the new aligned intersection and the
widening that will be resulting, from the improvements, we'll improve the sight lines to
meet the city standards. What this shows is a vehicle will be able to see
and meet the city's minimum standards for that classification of road. The other thing that
the project will do is it'll improve the curb ramps at each of the corners
for ADA accessibility for pedestrian access. and improve as well the crosswalk delineation it will
provide the type of striping that is reflect reflectorized to a level that will be
an improvement over what exists there today what essentially this project is doing is it's
implementing what the city is required requiring of newport way and i believe in my
professional opinion there the added traffic there will be mitigated by the improvements that are
being required and that will be implemented What is being planned there is in
no way would be inconsistent with what the city could do as over time
and what the city's pedestrian crossing study does and further evaluate the improvements that
may be necessary you know along that corridor as development continues to grow and
continues to occur but the bottom line is it will be an improvement over
an existing condition. Can you speak a little bit, Jeff,
about why we talked about a traffic signal. Can you talk
about a four-way stop sign? Yeah. It warrants for what we
call an all-way stop or four-way stop. Similarly, there's a standard.
On an arterial road, all-way stop control is –
not good practice and it also is not safe. An arterial
is intended to do, it's to carry traffic through this corridor
and to implement an all-way stop at those location would neither meet warrants
or be a safe condition. And so the appropriate control here is stop control,
which would be consistent with the remainder of the intersection that exists along the
corridor. I think Mr. Sugarman had indicated that this would be the only four-way
stop or location that has control. That's not true. Pine Cone, 54th,
All those intersections that exist along the
arterial have stop control as they approach
the intersection. So an always stop really
is not the appropriate control point at
this intersection. Excuse me. Excuse me. The
public comment period is over. So--
There is not a four-way intersection on the fourth way. Three-way
intersection. You were designing out-- All right. All right. I'll just
ask you to stop. Thank you. Other-- A question related-- do
we have a temporary trail? There were some comments about the
temporary trail that runs from Oakhurst down to the trailhead for
Cougar Mountain. What's the expected duration that will be a temporary
trail condition there? And is there the possibility of creating at least curb separation
between the edge of the roadway and the trail to provide at least some amount
of physical separation? So that idea is actually something that came
to my mind too after listening to the public and it's not a big deal
to look into that. We will definitely, I mean we definitely want people to feel
safe and so you know we you know we propose the condition recognizing that we
would like to have a safe clear walkway for pedestrians and if that will help
we'll definitely provide that. Again the question is for
the duration that that trail will exist. We're doing that as a result of we're
doing frontage improvements for the Riva project but that side of the road will remain
in the unfinished frontage condition until development happens on that side of the road. Is
that my understanding? So the tricky thing is that's actually a city property. There's a
existing stormwater pond there. So we don't have any plans for doing
anything there in the near future. Well, there's no development on
that property that would trigger frontage improvements, but as part of
the bond measure, completing the missing segments of Newport is one
of the items on the bond for this fall.
So Mr. Chairman, just so I could understand, so from Oak
Creek to the trailhead, which they're in the process of developing
that parking lot, so that area there, is it going to
be a sidewalk or? It's gravel. It will be a five-foot
gravel path because it's temporary. And basically where you see this blue
line, this is where the trailhead is from the intersection. And so the bond, is
that going to be able to pay for that sidewalk, concrete sidewalk? Or is there
any plan to put a sidewalk in there? So my understanding is that the bond
would complete that side of the street that was not part of the Riva frontage
improvements. Yeah, it's on the opposite side of the street. So the city will pay
for that then? It's not designed at this time,
but that's the point of the bond is to complete
those segments that are left as all these other developments
are happening. Okay. Thank you. One more detailed question. Absolutely.
It's related to condition number four that was edited related.
It was the 10-foot wide sidewalk condition. And you
refer to it as a through block passage walkway, which looking at
the project plan, it's actually just the sidewalk access to buildings 34
and 36. I don't know if you have a detail of it
in tonight's presentation. So the amended condition, the original
condition required a 10 foot wide sidewalk providing, shall be
provided to serve buildings 34 to 36 in the communal
open space play area. Amy, can you go to the
first slide that you had instead of that one? Thank
you. Right, so. So it's, it's actually this walkway here
and I, so, um, kind of looking i think this
one is actually the correct version so the only reason um so
we we had one version of the site plan um this was
what they originally provided and The Central Sequoia Standards has this very specific
requirement for every front door of a unit to face a primary through block
passage. And that is also very specific that it has to be a 10
foot wide walkway. In this particular, so we originally started with that condition because
what they showed us was something more like a five foot walkway, five foot
wide walkway. And so we had a condition because we said you must meet
the standards and the standards said 10 feet. So they then submitted a site
plan that showed a 10 foot wide walkway for these three units and There
are some shifting that happened between the first site plan to this last site plan.
So one of the things that they had to do and I don't know if
you guys remembered this, staff had noted our concern that the fire trucks needed a
little bit more space in order to turn in. So in the process of them
providing a little bit more space for the fire trucks, all these units moved a
little bit to the east. And so that further reduced the area for
an open space. And then it became this awkward open space with a
gigantic walkway in a teeny tiny open space. And so we evaluated that and
we determined that we're not going to get a lot of people walking to access
three units. So in this particular situation, we recognize that it's really better to have
a smaller walkway and a more usable open space. And that kind of gives us
the best benefit and the balance of both benefits. So we just made it very
clear that it will be a six foot wide walkway because we don't really have
a standard of a five foot walkway in Central Issaquah. And so but moving but
using the words through block passage walkway which were added to the new condition that
didn't exist in the previous condition. That's a term of art in the code through
block passage. It is a standard. Okay. And then just as far as the way
the condition is written, it says that the passage walkway serving units 34 through 36
shall be six feet wide. So what we really mean is it needs to be
at a minimum six feet wide or is it just that's what it's that's a
definitive dimension. Yes it's very specific yes. You want it to be exactly six feet
wide? Yes. Okay. You're trying to make sure that the dimensions stay consistent
with what the outcome you're trying to get, the balance. Is that okay?
Yes. So the contractor has a challenge. Thank you. That helps. Mr. Chairman,
I would like to just, if I may, I want to be really
clear that I did not intend to even come close to impugning anybody's
professional or personal integrity on the issue of safety at that intersection. I absolutely accept
the analysis that's been done and the intention of the city to make that intersection
as safe as possible. It just seems to me that it's when I look at
it, and I'm not a traffic engineer, we've long since established that, that it seems
counterintuitive. I'm not questioning anybody's integrity about the fundamental object that we all have here,
which is safety above everything else. And Amy, I have a question to follow up
on Commissioner Morgan's point. At what point will the members of the commission and the
public be able to see what that's going to look like in terms of the
materials and the colors and so on? So because we had, we're hoping that the
way we wrote the condition is clear enough so that the development commission would
approve this project with that condition and with the comfort
level that staff can work out those details. Now if
that's not the case, we're welcoming any kind of revision
to that condition. if it means that you guys prefer
to see it again and I guess Lucy this is where
I would need your help if that's what what's your what
you think needs to happen I guess it's up to you
the development commission so Amy could you please pull up the
elevations I have this view So this just gives
you more of a general character of it. The
materials will be primarily the hardy plank and
And that condition came about because we recognize similar to the Gateway
project. This is in the Western Gateway District of Central Issaquah. And
there's this very and again with with as a reminder, and I
guess we do have some new members in the commission. But when
we reviewed the two Gateway projects, there were very strong
like comments from from the commission about what that character would look like
for the Western Gateway. Um and we also have a very specific language
in the central Sequoia plan for the Western Gateway district that calls out
natural materials. So because this the proposed architecture doesn't
really have any natural materials then just to
be consistent with the way we treated the
two Gateway projects we included that condition. So
I believe if I'm understanding at least for
condition which is the incorporation of natural materials.
The intention of the implementation was that the appearance of
the buildings did not alter, but that potentially the material
being used to achieve the appearance so that the color
was consistent with what was presented, the appearance was consistent,
but the material achieving that might be, for instance, wood
or stone, where it might be hardy plank, for instance, shown.
So, at least for that condition, that was why a new
representation was not presented, because the thought was that at the
level at which this could be represented in the drawings, it
would not appear different. Now, that may not meet the commission's
goals, but I think that was-- That's why those boards are so nice when they
bring those in with materials. And I guess in answer to Commissioner Harris, the design
of the units, the modulation, all that, I think are pretty good. I think if
I had a big concern about-- these changes and wanted to really see them, I
would have pushed that more. But I think in the future, given the time frame
we had on this one, that large gap in time, it could have been put
in. - Understood. - Mr. Chair, just, I mean, my concern with the traffic has
been noted. The other issue I have with the closeness to the street, I think
that is, possible issue of having someone park in someone's kitchen right that that street
is sometimes in the night where you know people move very quickly on there and
just a little mistake can end up with someone sitting in somebody's kitchen with their
you know headlights flashing at the living room so uh not sure i i'm not
that comfortable with a project on the street on artery being that close to the
street so um Hopefully this is good enough for a little
illustration. So this is Newport Way. So none of the units are
directly perpendicular to the street. So you're it's highly unlikely that you're
going to have people's car lights flashing into the the actual living
spaces. Not so much the car lights, but the car itself being
in the living space. So I think that probably The standard
that is driving that is Central Issaquah requires not just, you know,
often you have a setback from a property line. Central Issaquah actually
has a build two line. So there is a maximum amount that
you're allowed to set back from the property. And anywhere from zero
to 10 or 15 feet. - In this case, 15. - 15 feet
is the requirement in this district. And so they are in that zone
between zero and 15 where they are required to be. And so I
think that's the challenge is that they've placed their buildings where the code
requires them to be. - I'm sorry, Amy, you said that, Units
are not perpendicular to Newport Way. Looking at the, at least the
floor plans that we had, I think our original floor plans, and
I thought they were, I thought the units were perpendicular. Did they,
has the layout changed? So in other words, the car lights are,
they're perpendicular. So the face of the units-- - They're not perpendicular to
the car light. - Right, exactly. So in other words, yes, they are perpendicular
to Newport Way as far as the orientation, but the cars are going this
way, so you don't have car light shining into the units. - Okay, thank
you. - Sorry, thank you for the clarification. - Other comments? - I guess
I have one, I have a big one. I still have a concern about
even the requirement to have the relocatable public access easement
CHRIS RODGERS: I don't think I've heard anybody from the public, the neighbors,
Issaquah, trails club, David Kepler, proponent, anybody want to put that boardwalk in
there. I personally don't see a big benefit of that, that there would
be many people at all that would ever be there. And to hear
it's half a million to $800,000 to be there, I guess I would
prefer to take that requirement out completely. I know maybe it's against
the Central Issaquah plan, but-- I think that's the problem is that it puts
staff in a very difficult position that the Central Issaquah requires that connection. We're
not building it at this time. I don't know. Does it truly require it?
Yes. I mean, it literally says you must build this. To this property owner.
Yes. Can I ask a follow-up question? Can I chase this one a little bit?
Because I've been thinking about the same thing. So the current central Issaquah plan has
not amended but that's now being kind of taken a look at now with the
moratorium that we've heard about early in the meeting this evening. So there may be
some changes. Whether it changes this requirement or not, don't know. But it could eventually.
And the Rivers and Stream Board is actually looking more directly at some of the
trail connections I think. So the easement that's being proposed, we're not requiring this developer
to construct the trail. We're requiring the property owner to provide an easement that would
allow for future construction of the trail, but just the easement. Correct. So it retains
the right to do it should it remain in the plan or should it get
funded someday if it still looks like it's the right thing to do, but it
doesn't require anything other than an encumbrance on the property. I think I'm maybe contrary,
a little contrary to your point, but I guess that's what we do, is I
think preserving, there hasn't been support of it. Nobody seems to be interested in, at
least at this point in time, based on all the variables that are being considered,
seeing that built. But I think preserving the ability to build it in the future,
if it remains in the plan, is something that probably want to leave there for
now, in my opinion. I don't know. Because there's no-- other than the encumbrance on
the property, but reality is you can't build there anyway because it's protected property.
It's a critical area. So I don't know that-- I would be struggling if
we were forcing it as a condition to be constructed as part of the
project. But I don't know that I object to the easement. And the list
of the work plan that Director Niven mentioned, includes, and we have
already begun meeting, we have a new parks director. I'm not sure if
you're aware of that. Jeff Watling from Kent, I believe, began August 1st.
and we have already begun meeting with him on a series of questions around Central
Issaquah, implementing Central Issaquah, where are certain kinds of parks and facilities shown, where are
shared use routes shown. They're going to begin what's called PROS II, and I know
you're gonna ask me what that is, and I'm gonna guess it's Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space, something that begins with a T. That
is coming and so we have delayed all of this laundry list of
questions to be integrated into that plan so that we're looking at the
city, we're looking at it citywide at the same time that we're deciding
how to implement central Issaquah around these topics. And so I think Commissioner
Brennan is identifying that we are preserving the ability that
although the public and the commission have expressed concerns that
through that public process, we may decide that is the right
connection or we may decide it is no longer an appropriate connection
and that we are allowing ourselves to then move forward or not
move forward based on that more comprehensive examination of what the city
needs both within Central Issaquah and the entire city. - Maybe a
solution would be adding a sentence to the effect of if the trail
is no longer required at the Central Issaquah Plan, this requirement would be eliminated. -
This easement. - This easement. 'Cause I partly think for anybody that's got a house
that backs up to that, if they go to sell their house, there's gonna be
somebody saying, you know, there's a potential easement back here. You could have a trail
right in your backyard hanging over them. in perpetuity. Who is
going to decide to give that up though? Well,
if the city decides in their continual updates of
the Central Issaquah Plan, if they decide that that's
not a required trail anymore and eliminate that, then
the easement would go away. And you know, that
certainly is possible because we typically wouldn't get that easement till
the end of construction. As we're coming up towards either temporary or final
certificate of occupancy would be the time that we would likely get those
easements because it's easier to do them once you have roads constructed and
you're surveying in those pieces relative to the actual constructed improvements. I would
think by that time, a year, well, at least a year, if
not two, from now, we would have clarity on what was happening with those
improvements. Can I ask a question? So let's imagine a world where the easement
goes away. Then what is the use of that space? And is it truly
all wetland? I'm not as familiar. I didn't review the project Amy, can
you pull up the slide, please? What are we open to at that point,
if anything? And what are the potential uses for that? Would they be open
space? If it's a wetland, who's required to maintain that wetland? Does it fall
within the development property entirely? could you just speak to that a
little bit is that clear my question so yes so it remains a private
property so it will remain the responsibility of the property owner to maintain um
it is not developable in in other words you can't build an another set
of townhouses back there but could it be landscaped could it be play area
could it be No. So it's actually all part of
the requirement in exchange for their developing the 36 units is
for them to enhance or rehabilitate the current conditions of the
wetland. So if the easement doesn't exist, it's just a green
closet. But Amy, isn't the green portion of that not in
the wetland? The southern portion closest to Newport? Oh, this part
here. Yes. This green area closest. I think. Kevin. I'm sorry. I
just wanted you to understand that the part that's green is not
in the wetland. Got it. There is topography dropping off of Newport.
And then you also have the future, I'm sorry, yeah, it moved
over here. Yeah, so Lucy's right, this is also, there's a drop
here. So there's limited land and it isn't the most usable. In
the future, if there was, if that trail, if that easement was
released and not built, and there was, for instance, a need for
parking or a play area, it would absolutely be re-landscaped.
Okay. Everything that's impacted by construction outside of the critical
areas, which is a separate enhancement plan, would be re-landscaped. So in the
future, if the residents determine that there was some use for that and
the easement had been released, there would certainly be the opportunity to consider
that for another use. Great. And even potentially before the project's finished. Excellent.
But limited to just the green area or just this area here. Right.
Right, with no improvements. OK. Thank you. Further comment?
So should we start crafting some of these changes
to conditions that we've heard commissioners, or is there
more discussion? Or should we work on that while
you're discussing? We can craft it too. We'll come
up with something. Sure. I was just going to
type it so everyone could see it. That's all.
Yeah. So do you have a suggestion? Should we--
We have a motion on the first and then amended or do you
want to? Yeah, I think we should have a motion. Then we can
amend the conditions. Then just take each one as an amendment. Right, yeah.
Mr. Chair, I move that the Development Commission approve the site development permit
for the project known as Riva Town Homes, file number SDP 15-00004 with
plans and technical reports received on October 16th. 2015 through February
26, 2016. Staff report dated March 3, 2016 with attachments 1
through 17. Briefing response memo dated March 30, 2016 and attachments
1 through 9. And briefing response memo dated August 31, 2016
with attachments 1 through 3 and exhibits 1 through 4. subject
to the conditions of the staff report dated March 3, 2016, as revised
in the briefing response memo dated July 31, 2016, and as amended tonight.
And there is a quiz on that for everybody later. I second. Great.
So we have a motion that's been seconded. Is there a discussion? Mr.
Chair, I move that we amend condition nine. I don't know that you
like this. I just put something up there. Perfect.
To add a sentence to it. So in
the latest briefing response memo, condition number nine
was revised. So I'm taking that revised condition
as the condition and looking at sentence number,
the second sentence and proposing that if it's
determined to be necessary. or other language that the
Commission proposes. Yeah, so the, I guess I was going to say, but
you said it's already determined to be necessary or? So, that's where the
words become. So right now it is determined to be necessary or maybe
it's if determined to be necessary by certificate of occupancy for the project.
The idea being that if through the process that the city is going through with
PROS II, this is not a connection that the city ends up supporting and the
community supports, then that easement would not be necessary. Mr. Chair, maybe a different way
to do it is you could leave the condition as written, but just add to
the end of it. So essentially, the plan calls for it now, but add to
the end that something in fact should change as to this, essentially as a call
to plan. CHRIS JERRAM: Yeah, so we would leave everything
there that's there. And I would leave it more
open than that. And just say that if at
any point it's determined that the trail is no
longer required by Central Issaquah plan or standards, and
the relocatable public access easement will be eliminated. Or
shall not be required. CHRIS JERRAM: Shall not be
required. If it's already in place, you want to
allow them to be able to have it removed.
Yeah, no longer required. Thank you. So
point of clarification, Mr. Morgan, would it
go back, revert back to the developer
then? For the homeowners association? The developer
still loans the land. It just wouldn't
have an easement that impacts it hanging
out there. That looks good to me.
I hope we have a second, though.
Second. So we have a motion that
amends Condition nine to include that final
sentence. Been moved and seconded. All those
in favor of that modification say aye.
Aye. Opposed? OK, that motion carries. So
now we go back to the motion
that Commissioner Morgan read. Is there further
discussion on-- I don't want anything.
I'm just trying to follow through
on -- Right. Offer a possible
new condition. Seemed to be an
important -- Okay. That's what I
was wondering. Okay. Let me double
check here. So that was --
okay. Good. So a curb is
already being provided. on
the opposite side of the street? - That
was part of Amy's presentation. - Well, so
they would already have to be putting the
curb in for storm drainage control, so that
we don't need to add a condition to
that effect. - Catchy, Amy, thanks. - Other
changes, requests? We have a motion as presented
with the modification, the change identified.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye.
Opposed? Nay. So one nay vote. You
did such a great job. Mr. Chair,
I move that the development Commission direct the
Development Services Department to prepare the findings of fact and conclusions
which affirm the Development Commission's decision to approve the site development
permit for Riva Townhomes, file number SDP15-0004, with plans and technical
reports received on October 16, 2015 through February 26, 2016 staff
report dated March 3rd, 2016 with attachments one through 17. Briefing
response memo dated March 30th, 2016 and attachments one through nine
and briefing response memo dated August 31st, 2016 with attachments one through
three and exhibits one through four, subject to the conditions of the staff
report dated March 3, 2016, as revised in the briefing memo dated July
31, 2016, and as further amended tonight. CHRIS JERRAM: Second. TODD BANDUCCI: We
have a motion that's been seconded. Is there discussion? All those in favor
would indicate by saying aye. CHRIS JERRAM: Aye. TODD BANDUCCI: Opposed? CHRIS JERRAM:
Nay. TODD BANDUCCI: One nay. So motion carries.
I think, I don't know of any other business that needs to be conducted. I
think we can officially call our meeting adjourned, but before we do that, I really
would like to, you know, I think Commissioner Harrison made an excellent point that talked
about some of the comments that were made that are out of the purview of
the Development Commission. The reality is that sometimes they are, but the staff is sitting
here and they hear those comments and I think it's really vital in the context
of public participation that those comments get to be made. So I appreciate the effort
and the time that people were willing to spend and the comments don't go unnoticed
to be sure. So I'd like to call the meeting adjourned. Thank you. - Our
next meeting is September 21st, just so you know. So no vacation. No
vacation.