Development Commission · Wednesday, May 7, 2014 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Roster

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Contacts About Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land use actions Staff Liaison requiring a Level 3 review. The Commission further serves as an Christopher Wright, Project advisory board to the City Council on land use actions requiring Oversight Manager council approval (Level 5 review). Email

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Meeting Minutes from April 16, 2014

packet pp.5–14

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Seventh at Gilman, SDP13-00005 and SHO13-00014

Jerry Lind, Sr. Planner and Tom Bartholomew, Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC · packet pp.15–33

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Apr 16, 2014

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

Development Services th 1775 – 12 Ave. NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3100 issaquahwa.gov

Public Comment

Staff and Applicant Rebuttals

Commission Discussion

Commission Decision

5327 segments .txt ↗

0:24 ↗ thank you

0:27 ↗ good evening and welcome to the May 7th

0:31 ↗ meeting of the development Commission

0:34 ↗ tonight we will be considering

0:38 ↗ the site development permit and

0:40 ↗ Shoreline substantial development permit

0:42 ↗ for the seventh at Gilman project file

0:45 ↗ numbers sdp

0:49 ↗ 13-0005 and SHO 13-00014

0:56 ↗ uh for the benefit of those of you who

0:59 ↗ have not been here before I'll take a

1:02 ↗ little

1:03 ↗ brief time to tell you how this process

1:05 ↗ is going to work tonight

1:07 ↗ uh

1:09 ↗ we are going to we're going to have

1:10 ↗ start with a presentation a joint

1:13 ↗ presentation by City staff and by the

1:15 ↗ applicant that will address the issues

1:17 ↗ and and the questions and concerns that

1:19 ↗ were raised at our April meeting about

1:22 ↗ this uh project and this will be a joint

1:25 ↗ informal presentation that will is

1:29 ↗ designed to cover all of the relevant

1:31 ↗ bases and the issues and to avoid

1:34 ↗ redundancy and to be as efficient as we

1:36 ↗ can at the same time covering the issues

1:38 ↗ uh

1:40 ↗ during that this presentation this first

1:43 ↗ one the Commissioners can ask questions

1:45 ↗ of the city staff and applicants during

1:48 ↗ during that portion of the of the

1:50 ↗ meeting

1:51 ↗ that will be followed by public comment

1:54 ↗ and after the public comment the staff

1:58 ↗ and the applicants will have another

1:59 ↗ opportunity to address issues and or to

2:05 ↗ rebut uh positions that were articulated

2:08 ↗ by members of the public

2:10 ↗ at following the public comment uh

2:13 ↗ and the staff and applicant comment

2:17 ↗ this the development commission will

2:20 ↗ then

2:22 ↗ do their follow-up and we hope will

2:25 ↗ arrive at a decision okay

2:28 ↗ so with that

2:31 ↗ I will turn it over to Jerry Lind the

2:34 ↗ city staff and our applicant

2:43 ↗ are you uh maybe then go over to the

2:45 ↗ minutes first

2:46 ↗ how about if we do that from the last

2:48 ↗ from the previous

2:49 ↗ let's do that uh the minutes for

2:54 ↗ the April meeting have been provided to

2:56 ↗ us I personally have no changes in them

2:59 ↗ were there any other changes

3:01 ↗ uh just can I get a motion or I move

3:04 ↗ approval of the April 16 2014

3:07 ↗ development commission meeting minutes

3:10 ↗ second is there a discussion I'm good

3:13 ↗ all those in favor

3:15 ↗ aye

3:16 ↗ opposed all right

3:18 ↗ they are approved unanimously now

3:21 ↗ Jerry

3:24 ↗ so um this evening is a quasi-judicial

3:27 ↗ matter on which the development

3:30 ↗ commission is the decision maker and so

3:33 ↗ I'm going to run through a checklist of

3:35 ↗ questions to ensure that we have a name

3:38 ↗ you are impartial decision makers

3:42 ↗ um so I don't have my usual checklist so

3:44 ↗ there's going to be more questions than

3:45 ↗ normal

3:46 ↗ um and all you have to do is say yes or

3:49 ↗ no as I ask the questions and you can

3:50 ↗ say them in unison

3:52 ↗ um I mean you don't we don't have to go

3:53 ↗ through and pull

3:55 ↗ um

3:56 ↗ are there any family relationships

3:58 ↗ between the decision makers and parties

4:00 ↗ of the hearing no

4:03 ↗ is there any business competition

4:05 ↗ between the decision maker and any

4:07 ↗ parties at the hearing no no

4:09 ↗ will there be any prospective employment

4:12 ↗ for the decision maker or his or her

4:14 ↗ family as a result of the decision no

4:18 ↗ um does the decision maker have any

4:21 ↗ personal interest in which he or she

4:23 ↗ stands to gain or lose by the decision

4:25 ↗ no

4:26 ↗ is the decision maker free from any

4:29 ↗ direct or indirect Financial benefit

4:31 ↗ that could result from the approval or

4:33 ↗ denial of the request

4:37 ↗ yes would be there's no financial gain

4:40 ↗ no oh okay

4:42 ↗ um free up yes

4:45 ↗ has there been any ex parte

4:47 ↗ communication and I'm happy to explain

4:50 ↗ what ex parte communication is and

4:52 ↗ anyone has no okay

4:55 ↗ um and so if anyone has an objection uh

5:00 ↗ concerning whether they feel that the um

5:03 ↗ any commissioner could be objective now

5:05 ↗ would be the time to identify that

5:09 ↗ is

5:12 ↗ so yes the um the people who will be

5:15 ↗ making the the decision and so it's a

5:18 ↗ question of whether they um anyone has

5:20 ↗ any concerns about their objectivity

5:25 ↗ right because they're not making the

5:26 ↗ decision

5:36 ↗ I can explain we have a quote we have a

5:39 ↗ quorum the the regulations require four

5:43 ↗ members of the development commission to

5:45 ↗ compose a quorum and we have a quorum

5:51 ↗ no we have seven standard members and we

5:55 ↗ knew two of them would not be present

5:56 ↗ tonight we still may get a fifth member

5:58 ↗ two and that may be running late

6:02 ↗ and one other thing that I neglected to

6:04 ↗ mention uh if any member of the public

6:06 ↗ who would like to speak and the public

6:08 ↗ session we'd ask you to sign in please

6:11 ↗ with your name and excuse me your

6:13 ↗ address and your phone number as well

6:16 ↗ and uh that will be part of and then

6:19 ↗ when you come up to speak we'd like you

6:20 ↗ to go to the microphone and repeat that

6:23 ↗ information your name and your address

6:24 ↗ okay the clipboard and the pen is right

6:26 ↗ up here on the table and by signing in

6:29 ↗ you will be officially most of you

6:31 ↗ already are but you'll be a party of

6:33 ↗ record till

6:51 ↗ good evening again

6:53 ↗ the seventh at Gilman is the name of the

6:56 ↗ project and it's also got another new

6:57 ↗ name since we met last it's also now

6:59 ↗ called Atlas

7:01 ↗ so I think we've seen uh also the name

7:04 ↗ Cadence so that one you want to erase

7:06 ↗ from your mind since we've uh it's

7:08 ↗ evolved in

7:10 ↗ and it's possible it could change again

7:13 ↗ uh this is the vicinity map where it's

7:15 ↗ located it's the site of the of the

7:17 ↗ current Gilman Square shopping center

7:18 ↗ that's also the same site where

7:21 ↗ Lombardi's restaurant is banned and the

7:24 ↗ Antique Mall which is still in operation

7:25 ↗ at the site uh there's a little white

7:28 ↗ void there you'll see and that's that

7:31 ↗ means the site wraps around the KFC Taco

7:35 ↗ Bell site and also O'Reilly's Auto Parts

7:37 ↗ and so those two lots are not part of

7:39 ↗ this project tonight

7:42 ↗ that's a aerial photo you saw this with

7:44 ↗ the last presentation so you can kind of

7:46 ↗ see what the site looks like it's you

7:48 ↗ got the buildings in kind of an l-shape

7:50 ↗ a lot of parking in this area not too

7:53 ↗ much Greenery except what is along

7:55 ↗ Issaquah Creek that's an area that will

7:58 ↗ be restored as part of the project

8:00 ↗ proposal

8:03 ↗ very irregular shape

8:06 ↗ Gilman Boulevard is to the north

8:09 ↗ 7th Avenue is to the West

8:11 ↗ and Northwest Locust Street is to the

8:14 ↗ South and the eastern boundary is a

8:17 ↗ Issaquah Creek there's a little

8:19 ↗ Peninsula that's an on

8:22 ↗ it's not a dated street but it certainly

8:24 ↗ works as a street at the southeast

8:26 ↗ corner there's a dental office to the

8:29 ↗ east of it and a little preschool

8:32 ↗ operation to the west of that that it

8:34 ↗ surrounds

8:37 ↗ uh the description there's three

8:39 ↗ buildings and they're all five stories

8:41 ↗ apiece

8:42 ↗ there's below parking below the

8:45 ↗ buildings building A's to the north

8:46 ↗ buildings B and C are to the south

8:49 ↗ facing seventh and osoloca Street and

8:52 ↗ there's a Center parking garage that

8:55 ↗ will serve those two buildings

8:58 ↗ 346 stacked apartments and it may be 344

9:01 ↗ that number is kind of varied as the

9:03 ↗ project uh has evolved

9:06 ↗ acreage is the same at 6.09 acres and

9:09 ↗ there's approximately 400 parking stalls

9:12 ↗ that will serve these units they're all

9:14 ↗ apartments they're not Condominiums

9:17 ↗ there will be a park with this there is

9:20 ↗ a shared use route with it too that is

9:22 ↗ part of our Central Issaquah plan that

9:24 ↗ connects various walkways throughout the

9:26 ↗ site

9:27 ↗ there's a landscape flood Swale you saw

9:30 ↗ that with the last project that runs to

9:32 ↗ the northwest corner of the site ties in

9:34 ↗ with the Gilman ditch

9:36 ↗ buffer improvements along his quad Creek

9:39 ↗ and Street improvements so really we're

9:41 ↗ seeing a total reface of this project

9:43 ↗ site

9:45 ↗ there were several ailments that came

9:47 ↗ out of our last meeting in April

9:50 ↗ and uh we these were issues that came

9:53 ↗ both from our development commission and

9:55 ↗ and the members and our audience too and

9:58 ↗ so

10:00 ↗ I've seen the staff reports at least

10:02 ↗ read the headlines so we understand

10:03 ↗ building design

10:05 ↗ was one of the main concerns that came

10:09 ↗ out of the project

10:10 ↗ the issues were the building Superior

10:13 ↗ plain in contrast to the landscape

10:16 ↗ add solar screens or richer materials

10:19 ↗ the tops of buildings are rather flat

10:21 ↗ and uninteresting

10:23 ↗ the color palette is bowed

10:25 ↗ and caution needs to be considered in

10:27 ↗ the use of colors the material board is

10:29 ↗ again on this table here it's got three

10:31 ↗ primary colors

10:33 ↗ the buildings have a rather flat severe

10:36 ↗ uninteresting appearance and further

10:38 ↗ modulation in the plan should be

10:40 ↗ examined how will the Billings appear

10:42 ↗ from Interstate 90 was a question what

10:45 ↗ will they look like like big rectangles

10:47 ↗ this doesn't look like Issaquah and so

10:51 ↗ the question always comes up what does

10:52 ↗ this call look to

10:55 ↗ so

10:56 ↗ the the buildings I sit here they are

10:58 ↗ designed by regulated by chapter 14 of

11:02 ↗ the central Issaquah plan it doesn't

11:04 ↗ have everything that the

11:07 ↗ audience spoke about

11:11 ↗ does have a number of elements that we

11:14 ↗ believe are being provided in this it's

11:17 ↗ not a large mass of building it's

11:19 ↗ actually three buildings when they get

11:20 ↗ to a certain size they are required to

11:22 ↗ be broken up and that's what has

11:24 ↗ occurred here

11:29 ↗ the

11:31 ↗ architectural detail was not as

11:37 ↗ evident with the last presentation there

11:40 ↗ is supposed to be distinguishing base

11:43 ↗ middle and top of the building so we're

11:45 ↗ looking at the the tops of the buildings

11:47 ↗ where the pear pits are they were rather

11:49 ↗ flat stationary at a single line now

11:52 ↗ there's a little bit more modulation and

11:54 ↗ varied Heights with those modulations

11:55 ↗ and you'll see some cornice details I

11:58 ↗ think that adds to what you needed the

12:02 ↗ building is broken up in different

12:04 ↗ planes between the second and third

12:06 ↗ floors and you'll see that with some

12:08 ↗ drawings that I'm going to show you too

12:10 ↗ there's a lot more brick elements also

12:13 ↗ now with the building too so I think

12:14 ↗ this makes it a little bit richer

12:18 ↗ um in the material design

12:20 ↗ it has the ver vertical and horizontal

12:22 ↗ modulation so we don't have blank walls

12:24 ↗ on any of the walls there's a lot of

12:26 ↗ Windows there's a lot of window panes so

12:29 ↗ they're not just blank windows they're

12:31 ↗ actually broken up you'll see that there

12:33 ↗ are unique corners on these buildings

12:35 ↗ that you didn't see last time there's

12:37 ↗ some slanted elements over the lobby

12:39 ↗ areas above those corners of the

12:42 ↗ buildings and the sloped groups we think

12:44 ↗ really brings things out a lot more too

12:51 ↗ so you'll see that with the Twisted

12:53 ↗ Corners that's done for these buildings

12:55 ↗ and this is at the prominent Corners as

12:58 ↗ you enter

12:59 ↗ lobbies are below it you can see on some

13:03 ↗ of these

13:05 ↗ buildings

13:07 ↗ is this point yes so we can see the

13:09 ↗ three floors and then how the buildings

13:10 ↗ are stepped back and there's balconies

13:12 ↗ and lanais that are incorporated into so

13:15 ↗ we don't have the flatness it's it's

13:17 ↗ more varied which is the middle part

13:18 ↗ that was required you'll see down here

13:22 ↗ as an example of a building parapet and

13:25 ↗ they they seem to vary on the on the

13:27 ↗ buildings we do allow these

13:29 ↗ architectural type pediments too so it's

13:31 ↗ not only a function but also an

13:32 ↗ architectural element too to give a

13:34 ↗ little bit more variation with the roof

13:36 ↗ Heights

13:37 ↗ uh this photo that you see on the lower

13:40 ↗ right you have not seen before you'll

13:43 ↗ see how it's got that sloped element

13:44 ↗ with the roofs and you'll see this with

13:47 ↗ all three buildings the kind of accent

13:49 ↗ the importance of those spaces

13:55 ↗ so they one of the requirements was to

13:57 ↗ make these Corners a little bit more of

14:00 ↗ a special entry so we believe this um

14:03 ↗ Roofing element the Twisted Corners

14:06 ↗ helps it the colors again are on the on

14:10 ↗ the

14:12 ↗ table here there's a grain a red and a

14:15 ↗ blue and it's not massively useless

14:17 ↗ colors but it will help residents

14:20 ↗ identify which building they live and

14:21 ↗ they can certainly tell their visitors I

14:24 ↗ live in the blue building or live in the

14:25 ↗ red building it helps identify where

14:27 ↗ they're at it's mostly in accent colors

14:32 ↗ within some of the corners of the

14:33 ↗ building so it's not solidly

14:36 ↗ used

14:40 ↗ do you want to add anything to it or see

14:42 ↗ some of these other drawings ln2 which

14:45 ↗ we were talking about since we're going

14:46 ↗ to do this jointly okay my name is Alan

14:49 ↗ Granger I'm a GGO Architects and

14:53 ↗ Jerry and I agreed that we could

14:54 ↗ actually do a little show together here

14:57 ↗ so that we didn't have to go all the way

14:59 ↗ back to the union and talk about the

15:01 ↗ topic separated would you like me to

15:03 ↗ bring up that other one too that we were

15:05 ↗ just talking about the overall

15:10 ↗ okay let's bring up this one here this

15:12 ↗ shows all three buildings in one uh one

15:15 ↗ of the uh

15:17 ↗ one of the aspects of the buildings

15:20 ↗ which we believe was not clearly

15:23 ↗ understood before because we were

15:25 ↗ looking at straight

15:26 ↗ elevations

15:29 ↗ and because there was a lot of

15:31 ↗ discussion about why don't you add more

15:33 ↗ modulation to the buildings

15:36 ↗ we felt that if we started to look we

15:40 ↗ don't usually

15:41 ↗ we usually look from the sidewalk up at

15:44 ↗ the buildings but I'm purposefully

15:46 ↗ looking down on the buildings here

15:49 ↗ um so that you can see that there

15:52 ↗ is not only the the modulation where the

15:55 ↗ buildings are stepping in and out but

15:57 ↗ there is uh the courtyards that are on

16:01 ↗ the buildings uh caught you out on this

16:03 ↗ building

16:05 ↗ um

16:05 ↗ I'm just going to go to

16:08 ↗ moving around looking from the southeast

16:11 ↗ you can start to see that there is

16:14 ↗ a fairly extensive modulation on this

16:18 ↗ building

16:18 ↗ and then

16:20 ↗ um

16:22 ↗ we should go back to this is looking at

16:24 ↗ the corner from 7th and Gilman

16:27 ↗ one of the changes that we made as we

16:29 ↗ discussed uh the comments from the

16:33 ↗ public and the development commission

16:35 ↗ was we discussed with staff

16:38 ↗ changing the corner at 7th and Gilman

16:41 ↗ and we actually

16:43 ↗ um where where this Twisted Corner came

16:46 ↗ all the way down to grade before we've

16:49 ↗ actually raised that up and it starts to

16:52 ↗ add more interest at that corner the

16:56 ↗ use of the colors that Jody was talking

16:58 ↗ about are primarily in the uh the upper

17:03 ↗ levels of these Corners

17:05 ↗ here you can see what Jerry was talking

17:07 ↗ about with the the free story sort of

17:11 ↗ masonry bases that are that are bays

17:14 ↗ running along

17:17 ↗ there's penthouses on the top those are

17:19 ↗ hiding the HVAC equipment fully uh you

17:23 ↗ won't see that from the ground surface

17:26 ↗ perhaps if a taller building gets better

17:27 ↗ in the future you will see that the

17:30 ↗ buildings will be somewhat visible from

17:31 ↗ Interstate 92 but as as the centralist

17:34 ↗ club plan evolves and buildings are

17:37 ↗ added to this region it'll certainly

17:40 ↗ blend in and be less visible with

17:42 ↗ additional buildings and Landscaping too

17:44 ↗ I'm just going to uh to help understand

17:47 ↗ the modulation of each individual

17:49 ↗ building now that we've looked at the

17:50 ↗ overall site this is building a which is

17:52 ↗ the one in the northwest corner

17:54 ↗ and again I'm looking from 7th and

17:56 ↗ Gilman and pretty much the same

17:59 ↗ photograph as we were before but from

18:02 ↗ more down at the ground level you can

18:04 ↗ see that one of the things that we have

18:06 ↗ done is we've varied the heights of all

18:08 ↗ the parapets so a number of the parapets

18:11 ↗ we've taken down to the minimum that are

18:14 ↗ feasible from a constructability from

18:17 ↗ the waterproofing at the edge of the

18:18 ↗ roof

18:19 ↗ uh but other places we have raised the

18:23 ↗ parapet this this is one of the areas

18:25 ↗ that is that is all masonry that has

18:28 ↗ been raised up

18:29 ↗ with a

18:33 ↗ a parapic detail at the top

18:36 ↗ and then at the corner entrance that

18:39 ↗ Jerry was just talking about

18:42 ↗ be able to go down to the

18:44 ↗ we've actually taken that low point and

18:47 ↗ you can start to see the difference in

18:48 ↗ Heights that we're getting here and

18:50 ↗ we've actually increased that corner up

18:53 ↗ as Jerry was describing so we're getting

18:54 ↗ a varying Heights as we go around the

18:57 ↗ building

18:58 ↗ and then you can see it stepping down

19:00 ↗ again up so we're uh

19:03 ↗ manipulating with the three-dimensional

19:06 ↗ massing as to where the buildings are

19:08 ↗ modulated in plane we're also now

19:12 ↗ modulating it uh more extensively

19:14 ↗ vertically so if we're accentuating

19:17 ↗ those elements

19:22 ↗ they're gonna

19:23 ↗ sort of continue around until we get all

19:26 ↗ the way around the building

19:27 ↗ and

19:29 ↗ I was you know studying the aerial

19:32 ↗ photographs of the neighborhood and

19:35 ↗ actually

19:37 ↗ I've always concerned about how the

19:39 ↗ buildings might look from Interstate 90.

19:41 ↗ the probably the clearest place where

19:44 ↗ you would see these buildings from

19:46 ↗ Interstate 90 is

19:48 ↗ is actually

19:50 ↗ um once you've gone across Issaquah

19:53 ↗ Creek traveling East and as you drive

19:56 ↗ past the post office site

19:59 ↗ the driver shouldn't be doing this the

20:01 ↗ passenger can do this

20:04 ↗ um and you're going across the overpass

20:06 ↗ by the post office that is actually

20:09 ↗ where there are less trees and less

20:11 ↗ buildings and you would probably from

20:14 ↗ that point you'd start to look back

20:16 ↗ and this is the uh sort of viewpoint

20:20 ↗ from considerably further away but you'd

20:23 ↗ start to get so from that

20:25 ↗ Vantage plane the buildings actually you

20:28 ↗ start to see the courtyards on building

20:29 ↗ a you start to see the courtyards on

20:32 ↗ Building C and how they're all relating

20:35 ↗ Together Al I have a question you know

20:38 ↗ the end of this new procedure where we

20:40 ↗ can ask questions

20:42 ↗ uh you mentioned earlier waterproofing

20:45 ↗ you said the the parapets have been

20:46 ↗ lowered to the point that the lowest

20:49 ↗ point that would that allowed waterproof

20:51 ↗ or just we have a constructability right

20:53 ↗ analysis of the detail I I don't see how

20:56 ↗ do you propose to handle uh the it's a

20:59 ↗ flat roof building right basically so

21:02 ↗ where where are the where's the drainage

21:04 ↗ capability actually all the roofs are

21:07 ↗ sloping from the exterior of the

21:08 ↗ building and the sloping down to the

21:11 ↗ middle of the roof and the roof drainage

21:13 ↗ is all coming down if you would imagine

21:15 ↗ where the corridors are in the buildings

21:17 ↗ in the middle of the building so all the

21:20 ↗ roof drainage is coming down in Chase's

21:22 ↗ adjacent to the corridors in the

21:24 ↗ building so we don't have any exterior

21:27 ↗ downspouts that are showing uh on the

21:30 ↗ exterior of the building it's all

21:31 ↗ internal to the building Mr chairman

21:34 ↗ quick question

21:35 ↗ so um as far as you you've uh talked

21:38 ↗ about the the cap detail on top of the

21:40 ↗ parapets and

21:42 ↗ um remind me of or maybe you didn't have

21:44 ↗ this in the previous design that you

21:46 ↗ showed us but what's the is there a

21:48 ↗ color transition that's going on there

21:50 ↗ in addition to just it I guess the idea

21:53 ↗ was

21:54 ↗ um and I mentioned in the staff report

21:56 ↗ creating the the bottom the middle and

21:58 ↗ the top and it doesn't necessarily have

21:59 ↗ to be a big top but something that's is

22:01 ↗ kind of a visual definition of the top

22:04 ↗ of the building that varies from the

22:05 ↗ rest

22:07 ↗ depending on the exterior materials

22:10 ↗ we're actually treating the the detail

22:13 ↗ at the

22:15 ↗ conus differently which is this piece

22:18 ↗ right here yeah

22:20 ↗ um so where we have

22:23 ↗ the masonry coming up we actually have a

22:26 ↗ metal cornice which is shaped which is

22:29 ↗ the termination of how sorry I said the

22:32 ↗ medal uh the brick where the brick is

22:34 ↗ coming up the masonry is coming up we

22:35 ↗ have a metal cornice which is acting as

22:37 ↗ the detail cap for the type of hose

22:40 ↗ the corners where the accent colors are

22:44 ↗ located

22:45 ↗ are all panels which have got

22:49 ↗ metal

22:50 ↗ reveals between all of those panels and

22:54 ↗ those panels uh we are actually not

22:58 ↗ adding additional surface treatments to

23:02 ↗ the outside of those those are actually

23:04 ↗ terminating oh thank you Vanna

23:07 ↗ and there are some wooden ailments in it

23:10 ↗ too and the black and white doesn't show

23:12 ↗ all that detailing of the brick the wood

23:14 ↗ and the other the other elements

23:25 ↗ I'm going to go on to uh

23:31 ↗ um

23:32 ↗ Building B and so you can see here also

23:34 ↗ on Building B we've got the same

23:37 ↗ slope that's continuing up and accenting

23:40 ↗ the accenting the corner Building B was

23:42 ↗ one of the areas where we I think we

23:45 ↗ talked about this last time but we we

23:47 ↗ actually took out

23:49 ↗ a second floor units uh here which was

23:52 ↗ why Jerry's been so confused about how

23:54 ↗ many units do we have in this building

23:55 ↗ well the units have been taken out this

23:57 ↗ is for future conversion where it could

23:59 ↗ be used for commercial space too and

24:01 ↗ that's one of the elements of the center

24:03 ↗ was a club plan this is not a mixed use

24:04 ↗ project it's fully fully residential

24:08 ↗ both are allowed that it's not required

24:11 ↗ to be commercial or have that in it but

24:14 ↗ there is a part of the plan that does

24:16 ↗ require to look at the buildings in the

24:18 ↗ future for other possible uses so the

24:22 ↗ the whole end of the uh The West Wing of

24:27 ↗ of Building B and this is the this is

24:29 ↗ the wing that is directly across the

24:30 ↗ street from where the Starbucks is and

24:32 ↗ it's where the uh the shared use Trail

24:35 ↗ will come across uh seventh uh from the

24:38 ↗ west side of a street and start to go

24:41 ↗ through this project so uh uh our client

24:45 ↗ gave us the uh ability to actually

24:48 ↗ reduce the number of residential units

24:51 ↗ and so we took them out on the second

24:54 ↗ floor

24:55 ↗ and this is made double High spaces

24:59 ↗ um which are appropriate for the entries

25:02 ↗ in the short term but if there was any

25:05 ↗ change in use in the future it would be

25:07 ↗ the appropriate height for a different

25:09 ↗ use in the future

25:12 ↗ you can start to see the

25:15 ↗ the smaller we've got different

25:19 ↗ sizes of caps as we go around depending

25:22 ↗ on what the materials are this is an

25:24 ↗ area of the building where we have board

25:26 ↗ and battened siding which will be

25:28 ↗ painted and we're looking at getting a

25:31 ↗ deeper board trim along the top of all

25:35 ↗ of where that material occurs

25:38 ↗ so running running around

25:42 ↗ Building B and this is the corner down

25:45 ↗ at uh

25:47 ↗ Locust and seventh

25:50 ↗ and then coming around and you can start

25:52 ↗ to see how the the modulation occurs

25:56 ↗ through the shared use uh I mean not to

25:58 ↗ show the Australia the uh

26:02 ↗ what's it what's it called This is the

26:04 ↗ uh the corridor between buildings yeah

26:06 ↗ what do you call that in your zoning cut

26:08 ↗ off because my mind's gone blank

26:10 ↗ the

26:12 ↗ the space between the buildings that uh

26:16 ↗ the mid block connection I think

26:21 ↗ um so this is looking down there and you

26:23 ↗ can see on each side of that we have got

26:25 ↗ the three-story base repeating again to

26:27 ↗ reduce the scale we actually call it

26:29 ↗ through blockcast groups I knew we had a

26:31 ↗ special name yes it is

26:33 ↗ we're going to be talking about that too

26:36 ↗ in one of the other slides too yeah do

26:38 ↗ you want me to go on to

26:39 ↗ while I'm here do you want me to talk

26:41 ↗ about them yeah and just that note it is

26:44 ↗ contemporary architecture too I know

26:46 ↗ that was one of the questions that came

26:47 ↗ out of the

26:48 ↗ audience last time and back somebody

26:51 ↗ even gave me a

26:52 ↗ photograph of Versailles in France

26:55 ↗ you know for Gem Boulevard but you know

26:58 ↗ we don't require that level of

27:00 ↗ architecture uh and the centralized Club

27:03 ↗ plan doesn't

27:04 ↗ uh deal with those kind of specific

27:07 ↗ elements too as far as the architectural

27:09 ↗ style or color so it really kind of

27:11 ↗ leaves it up to the absent to come up

27:12 ↗ with those so while we're talking about

27:14 ↗ the modulation of the buildings one of

27:16 ↗ the questions that came up was uh

27:20 ↗ um the solar exposure of all the

27:22 ↗ courtyards would you want us to get to

27:23 ↗ that part of the co we have another part

27:25 ↗ we have another slide you want to go to

27:26 ↗ something else well let's let's not jump

27:29 ↗ ahead okay go ahead

27:33 ↗ sorry we haven't rehearsed this

27:37 ↗ it's actually better

27:42 ↗ I can find where I was

27:45 ↗ I think this is it and these are some of

27:46 ↗ the elements that you were talking about

27:47 ↗ too Alice

27:49 ↗ uh Gilman bowl of our number two that

27:51 ↗ was the derive way question the

27:54 ↗ westernmost driveway to the site it is

27:56 ↗ being moved Eastward it's about 110 feet

27:59 ↗ Eastward and then there was a question

28:01 ↗ about as you can see in the little

28:03 ↗ uh snip it down here at the bottom

28:06 ↗ there's three driveways

28:08 ↗ the westernmost already currently serves

28:12 ↗ both the developments moving at further

28:14 ↗ Eastward it will continue to serve both

28:16 ↗ the sympathy Gilman site as well as the

28:19 ↗ O'Reilly's Auto store the easternmost

28:23 ↗ one

28:24 ↗ is on the property line it's also on

28:26 ↗ this on the subject site too so it's

28:28 ↗ it's on there by easement there's not

28:31 ↗ much we can do about the fact that

28:32 ↗ there's three driveways until that

28:34 ↗ property redevelops but it's not a

28:36 ↗ violation either

28:37 ↗ they all have right in right out term

28:40 ↗ movements only and so your only left

28:43 ↗ turn movements will actually be further

28:46 ↗ west at seventh where there will be a

28:49 ↗ new traffic signal in place and Jerry I

28:52 ↗ have a question about that the traffic

28:54 ↗ on the like the signals on Gilman are

28:56 ↗ synchronized are they synchronized they

28:59 ↗ have been yes and so this will be

29:02 ↗ a continuation of the synchronous it'll

29:03 ↗ have to be yes yes

29:06 ↗ oh just while you're here okay one one

29:08 ↗ of the uh uh aspects of the relocation

29:13 ↗ of his driveway was because we've been

29:14 ↗ signalized intersection

29:17 ↗ um the Metro buses are moving to the

29:19 ↗ other side of the intersection which is

29:21 ↗ where they prefer to stop but also we're

29:23 ↗ creating a turn lane and that turn lane

29:26 ↗ is actually preventing

29:29 ↗ um oh it's helping by prevention a lot

29:33 ↗ of the difficult turns which uh are made

29:36 ↗ into the existing location of where this

29:38 ↗ driveway was and so

29:41 ↗ um you know as Jerry was describing the

29:44 ↗ ride out from here we'll avoid the cross

29:48 ↗ the boulevard uh exiting which

29:52 ↗ occurs with the existing driveway

29:54 ↗ location so it's it it's an improvement

29:58 ↗ in all different aspects of the

30:00 ↗ functioning of the

30:02 ↗ the main intersection at seventh I mean

30:05 ↗ all the subsequent driveway access

30:08 ↗ points that are continuing down Gilman

30:10 ↗ Boulevard but certainly a large part of

30:12 ↗ it is that flood swell that's being

30:14 ↗ constructed there at the corner that's

30:16 ↗ really pushing the driveway further

30:18 ↗ further Eastward too

30:20 ↗ uh number three was flooding that's

30:22 ↗ always been a big issue and it was with

30:24 ↗ the rear and streams board meetings and

30:26 ↗ they had two of those

30:27 ↗ uh the site is a hundred percent in the

30:30 ↗ flood plain today it's still going to be

30:32 ↗ in the flood plain in the future too but

30:34 ↗ the buildings will be built up

30:37 ↗ so that they're above 100 year flood

30:39 ↗ plain

30:40 ↗ uh the parking is contained within

30:43 ↗ garages under all three buildings but

30:46 ↗ they will be designed to be flood

30:47 ↗ proofed the entrances to those two

30:50 ↗ garages which are on the western side of

30:52 ↗ the site off of

30:55 ↗ off up where you enter from Seventh that

30:59 ↗ area will be built up again above the

31:01 ↗ 100 year flood event elevation and so

31:05 ↗ that will also keep the water from

31:08 ↗ protruding into those garages it's my

31:10 ↗ understanding that it's not only for the

31:12 ↗ 100 year flood but it even survives the

31:14 ↗ 500 year floodplain as well too so it's

31:17 ↗ really uh

31:18 ↗ they're taking no chances here with that

31:20 ↗ Jerry how often are those floodplain

31:23 ↗ Maps updated

31:24 ↗ uh it's periodically I've seen I've done

31:28 ↗ a few times usually it's been done more

31:29 ↗ for amendments when there's been a

31:31 ↗ requests I've seen it done at the rally

31:33 ↗ properties I haven't seen one done for

31:35 ↗ several years now though

31:38 ↗ um obviously there's been significant

31:40 ↗ discussion at all levels lately yeah

31:43 ↗ probably this was done was after the

31:46 ↗ creek was widened there were a lot of

31:49 ↗ improvements made after the 1996 flood

31:52 ↗ the creek was widened and

31:54 ↗ I think at that time we saw some

31:55 ↗ improvements with famous cell you know

31:58 ↗ that's been about 10 years

32:01 ↗ over 10 years

32:03 ↗ yeah if I do my math right like 15 or so

32:06 ↗ almost

32:09 ↗ when the site does fill out obviously

32:11 ↗ the big Swale will take the hit of it

32:13 ↗ because it's designed to take the water

32:15 ↗ and there were a number of comments

32:17 ↗ about well what happens to the plants

32:18 ↗ well if plants are destroyed they have

32:20 ↗ to be replaced and fixed mud has to be

32:23 ↗ cleaned up we have uh requirement that's

32:26 ↗ been always in our landscape called that

32:28 ↗ for uh forever you take care of your

32:30 ↗ plant materials then

32:32 ↗ and this goes beyond the three-year

32:34 ↗ maintenance bonding that we require for

32:36 ↗ maintenance of plants so it's it's going

32:37 ↗ to be forever that we want to see those

32:39 ↗ taken care of

32:42 ↗ um

32:43 ↗ there was a number of questions too that

32:45 ↗ what about the residents that live in

32:46 ↗ these buildings and we do a pretty good

32:48 ↗ job the city does on channel 21 and

32:50 ↗ putting out notices when there's floods

32:52 ↗ and what stage the waters are we'll want

32:54 ↗ to see some pamphlets and some Legal

32:56 ↗ Information given to the residents that

32:58 ↗ they're aware that they're living in a

33:00 ↗ floodplain type Zone too that's

33:04 ↗ seems to be a reason I believe you've

33:06 ↗ agreed to that correct for the future

33:11 ↗ uh the share reuse route Jerry yeah you

33:14 ↗ want to give them a chance to add the

33:16 ↗ applicant to add anything oh do you want

33:19 ↗ to add anything further I know you've

33:20 ↗ agreed to it no we totally agree what

33:22 ↗ the staff has responded to here yeah

33:26 ↗ uh the shared use route is one of the

33:28 ↗ main elements of the central Issaquah

33:31 ↗ plan runs through our Valley a good part

33:33 ↗ of this runs east west in the site

33:36 ↗ and a portion of the runs also north

33:38 ↗ south up to Gilman Boulevard the portion

33:41 ↗ that runs South East is the awkward part

33:44 ↗ because it falls within a kind of an

33:47 ↗ undeated Street area that's now served

33:49 ↗ by the dental office and it's also

33:51 ↗ served by the daycare facility that's

33:54 ↗ our daycare of the preschool that's

33:56 ↗ there at the corner too

33:57 ↗ and so what makes it tough is you got

34:00 ↗ the pavement for the shared roofs your

34:02 ↗ shared use throughout plus the two feet

34:05 ↗ of a landscaping that's required on the

34:07 ↗ two sides and that's just not able to be

34:09 ↗ accomplished within that section there

34:12 ↗ will be an adjustment of standards

34:14 ↗ that will be required

34:17 ↗ for us to look at

34:18 ↗ and looking to see what is going to be

34:21 ↗ the best solution for it because we

34:22 ↗ really want to put the emphasis on

34:24 ↗ pedestrians first over the vehicles and

34:27 ↗ there's some ideas that's been exploded

34:29 ↗ already whether it's Grass Creek or even

34:32 ↗ cobbles on the side something to

34:34 ↗ identify Motors that hey this is a

34:36 ↗ special Trail Drive slowly through here

34:38 ↗ till

34:39 ↗ the applicants even suggested a

34:42 ↗ possibility of dedicating that land to

34:45 ↗ the state I don't know what the cities

34:47 ↗ if the city wants it or not but anyway

34:49 ↗ the offer has been made oh we this is

34:52 ↗ not

34:53 ↗ this strip of land is is not the width

34:56 ↗ of a regular Street

34:57 ↗ and by the time we have been required to

35:02 ↗ dedicate the portion which is being used

35:04 ↗ by the shared use Trail

35:06 ↗ that's almost 50 percent of the width

35:09 ↗ and so

35:11 ↗ Lana has just been considering that they

35:15 ↗ would if they were left with just this

35:18 ↗ even skinnier strip of land coming down

35:21 ↗ there which the two adjoining property

35:24 ↗ owners uh are using uh for their parking

35:29 ↗ and for the access to the daycare it

35:32 ↗ seems more appropriate to dedicate the

35:35 ↗ full width of that rather than just half

35:37 ↗ of it

35:38 ↗ uh and we've had a number of discussions

35:41 ↗ with staff about resolving the detailing

35:44 ↗ of

35:45 ↗ um potentially adding bollids at the end

35:47 ↗ of the shared use Trails so that

35:49 ↗ pedestrians and bicycles know they're

35:51 ↗ entering a different uh area that's uh

35:55 ↗ uh that's that's going to see vehicles

35:58 ↗ and then working with the staff to work

36:02 ↗ out exactly what the ground surface

36:05 ↗ details are and we're all in agreement

36:07 ↗ but we'll we'll do that as part of a

36:10 ↗ conditioning of a project that diagram

36:12 ↗ shows the area that we're speaking about

36:13 ↗ the dental offices located right here on

36:16 ↗ the right side or to the east they use

36:18 ↗ that space for backing up they have 90

36:20 ↗ degree parking

36:22 ↗ the children's play area which is I

36:25 ↗ think kind of our preschool is over here

36:27 ↗ on the West side and they use that for

36:28 ↗ Access coming in and with the shared

36:30 ↗ route at 10 feet wide plus two and two

36:33 ↗ feet of a landscape from 14 feet it's

36:35 ↗ just impossible to accommodate everybody

36:37 ↗ well here the space

36:41 ↗ so we are all in agreement

36:45 ↗ uh number five was the building C

36:47 ↗ Courtyard that's uh the courtyard that

36:50 ↗ faces in a Northerly Direction uh these

36:55 ↗ Courtyards are semi-private but they're

36:57 ↗ also available to the public I guess too

36:59 ↗ because the trails run right by them

37:02 ↗ what was shown was a connection here on

37:05 ↗ the western side that leads to the

37:08 ↗ shared use route that's the heavier line

37:10 ↗ uh

37:13 ↗ we feel that users within this space

37:16 ↗ here it's it's kind of a berm space on

37:18 ↗ the sides and the top so it kind of

37:20 ↗ creates some privacy there but those

37:23 ↗ that will be wanting to go to Gilman

37:25 ↗ Boulevard or to the dog park the new

37:29 ↗ neighborhood park that's been provided

37:31 ↗ Gilman Boulevard would probably not

37:34 ↗ necessarily take the route to the west

37:36 ↗ but may take a shortcut on the Eastern

37:39 ↗ side which is more direct

37:43 ↗ I know the applicant wants to keep the

37:46 ↗ main trail which is six feet wide here

37:49 ↗ on the West side and if this becomes an

37:50 ↗ issue we can certainly still work it out

37:52 ↗ perhaps there could be some stepping

37:54 ↗ stones or something of that nature

37:57 ↗ added into it

37:59 ↗ but we'll have to evaluate the courtyard

38:04 ↗ uh

38:06 ↗ and see if that's becomes a problem yeah

38:08 ↗ we we don't believe that the single

38:11 ↗ route is a problem uh and uh

38:14 ↗ that if people are going out to a shared

38:16 ↗ use Trail uh they're more often likely

38:19 ↗ going out

38:20 ↗ for exercise purposes or taking their

38:24 ↗ dog for a walk and that the shortest

38:26 ↗ route is not necessarily the foremost

38:29 ↗ thing in their mind

38:31 ↗ but uh

38:33 ↗ you'll see in the Solar diagrams one of

38:37 ↗ the aspects of placing the outdoor

38:41 ↗ seating area in this location it is to

38:45 ↗ move it as far north as possible to get

38:47 ↗ it out of the shadow of the buildings

38:49 ↗ and so we're just thinking of this as

38:51 ↗ being

38:53 ↗ an area that has a little more privacy

38:57 ↗ to sit outside been going across the

39:01 ↗ street and sitting in the park

39:03 ↗ where you're in just a much more public

39:06 ↗ environment so we have a slight

39:07 ↗ disagreement we do at the same time

39:09 ↗ chapter two also calls for these

39:11 ↗ connections to be direct and friendly

39:13 ↗ towards pedestrians too

39:15 ↗ so that's the challenge Mr chair just a

39:19 ↗ question question slash comment behavior

39:22 ↗ um so this still getting comfortable

39:25 ↗ with the process and and the little

39:26 ↗ details we're operating at now is uh not

39:30 ↗ as at Grant as granular as it was in the

39:32 ↗ previous process and so when we get into

39:34 ↗ situations like this you know we don't

39:37 ↗ have really enough information to say

39:39 ↗ well

39:41 ↗ um do something like the following to

39:43 ↗ create that secondary but not as Formal

39:46 ↗ Connection

39:47 ↗ Etc and so I'm hearing a debate between

39:49 ↗ the applicant and the staff on what we

39:51 ↗ should do I think where the commission

39:54 ↗ was I'm just trying to figure out how do

39:55 ↗ we put continue to emphasize the need to

39:58 ↗ really explore or create what could be a

40:02 ↗ future alternative

40:04 ↗ that provides kind of protection from

40:07 ↗ trampling of this Landscaping that will

40:09 ↗ happen if people decide they want to go

40:10 ↗ to you know take the shortcut and

40:12 ↗ they're just going to plow through I

40:13 ↗ think we've actually come to a good

40:15 ↗ agreement about this you can see that

40:16 ↗ there's a slight difference of opinion

40:19 ↗ um and we've come to an agreement about

40:21 ↗ this that as we go through the

40:23 ↗ construction of this uh

40:26 ↗ um the uh the shortcut path uh is

40:30 ↗ something that we do agree is not

40:33 ↗ necessarily built to the same standards

40:36 ↗ as the six foot wide

40:38 ↗ handicapped accessible path that is

40:41 ↗ running around because that is why that

40:43 ↗ is on the longer

40:45 ↗ side because we couldn't get an

40:48 ↗ accessible route on your side but the

40:50 ↗ potential that we could incorporate a

40:53 ↗ stepping stone kind of path through the

40:55 ↗ Landscaping there as we all get to look

40:59 ↗ at how it's shaping up we think can be a

41:03 ↗ solution yeah I I would agree with that

41:05 ↗ I think two formal passes Overkill I

41:07 ↗ think that kind of secondary path being

41:09 ↗ something simple integrated into the

41:10 ↗ Landscaping but it's not walking on top

41:13 ↗ of them we've done something similar

41:15 ↗ already on this property to the shared

41:17 ↗ use route which runs north and south

41:18 ↗ towards the creek there's also a path

41:21 ↗ there too that's a uh a pervious type

41:24 ↗ Trail too yeah no more gravel too so

41:27 ↗ that's kind of a minor minor Trail but I

41:29 ↗ guess I guess back to the question

41:31 ↗ process question and so since we don't

41:34 ↗ have a level of detail that says you

41:36 ↗ know a specific condition that shall do

41:39 ↗ the following because it may not be the

41:42 ↗ right answer to make it a requirement

41:44 ↗ right now because we don't have enough

41:45 ↗ we have and explored it further enough

41:48 ↗ how do we ensure that you know other

41:51 ↗ than this conversation that this

41:53 ↗ actually happens that we really do fully

41:56 ↗ explore it in an end of the day what

41:58 ↗ seems to be the preferences kind of a

42:01 ↗ main accessible pathway that meets those

42:03 ↗ criteria those code requirements and

42:05 ↗ then this kind of secondary

42:07 ↗ if it makes sense in the end in the

42:09 ↗ design the secondary informal connection

42:12 ↗ to the to the trail

42:15 ↗ so instead of doing a condition is a is

42:18 ↗ part of the conversation on the record

42:19 ↗ enough that will point I I you're you're

42:23 ↗ bringing up an excellent point and I

42:25 ↗ mean depending on the commission's level

42:28 ↗ of comfort too

42:30 ↗ um I think what we were proposing is

42:32 ↗ that because we've captured this option

42:35 ↗ in the memo it and the staff have

42:39 ↗ described it the applicant has described

42:42 ↗ it we've concurred that that having this

42:44 ↗ is an option moving forward we think is

42:47 ↗ a good way to evaluate it

42:50 ↗ we feel that having that in our document

42:54 ↗ which is part of the basis of the

42:55 ↗ decision is sufficient

42:57 ↗ however if the commission feels more

43:00 ↗ comfortable you know having a condition

43:03 ↗ drafted that that during the um

43:07 ↗ construction phase that staff and

43:11 ↗ applicant will evaluate on site the need

43:13 ↗ for this sort of secondary stepping

43:15 ↗ stone path we could you know I'd be glad

43:18 ↗ to draft that while we're reviewing this

43:20 ↗ evening oh great I appreciate that and

43:22 ↗ then just another just more clarity on

43:25 ↗ this point so there were in the in the

43:27 ↗ memo and the staff applicant memo

43:30 ↗ they're on the flood plain issues and

43:33 ↗ the impacts there there were you know

43:35 ↗ comments made about and they were

43:37 ↗ responsive to the commission's concerns

43:39 ↗ last time about providing notification

43:40 ↗ to the or information to the residents

43:43 ↗ about potentials for flooding even

43:45 ↗ though the garages flood proof as

43:47 ↗ defined in the memo they could still be

43:50 ↗ trapped as a result of flooding that

43:51 ↗ happens on the site and so the

43:53 ↗ awarenessing and so the memo talks about

43:55 ↗ that but there are no formal conditions

43:58 ↗ that were created as part of the

44:00 ↗ original

44:01 ↗ recommendation and or here within

44:04 ↗ additional staff recommended conditions

44:06 ↗ and so again it's it's in the memo but

44:09 ↗ it's not formalized as a condition there

44:11 ↗ was also comments about creating a legal

44:15 ↗ um obligation to do that which gets a

44:17 ↗ little bit sensitive when you start

44:18 ↗ talking about that and so

44:21 ↗ um again I'm still trying to get clear

44:23 ↗ in my mind about the weight that comes

44:27 ↗ with if it's in the memo versus it's a

44:31 ↗ formal condition that has been defined

44:33 ↗ by the and adopted by the commission and

44:36 ↗ the standing of those as far as

44:38 ↗ implementation

44:40 ↗ so if if this had so I'm going to go

44:44 ↗ take a big step back if at the time

44:46 ↗ before we issued the first staff report

44:51 ↗ we had identified that we wanted we

44:55 ↗ thought that it was necessary for

44:56 ↗ instance to put the signage up in the

44:58 ↗ garage which is something we've talked

45:00 ↗ about in the applicants concurred with

45:02 ↗ we wouldn't have probably made that a

45:07 ↗ condition of the staff report we would

45:10 ↗ have made it a construction condition

45:12 ↗ and part of the distinction that we're

45:15 ↗ seeing there is that the land use

45:16 ↗ conditions are things that sort of have

45:19 ↗ site-wide impacts their implementation

45:22 ↗ of zoning you know that that are really

45:26 ↗ at a land use level but there are a lot

45:29 ↗ of things like for instance the signs in

45:31 ↗ the garage that are important to capture

45:33 ↗ to make sure that the applicant is aware

45:36 ↗ of them that

45:38 ↗ um

45:39 ↗ that staff doesn't forget about them I

45:41 ↗ mean it sort of serves as a Tickler list

45:43 ↗ so to speak and so that's part of why

45:46 ↗ we've gone to the construction condition

45:48 ↗ as a sort of secondary attachment of

45:51 ↗ conditions to the staff report because

45:53 ↗ we think that that level of community

45:55 ↗ there's a lot of good ideas that come up

45:57 ↗ with as we work with the applicant and

46:00 ↗ we want to make sure those are captured

46:01 ↗ to facilitate moving into the next phase

46:06 ↗ um so I say all of that

46:09 ↗ um

46:10 ↗ because the thing that strikes me is

46:13 ↗ that for instance the signage

46:15 ↗ in the garage would probably be more

46:19 ↗ appropriate as a construction condition

46:21 ↗ it doesn't have site-wide impacts but we

46:23 ↗ certainly don't want to lose track of it

46:25 ↗ right I guess our thought is that many

46:28 ↗ of the things that are in the briefing

46:30 ↗ response memo are the kind it almost

46:32 ↗ becomes another list that we turn to

46:35 ↗ because of the level of detail right

46:37 ↗ um but you know this is a relatively new

46:40 ↗ thing for all of us as well we developed

46:43 ↗ that in the fall as we were combining

46:46 ↗ and refining our processes as a result

46:49 ↗ of the Kaizen process that Christopher

46:51 ↗ Wright design described so um as you

46:55 ↗ asked so I say all of this because we're

46:58 ↗ still sort of figuring out where things

46:59 ↗ should be

47:00 ↗ um where where conditions should be what

47:02 ↗ should be conditions and so I I think

47:05 ↗ it's important that if the commission

47:07 ↗ feels that

47:09 ↗ um these really need to be captured in

47:10 ↗ conditions rather than relying on the

47:12 ↗ staff report as they continue I mean I'm

47:15 ↗ happy to draft some language that we can

47:18 ↗ add add to the motion yeah so I that's

47:22 ↗ really helpful and I appreciate the

47:24 ↗ audience patience with this as if we're

47:25 ↗ still finding our way a bit here and

47:27 ↗ want to make sure we're doing this well

47:28 ↗ so I guess the way I'll characterize

47:30 ↗ this is in my mind when it comes to the

47:33 ↗ official conditions of permit approval

47:36 ↗ that those are essentially these are

47:38 ↗ mandatory that we want to make sure that

47:40 ↗ in this form this happens

47:42 ↗ things that are captured in the response

47:45 ↗ memo that are responsive to the concerns

47:48 ↗ or questions of the commission they're

47:50 ↗ still flexible they're important to be

47:52 ↗ addressed by staff and the applicant as

47:54 ↗ in the design team as you go through

47:55 ↗ construction we don't have enough detail

47:58 ↗ to be fixed on it an outcome that we

48:00 ↗ want but it is an issue we want to see

48:02 ↗ addressed in the in the

48:04 ↗ continuation of design development and

48:06 ↗ that's the way I'll kind of separate

48:09 ↗ them in my mind but if it's a if it's

48:10 ↗ something we absolutely want to see

48:12 ↗ happen and we're going to we're going to

48:13 ↗ write a condition that goes as a permit

48:15 ↗ condition

48:16 ↗ I just wanted to point out that uh

48:20 ↗ from the previous meeting we've we've

48:23 ↗ been working with staff we've jointly

48:25 ↗ responded to the issues and concerns of

48:28 ↗ the commission and the public

48:30 ↗ and although this seems like a small

48:33 ↗ thing to be having a

48:35 ↗ disagreement over

48:37 ↗ the applicant has agreed that

48:41 ↗ um you know as the spaces are created

48:45 ↗ and the Topography of the courtyard is

48:50 ↗ in place and the distances are seen

48:54 ↗ that

48:56 ↗ we're saying that at that point in time

48:59 ↗ if it is obvious that this shortcut

49:03 ↗ stepping stone path is the right thing

49:05 ↗ to do the applicant is agreeing that

49:11 ↗ we're just you know voicing at this time

49:15 ↗ that we don't necessarily feel it's

49:17 ↗ necessary but we are keeping an open

49:19 ↗ mind and a committing to working with

49:22 ↗ staff both in the planning department

49:24 ↗ and

49:26 ↗ um in in our building permit

49:29 ↗ applications that this is a potential to

49:32 ↗ be viewed as a group uh further down the

49:35 ↗ road as we're getting closer to the

49:38 ↗ final construction of the space I think

49:40 ↗ that's it's a good example for testing

49:42 ↗ this you know Theory back and forth a

49:43 ↗ bit again keeping in mind that the

49:45 ↗ design development hasn't progressed as

49:47 ↗ far along as we have traditionally had

49:50 ↗ in front of us so we could be a little

49:52 ↗ more specific in what we wanted to see

49:54 ↗ happen and we don't want to do something

49:56 ↗ that becomes a requirement that

49:58 ↗ eventually doesn't make sense as the

50:00 ↗ design develops and then then you're

50:01 ↗ stuck so we don't want we don't want to

50:03 ↗ create that outcome either so that

50:04 ↗ flexibility is important so I appreciate

50:06 ↗ that thanks yeah

50:07 ↗ So to that end since we're testing

50:11 ↗ things I'm going to try drafting a

50:12 ↗ couple of conditions I'll go over and

50:14 ↗ show them to the applicant then we can

50:15 ↗ talk to you as we're getting to a point

50:18 ↗ where the commission's ready to make a

50:20 ↗ decision

50:23 ↗ uh number six was what is the purpose of

50:26 ↗ the courtyards are they primarily for

50:28 ↗ public use or the residence or

50:30 ↗ combination of both and uh the

50:33 ↗ courtyards are semi-private there's

50:34 ↗ three main Courtyards you can see the

50:36 ↗ little black and white drawings on the

50:39 ↗ lower right and they're by our shared

50:41 ↗ use routes for the most part or along

50:43 ↗ seventh

50:46 ↗ our plan does require that to provide a

50:48 ↗ number of public type spaces uh

50:51 ↗ individual spaces which are decks and

50:54 ↗ balconies you'll see though we sell

50:55 ↗ those already with the buildings and

50:58 ↗ there's some lower ones as well there's

51:00 ↗ some common and private ones such as the

51:02 ↗ courtyards which we see here there's

51:04 ↗ also some private spaces within the

51:06 ↗ recreation facilities within each of

51:08 ↗ those buildings too that are those are

51:10 ↗ totally private spaces too these are

51:13 ↗ kind of it's semi-private but designed

51:15 ↗ to be more private I believe and and

51:17 ↗ that also includes the route between

51:20 ↗ buildings B and C

51:22 ↗ part of the purpose of these public uses

51:25 ↗ also includes the neighborhood park and

51:27 ↗ I checked the snip up from your last

51:29 ↗ presentation too which it was in which

51:32 ↗ was in color and that shows the the park

51:34 ↗ which is just west of Issaquah Creek

51:39 ↗ so I think the providing them I have a

51:41 ↗ question on that sure

51:43 ↗ um

51:44 ↗ how does

51:47 ↗ a member of the public

51:49 ↗ how will they know

51:51 ↗ what's public and what's private

51:54 ↗ well there is a separation of a

51:57 ↗ landscape buffer between the trail

52:00 ↗ and the courtyard so that will do it

52:03 ↗ on 7th Avenue the courtyard is actually

52:07 ↗ built up

52:08 ↗ elevated above the Street sidewalk

52:10 ↗ there's stairs

52:13 ↗ well I'm thinking that well I don't

52:14 ↗ think they have any signage proposed

52:16 ↗ saying private keypad well that's that's

52:18 ↗ my point I mean what I'm thinking is

52:20 ↗ that we're trying the city is trying to

52:22 ↗ encourage pedestrian traffic we are uh

52:24 ↗ and if you succeed there are going to be

52:28 ↗ people who are going to get tired at a

52:30 ↗ certain point and want to sit down and

52:31 ↗ they're going to be others that are

52:32 ↗ going to want to go to sleep and you

52:34 ↗ know there is a percentage of the

52:35 ↗ population there so if if I I would

52:39 ↗ assume that residents are going to

52:42 ↗ expect there to be

52:44 ↗ um

52:45 ↗ a rational person to be able to

52:48 ↗ Define what's private and what's public

52:51 ↗ and I'm I'm it's not clear to me that

52:54 ↗ Landscaping is going to do it

52:56 ↗ because then you're going to get into

52:58 ↗ people calling the police and saying

52:59 ↗ there's some guy sleeping in our

53:00 ↗ Courtyard

53:02 ↗ well maybe I could talk to the bigger

53:04 ↗ issue of the

53:06 ↗ um

53:07 ↗ Public Access and uh

53:11 ↗ multi-family

53:12 ↗ housing developments

53:14 ↗ I think you're aware that the only piece

53:19 ↗ of this site which is being deeded to

53:23 ↗ the city is the shared use trail running

53:27 ↗ through that the rest of this is private

53:29 ↗ property

53:31 ↗ what happens with private property is

53:33 ↗ there is a standard of behavior which is

53:36 ↗ expected of people who are using private

53:41 ↗ property even though it appears to be

53:43 ↗ completely

53:45 ↗ open to the public

53:48 ↗ and that is one of the measures that

53:50 ↗ allows uh

53:53 ↗ uh you know the uh the people managing

53:56 ↗ this property to make the decision that

53:59 ↗ uh Mischief is happening and this is not

54:04 ↗ within the standard of behavior which is

54:06 ↗ appropriate on private property

54:09 ↗ and there will be somewhere on this site

54:12 ↗ there will be signs posted that that

54:14 ↗ says there is a standard of Behavior Uh

54:18 ↗ expected because you are on private

54:20 ↗ property and this is not the same as a

54:24 ↗ public Street and it's not the same as a

54:27 ↗ public park and so uh that that is

54:32 ↗ underwritten there now a lot of people

54:36 ↗ um

54:37 ↗ recognize that

54:39 ↗ that can have a positive influence in

54:46 ↗ terms of the policing of a space like

54:48 ↗ this because if some Mischief is

54:51 ↗ happening just in a public right-of-way

54:54 ↗ um you know who is going to call the

54:57 ↗ police to say that something nasty is

54:59 ↗ going on

55:00 ↗ when a private property owner says there

55:04 ↗ is something nasty happening on my piece

55:06 ↗ of property we need your assistance that

55:09 ↗ typically is found to get a greater

55:11 ↗ response

55:12 ↗ and so it's a little

55:15 ↗ complicated but the standard of behavior

55:19 ↗ for public on private property is a is a

55:24 ↗ a known aspect of providing this kind of

55:27 ↗ across the whole site access

55:30 ↗ so it's it's something that will be

55:32 ↗ worked out uh uh and language will be

55:35 ↗ worked out later and I'm sure we'll be

55:37 ↗ able to share it with the city yeah

55:38 ↗ these spaces they are geared and

55:40 ↗ oriented towards the uh residents

55:43 ↗ themselves that's correct

55:45 ↗ and I think part of what you're hearing

55:47 ↗ is that uh

55:49 ↗ while there may be some signage to

55:52 ↗ further

55:54 ↗ um

55:55 ↗ inform people who are coming to the site

55:57 ↗ that a lot of it is you know non-verbal

56:00 ↗ communication that is used in the design

56:03 ↗ to be more inviting in the park space

56:06 ↗ and maybe less inviting in certain

56:08 ↗ Courtyards that are intended for

56:11 ↗ residents

56:12 ↗ and you know those things sometimes

56:15 ↗ evolve as you see how a site is used

56:18 ↗ because the intent is that the park site

56:21 ↗ would be available generally for the

56:24 ↗ public and we actually have designed the

56:26 ↗ free Courtyards to have different levels

56:30 ↗ of

56:31 ↗ uh containment

56:34 ↗ on building a

56:36 ↗ which is I'm saying oops let's see okay

56:41 ↗ on building a uh the access to this

56:44 ↗ Courtyard which is on the east side of

56:46 ↗ the building is only through the

56:49 ↗ building

56:50 ↗ there is no problem unless you scaled

56:52 ↗ the wall coming out of this whale

56:54 ↗ there's no public access to that

56:56 ↗ courtyard

56:57 ↗ the courtyard in Building B which opens

57:01 ↗ off of the seventh actually it does have

57:05 ↗ a three foot high fence with a gate

57:09 ↗ and so it's

57:12 ↗ um the intention there is that the the

57:14 ↗ space and the Landscaping are sort of

57:17 ↗ being contributed to the public realm

57:19 ↗ but there is clearly

57:22 ↗ um a point where you would know you're

57:24 ↗ entering something which is uh

57:27 ↗ semi-private and then Building C

57:30 ↗ Courtyard is the most open of all of

57:32 ↗ those Courtyards because that is where

57:35 ↗ uh guests and residents actually just

57:38 ↗ walk through that courtyard in a very

57:41 ↗ um traditional Courtyard apartment

57:43 ↗ approach to a building where you're

57:46 ↗ walking through that space to get to the

57:48 ↗ lobby and um you know again

57:51 ↗ um

57:53 ↗ depending on how the resident was

57:55 ↗ wanting to feel the resident has access

57:58 ↗ to all of these different spaces

58:00 ↗ and so we're incorporating of course you

58:03 ↗ get across the street of a park it's

58:05 ↗ fully uh fully open to the public

58:10 ↗ I would imagine the management of the

58:12 ↗ apartment complex will have to monitor

58:13 ↗ this as well too yes so

58:17 ↗ oh the management will have to monitor

58:19 ↗ behavior in these spaces too

58:27 ↗ seven really came through this through

58:29 ↗ block passage I think the question was

58:32 ↗ uh

58:35 ↗ I can read it here

58:43 ↗ with all three buildings being five

58:45 ↗ stories in height will there be enough

58:46 ↗ sunlight for the plantings proposed the

58:49 ↗ public private space with the primary

58:51 ↗ through block passage between buildings

58:53 ↗ B and C may be dark and mossy due to the

58:56 ↗ five-story heights of the Jason

58:58 ↗ buildings uh the space is about 40 to 50

59:01 ↗ feet wide and it also has a very good

59:03 ↗ Southern Exposure too which is very much

59:06 ↗ to its Advantage so certainly during the

59:09 ↗ noon hours of the day

59:11 ↗ it'll receive the maxim sunshine and we

59:13 ↗ did ask the applicant to provide some

59:16 ↗ solar studies on this too and we have

59:19 ↗ some of those too which will show the

59:21 ↗ spring is it the Equinox I guess as well

59:24 ↗ as the peak of the summer on June 20th

59:28 ↗ I will um

59:33 ↗ this is March March 21st the day we just

59:36 ↗ passed yeah and so this is taken at 10

59:39 ↗ A.M in the morning so what we've done is

59:41 ↗ we've looked at the solar shading for

59:44 ↗ every hour through the day starting at

59:46 ↗ 10 and going till three o'clock in the

59:48 ↗ afternoon

59:49 ↗ and as designers we're not just looking

59:52 ↗ at what sunlight is falling on the

59:54 ↗ ground which if you actually look at the

59:57 ↗ free Block passageway

59:59 ↗ um the the ground is in shade at 10

1:00:02 ↗ o'clock but the key thing here is that

1:00:06 ↗ the East face of Building B is pretty

1:00:10 ↗ much completely in sunlight and

1:00:12 ↗ therefore is reflecting light into the

1:00:14 ↗ space so as we go through these

1:00:18 ↗ and we

1:00:20 ↗ you know move an hour you can just see

1:00:24 ↗ um and this is also applying uh to the

1:00:27 ↗ Courtyard that we're just looking at

1:00:29 ↗ you can start to see how the Sun is uh

1:00:34 ↗ getting different access to different

1:00:37 ↗ parts of the courtyards so at different

1:00:39 ↗ times of the day there are going to be

1:00:41 ↗ places where uh you know residents could

1:00:45 ↗ predict where the Sun is going to be

1:00:49 ↗ and then when we look at um

1:00:53 ↗ one right next to it

1:00:56 ↗ um in in the summer

1:00:59 ↗ you can see it by 10 o'clock in the

1:01:01 ↗ morning we actually have sunlight

1:01:04 ↗ falling on the through block passageway

1:01:08 ↗ on the ground well and obviously as well

1:01:11 ↗ shining on the building facade

1:01:15 ↗ and this is uh running through on an

1:01:18 ↗ hourly basis you can see

1:01:22 ↗ um part of what I was talking about with

1:01:24 ↗ the sort of use of the of this space's

1:01:27 ↗ sitting area and then the the other two

1:01:30 ↗ Courtyards as we're going through

1:01:34 ↗ uh the day obviously at noon we're

1:01:37 ↗ getting light all the way down the uh

1:01:39 ↗ through block passageway

1:01:41 ↗ and then it starts to move over in the

1:01:44 ↗ afternoon until we're three o'clock in

1:01:47 ↗ the afternoon you can see uh it's it's

1:01:50 ↗ starting to get shadier again

1:01:52 ↗ the main emphasis was that through block

1:01:54 ↗ passage between buildings B and C

1:01:57 ↗ certainly building a will get the most

1:01:59 ↗ more enlightened Building B will get the

1:02:01 ↗ best of the afternoon light too yes

1:02:04 ↗ the plants are kept fairly low between

1:02:09 ↗ buildings being C so they're not going

1:02:11 ↗ to be casting a great amount of shade

1:02:12 ↗ there's also a lot of lights that will

1:02:14 ↗ be strung between the buildings too also

1:02:16 ↗ further lightened up too during those

1:02:18 ↗ darker sessions as well too

1:02:24 ↗ there's an example in Seattle that we

1:02:27 ↗ included in your briefing report and

1:02:28 ↗ that's with an alley in Seattle it's

1:02:30 ↗ near the REI store and so you can kind

1:02:32 ↗ of see an example in Seattle of a of a

1:02:35 ↗ similar type

1:02:36 ↗ passage although there's a little bit

1:02:38 ↗ more narrow and even with that there's

1:02:39 ↗ quite a bit of light

1:02:41 ↗ that one also has a Southern Exposure as

1:02:44 ↗ does this one here

1:02:48 ↗ uh eight was having to do with mixed

1:02:51 ↗ uses

1:02:54 ↗ you know the question was why isn't this

1:02:56 ↗ a mixed use building consistent with

1:02:58 ↗ this Central it's a plan instead of a

1:03:00 ↗ single-use building whether it be rental

1:03:03 ↗ or retail I should say in the future

1:03:05 ↗ where will the residents work will there

1:03:08 ↗ be where were the displaced businesses

1:03:11 ↗ go and uh you know Darlene you're here I

1:03:14 ↗ know you've brought that up yourself I

1:03:15 ↗ think that particular

1:03:17 ↗ question

1:03:19 ↗ okay mixed juice is not a requirement of

1:03:23 ↗ this plan

1:03:24 ↗ it's certainly something part of this

1:03:26 ↗ plan it's something we certainly

1:03:28 ↗ encourage but it's not a requirement

1:03:29 ↗ they could have gone all retail they

1:03:31 ↗ could have gone all residential and they

1:03:33 ↗ chose to go all residential again as we

1:03:36 ↗ discussed earlier they still have to

1:03:38 ↗ provide an option of this building for

1:03:40 ↗ changes in the future which you saw

1:03:43 ↗ earlier with Building B with the taller

1:03:45 ↗ Lobby and the dwelling units above are

1:03:48 ↗ taken out so there is an opportunity for

1:03:50 ↗ future commercial within that space

1:03:56 ↗ as it goes over time

1:03:58 ↗ uh we don't know where the residents uh

1:04:01 ↗ will work they could work anywhere in

1:04:03 ↗ the city or outside of the city but

1:04:04 ↗ there certainly is a lot of retail and

1:04:06 ↗ offices within the central Issaquah plan

1:04:09 ↗ of over a thousand acres that

1:04:11 ↗ accommodates uh

1:04:13 ↗ a work workspaces for a variety of

1:04:16 ↗ workers of all levels have you done has

1:04:19 ↗ the applicant done

1:04:21 ↗ demographic studies or Market studies of

1:04:24 ↗ the the desired customers

1:04:27 ↗ residents

1:04:31 ↗ talk Tom about that

1:04:34 ↗ yeah I think Tom Bartholomew with the

1:04:37 ↗ applicant with Lennar

1:04:39 ↗ um

1:04:40 ↗ we see the target market I think as uh

1:04:43 ↗ being composed of

1:04:45 ↗ young families it could be even single

1:04:49 ↗ parents small families in part because

1:04:53 ↗ the schools are so good and so close by

1:04:55 ↗ the the elementary school so close by in

1:04:58 ↗ terms of where people will work which I

1:05:00 ↗ guess is is the real question the other

1:05:02 ↗ thing that attracted to us this property

1:05:04 ↗ us to this property was the walkability

1:05:07 ↗ that that such a high box score in a

1:05:10 ↗ Suburban location is pretty unusual and

1:05:12 ↗ also that great access to Transit so

1:05:14 ↗ right outside the door both going and

1:05:16 ↗ coming there's express bus service to

1:05:18 ↗ downtown Seattle Bellevue and Redmond so

1:05:21 ↗ I think there's there'd be I think the

1:05:22 ↗ answer is anywhere okay yeah

1:05:25 ↗ uh you brought up another issue that I

1:05:28 ↗ still am not clear on and I've asked

1:05:30 ↗ this question a number of uh meetings

1:05:32 ↗ with a different number of different

1:05:33 ↗ applications

1:05:34 ↗ you mentioned uh small families single

1:05:38 ↗ parent families uh what what is the

1:05:41 ↗ process I still don't it's not clear to

1:05:44 ↗ me what the problem this is for the

1:05:45 ↗ staff okay uh it's still not clear to me

1:05:48 ↗ what the process is to

1:05:51 ↗ communicate what process if any how does

1:05:54 ↗ the school board doing their

1:05:56 ↗ responsibility

1:05:58 ↗ become aware of increases in the

1:06:01 ↗ population the number of kids in the

1:06:03 ↗ community for their planning purposes

1:06:05 ↗ how does what what is that process

1:06:09 ↗ we actually have that here in the report

1:06:11 ↗ too

1:06:19 ↗ that was item number

1:06:24 ↗ well item 25 if it's addressed if it's

1:06:28 ↗ addressed in the in the report I didn't

1:06:30 ↗ see it number 25 number 25 that one too

1:06:33 ↗ all right then we can just because we

1:06:35 ↗ certainly work with the school district

1:06:36 ↗ on

1:06:37 ↗ honor a comprehensive plan two and and

1:06:40 ↗ the densities that we expect to

1:06:42 ↗ well and I think the mo the easiest way

1:06:46 ↗ that they find out is for those

1:06:48 ↗ residential units they get impact fees

1:06:50 ↗ so that's one way that they know that

1:06:52 ↗ things are being built they also have

1:06:55 ↗ demographers that you know are

1:06:58 ↗ projecting based on births and trends of

1:07:03 ↗ people moving and building permits how

1:07:07 ↗ many people they expect to be in the

1:07:10 ↗ schools and where they'll be living and

1:07:12 ↗ what the ages of the children will be

1:07:14 ↗ and we work with the school district

1:07:16 ↗ it's predominantly their

1:07:21 ↗ you know their decision but we work with

1:07:23 ↗ them on locating School sites if

1:07:25 ↗ necessary or and collecting the school

1:07:29 ↗ impact fees and it's kind of interesting

1:07:30 ↗ with impact Feast because many years we

1:07:33 ↗ collected for the school district

1:07:35 ↗ impact fees for single family only we

1:07:38 ↗ weren't collecting for school district

1:07:41 ↗ school district district did not require

1:07:43 ↗ an impact fee for multi-family and so

1:07:46 ↗ that's just recently within the last

1:07:47 ↗ couple years that we are now assessing

1:07:50 ↗ multi-family

1:07:52 ↗ okay thank you

1:07:57 ↗ just another quick question on that

1:08:00 ↗ um do you did you do any kind of

1:08:02 ↗ estimate of

1:08:04 ↗ accounting for a vacancy rate the number

1:08:07 ↗ of people that would be residing in

1:08:10 ↗ Atlas at any one time and then

1:08:13 ↗ um like a range of school-aged children

1:08:16 ↗ associated with that as the architect

1:08:19 ↗ I'm going to pass that over to the

1:08:20 ↗ developer

1:08:22 ↗ you were looking at me it's a quick

1:08:24 ↗ answer no not to that level of detail

1:08:27 ↗ and and I think the way the city would

1:08:29 ↗ look at it is

1:08:31 ↗ um

1:08:32 ↗ the way a building like you know we

1:08:34 ↗ often have applicants that come in and

1:08:35 ↗ say we won't have children or we're

1:08:37 ↗ going to have tons of children or you

1:08:39 ↗ know they they know the market that they

1:08:41 ↗ think is going to be attracted to the

1:08:45 ↗ types of housing that they're building

1:08:47 ↗ and it is somewhat different with a

1:08:49 ↗ rental project because if they're owning

1:08:53 ↗ it they recognize what I'm about to say

1:08:55 ↗ but you know with townhouses single

1:08:58 ↗ family homes and other kinds of condo

1:09:00 ↗ projects

1:09:01 ↗ we're trying to think about who's moving

1:09:04 ↗ in now but also you know how it may need

1:09:06 ↗ to be used in 10 20 30 years and so it's

1:09:10 ↗ kind of a balancing act between the

1:09:14 ↗ requirements that we have now and

1:09:17 ↗ setting it up for some flexibility

1:09:21 ↗ um long term over the total life of the

1:09:24 ↗ building I know this is going to be I

1:09:26 ↗ know it's addressed in in number 25 but

1:09:29 ↗ what I'm hearing is that there really

1:09:31 ↗ isn't a

1:09:33 ↗ the one of the last

1:09:35 ↗ developments applications that we looked

1:09:38 ↗ at I think it was even last year was a

1:09:40 ↗ an apartment complex on Newport

1:09:42 ↗ right where seventh basically we're

1:09:44 ↗ seventh and Newport intersect uh and as

1:09:47 ↗ I recall it was a rather large structure

1:09:49 ↗ with lots of units and it's basically

1:09:52 ↗ across the street from mississaug

1:09:53 ↗ elementary school and I asked then you

1:09:55 ↗ know does does the school board know

1:09:57 ↗ that they're going to be uh so

1:10:00 ↗ what I'm hearing is that there really

1:10:03 ↗ isn't

1:10:04 ↗ a

1:10:06 ↗ formal process of saying 343 rental

1:10:10 ↗ units are going to be constructed at

1:10:12 ↗ this site

1:10:13 ↗ and

1:10:14 ↗ the statistics are that X percent of

1:10:17 ↗ those will have school-aged children uh

1:10:20 ↗ there's no there's no formal it's it's

1:10:22 ↗ like the rental or the the impact fee

1:10:25 ↗ goes into the account and then they do

1:10:26 ↗ their thing too extrapolate from that

1:10:28 ↗ and and I would say yes that's right and

1:10:31 ↗ that is really important that they're

1:10:34 ↗ doing that extrapolation because they

1:10:36 ↗ really are they have all the statistics

1:10:39 ↗ um and you know while you're right we

1:10:41 ↗ could provide

1:10:42 ↗ um

1:10:43 ↗ census and other kinds of information

1:10:46 ↗ you know their level of knowledge of who

1:10:49 ↗ moves in where and the implications of

1:10:51 ↗ that for specific to not only the

1:10:55 ↗ Issaquah school district but the

1:10:56 ↗ individual schools is going to be

1:10:58 ↗ superior to anybody else's just because

1:11:01 ↗ that's what they spend you know all

1:11:02 ↗ their time I'm not suggesting that it's

1:11:04 ↗ the city's responsibility or the DC's

1:11:06 ↗ responsibility to do that but it just

1:11:08 ↗ seems to me that that

1:11:10 ↗ making sure that that knowledge that

1:11:13 ↗ there are 343 rental units going in at

1:11:17 ↗ this site we're considering an

1:11:18 ↗ application for another 250 100 yards

1:11:22 ↗ away that they get that to do their

1:11:24 ↗ thing with it and is their

1:11:26 ↗ responsibility but you know all of us

1:11:28 ↗ are concerned about quality of life for

1:11:30 ↗ residents in Issaquah I mean that's

1:11:31 ↗ basically what this is all about yeah

1:11:32 ↗ they typically don't get a notice of

1:11:35 ↗ application when an application comes in

1:11:37 ↗ saying this is how large it is this is

1:11:39 ↗ how many units it is in this case their

1:11:41 ↗ Studios ones and two bedroom bedroom so

1:11:44 ↗ they're not really large family type

1:11:47 ↗ units but I I think that that the point

1:11:50 ↗ both of you are making that's so

1:11:52 ↗ important is I don't think the school

1:11:54 ↗ district is as interested in land use

1:11:56 ↗ permits

1:11:58 ↗ um because land use permits are not

1:12:01 ↗ I guarantee that that actually is going

1:12:03 ↗ to happen and so I think that the um

1:12:06 ↗ their interest is in the actual issuance

1:12:10 ↗ of a building permit which is when we

1:12:12 ↗ collect the school impact fee in which

1:12:14 ↗ it when it would be passed to them and

1:12:16 ↗ you know with most of the projects that

1:12:18 ↗ they're really going to care about

1:12:19 ↗ there's usually at least a year of

1:12:21 ↗ construction

1:12:22 ↗ that takes place so at the point the

1:12:25 ↗ permit's issued there's probably a year

1:12:27 ↗ before anyone's going to be present that

1:12:30 ↗ might be generating school-aged children

1:12:32 ↗ and that while not enough time to build

1:12:35 ↗ a school is enough time to begin to

1:12:38 ↗ consider how things you know those

1:12:41 ↗ shifts because it usually is several

1:12:43 ↗ years before they um

1:12:46 ↗ have you know the the impacts are

1:12:48 ↗ sufficient enough that they are making

1:12:50 ↗ significant that timing can be very long

1:12:52 ↗ time long term too that's not always

1:12:55 ↗ just a year or two kilkari condominiums

1:12:57 ↗ for instance is an example as a master

1:12:59 ↗ site plan and that's 15 years later and

1:13:02 ↗ they're still not built out yet

1:13:04 ↗ I think something that I want to add too

1:13:06 ↗ is that these units are relatively small

1:13:08 ↗ say compared to the units that are up on

1:13:10 ↗ the plateau in the highlands and so

1:13:14 ↗ kids who are in these units likely are

1:13:16 ↗ going to be younger and quite possibly

1:13:18 ↗ preschool age these units are not

1:13:21 ↗ intended for small families per se

1:13:28 ↗ the bus stop is being moved Eastward I

1:13:31 ↗ think we heard that earlier with the

1:13:34 ↗ last presentation there was a discussion

1:13:36 ↗ that

1:13:37 ↗ from the applicant about gravel

1:13:39 ↗ surfacing being placed out there which

1:13:40 ↗ the city doesn't allow we don't want the

1:13:42 ↗ gravel up flying out of the street into

1:13:44 ↗ the right of way and and nicking

1:13:46 ↗ vehicles out there either so

1:13:49 ↗ I will have to be a hard surface of some

1:13:51 ↗ type of material where we're just

1:13:53 ↗ working with the

1:13:55 ↗ City to arrive at the right

1:13:59 ↗ permeable material so that we are able

1:14:02 ↗ to keep the trees that are going to be

1:14:05 ↗ lining Gilman on the regular uh tree

1:14:10 ↗ spacing but make sure that the one's

1:14:12 ↗ close to the bus stop get plenty of

1:14:14 ↗ water so we're working together on the

1:14:17 ↗ on the solution yeah I mean irrigation

1:14:19 ↗ can work this out pervious pavement too

1:14:22 ↗ so there's different solutions that can

1:14:23 ↗ work to make this

1:14:26 ↗ affected with the Landscaping

1:14:28 ↗ signage was a question this is a new

1:14:31 ↗ illustration too

1:14:33 ↗ this is at the corner of seventh

1:14:36 ↗ and Gilman has the new name too on it

1:14:38 ↗ Atlas

1:14:39 ↗ and this is one of these Street walls it

1:14:41 ↗ has varied Heights but this is a

1:14:46 ↗ an option that has been presented by the

1:14:49 ↗ applicant we'd rather like it too how it

1:14:51 ↗ fits into the space architecturally it

1:14:53 ↗ looks really nice

1:14:55 ↗ and we'll be talking about this corner a

1:14:57 ↗ little bit more too in in this briefing

1:14:59 ↗ report as well

1:15:01 ↗ we don't have any sign up permit

1:15:03 ↗ applications yet

1:15:05 ↗ number 11 does relate to what we just

1:15:08 ↗ saw and that is that there is a bill to

1:15:10 ↗ line presence required getting the

1:15:12 ↗ buildings within 0-10 feet of your

1:15:15 ↗ streets we see that being provided for

1:15:19 ↗ buildings B and C on Seventh and Locus

1:15:23 ↗ and for part of it for building a along

1:15:26 ↗ seventh also but with guillem Boulevard

1:15:29 ↗ that's a little bit unique because of

1:15:31 ↗ the

1:15:32 ↗ drainage

1:15:34 ↗ blood swell that runs east and west

1:15:37 ↗ through that portion of the site so it

1:15:38 ↗ doesn't quite meet it we'll take an

1:15:40 ↗ adjustment of Standards to uh

1:15:43 ↗ deviate from that standard but we are

1:15:47 ↗ going to want to see some vertical

1:15:48 ↗ elements within this area

1:15:51 ↗ the central Issaquah plan does talk

1:15:53 ↗ about vertical architect elements

1:15:56 ↗ running 60 feet in each direction of the

1:15:58 ↗ street and that's what they've shown

1:16:00 ↗ here in this newer drawing there's some

1:16:03 ↗ openings too which is fine

1:16:04 ↗ there's some walls that are Landscaping

1:16:07 ↗ there's some seating there's some

1:16:09 ↗ pedestrian lights too to bring in some

1:16:11 ↗ vertical elements of that too

1:16:17 ↗ quick question just to make sure I've

1:16:19 ↗ got the design so the the bench faces

1:16:22 ↗ the bench faces inward in towards the

1:16:26 ↗ green into the Swale drainage swell yeah

1:16:29 ↗ concrete wall provides kind of shielding

1:16:31 ↗ from the roadway the detail yes because

1:16:34 ↗ we've got some more drawings okay the

1:16:36 ↗ other way facing the street would not be

1:16:38 ↗ very yeah

1:16:40 ↗ here we have

1:16:43 ↗ what uh

1:16:45 ↗ what we have here is that uh

1:16:50 ↗ we have created uh We've adjusted

1:16:53 ↗ actually from the last time you saw this

1:16:55 ↗ we've adjusted all the spacing

1:16:58 ↗ um running through here uh it's a little

1:17:01 ↗ complicated but we're trying to make

1:17:02 ↗ sure that the buses aren't

1:17:05 ↗ the active pruning of the trees so we're

1:17:08 ↗ we're pulling the uh trees in and we're

1:17:11 ↗ creating a slightly wider planting area

1:17:13 ↗ adjacent to the boulevard than is

1:17:15 ↗ required

1:17:16 ↗ in order to let the trees the location

1:17:19 ↗ of the trees be further away because

1:17:22 ↗ this is where the buses are swooping in

1:17:24 ↗ to come to the bus stop

1:17:26 ↗ we are proposing that it was only a

1:17:29 ↗ couple of uh the uh hazelnut trees that

1:17:34 ↗ were a healthy enough state to keep but

1:17:37 ↗ we are now proposing that we actually

1:17:39 ↗ take those couple out as well as the

1:17:42 ↗ unhealthy ones they've been taken away

1:17:45 ↗ already on the western side of seven by

1:17:47 ↗ the city they weren't healthy trees

1:17:48 ↗ they've been replaced with newer trees

1:17:51 ↗ since so by the time we make an alley of

1:17:55 ↗ the trees on each side of a sidewalk of

1:17:58 ↗ the second row of trees is basically

1:18:01 ↗ falling on the on the property line

1:18:04 ↗ the other thing that we're dealing with

1:18:06 ↗ here is that we actually do have a gas

1:18:08 ↗ line

1:18:09 ↗ which we are

1:18:12 ↗ slaving past the trees but it is running

1:18:14 ↗ on the edge of the planting area so it's

1:18:18 ↗ not falling underneath the sidewalk uh

1:18:21 ↗ so we don't rip up the sidewalk if uh of

1:18:24 ↗ a city we're up the sidewalk if there's

1:18:25 ↗ any need for repair to that

1:18:28 ↗ and so what we're creating is a a series

1:18:33 ↗ of

1:18:34 ↗ walls which are parallel they're spaced

1:18:38 ↗ about 18 inches away from the back of

1:18:40 ↗ the sidewalk It's Our intention that the

1:18:43 ↗ concrete wall facing the road actually

1:18:45 ↗ will become a green wall it'll be

1:18:47 ↗ planted so that it will get covered in

1:18:51 ↗ in Vines but the uh side of a wall which

1:18:55 ↗ is facing the Swale gets a bench and

1:18:59 ↗ then a pedestrian pole light at each one

1:19:02 ↗ of those

1:19:03 ↗ so that is

1:19:06 ↗ in scale these are on

1:19:10 ↗ on the side of this wall where the hand

1:19:13 ↗ is is four feet tall and going up to

1:19:15 ↗ five feet tall so each one has gotten

1:19:18 ↗ now this is picking up the sloping top

1:19:20 ↗ which is on the top of the buildings as

1:19:22 ↗ well

1:19:23 ↗ and that gets to the corner and it runs

1:19:26 ↗ up so the wall here is five feet and

1:19:30 ↗ then back down and then we're repeating

1:19:32 ↗ the same element coming down the seventh

1:19:36 ↗ uh we're actually using the required

1:19:40 ↗ spacing of the trees the 30-foot spacing

1:19:43 ↗ of the trees to actually

1:19:47 ↗ say where these walls and benches should

1:19:50 ↗ go so they they're in the middle of a

1:19:52 ↗ tree spacing and the uh they're also

1:19:56 ↗ spaced far enough away but we're but

1:19:58 ↗ we're not uh

1:20:00 ↗ interfering with the roots of the new

1:20:02 ↗ trees what we're going to be planting

1:20:04 ↗ adjacent to these areas

1:20:06 ↗ we also the issue of Safety and Security

1:20:08 ↗ too with the benches I think that needs

1:20:11 ↗ to be brought and that was one of the

1:20:13 ↗ reasons why we actually have a

1:20:15 ↗ pedestrian scale pole light at each one

1:20:18 ↗ of these areas and we didn't want people

1:20:21 ↗ to be able to sort of walk along the

1:20:22 ↗ sidewalk and

1:20:23 ↗ hit people sitting on the benches on the

1:20:26 ↗ back of the heads also

1:20:27 ↗ we were looking at this as a complete

1:20:31 ↗ element we get a bench

1:20:34 ↗ um here too so

1:20:36 ↗ these five benches here are all focused

1:20:39 ↗ in towards the Swale area

1:20:42 ↗ um

1:20:44 ↗ yeah and just as far as the Wall height

1:20:46 ↗ that you were talking about

1:20:48 ↗ four to six or four to five feet tall

1:20:51 ↗ which I think it's good because I'm

1:20:54 ↗ guessing I don't know if police looks at

1:20:56 ↗ these things but from a public safety

1:20:57 ↗ standpoint you want to create places

1:20:58 ↗ where people can hide and surprise

1:21:00 ↗ people Etc particularly walking along

1:21:02 ↗ here at night so I I the design actually

1:21:04 ↗ seems to find a balance to create

1:21:07 ↗ something interesting but also doesn't

1:21:09 ↗ appear to create any sort of a security

1:21:11 ↗ problem we were concerned about

1:21:14 ↗ I mean we understood the notion that

1:21:16 ↗ we're trying to replicate a building

1:21:18 ↗ a built to line for a building

1:21:21 ↗ but we feel like we've reached a happy

1:21:23 ↗ medium here that we're getting something

1:21:26 ↗ that

1:21:27 ↗ can be substantial enough that there's

1:21:30 ↗ the series of walls but that we're not

1:21:33 ↗ running foul of the of the safety issues

1:21:37 ↗ well I'd like to just ask a really basic

1:21:40 ↗ question can you tell me again what the

1:21:42 ↗ purpose of the walls behind the benches

1:21:44 ↗ or in front of the benches is the case

1:21:45 ↗ what what the fundamental purpose is

1:21:48 ↗ fundamental purpose

1:21:50 ↗ and I'm saying this without

1:21:53 ↗ any implied

1:21:55 ↗ irony is that the central Issaquah plan

1:21:59 ↗ has a requirement for buildings to be

1:22:03 ↗ built within xero and

1:22:07 ↗ 10 feet of any property line

1:22:11 ↗ we're not able to build any buildings

1:22:15 ↗ within that area because of the existing

1:22:19 ↗ drainage pattern right which runs all

1:22:22 ↗ the way down you can see it all the way

1:22:24 ↗ down Gilman Boulevard that's where the

1:22:25 ↗ Swale runs all the way along the street

1:22:28 ↗ and so that is the destination of all

1:22:32 ↗ the storm water is connecting into that

1:22:35 ↗ existing Swale running through there so

1:22:38 ↗ that's our connection to the existing

1:22:41 ↗ stormwater system that the city has in

1:22:43 ↗ place

1:22:44 ↗ well we've been doing here is arriving

1:22:49 ↗ at a solution which

1:22:52 ↗ in a creative way is meeting the intent

1:22:57 ↗ of getting a definition of a bill to

1:23:02 ↗ line without having to build a building

1:23:04 ↗ at the bill to lines so we're creating a

1:23:10 ↗ uh this series of walls and let's just

1:23:13 ↗ go back to the next slide we're creating

1:23:15 ↗ a series of walls oops

1:23:19 ↗ um which are running along here we're

1:23:22 ↗ actually going you know from the corner

1:23:24 ↗ down here we're actually running about

1:23:27 ↗ 72 feet rather than the 60 feet that the

1:23:30 ↗ city has in uh the plan

1:23:34 ↗ um but we are spacing these out so we're

1:23:37 ↗ getting a combination of walls trees

1:23:40 ↗ Landscaping seating areas uh and uh it's

1:23:45 ↗ a little subtle here but uh a change in

1:23:47 ↗ the paving pattern

1:23:49 ↗ um running through this area

1:23:51 ↗ all to work together

1:23:54 ↗ to satisfy the fact that we need an

1:23:57 ↗ adjustment

1:23:58 ↗ to

1:24:00 ↗ the fact that we can't meet the bill to

1:24:03 ↗ requirement

1:24:11 ↗ can I address that as well

1:24:15 ↗ I'll just address it by saying we asked

1:24:17 ↗ the same question

1:24:19 ↗ about the importance of that wall

1:24:21 ↗ we were skeptical as well we understand

1:24:23 ↗ that it's in the plan but we were

1:24:24 ↗ skeptical about it well actually I was

1:24:26 ↗ yeah I don't want to uh so my

1:24:30 ↗ understanding is that there is no

1:24:32 ↗ aesthetic

1:24:33 ↗ that this is a code compliance

1:24:35 ↗ requirement that you are attempting to

1:24:38 ↗ address

1:24:40 ↗ but it has no fundamental security

1:24:46 ↗ require a benefit uh it has no

1:24:49 ↗ fundamental aesthetic benefit I mean

1:24:51 ↗ you're putting vines on it to make it

1:24:53 ↗ look less like a

1:24:58 ↗ I guess I guess

1:25:00 ↗ and we're going to discuss this later

1:25:03 ↗ but uh

1:25:06 ↗ I I well all right I'll we'll discuss it

1:25:09 ↗ later

1:25:09 ↗ we're trying to satisfy a city

1:25:12 ↗ requirement in an aesthetically pleasing

1:25:16 ↗ and safe

1:25:18 ↗ with aesthetically pleasing and safe

1:25:21 ↗ solution

1:25:23 ↗ and we have been working with the city

1:25:25 ↗ staff on this

1:25:27 ↗ for about six months now to arrive at

1:25:33 ↗ what the intention of this regulation is

1:25:36 ↗ and how we might arrive at a compromise

1:25:40 ↗ as to

1:25:44 ↗ alternative having the street wall

1:25:46 ↗ versus a building there which is not

1:25:48 ↗ practical well Jerry let me let me ask

1:25:50 ↗ okay the city this then

1:25:53 ↗ is it

1:25:55 ↗ is it the city's contention that these

1:25:58 ↗ four to five foot high concrete walls

1:26:02 ↗ Behind these benches

1:26:04 ↗ is uh desirable or is it required and

1:26:09 ↗ there I'm it's not just a question of

1:26:11 ↗ somatics here

1:26:13 ↗ I think it's a little bit more desired

1:26:15 ↗ It's Not the Only Solution we gave we we

1:26:18 ↗ provided with the last step report

1:26:19 ↗ several different uh

1:26:22 ↗ photos I think we provided four photos

1:26:24 ↗ of different types of examples of how

1:26:26 ↗ this could be achieved since they can't

1:26:29 ↗ get the budding up front you know the

1:26:30 ↗ street wall what could be done and there

1:26:32 ↗ were some artistic things that were done

1:26:34 ↗ uh this was a proposal by the architect

1:26:37 ↗ of what they're trying to share with us

1:26:39 ↗ of how they think they can meet it

1:26:42 ↗ so what would be the consequence of not

1:26:45 ↗ having those wall having the benches but

1:26:47 ↗ not having the walls what would be the

1:26:50 ↗ negative consequences well we did want

1:26:52 ↗ to have some vertical element with it

1:26:53 ↗ and benches would not provide it nor

1:26:55 ↗ would just Landscaping either

1:26:58 ↗ it needed something more physical

1:26:59 ↗ something that relates to the building

1:27:01 ↗ itself too

1:27:04 ↗ so

1:27:05 ↗ we are finding our way through sent this

1:27:08 ↗ is of course our first significant foray

1:27:10 ↗ through the central Issaquah standards

1:27:15 ↗ the standards as Alan did an excellent

1:27:19 ↗ job of pointing out

1:27:20 ↗ require that buildings be zero to Ten

1:27:23 ↗ Feet from every property line no

1:27:25 ↗ exception right

1:27:28 ↗ um

1:27:28 ↗ the uh and there's also another

1:27:32 ↗ requirement that there be 60 feet of

1:27:35 ↗ building

1:27:36 ↗ along from a corner back

1:27:40 ↗ um

1:27:41 ↗ so you know clearly with the Swale there

1:27:45 ↗ it is not possible to have a building in

1:27:47 ↗ that location

1:27:48 ↗ so our work with the applicant was to

1:27:52 ↗ say what is an alternative

1:27:55 ↗ that both is in because in keeping with

1:28:01 ↗ the architecture of the building

1:28:03 ↗ that

1:28:07 ↗ let's say implies

1:28:09 ↗ where the street wall would be without

1:28:14 ↗ building a street wall

1:28:17 ↗ and that

1:28:19 ↗ carries forward the goals of those

1:28:22 ↗ requirements which is to create a good

1:28:24 ↗ Urban environment that's comfortable for

1:28:27 ↗ pedestrians

1:28:29 ↗ um

1:28:31 ↗ the particular solution as Jerry pointed

1:28:34 ↗ out is really it's the applicants

1:28:37 ↗ um we'll be honest they would prefer to

1:28:40 ↗ not be doing this

1:28:42 ↗ um

1:28:43 ↗ but

1:28:45 ↗ I think staff felt that that while it is

1:28:49 ↗ absolutely accurate that a building

1:28:51 ↗ can't be here that there are

1:28:54 ↗ um

1:28:55 ↗ elements that could be provided that

1:28:58 ↗ respect the

1:29:00 ↗ standards in the central Issaquah plan

1:29:04 ↗ okay

1:29:06 ↗ all right thank you

1:29:09 ↗ yeah could I if it seems I if I'm

1:29:13 ↗ looking at the schematic correctly it

1:29:15 ↗ looks like if this if the code or the

1:29:18 ↗ centralist quad plan requires a 10 foot

1:29:22 ↗ margin those walls are 18 feet away

1:29:27 ↗ right if the planting strip is is 12

1:29:29 ↗ feet and the sidewalk is six feet if my

1:29:32 ↗ arithmetic's right this is the property

1:29:34 ↗ line right here see where this is okay

1:29:37 ↗ I'm sorry it's not back here or back

1:29:39 ↗ here it's this line right here thank you

1:29:42 ↗ and the building would need to be either

1:29:44 ↗ here

1:29:45 ↗ or

1:29:47 ↗ 10 feet away over here and as you can

1:29:50 ↗ see we get we start to get into the

1:29:53 ↗ shaping of the

1:29:55 ↗ storm water uh Swale

1:29:58 ↗ huh I mean we we believe that this will

1:30:02 ↗ be an attractive place for people to uh

1:30:05 ↗ to look at it's been you saw how nicely

1:30:07 ↗ it's being landscaped yeah it will be

1:30:09 ↗ turned into an amenity besides being

1:30:11 ↗ functional for the flood Jerry the the

1:30:14 ↗ applicant mentioned that this wall might

1:30:16 ↗ prevent people sitting on the bench from

1:30:18 ↗ getting slapped on the head by

1:30:21 ↗ skateboarders or whatever but has the

1:30:24 ↗ police department looked at this uh no

1:30:26 ↗ they have not

1:30:28 ↗ because if

1:30:30 ↗ well

1:30:33 ↗ I you know I

1:30:36 ↗ to me well I I'll save my comments for

1:30:38 ↗ later

1:30:39 ↗ we can go on the next one

1:30:47 ↗ number 12 there was concern about

1:30:49 ↗ contamination of the soils and with the

1:30:52 ↗ applicant's presentation

1:30:55 ↗ in April

1:30:57 ↗ they kind of gave some history of the

1:30:59 ↗ property I think there's a dry cleaners

1:31:01 ↗ maybe it was our gas station there too

1:31:02 ↗ but anyway the soils particularly on the

1:31:05 ↗ on the western side are contaminated and

1:31:09 ↗ they will be required to comply with all

1:31:11 ↗ applicable codes for the removal and

1:31:14 ↗ stabilization of those contaminated

1:31:15 ↗ soils and it's not only the soils on the

1:31:18 ↗ site but also in the buildings when they

1:31:19 ↗ get demolished too there could be

1:31:20 ↗ Asbestos and that would have to be all

1:31:23 ↗ properly removed and disposed of too

1:31:26 ↗ speaking of

1:31:28 ↗ disposal and removal

1:31:31 ↗ um another hat that I wear is on the

1:31:34 ↗ frenzy salmon hatchery and one of

1:31:36 ↗ the things that we've learned is that

1:31:38 ↗ about 85 to 90 percent of the fecal

1:31:40 ↗ coliform bacteria in Issaquah Creek

1:31:43 ↗ comes from dogs and people not picking

1:31:46 ↗ up after their dogs

1:31:49 ↗ uh

1:31:50 ↗ we are going to encourage pedestrian

1:31:52 ↗ activity here we have a dog park so

1:31:57 ↗ as long as we're talking about

1:31:58 ↗ contamination and removal who's going to

1:32:00 ↗ be what Provisions are going to be made

1:32:02 ↗ to make it uh as easy as possible for

1:32:06 ↗ people to clean up after the dogs and

1:32:07 ↗ then who cleans up after the people who

1:32:09 ↗ clean up after the dogs

1:32:13 ↗ whose responsibilities

1:32:15 ↗ uh well the uh at the dog park which is

1:32:19 ↗ fenced there will be uh uh bags

1:32:23 ↗ available

1:32:24 ↗ um so that people with the dog can pick

1:32:27 ↗ up after their dogs and then there will

1:32:28 ↗ be

1:32:29 ↗ a waste

1:32:31 ↗ bin for those bags to be placed and then

1:32:35 ↗ the uh the managers of the total

1:32:38 ↗ property will be responsible for uh

1:32:41 ↗ removing those for disposal

1:32:45 ↗ a few other aside from the dog park will

1:32:48 ↗ there be one or two other receptacles on

1:32:51 ↗ the site for people using them we expect

1:32:53 ↗ that because there's going to be more

1:32:56 ↗ pedestrian use with the shared use trail

1:32:58 ↗ running through here we expect those to

1:33:00 ↗ be on a regular you know basis through

1:33:03 ↗ the site

1:33:04 ↗ receptacles benches All The Pedestrian

1:33:07 ↗ amenities

1:33:12 ↗ Transportation concurrency traffic was

1:33:15 ↗ an issue that was brought up and it was

1:33:18 ↗ dealt pretty extensively in the CPD

1:33:21 ↗ termination you have that with your

1:33:22 ↗ original staff report

1:33:26 ↗ uh

1:33:27 ↗ what will be the impact of new traffic

1:33:29 ↗ with the number dwelling in its proposed

1:33:32 ↗ does traffic concurrency show no impact

1:33:34 ↗ from this project will the proposed

1:33:35 ↗ signal be too close to the existing

1:33:38 ↗ signal those are the basic questions and

1:33:40 ↗ there will be new traffic

1:33:42 ↗ generated by this project they are

1:33:46 ↗ however receiving credit of course from

1:33:49 ↗ the commercial use of the property

1:33:51 ↗ that's been there today

1:33:54 ↗ um

1:33:55 ↗ the traffic study determined that the

1:33:57 ↗ beginning 74 new PM trips now most the

1:34:01 ↗ traffic that enters the site today of

1:34:02 ↗ course is off Gillen Boulevard this

1:34:05 ↗ traffic 90 percent of it would be using

1:34:08 ↗ 7th Avenue and about 10 percent would be

1:34:10 ↗ using Locust Street

1:34:13 ↗ there are there was an analysis that was

1:34:15 ↗ done with the poor nearby Street

1:34:17 ↗ intersections to the level of service uh

1:34:22 ↗ is going to be improving with this

1:34:24 ↗ project too at 7th and Gilman there is a

1:34:28 ↗ requirement through cipa that they

1:34:30 ↗ provide a new traffic signal there and

1:34:33 ↗ the channelization lanes that will go

1:34:35 ↗ along with it too some further traffic

1:34:37 ↗ analysis is still going to be occurring

1:34:40 ↗ too on left turn movements from Seventh

1:34:43 ↗ into the site

1:34:45 ↗ Street Improvement projects to the plans

1:34:49 ↗ requirements that's Gilman Boulevard 7th

1:34:52 ↗ and locus of streets are going to be

1:34:53 ↗ widened new sidewalks

1:34:56 ↗ bicycle ways those are all requirements

1:34:59 ↗ to be put onto those streets that's

1:35:01 ↗ going to help the situation too but

1:35:02 ↗ there there is an an increase level of

1:35:07 ↗ traffic so we can't hide that point

1:35:12 ↗ did you want to add anything further

1:35:14 ↗ about uh

1:35:15 ↗ traffic you've given quite a bit of trip

1:35:17 ↗ generation information within the the

1:35:21 ↗ applicant's response here too

1:35:24 ↗ details are all here

1:35:29 ↗ uh Seventh Avenue ditch

1:35:33 ↗ is it considered habitat area and I

1:35:35 ↗ think it pretty much is this is a

1:35:37 ↗ photograph I took of it you saw some

1:35:40 ↗ photographs even more that I took the

1:35:42 ↗ site the first time around you can see

1:35:43 ↗ in the foreground this is the open ditch

1:35:45 ↗ and as you get down to about halfway

1:35:48 ↗ through the site the the northern part

1:35:50 ↗ of it's already been uh placed into a

1:35:53 ↗ culvert many years ago and so the

1:35:55 ↗ remaining part of this ditch here now

1:35:57 ↗ would also be in a culvert and amenities

1:36:01 ↗ walkways Street improvements buildings

1:36:04 ↗ things that serve the building would be

1:36:06 ↗ placed in this in order to convert this

1:36:10 ↗ into the pipe then there was also an

1:36:13 ↗ agreement that they would have to

1:36:14 ↗ provide mitigation Elsewhere on site

1:36:16 ↗ you'll see the vast majority of it will

1:36:19 ↗ be in the new flood Channel and there's

1:36:21 ↗ a variation of Quite A variation of

1:36:24 ↗ different plants that will be adaptable

1:36:25 ↗ to the water levels within that area and

1:36:29 ↗ then also with the off Channel repairing

1:36:31 ↗ habitat area that's being posed along

1:36:33 ↗ issquock

1:36:34 ↗ Creek itself too

1:36:38 ↗ I don't see how much Wildlife there is

1:36:40 ↗ in this particular picture but I'm sure

1:36:42 ↗ you know I'm sure there's some

1:36:46 ↗ you know you'll see some frogs and other

1:36:49 ↗ Wildlife that would be using like

1:36:50 ↗ there's some standing water public to

1:36:52 ↗ hold their comment until public comment

1:36:54 ↗ time uh I want to make real clear that I

1:36:57 ↗ understand

1:36:59 ↗ this ditch

1:37:03 ↗ there will be no under the proposal The

1:37:06 ↗ applicant's Proposal there won't be any

1:37:08 ↗ runoff from the Swale or from the the

1:37:11 ↗ drainage system that goes through the

1:37:14 ↗ site that you're proposing the flood the

1:37:16 ↗ over the flooding it will not go into

1:37:20 ↗ this ditch it will go into the

1:37:23 ↗ intersects the area at the intersection

1:37:24 ↗ of 7th and Gilman

1:37:26 ↗ right that is correct okay so the water

1:37:31 ↗ that is it that goes into this existing

1:37:34 ↗ ditch now

1:37:36 ↗ primarily comes from where

1:37:40 ↗ South

1:37:42 ↗ from the south okay yeah and drains and

1:37:46 ↗ drains it runs right to the north yeah

1:37:49 ↗ it's running up there it's going in that

1:37:51 ↗ pipe right coming out again and it's

1:37:54 ↗ going under seven okay in in uh the the

1:38:00 ↗ the Swale drain does not have a drainage

1:38:05 ↗ out of it it just percolates through the

1:38:07 ↗ ground any flood water that goes in

1:38:09 ↗ there where does where does it go into

1:38:11 ↗ this system no the the Swale the new

1:38:14 ↗ Swale right goes to the existing uh

1:38:18 ↗ pipes that go underneath seventh and

1:38:22 ↗ connect in with the whole stormwater

1:38:24 ↗ system that runs along Gilman Boulevard

1:38:26 ↗ okay this when it is just half of this

1:38:30 ↗ goes into a pipe half of it is already

1:38:32 ↗ in a pipe it's also going in the same

1:38:35 ↗ direction

1:38:36 ↗ and it continues I just didn't see in

1:38:39 ↗ the earlier uh illustrations of the

1:38:42 ↗ Swale I didn't see where that activity

1:38:44 ↗ occurs you know any any obvious sight or

1:38:48 ↗ sign of of where that drainage would

1:38:50 ↗ would occur it's actually in that uh

1:38:53 ↗ area where the intersection is uh just

1:38:58 ↗ this this pipe comes into that area and

1:39:01 ↗ then there's a dream which goes out and

1:39:02 ↗ across the street

1:39:04 ↗ yeah this is obviously this is a major

1:39:07 ↗ concern for for a lot of folks so that

1:39:09 ↗ understanding how that's just this

1:39:11 ↗ proposed system is going to handle that

1:39:13 ↗ water is a really really key yeah and I

1:39:16 ↗ mean there's I I think you're correct

1:39:18 ↗ here there's two issues one is that

1:39:22 ↗ there is habitat associated with this uh

1:39:27 ↗ intermittent class it's a class 4 stream

1:39:32 ↗ um and so there's that habitat is being

1:39:35 ↗ recreated in two different places on the

1:39:38 ↗ site wanted to Creek with additional

1:39:40 ↗ enhancements to the creek uh than were

1:39:43 ↗ necessary and one additional area in the

1:39:47 ↗ bottom of the Swale the second piece of

1:39:50 ↗ the puzzle is this South half of this

1:39:53 ↗ area where it is the open ditch

1:39:56 ↗ is being put in a pipe but the course of

1:40:00 ↗ direction is remaining the same and it's

1:40:03 ↗ leaving the site in the same way okay

1:40:08 ↗ the square footage of this area that is

1:40:12 ↗ being lost in the ditches being fully

1:40:13 ↗ compensated uh square foot per square

1:40:15 ↗ foot in fact it's a little bit larger

1:40:18 ↗ Within These two new areas that are

1:40:20 ↗ being created

1:40:24 ↗ impervious surface I think the

1:40:26 ↗ development commission brought that up

1:40:27 ↗ we gave the percentages and a table in

1:40:30 ↗ the staff report the central Issaquah

1:40:33 ↗ plan allows 90 impervious that's quite a

1:40:36 ↗ bit larger than the the previous 65

1:40:38 ↗ which was allowed by the former R zoning

1:40:41 ↗ of the site they'll have about 65

1:40:44 ↗ percent there's quite a large area

1:40:45 ↗ within the new neighborhood park this

1:40:48 ↗ quad Creek the buffers along there the

1:40:51 ↗ Swale

1:40:53 ↗ as well as all this additional

1:40:54 ↗ Landscaping that is occurring within the

1:40:56 ↗ parking lots along the shared use route

1:40:58 ↗ so it's certainly going to be a lot

1:41:00 ↗ greener I don't have the exact square

1:41:03 ↗ footage we do know it's a

1:41:06 ↗ percentage-wise it's about 65 percent

1:41:07 ↗ and as we get to the construction phase

1:41:09 ↗ of it we'll get those details of how

1:41:12 ↗ many square feet is Purvis versus how

1:41:14 ↗ much is impervious

1:41:18 ↗ 16 was about parking

1:41:21 ↗ they are providing a

1:41:24 ↗ approximately 400 parking stalls on the

1:41:26 ↗ site that's kind of in the middle

1:41:27 ↗ between what is required 339 that's

1:41:31 ↗ based on whether they're one bedrooms or

1:41:33 ↗ two bedrooms or studio type units and

1:41:36 ↗ then there is a maximum number of Park

1:41:39 ↗ installs required now by the central

1:41:41 ↗ risk Club plan we did not have a maximum

1:41:43 ↗ under the old code

1:41:46 ↗ they would be allowed to have up to 530

1:41:50 ↗ spaces in addition they have the

1:41:53 ↗ required requirement to provide parallel

1:41:56 ↗ parking on the streets too as part of

1:41:59 ↗ the street standards but they will not

1:42:02 ↗ get credit for that parking

1:42:05 ↗ for the apartments

1:42:07 ↗ street parking applies to commercial

1:42:10 ↗ uses

1:42:13 ↗ the average

1:42:16 ↗ oh we calculate is about 1.2 stalls per

1:42:18 ↗ unit they'll also be providing

1:42:20 ↗ motorcycle parking and a generous amount

1:42:23 ↗ of bicycle parking both within the

1:42:26 ↗ garages and also outside on the on the

1:42:29 ↗ site till

1:42:34 ↗ I have a question on the parking oh okay

1:42:37 ↗ it seemed like

1:42:38 ↗ I was a little confused on on how many

1:42:42 ↗ how many units are really being

1:42:43 ↗ developed so it the numbers seemed very

1:42:46 ↗ little so I guess it's 340 is the number

1:42:48 ↗ we're using 344. and it seemed like in

1:42:53 ↗ in reading through the the staff

1:42:56 ↗ recommendations

1:42:57 ↗ and I unfortunately I made copies of

1:43:00 ↗ what I wanted to say and I I've left it

1:43:02 ↗ it's on my desk at home so I can't

1:43:04 ↗ remember exactly but it talked about a

1:43:06 ↗ recommendation of 1.6 stalls per unit

1:43:09 ↗ was recommended by

1:43:11 ↗ somebody that was had done some recent

1:43:14 ↗ studies but they really thought it was

1:43:15 ↗ 1.2 and the bottom line for me is it got

1:43:17 ↗ real confusing on

1:43:19 ↗ thinking that there was adequate parking

1:43:22 ↗ I think that and I think that the

1:43:28 ↗ real fear is that the that people are

1:43:31 ↗ going to move off site to park

1:43:32 ↗ especially with uh parking uh a retail

1:43:36 ↗ center right across the street it's

1:43:38 ↗ going to be a real attractive nuisance

1:43:41 ↗ for people that don't want to pay for

1:43:43 ↗ parking to just to go over there and

1:43:45 ↗ walk across the street

1:43:46 ↗ uh it's not obvious to me that that

1:43:50 ↗ I got confused in reading the

1:43:51 ↗ documentation of what the real number of

1:43:53 ↗ the recommendation of stalls per unit

1:43:56 ↗ ought to be

1:43:57 ↗ well the requirement is for your Studios

1:44:02 ↗ it requires 0.75 per unit

1:44:05 ↗ perk installs

1:44:07 ↗ for a one-bedroom unit and a two bedroom

1:44:09 ↗ it's one pre-unit and that's the minimum

1:44:12 ↗ requirement

1:44:13 ↗ and based on the 346 parking are 346

1:44:17 ↗ units a minimum of 339 parking stalls

1:44:21 ↗ would be required

1:44:23 ↗ now as far as the maximum which is also

1:44:26 ↗ looked at

1:44:28 ↗ Your Studios the minimum is 0.75 but the

1:44:31 ↗ maximum is one stall per unit

1:44:35 ↗ um

1:44:36 ↗ with a one bedroom unit it's 1.25 per

1:44:39 ↗ unit that's the maximum

1:44:41 ↗ and for your two bedroom units it's two

1:44:44 ↗ per unit uh in the olden days before the

1:44:48 ↗ before this plan was adopted it was a

1:44:51 ↗ minimum of two parking spaces per

1:44:53 ↗ dwelling unit and it didn't matter

1:44:55 ↗ whether it was a one-bedroom two-bedroom

1:44:57 ↗ or a or a three bedroom but it's much

1:44:59 ↗ more restrictive now in that respect and

1:45:02 ↗ uh

1:45:02 ↗ putting more emphasis on the bicycles

1:45:04 ↗ too

1:45:06 ↗ um

1:45:07 ↗ to speak to some of the numbers that

1:45:10 ↗ you're you're thinking about

1:45:12 ↗ um

1:45:13 ↗ King County has recently undertaken a

1:45:16 ↗ very detailed study

1:45:18 ↗ of residential parking in certain areas

1:45:22 ↗ which includes some portions of Issaquah

1:45:25 ↗ including the site

1:45:28 ↗ when you uh so then the 1.6 and 1.2

1:45:34 ↗ um

1:45:34 ↗ what they found in that study on average

1:45:37 ↗ in King County

1:45:39 ↗ um

1:45:40 ↗ there was it says

1:45:45 ↗ Suburban King County multi-family

1:45:47 ↗ projects are built with 1.6 stalls per

1:45:49 ↗ unit on average but use only 1.2 stalls

1:45:54 ↗ um the uh and then which is about what

1:45:59 ↗ this project has

1:46:01 ↗ um the calculator that King County has

1:46:05 ↗ um created uh has estimated 1.3 stalls

1:46:10 ↗ per unit as the need which if you do

1:46:14 ↗ count the on-street parking is the

1:46:16 ↗ amount of parking the project has but

1:46:18 ↗ the important thing I think to emphasize

1:46:20 ↗ is that as long as an applicant is

1:46:24 ↗ between the minimum and the maximum it's

1:46:26 ↗ at their discretion where they choose to

1:46:30 ↗ fall in that range

1:46:39 ↗ number 17.

1:46:42 ↗ is affordable housing required for the

1:46:44 ↗ project I know it's not a requirement

1:46:47 ↗ for this project it's not a requirement

1:46:49 ↗ by the central Isla plan

1:46:51 ↗ if you get into the bonus density bonus

1:46:54 ↗ program for say increased Building

1:46:56 ↗ height then it comes into play

1:46:59 ↗ there may be a

1:47:02 ↗ some studies done in the future about

1:47:04 ↗ revising our centralized Club plan to

1:47:07 ↗ require affordable housing

1:47:10 ↗ no that's been thought of but it's not a

1:47:12 ↗ requirement today

1:47:16 ↗ fire access and circulation you asked

1:47:19 ↗ whether the fire department had looked

1:47:21 ↗ at the plans and they've they've

1:47:23 ↗ approved it they have no problems with

1:47:26 ↗ the way the circulation and the Turning

1:47:28 ↗ radiuses work within the the

1:47:31 ↗ circulation system for the project and

1:47:34 ↗ there was a little sample of their fire

1:47:36 ↗ truck that was on the plans and it's

1:47:38 ↗ pretty close to what uh

1:47:40 ↗ our fire department has two similar in

1:47:42 ↗ size and it did receive their

1:47:45 ↗ endorsement

1:47:47 ↗ number 19.

1:47:50 ↗ well residents have secure access to the

1:47:53 ↗ buildings the applicants stated yes that

1:47:55 ↗ they will be allowed there will be

1:47:57 ↗ required to have keypads so for that

1:48:01 ↗ security and the city only requires that

1:48:04 ↗ uh

1:48:05 ↗ you know by only as a by cold we can't

1:48:07 ↗ require it

1:48:10 ↗ they uh the city does not have a section

1:48:13 ↗ that says you shall put in a uh a

1:48:16 ↗ security

1:48:18 ↗ type system

1:48:21 ↗ with the building

1:48:24 ↗ you know for the entrances you know

1:48:27 ↗ whether it's cameras

1:48:29 ↗ uh special

1:48:31 ↗ vestibules or locks

1:48:34 ↗ key key locks combination types the

1:48:37 ↗ bottom line is that no one will be able

1:48:39 ↗ to enter the garages or into the

1:48:42 ↗ buildings without the appropriate key

1:48:44 ↗ card if it's a key card system it's just

1:48:47 ↗ at their choice

1:48:48 ↗ and

1:48:49 ↗ they've stated that that's what they are

1:48:51 ↗ going to provide correct

1:48:55 ↗ there is a mid-block Crossing with the

1:48:58 ↗ shared use route here on 7th

1:49:01 ↗ it's circled there in the red and

1:49:05 ↗ the IG came up maybe Flash and signs

1:49:07 ↗ could be used to

1:49:09 ↗ signal a motorists and the pedestrians

1:49:12 ↗ that it's a safe

1:49:13 ↗ time to cross and you've seen this in

1:49:16 ↗ some cities it's it's still being looked

1:49:18 ↗ at by our city whether it's appropriate

1:49:21 ↗ or not there's been mixed feelings about

1:49:22 ↗ it well we'll be considering this

1:49:26 ↗ idea as the project goes under review

1:49:28 ↗ for our construction permits

1:49:31 ↗ Jerry remind me what the mix you

1:49:33 ↗ mentioned this in the last meeting

1:49:34 ↗ remind me what the mixed feelings are

1:49:37 ↗ because we've got the one on Newport

1:49:38 ↗ where the Hatchery is and I think

1:49:41 ↗ there's at least one other one that I

1:49:42 ↗ know and sir we have two in the city I

1:49:44 ↗ know we have that one what is chatri

1:49:47 ↗ so that was my report

1:49:50 ↗ there was one discussed at Issaquah

1:49:53 ↗ Highlands

1:49:55 ↗ desire I can't remember if it was a

1:49:57 ↗ desire by the commission or exactly

1:49:59 ↗ where the request had come from

1:50:01 ↗ and the police department so I wasn't

1:50:05 ↗ aware of the one at the Hatchery so I

1:50:07 ↗ didn't have that example to give

1:50:09 ↗ um

1:50:10 ↗ but there was just a lot of hesitancy

1:50:12 ↗ about using the um

1:50:15 ↗ those flashing signals that some of the

1:50:19 ↗ research is beginning to indicate that

1:50:22 ↗ it creates a false sense of security and

1:50:25 ↗ the police department

1:50:28 ↗ likes to have more consistency through

1:50:30 ↗ the city in terms of the way they

1:50:32 ↗ communicate like conditions and so it's

1:50:38 ↗ um

1:50:39 ↗ I think what we want to do is is we did

1:50:41 ↗ not have

1:50:44 ↗ honestly the time to go to the police

1:50:46 ↗ department at this point we will you

1:50:49 ↗ know we plan to go and talk to them more

1:50:51 ↗ about this but at this point we're just

1:50:54 ↗ not we do we're hesitant to put any kind

1:50:58 ↗ of condition on requiring this because

1:51:01 ↗ of some of the comments that we've heard

1:51:02 ↗ under previous circumstances

1:51:07 ↗ mid block Crossings are also discouraged

1:51:10 ↗ too but sometimes unavoidable too

1:51:18 ↗ tax credits for the project there are no

1:51:20 ↗ tax credits for affordable housing with

1:51:22 ↗ this project

1:51:24 ↗ and again

1:51:26 ↗ affordable housing is not part of this

1:51:28 ↗ project so no tax credits

1:51:31 ↗ herbicides and chemicals I know there

1:51:33 ↗ was a concern about

1:51:35 ↗ whether they be used on the site and

1:51:37 ↗ they should be restricted and we do have

1:51:39 ↗ some rules about them using about

1:51:41 ↗ chemicals being used near our creeks and

1:51:44 ↗ waterways and that's in our

1:51:45 ↗ environmental regulations in place and

1:51:48 ↗ the applicant has already stated that

1:51:50 ↗ Dave will be restricted on the entire

1:51:52 ↗ site so not just along the Issaquah

1:51:54 ↗ Creek area but the entire site itself

1:52:00 ↗ there are some views of artist quails

1:52:02 ↗ there you can certainly see this picture

1:52:04 ↗ that's above the rooftops that's Tiger

1:52:07 ↗ Mountain on the left side

1:52:10 ↗ over here

1:52:12 ↗ squawk Mountain on the right side and

1:52:14 ↗ these views will still be maintained

1:52:17 ↗ there's a lot of peekaboo views

1:52:18 ↗ throughout the site both through the

1:52:20 ↗ through block Passage through the shared

1:52:24 ↗ use route probably one of the largest

1:52:27 ↗ areas will be with the new neighborhood

1:52:30 ↗ park which will allow these views to

1:52:32 ↗ continue as well too now the applicant

1:52:35 ↗ is built in these Heights to the base

1:52:37 ↗ height which is 54 feet they're allowed

1:52:39 ↗ 54 feet with the underground parking

1:52:42 ↗ below those buildings

1:52:44 ↗ the zoning would allow buildings as high

1:52:46 ↗ as 85 feet so that

1:52:50 ↗ also will help retain these views that

1:52:54 ↗ were of concern on the site

1:53:00 ↗ building foundations

1:53:02 ↗ whether they're on pilings or designed

1:53:05 ↗ some other way

1:53:07 ↗ they are going to have to be designed to

1:53:09 ↗ meet the international building code and

1:53:11 ↗ have the structural review and

1:53:13 ↗ Engineering reviewing a lot too

1:53:15 ↗ applicants already had a professional

1:53:17 ↗ analysis of the soils on the site too

1:53:18 ↗ and feels that they're uh system that

1:53:21 ↗ they've proposed

1:53:23 ↗ is acceptable and will work for this

1:53:25 ↗ project you want to add anything further

1:53:27 ↗ Ellen on

1:53:28 ↗ a foundation nope

1:53:33 ↗ uh impacts for the school district we

1:53:35 ↗ kind of got to that a little earlier too

1:53:38 ↗ but there is a fee it's a 1097 per

1:53:41 ↗ dwelling unit and generally the school

1:53:43 ↗ district revises their impact fees each

1:53:46 ↗ year usually around December January

1:53:49 ↗ sometimes they go up sometimes they go

1:53:51 ↗ down

1:53:54 ↗ uh number 26 here

1:53:58 ↗ are

1:54:00 ↗ is in two parts and it's a

1:54:03 ↗ it's about condition number seven and

1:54:05 ↗ that's for the

1:54:07 ↗ for the neighborhood park it's got a lot

1:54:11 ↗ of elements with the dog park it's

1:54:12 ↗ pretty much of a passive Park but the

1:54:15 ↗ plan also calls for providing some

1:54:17 ↗ elements that can be used year-round

1:54:19 ↗ when it's rainy like it's been this uh

1:54:21 ↗ most of the spring so far you know like

1:54:23 ↗ a gazebo for instance and we'd still

1:54:25 ↗ like to see something

1:54:28 ↗ of that proposed with this Park

1:54:33 ↗ the applicant's been a little bit

1:54:34 ↗ hesitant towards

1:54:37 ↗ providing such an element

1:54:40 ↗ it's a cost at home and I get cost issue

1:54:43 ↗ I suppose but I think that's something

1:54:45 ↗ we can still work out with uh it's

1:54:47 ↗ designed to it's a design issue

1:54:50 ↗ design and cost

1:54:52 ↗ uh design issue okay

1:54:55 ↗ Well we'd like to still work and discuss

1:54:57 ↗ this further too as we go through our

1:54:59 ↗ construction permits see what can and

1:55:02 ↗ cannot be done

1:55:03 ↗ for such a structure

1:55:06 ↗ number eight had to do with the parking

1:55:10 ↗ and there's some new language which you

1:55:11 ↗ see underline in some language which we

1:55:14 ↗ took out

1:55:16 ↗ with condition number eight this is with

1:55:19 ↗ the staff report there were some more

1:55:20 ↗ pretty stiff penalties you can see that

1:55:23 ↗ in the final line failure to perform a

1:55:25 ↗ result in civil penalties and we've

1:55:28 ↗ taken that out we still want to see a

1:55:31 ↗ that parking will be

1:55:33 ↗ at a cost for the residents we want to

1:55:37 ↗ see a reasonable use of those garages at

1:55:40 ↗ the 85 to 95 percent if they're not

1:55:45 ↗ uh

1:55:46 ↗ being used at that 85 to 95 percent then

1:55:49 ↗ perhaps the cost is too high and we're

1:55:51 ↗ going to want to see some reports on

1:55:54 ↗ what is the percentage of these garages

1:55:57 ↗ being used uh if the parking is too high

1:56:02 ↗ Autos will of course use a lot at

1:56:05 ↗ Safeway and other budding properties we

1:56:07 ↗ don't want to see that happen

1:56:08 ↗ there's only so much limited parking

1:56:10 ↗ outside the buildings too

1:56:14 ↗ so I would expect to see some monthly

1:56:16 ↗ reports to see if this has been achieved

1:56:18 ↗ could it could it not be a result of

1:56:22 ↗ people doing what they're being

1:56:24 ↗ encouraged to do and just using mass

1:56:26 ↗ transit and not having a vehicle

1:56:28 ↗ that was exactly the applicant's point I

1:56:31 ↗ bet he's very happy to hear you say that

1:56:33 ↗ thinking that same thing

1:56:35 ↗ so the point is that there is the

1:56:38 ↗ ability to adjust

1:56:41 ↗ depending on the usage right well so the

1:56:47 ↗ condition this condition what had been

1:56:49 ↗ used in another project in Issaquah and

1:56:52 ↗ we we just carried it Forward

1:56:55 ↗ um and in further discussions after the

1:56:58 ↗ staff report was issued

1:56:59 ↗ um the applicant uh pointed out exactly

1:57:03 ↗ the point and so instead of making it a

1:57:06 ↗ required annual element we asked that as

1:57:10 ↗ they do studies that they you know of

1:57:12 ↗ parking usage that they provided to us

1:57:15 ↗ but we also wanted the ability uh to we

1:57:19 ↗ wanted to be clear with them that that

1:57:20 ↗ if we were seeing parking lot Safeway

1:57:23 ↗ parking lot filling up with people or

1:57:25 ↗ Safeway was complaining that we needed a

1:57:27 ↗ mechanism to come back to them and say

1:57:29 ↗ we need you to verify that your parking

1:57:32 ↗ is being used partly the reason for the

1:57:35 ↗ the addition of a range was that it

1:57:39 ↗ might very well be that people are

1:57:41 ↗ choosing to just give up their cars or

1:57:43 ↗ maybe Zipcar or car to go comes to

1:57:46 ↗ Issaquah and you don't need to have a

1:57:49 ↗ car under those circumstances there may

1:57:51 ↗ be a period of vacancy with the

1:57:53 ↗ apartments too so that adds them to it

1:57:54 ↗ right so uh just follow up I'm trying to

1:57:57 ↗ understand so is the charge for parking

1:58:00 ↗ at the discretion of the applicant or is

1:58:02 ↗ that a city requirement that there's

1:58:04 ↗ that's at the applicant

1:58:06 ↗ okay

1:58:08 ↗ yeah this will be a hard one from an

1:58:10 ↗ enforcement standpoint trying to figure

1:58:12 ↗ it out so

1:58:14 ↗ um I I actually appreciate that it's not

1:58:16 ↗ a bright line here compliance or

1:58:20 ↗ non-compliance but it it's still a

1:58:22 ↗ challenge to try to understand the goal

1:58:24 ↗ here that the parking demand for the

1:58:27 ↗ project should be managed within the

1:58:29 ↗ project and not spill out elsewhere and

1:58:31 ↗ cause other that is problems that's the

1:58:34 ↗ goal but the other part of it is and

1:58:36 ↗ that was the point that the chair made

1:58:38 ↗ is well we're trying to encourage people

1:58:39 ↗ to give up their cars and provide more

1:58:42 ↗ convenient public transportation to meet

1:58:44 ↗ their needs or other alternatives to

1:58:47 ↗ minimize the amount of you know cars on

1:58:49 ↗ the road kind of a thing and the

1:58:50 ↗ associated cost so you know anything we

1:58:53 ↗ can do to accomplish that too so and

1:58:54 ↗ actually paying for parking is one of

1:58:56 ↗ those mechanisms so this is a

1:58:58 ↗ challenging issue I understand what

1:58:59 ↗ you're trying to get to I think the

1:59:00 ↗ Amendments well and and I think to add

1:59:03 ↗ to those excellent points

1:59:06 ↗ um you know a reasonable property owner

1:59:09 ↗ is going to want to set the rates at a

1:59:12 ↗ at a level at which that is attractive

1:59:15 ↗ is attractive I think our concern is an

1:59:18 ↗ unreasonable property owner not that we

1:59:20 ↗ have any concerns about that at this

1:59:21 ↗ time but over the life of our project

1:59:25 ↗ um we just wanted the ability to begin a

1:59:28 ↗ conversation if if it does not appear

1:59:31 ↗ that the rates are set at a at a level

1:59:34 ↗ that's successful

1:59:36 ↗ just a follow-up question on this is for

1:59:39 ↗ staff and it related is does the city

1:59:42 ↗ require transportation management plans

1:59:44 ↗ be that they're submitted for larger

1:59:47 ↗ projects or have you contemplated that

1:59:49 ↗ where you know things are done to create

1:59:52 ↗ incentives for people to actually take

1:59:54 ↗ mass transit

1:59:57 ↗ um

1:59:57 ↗ kind of minimize the demand for vehicles

2:00:00 ↗ Etc and then you're kind of looking at

2:00:02 ↗ ins it's through education it's through

2:00:05 ↗ providing bus reduced cost bus passes or

2:00:08 ↗ things like that

2:00:09 ↗ um I don't know if that's something that

2:00:10 ↗ I have not seen that in the central is

2:00:12 ↗ Club plan the the main coat has that

2:00:15 ↗ element in it uh for instance some

2:00:17 ↗ projects do share parking between uses

2:00:20 ↗ between peak hours and we saw that for

2:00:23 ↗ the Marriott hotel with the Maple Street

2:00:25 ↗ Building for instance too as one and

2:00:27 ↗ we've seen it for the cinema over at

2:00:30 ↗ Pickering place too where we've had

2:00:32 ↗ traffic these plans that you're

2:00:34 ↗ referring to yeah okay so a

2:00:37 ↗ transportation management plan is

2:00:40 ↗ generated through state law I mean we do

2:00:43 ↗ have it in the city code and it just

2:00:45 ↗ applies to non-residential projects over

2:00:47 ↗ a certain size

2:00:49 ↗ so you know from a requirement

2:00:52 ↗ perspective that's where that's

2:00:54 ↗ triggered but the city does actively

2:00:57 ↗ work with property owners to encourage

2:01:01 ↗ exactly the kinds of programs and so

2:01:05 ↗ there's an outreach program I I'm not

2:01:08 ↗ sure whether it's residential or just

2:01:09 ↗ non-residential but there's

2:01:12 ↗ um definitely the offices of office of

2:01:15 ↗ sustainability is very open to working

2:01:18 ↗ with all property owners who are

2:01:20 ↗ interested thank you

2:01:22 ↗ I I guess I'm I'm a little concerned

2:01:25 ↗ that the proposed revisions doesn't

2:01:27 ↗ accomplish the goal and I uh I guess for

2:01:31 ↗ me that

2:01:32 ↗ it's a bit nebulous to know what time to

2:01:34 ↗ time is

2:01:35 ↗ and and so I think that any fee for the

2:01:40 ↗ parking is is going to put some people

2:01:42 ↗ in the adjacent parking lots and so if

2:01:48 ↗ I'm and it doesn't seem like the

2:01:51 ↗ language allows adjustment in the rate

2:01:55 ↗ if if in fact the optimistic conclusion

2:01:59 ↗ is that people don't use their they

2:02:01 ↗ don't even have cars so they can't fill

2:02:02 ↗ it the owner has to lower the rate to

2:02:04 ↗ where it's free then they're still not

2:02:07 ↗ going to use it they can't meet that

2:02:08 ↗ requirement you know they can't it says

2:02:10 ↗ that the property owner must adjust the

2:02:13 ↗ rental charge monthly until such time as

2:02:15 ↗ a minimum use rate of 85 to 95 is

2:02:17 ↗ achieved wolf

2:02:19 ↗ 20 percent of the people have cars they

2:02:21 ↗ can't get there so the the language

2:02:23 ↗ doesn't allow you to comply with the 85

2:02:25 ↗ to 95 percent if I if I'm understanding

2:02:28 ↗ that correctly right

2:02:29 ↗ so

2:02:31 ↗ and it would seem that there would be

2:02:33 ↗ more value in my mind to be

2:02:36 ↗ to require some kind of effective

2:02:38 ↗ analysis that makes decisions on

2:02:42 ↗ the number of people that have cars and

2:02:43 ↗ the number of people that are using that

2:02:45 ↗ facility

2:02:46 ↗ and have that be reflected in the

2:02:49 ↗ percentage of use

2:02:50 ↗ but if if there's 340 apartments and 40

2:02:54 ↗ people don't have cars you're not going

2:02:56 ↗ to get you're not does that make sense

2:02:58 ↗ is what I'm saying makes sense well and

2:03:00 ↗ and in reality that not all the parking

2:03:03 ↗ I I believe that at least currently only

2:03:07 ↗ the parking under the building has a fee

2:03:09 ↗ associated with it that the surface

2:03:11 ↗ parking

2:03:12 ↗ between the buildings that kind of winds

2:03:15 ↗ through the project is free

2:03:18 ↗ so that's a factor as well

2:03:21 ↗ um

2:03:24 ↗ let me Ponder

2:03:27 ↗ you know some families will have two

2:03:29 ↗ cars a piece

2:03:33 ↗ yes I know

2:03:36 ↗ I'm just talking about the pumpkin I

2:03:38 ↗ just wanted to go back because I I

2:03:40 ↗ just commented with the gazebo in the

2:03:42 ↗ park was a design issue it's actually uh

2:03:46 ↗ a bigger than just a design issue it's a

2:03:50 ↗ design issue it's a management issue

2:03:52 ↗ it's a security issue we're anxious not

2:03:55 ↗ to provide a shelter in the park which

2:03:58 ↗ becomes a dry Hangout

2:04:02 ↗ for

2:04:04 ↗ anybody

2:04:06 ↗ whether it's the people dining in the

2:04:10 ↗ adjacent restaurants to come and sit in

2:04:12 ↗ the park and leave a letter behind or

2:04:15 ↗ whether it's

2:04:16 ↗ a smoking shelter or whatever it is

2:04:18 ↗ we're just concerned that it uh

2:04:23 ↗ has the potential to become an

2:04:25 ↗ attractive nuisance that needs to be

2:04:28 ↗ extensively managed

2:04:29 ↗ rather than having any real purpose of

2:04:34 ↗ people in this part of the world know

2:04:37 ↗ that it rains all the time and walking

2:04:39 ↗ in the rain is part of the outdoor

2:04:42 ↗ lifestyle and to actually have to go

2:04:44 ↗ across the street and sit under a

2:04:46 ↗ shelter it doesn't

2:04:47 ↗ seem to fit with our vision of that as

2:04:51 ↗ an outdoor space I I would comment that

2:04:54 ↗ I believe your especially your focus on

2:04:57 ↗ security as far as I'm concerned is very

2:05:00 ↗ legitimate because in Issaquah recently

2:05:04 ↗ we have had well-publicized incidences

2:05:07 ↗ of increasing

2:05:09 ↗ incidents of

2:05:13 ↗ folks using facilities such as the

2:05:17 ↗ shelter at the Hatchery for cover at

2:05:19 ↗ night for not only from the rain but for

2:05:22 ↗ cover for illegal activities ended and

2:05:25 ↗ there has been a recent uh violent

2:05:29 ↗ activity at the Hatchery that has re has

2:05:33 ↗ required additional patrols from the

2:05:36 ↗ police department it has required the

2:05:38 ↗ State Department of Fish and Wildlife

2:05:39 ↗ which owns the Hatchery to have an

2:05:40 ↗ enforcement officer that has that now

2:05:42 ↗ routinely goes by there the point of

2:05:45 ↗ this is this is like the old squeezing

2:05:48 ↗ the toothpaste thing if you if you have

2:05:50 ↗ people that are inclined to do that kind

2:05:52 ↗ of thing

2:05:53 ↗ and you run them out of one area they're

2:05:56 ↗ going to go to another area so I think

2:05:58 ↗ that's a very legitimate concern to have

2:06:00 ↗ an isolated relatively isolated as far

2:06:03 ↗ as the view is concerned site that is

2:06:06 ↗ going to have a facility like that

2:06:08 ↗ that it you know unfortunately I wish

2:06:11 ↗ this weren't the case but I think it's

2:06:13 ↗ that the security is a real legitimate

2:06:15 ↗ concern

2:06:16 ↗ so what what staff has communicated to

2:06:20 ↗ the applicant is that we are willing to

2:06:22 ↗ have a conversation about an adjustment

2:06:24 ↗ of Standards the standard is really

2:06:26 ↗ clear

2:06:28 ↗ um they bought brought up concerns and

2:06:30 ↗ we're willing to have that conversation

2:06:32 ↗ but had not gotten through that process

2:06:35 ↗ at this time yeah I once again I think

2:06:37 ↗ this is another area where Consulting

2:06:39 ↗ with the police department would be

2:06:40 ↗ would be real helpful because they're

2:06:42 ↗ the ones ultimately if there is a

2:06:43 ↗ problem that they're gonna have they're

2:06:45 ↗ going to have to deal with it and I bet

2:06:46 ↗ they have an opinion on what works and

2:06:48 ↗ what doesn't in terms of attracting or

2:06:50 ↗ discouraging that particular clientele

2:06:52 ↗ yeah this this uh neighbor Park won't

2:06:56 ↗ cover everything anyway

2:06:58 ↗ the plan calls for two acre Park this

2:07:01 ↗ does not have two acres in fact the plan

2:07:03 ↗ that we showed a couple weeks back you

2:07:06 ↗ know extends it up both on the north

2:07:09 ↗ side of Gilman Boulevard and the Park

2:07:11 ↗ event going further south of locust so

2:07:14 ↗ there'll be other elements to this

2:07:15 ↗ neighborhood park that stretches Beyond

2:07:18 ↗ this piece of property and so there

2:07:20 ↗ could be some other opportunities for

2:07:21 ↗ some covered elements even within those

2:07:23 ↗ phases

2:07:28 ↗ those were the questions that were asked

2:07:30 ↗ of our

2:07:32 ↗ of our commission members

2:07:34 ↗ the next steps would be preparing a

2:07:37 ↗ findings effect and have them signed and

2:07:40 ↗ then issuing a notice of decision a

2:07:43 ↗ notice of decision would be given to the

2:07:46 ↗ applicant team as well as to all the

2:07:47 ↗ parties of record that we have on file

2:07:50 ↗ and there'd be an appeal period

2:07:51 ↗ established on that

2:07:53 ↗ there is a shoreline permit for the

2:07:55 ↗ improvements that are being done along

2:07:56 ↗ the creek

2:07:57 ↗ with the park and the trails

2:08:00 ↗ once our appeal period would expire then

2:08:03 ↗ we would have to transmit the decision

2:08:06 ↗ also to the Department of ecology and

2:08:07 ↗ they have a 21 day period too in which

2:08:10 ↗ they can look at the project

2:08:13 ↗ and then following that through would be

2:08:15 ↗ construction permits both the demolition

2:08:18 ↗ site work and then building permits for

2:08:21 ↗ each of the three buildings

2:08:23 ↗ that that assumes that the development

2:08:25 ↗ Commission

2:08:26 ↗ that assumes that of course yes

2:08:29 ↗ you need to make that clear

2:08:32 ↗ all right thank you very much Jerry and

2:08:34 ↗ thanks to the applicant for that

2:08:37 ↗ real in my opinion good response to the

2:08:40 ↗ issues that and the questions that were

2:08:41 ↗ raised last time I appreciate your work

2:08:43 ↗ Jerry The Next Period of this meeting

2:08:47 ↗ will be devoted to public comment

2:08:49 ↗ once again if there are members of the

2:08:52 ↗ public that would like to speak we ask

2:08:54 ↗ that you come up sign in identify

2:08:56 ↗ yourself and then identify yourself at

2:08:58 ↗ the microphone with regard to your name

2:09:01 ↗ and your address

2:09:08 ↗ we have built Conley

2:09:16 ↗ so

2:09:17 ↗ Mr Conley if you've already signed in if

2:09:20 ↗ you can go up to the mic

2:09:27 ↗ thank you for allowing me to speak my

2:09:28 ↗ name is Bill Connolly and I live in

2:09:31 ↗ Spokane

2:09:34 ↗ I own the property

2:09:37 ↗ um

2:09:38 ↗ a property that's adjacent to the site

2:09:40 ↗ it's a formal address is 1005 Fifth

2:09:45 ↗ Avenue Northwest

2:09:47 ↗ um

2:09:48 ↗ the point one point on that is that the

2:09:53 ↗ um the flow into the parking lot area

2:09:57 ↗ for the that's the Montessori School

2:09:59 ↗ and from a safety standpoint it it

2:10:03 ↗ circles

2:10:04 ↗ the parents pick up their children in a

2:10:07 ↗ circular fashion that's very safe right

2:10:10 ↗ now and we want that to continue and I

2:10:14 ↗ don't see any problem

2:10:15 ↗ so far with this project but just to

2:10:19 ↗ point that out the building's address is

2:10:22 ↗ 1005 Fifth Avenue Northwest which is uh

2:10:28 ↗ Fifth Avenue is that little

2:10:30 ↗ strip into the driveway of that building

2:10:32 ↗ right there it's not Locust so

2:10:35 ↗ the bigger concern that I have and I

2:10:39 ↗ just want to voice it is the the

2:10:41 ↗ potential for elevations at the site

2:10:44 ↗ ground levels to uh to be changed and

2:10:48 ↗ cause a change in the uh

2:10:51 ↗ High storm events of the creek

2:10:54 ↗ the building was built on the original

2:10:58 ↗ family home site of the original Farm it

2:11:02 ↗ was the high point

2:11:04 ↗ of the farm and it never flooded and

2:11:07 ↗ when the building that's there now was

2:11:09 ↗ built it was built two feet above the

2:11:12 ↗ hundred year flood plain

2:11:14 ↗ and the water was to go underneath the

2:11:18 ↗ building and not impact this what they

2:11:20 ↗ call the storage capability of the

2:11:23 ↗ of the floods

2:11:27 ↗ um since the building was built there

2:11:30 ↗ have been many events where it's gotten

2:11:32 ↗ within six inches of the floor so we're

2:11:34 ↗ a foot and a half above the 100 year

2:11:36 ↗ flood plain many times if there is an

2:11:38 ↗ elevation change in this development

2:11:40 ↗ that by accident not you know not

2:11:42 ↗ designed causes a backflow of water to

2:11:46 ↗ where there's uh

2:11:47 ↗ a change in the high

2:11:50 ↗ water event it could start to impact the

2:11:54 ↗ building and that concerns me a lot and

2:11:56 ↗ the points that have been made there the

2:11:58 ↗ the build out is being made of the

2:12:01 ↗ hundred year flood

2:12:02 ↗ and then also to the 500-year flood

2:12:05 ↗ levels

2:12:06 ↗ the this means there there is potential

2:12:10 ↗ for changes in elevations on the site

2:12:13 ↗ causing a backflow imagine

2:12:16 ↗ um

2:12:18 ↗ um uh uh the sink your kitchen sink

2:12:21 ↗ where the drain starts to get plugged up

2:12:24 ↗ with uh stuff in the sink and you're

2:12:26 ↗ running the water at full full capacity

2:12:29 ↗ all the time the sink drains itself but

2:12:32 ↗ if it starts to get plugged up enough

2:12:34 ↗ pretty soon you start to see the sink

2:12:36 ↗ fill up and that's the potential that

2:12:39 ↗ could occur here so I'm just expressing

2:12:42 ↗ my concern and in hopes that the

2:12:44 ↗ elevations that the developers and the

2:12:47 ↗ architects who are very very good at

2:12:49 ↗ what they do

2:12:51 ↗ will make maintain that those elevations

2:12:55 ↗ so that when that sheet flow goes that

2:12:58 ↗ the water will continue to do what it's

2:13:00 ↗ done for the uh the last 60 years

2:13:04 ↗ so and also

2:13:06 ↗ I wanted to point out that in the past

2:13:09 ↗ the Issaquah Creek goes down Locust

2:13:11 ↗ Street at such a high velocity that when

2:13:15 ↗ I would walk out onto that street I was

2:13:17 ↗ concerned I might in fact people did

2:13:19 ↗ fall down because of the current flow

2:13:22 ↗ going down Locus during the middle of

2:13:24 ↗ that high storm event it's actually very

2:13:26 ↗ fast and when it and it would go down

2:13:29 ↗ into that open ditch that we saw in the

2:13:31 ↗ pictures up here and would flow at a

2:13:35 ↗ velocity that would move past the site

2:13:38 ↗ now with that ditch being tight lined it

2:13:41 ↗ could cause water to back up

2:13:43 ↗ I don't know what how much time you're

2:13:45 ↗ giving me but I I think I've probably

2:13:48 ↗ exceeded it so thank you very much

2:14:04 ↗ my name is Darlene Cullen

2:14:07 ↗ one of the things that bothers me about

2:14:09 ↗ this is the party is unrealistic

2:14:12 ↗ um I think that most of you here are

2:14:14 ↗ either married or something else but can

2:14:17 ↗ you imagine telling your spouse if you

2:14:19 ↗ were in a one-bedroom apartment that she

2:14:21 ↗ couldn't have a car

2:14:22 ↗ or is she telling you that I think in

2:14:25 ↗ the world of being in a hub situation

2:14:27 ↗ like the University District Capitol

2:14:29 ↗ Hill downtown Seattle these numbers are

2:14:32 ↗ realistic but this is Issaquah

2:14:35 ↗ and most of the people that come in that

2:14:38 ↗ I know have three or four cars sometimes

2:14:40 ↗ in the family and it's totally

2:14:42 ↗ unnecessary but they just own them

2:14:44 ↗ I think we're in a outside still of

2:14:47 ↗ everything we're not over Lake we're not

2:14:49 ↗ a hub situation yet we haven't reached

2:14:51 ↗ that point in Issaquah and I feel one of

2:14:54 ↗ the things that are really necessary in

2:14:57 ↗ meeting the needs of the people who

2:14:59 ↗ would like to move into this community

2:15:00 ↗ is realizing that they're not going to

2:15:03 ↗ sell their car to live here nor at the

2:15:07 ↗ rate that these apartments are renting

2:15:08 ↗ are they going to be living alone

2:15:10 ↗ they're going to more than likely be

2:15:12 ↗ living with a partner and they're going

2:15:15 ↗ to have more than one car so I think we

2:15:18 ↗ realistically have to look at who is a

2:15:20 ↗ client is today and who we are going to

2:15:22 ↗ be in the future and address both of

2:15:25 ↗ these needs

2:15:27 ↗ because

2:15:29 ↗ as we excuse me as We Know

2:15:32 ↗ in reading the papers and everything the

2:15:34 ↗ situation that's going on in Overlake

2:15:36 ↗ and they're saying now okay there's no

2:15:38 ↗ there's not going to be direct buses to

2:15:40 ↗ the city here they're going to be

2:15:41 ↗ they're going to be going to Mercer

2:15:42 ↗ Island and you're going to be

2:15:43 ↗ transferring nothing was just in the

2:15:45 ↗ paper

2:15:46 ↗ um and I think what we have to realize

2:15:48 ↗ is that a lot of people who are going to

2:15:50 ↗ be working from this area since you're

2:15:52 ↗ not creating jobs

2:15:54 ↗ are going to be using their car to get

2:15:56 ↗ there

2:15:58 ↗ I mean if I worked in the highlands and

2:15:59 ↗ I was living down here I certainly

2:16:01 ↗ wouldn't bicycle up the hill

2:16:04 ↗ so I think that parking kind of bothers

2:16:07 ↗ me that it doesn't really meet the needs

2:16:09 ↗ of people who would want to live in

2:16:11 ↗ Issaquah

2:16:13 ↗ and then there's one other thing I

2:16:14 ↗ wanted to dress that Mr Brennan you know

2:16:17 ↗ was kind of touching on the issue

2:16:18 ↗ earlier is that during the field and is

2:16:22 ↗ it field in stream no that's the

2:16:23 ↗ magazine it's

2:16:25 ↗ with his rivers and streams I'm sorry

2:16:27 ↗ thank you

2:16:29 ↗ um there was a fellow that was in the

2:16:33 ↗ audience that brought up something that

2:16:35 ↗ I didn't think of I don't think I don't

2:16:37 ↗ know if even Connie thought of it to

2:16:39 ↗ tell you the truth is that Connie you're

2:16:41 ↗ over in the corner is that you know what

2:16:45 ↗ if it does flutter what if there's a

2:16:47 ↗ flooding situation which we know it does

2:16:49 ↗ in the area where what happens with

2:16:52 ↗ handicapped people on this site

2:16:54 ↗ is it handicap friendly for people and

2:16:56 ↗ we all could become handicapped you

2:16:58 ↗ could break your leg tomorrow you could

2:17:00 ↗ have a hip operation and so we all can

2:17:02 ↗ become handicapped we don't need to be

2:17:04 ↗ born that way and I don't know if it's

2:17:07 ↗ handicap friendly and that's one of the

2:17:08 ↗ things I'd like to ask

2:17:11 ↗ that's it

2:17:16 ↗ the flood Blake flood

2:17:19 ↗ what about the last name

2:17:22 ↗ what's he going to talk about

2:17:24 ↗ it

2:17:25 ↗ it's true my I've spoken before just

2:17:29 ↗ that I'm I'm not just opposed to the let

2:17:32 ↗ me get you to leave your address too

2:17:33 ↗ sure 34213 Southeast 40th Place Issaquah

2:17:37 ↗ 98027

2:17:39 ↗ uh not opposed to the building I've seen

2:17:41 ↗ what gglo has done in Redmond in

2:17:44 ↗ Seattle

2:17:46 ↗ to me the whole issue is the site

2:17:49 ↗ I don't know how many people here are

2:17:51 ↗ residents or business owners in Seattle

2:17:53 ↗ in Issaquah but

2:17:55 ↗ I'm sure anyone who saw the last

2:17:57 ↗ flooding event

2:17:58 ↗ the last thing that came to their mind

2:17:59 ↗ is let's put 600 people 400 cars three

2:18:02 ↗ three large buildings on a site this is

2:18:05 ↗ going to be in a it's a guaranteed flood

2:18:07 ↗ plain right we know it's we know that's

2:18:09 ↗ uh an unusual situation I don't know how

2:18:12 ↗ many buildings you're currently doing

2:18:13 ↗ and 100 floodplain

2:18:18 ↗ gglo

2:18:21 ↗ is this are you doing other buildings

2:18:27 ↗ well I'm assuming since you can't name

2:18:29 ↗ one that maybe not

2:18:31 ↗ um to me it to me it borders on reckless

2:18:33 ↗ endangerment that's my whole

2:18:35 ↗ it's when we watch TV and we see flood

2:18:37 ↗ things and we see people rebuilding

2:18:40 ↗ the typical responses what were they

2:18:42 ↗ thinking

2:18:43 ↗ that's the question I'm asking you guys

2:18:44 ↗ to ask yourself now so

2:18:47 ↗ uh

2:18:49 ↗ assuming it goes forward

2:18:51 ↗ uh just the whole process I think it

2:18:53 ↗ should be

2:18:54 ↗ it should be beneficial to the developer

2:18:56 ↗ I understand that should be beneficial

2:18:58 ↗ to Issaquah should be kind of an even

2:19:00 ↗ should be good for both of us my feeling

2:19:02 ↗ is they're getting the better of

2:19:04 ↗ Issaquah ones

2:19:05 ↗ and I think the example of that if you

2:19:07 ↗ look and see where they're doing

2:19:10 ↗ developments elsewhere

2:19:12 ↗ they're getting they're having their way

2:19:13 ↗ with you in my opinion okay

2:19:16 ↗ uh

2:19:18 ↗ pricing I've heard mention that there's

2:19:20 ↗ this is a good price point I don't know

2:19:21 ↗ what that number is

2:19:24 ↗ what what these are going to rent for

2:19:27 ↗ what's that

2:19:29 ↗ well that's a question that I've asked

2:19:32 ↗ and I don't know what it's going to be I

2:19:33 ↗ heard someone here last week say it was

2:19:34 ↗ a good price point

2:19:35 ↗ what is the price point to the people in

2:19:37 ↗ Issaquah know that or are we waiting to

2:19:39 ↗ find out

2:19:40 ↗ uh who will be managing the building is

2:19:43 ↗ it Lennar or an outside

2:19:45 ↗ okay is it is that the name Atlas who's

2:19:52 ↗ is the management firm Atlas

2:19:56 ↗ okay

2:19:57 ↗ I know no I'm just asking I mean these

2:19:59 ↗ are questions

2:20:02 ↗ no so do we know who the manager so

2:20:07 ↗ the applicant has the opportunity and I

2:20:10 ↗ can also okay

2:20:18 ↗ okay

2:20:23 ↗ oh

2:20:24 ↗ make sure you're speaking into the

2:20:26 ↗ market no that's me I'm sorry uh the

2:20:28 ↗ economics are up to the property owner

2:20:31 ↗ they are not an issue for us to consider

2:20:34 ↗ I'm saying since this is the first one

2:20:36 ↗ that you're doing

2:20:37 ↗ I'm I'm just saying that if you if the

2:20:40 ↗ more you know knowing who manages it may

2:20:42 ↗ be an important question to ask that's

2:20:43 ↗ awesome

2:20:46 ↗ um and that's again that's your dialogue

2:20:48 ↗ with them

2:20:48 ↗ uh

2:20:52 ↗ traffic the one the one traffic issue I

2:20:54 ↗ had is seventh gonna be a two lane

2:20:57 ↗ road so in other words when you're

2:20:59 ↗ exiting seventh onto Gilman

2:21:02 ↗ there'll be a signal is is it just one

2:21:04 ↗ lane to go left and right

2:21:09 ↗ Jerry there'll be a left turning lane

2:21:11 ↗ onto seventh at the signal so people can

2:21:13 ↗ go right without having to wait for

2:21:15 ↗ lunch right that's what's been looked at

2:21:16 ↗ right now is the channelization

2:21:20 ↗ so that's the Middle Lane the Middle

2:21:22 ↗ Lane yes

2:21:23 ↗ because I know

2:21:25 ↗ my feeling is people having to make wait

2:21:27 ↗ for people to make a left turn making

2:21:29 ↗ right turn they will find other ways to

2:21:30 ↗ get out onto Gilman so I just see that

2:21:33 ↗ as a potential traffic problem there is

2:21:34 ↗ additional traffic review being done on

2:21:36 ↗ that right now too on this

2:21:37 ↗ generalization

2:21:39 ↗ uh and again like I say my whole thing

2:21:41 ↗ is is putting a lot of bodies where you

2:21:44 ↗ know there's going to be water right now

2:21:46 ↗ people cannot come to work

2:21:49 ↗ uh but when you live there you've got to

2:21:51 ↗ come and go there's kids there's adults

2:21:53 ↗ uh

2:21:54 ↗ so something to think about parking the

2:21:57 ↗ only parking issue I think a couple of

2:21:59 ↗ you guys have touched on it

2:22:01 ↗ if people have to pay to park

2:22:02 ↗ tendency is to not want to pay and to

2:22:04 ↗ try to find that becomes an Enforcement

2:22:06 ↗ issue for Issaquah these people renting

2:22:09 ↗ are going to have friends and family

2:22:11 ↗ they're not shut-ins and social outcasts

2:22:13 ↗ they'll have visitors uh so again I

2:22:17 ↗ don't know if that 1.2 if those numbers

2:22:19 ↗ factor in those things

2:22:24 ↗ that's all

2:22:25 ↗ thank you sir thank you

2:22:28 ↗ next is John Trager

2:22:34 ↗ foreign

2:22:36 ↗ ER at 710 7th Avenue Northwest I'm also

2:22:41 ↗ the vice chair on East economic Vitality

2:22:43 ↗ commission and so my first remarks are

2:22:46 ↗ part of the commission and my later

2:22:48 ↗ remarks are on part of just being

2:22:50 ↗ resident about a block and a half away

2:22:51 ↗ from the proposed site so from the EVC

2:22:55 ↗ economic Vitality commission lens we're

2:22:58 ↗ excited and supportive about this

2:22:59 ↗ development one of the gaps that we've

2:23:02 ↗ discovered and potential threats this

2:23:04 ↗ was economic Vitality in the future is

2:23:08 ↗ there's a shortage of Workforce housing

2:23:10 ↗ in our city young professionals who may

2:23:12 ↗ be working at Costco headquarters or at

2:23:14 ↗ the hospital or other down at the

2:23:16 ↗ Microsoft Siemens office they have to

2:23:19 ↗ come from out of town There's No rental

2:23:21 ↗ housing really available

2:23:23 ↗ so even without subsidized units this is

2:23:27 ↗ a beginning of a good development in

2:23:30 ↗ central Issaquah which is definitely

2:23:32 ↗ part of what the plan is is to have

2:23:35 ↗ quite a few additional residents live

2:23:37 ↗ in the Central Square area so this is a

2:23:40 ↗ step in the right direction

2:23:44 ↗ um so as a resident a block and a half

2:23:46 ↗ away on the parking issue

2:23:49 ↗ I think it's good what you're doing I

2:23:52 ↗ think we have to start somewhere such as

2:23:54 ↗ Club plan says that

2:23:56 ↗ 1.2 units and there's a reason for that

2:23:59 ↗ and there's some sort of a chicken in

2:24:01 ↗ the egg thing you've got to start

2:24:02 ↗ somewhere and once we start building out

2:24:04 ↗ Gillen Boulevard and

2:24:06 ↗ and of course you have to support your

2:24:08 ↗ legislators and County to get the

2:24:09 ↗ transit funding to come with it but all

2:24:12 ↗ the other cities that we're competing

2:24:14 ↗ with are doing the same thing they're

2:24:15 ↗ building Transit oriented development

2:24:17 ↗ they're not Paving over the world for

2:24:19 ↗ parking spaces and this is the right

2:24:21 ↗ thing to do

2:24:25 ↗ I also understand this is a difficult

2:24:27 ↗ site and it's unfortunate the buildings

2:24:29 ↗ are set back from Gilman

2:24:31 ↗ but it's good to see that there isn't a

2:24:32 ↗ sea of cars in front of the buildings

2:24:34 ↗ that they're in underneath or internal

2:24:36 ↗ so that that's definitely a good visual

2:24:39 ↗ impact I appreciate the design there

2:24:42 ↗ and as far as those walls go I wouldn't

2:24:44 ↗ be unhappy the commission granted a

2:24:46 ↗ variance to do something different than

2:24:47 ↗ the walls like maybe art or something

2:24:49 ↗ because I think those little stub walls

2:24:51 ↗ are

2:24:52 ↗ I get the letter of the rules but

2:24:55 ↗ the surface water kind of dominates in

2:24:59 ↗ that site so they don't really have a

2:25:00 ↗ choice

2:25:01 ↗ I don't think the Gazebo is a good idea

2:25:04 ↗ for some of the reasons that were

2:25:06 ↗ already discussed I walk this area

2:25:08 ↗ frequently every night and there's

2:25:10 ↗ already some transient issues right

2:25:12 ↗ there on the bridge over the Issaquah

2:25:14 ↗ Creek on Gilman so this would just not

2:25:18 ↗ help if they had some space

2:25:22 ↗ on traffic mitigation the new light on

2:25:25 ↗ Gilman is really appreciated it's

2:25:27 ↗ actually needed right now so there's

2:25:29 ↗ it's a pretty dangerous left turn

2:25:30 ↗ scenario on on Saturdays when Gilman's

2:25:33 ↗ really busy

2:25:35 ↗ um

2:25:36 ↗ but I am concerned about the speed and

2:25:38 ↗ volume on Seventh between Juniper and

2:25:41 ↗ Holly

2:25:42 ↗ the Bridgewater Condominiums have about

2:25:44 ↗ 10 driveways that back directly out of

2:25:46 ↗ their garages on to seventh and there

2:25:49 ↗ will be you know you already mentioned I

2:25:51 ↗ think it was 90 of the traffic was going

2:25:52 ↗ to go out through seventh and so I'm

2:25:56 ↗ concerned with that additional traffic

2:25:57 ↗ they have two options to get to Newport

2:25:59 ↗ Way and they will take cut through

2:26:01 ↗ already people already cut through just

2:26:03 ↗ to take the other stop sign and uh so

2:26:06 ↗ it's it's potentially dangerous

2:26:08 ↗ condition so I'd like to have a the

2:26:10 ↗ commission uh add an additional

2:26:14 ↗ um

2:26:15 ↗ requirement for a speed humps on Seventh

2:26:19 ↗ for traffic to keep the speed down

2:26:22 ↗ they can drive through there but if they

2:26:24 ↗ already drive the pace they are now but

2:26:26 ↗ double the traffic it's going to be very

2:26:27 ↗ dangerous

2:26:31 ↗ and that's it thank you

2:26:36 ↗ uh this we will now go into give the uh

2:26:40 ↗ staff and the applicant an opportunity

2:26:42 ↗ to address this will end the public

2:26:45 ↗ comment we have no more uh I'm sorry

2:26:48 ↗ you you are going to speak okay would

2:26:51 ↗ you sign in please and

2:27:07 ↗ my name is Connie Marsh and I have a

2:27:09 ↗ store at 1175 Northwest Gilman Boulevard

2:27:11 ↗ suite b11 and I also live in Issaquah

2:27:16 ↗ so in the design changes I was in

2:27:20 ↗ Redmond this weekend and I saw very

2:27:23 ↗ similar buildings but the windows were

2:27:26 ↗ much smaller suddenly and it didn't look

2:27:28 ↗ very good so I see the pictures and I

2:27:30 ↗ see the size of the windows and I see

2:27:32 ↗ the strong horizontal lines and it makes

2:27:34 ↗ them more appealing

2:27:36 ↗ I don't entirely understand how much of

2:27:39 ↗ the details that is on the buildings is

2:27:42 ↗ a requirement for what we will see

2:27:45 ↗ and so

2:27:48 ↗ small changes like that I think can make

2:27:50 ↗ a big difference

2:27:52 ↗ and I think that's just something I

2:27:54 ↗ don't unders understand not doing the

2:27:57 ↗ architectural things that often also in

2:28:01 ↗ Redmond with the same sort of

2:28:03 ↗ small modulation in height from a

2:28:06 ↗ distance it looked very level and I

2:28:09 ↗ wasn't so from a ways away it was still

2:28:12 ↗ very flat and I'm concerned with these

2:28:15 ↗ pictures that it's still going to seem

2:28:17 ↗ very flat given any distance away

2:28:23 ↗ um

2:28:25 ↗ then when Lucy was talking about the

2:28:29 ↗ conditions going into potentially

2:28:32 ↗ construction conditions I didn't

2:28:34 ↗ understand how that would

2:28:37 ↗ anyone would be able to understand that

2:28:39 ↗ it's actually being put into a condition

2:28:41 ↗ because it sounded like there were still

2:28:43 ↗ a lot of discussion and so it was hard

2:28:46 ↗ to know what actually was going to be

2:28:48 ↗ required

2:28:49 ↗ and that that makes me a little bit

2:28:52 ↗ uncomfortable

2:28:54 ↗ as as sometimes things get lost that

2:28:57 ↗ seem important and through no one's

2:29:00 ↗ fault it's

2:29:01 ↗ it's just not there and we're surprised

2:29:03 ↗ one of the things that we talked about

2:29:05 ↗ at the last meeting and I think there

2:29:07 ↗ was a little support was some potential

2:29:09 ↗ for interpretive signage on the lot

2:29:11 ↗ so that when people were walking through

2:29:14 ↗ the public areas there was a learning

2:29:16 ↗ experience happening at the same time

2:29:18 ↗ and I didn't see that responded to in

2:29:21 ↗ the um

2:29:24 ↗ in the staff report

2:29:27 ↗ um

2:29:28 ↗ I did I agree with the comments of

2:29:34 ↗ uh

2:29:36 ↗ uh I I have grave concerns on putting

2:29:40 ↗ this many people in a place that floods

2:29:42 ↗ where there's no place where you can

2:29:43 ↗ walk or drive out of it that is not

2:29:45 ↗ through water during a flood even if

2:29:48 ↗ they're told about it it seems

2:29:51 ↗ uh like a bad press release waiting to

2:29:54 ↗ happen and we're going to see it on the

2:29:56 ↗ news and that isn't really what I want

2:29:59 ↗ to have for my first project in the

2:30:01 ↗ central Issaquah plan so at a very base

2:30:04 ↗ level I disagree with what is happening

2:30:07 ↗ and probably the first thing I would ask

2:30:09 ↗ for was a large Capital Improvement to

2:30:12 ↗ prevent

2:30:13 ↗ all areas around this being flooded if

2:30:16 ↗ that isn't going to happen from this

2:30:18 ↗ development because I don't think it's

2:30:20 ↗ responsible for

2:30:22 ↗ to approve this development with that

2:30:26 ↗ restriction even if our rules do not

2:30:28 ↗ precisely say that we cannot I have no

2:30:32 ↗ control over that but I do

2:30:35 ↗ know what I want is I want an awesome

2:30:37 ↗ City I want an awesome Central Issaquah

2:30:39 ↗ plan and so we have the strict rules and

2:30:43 ↗ then we have what steps it up and makes

2:30:46 ↗ Issaquah even better and what were the

2:30:49 ↗ things of this for me that were missing

2:30:52 ↗ to make it awesome because I like the

2:30:55 ↗ Landscaping the building is sort of meh

2:30:58 ↗ for me and uh

2:31:00 ↗ so for me what was missing is Amusement

2:31:04 ↗ it doesn't seem fun

2:31:06 ↗ it seems green sort of and it seems wet

2:31:10 ↗ but it doesn't seem human or fun or

2:31:14 ↗ frivolous or

2:31:17 ↗ I don't know you know my Issaquah may

2:31:19 ↗ not be everyone's and the last thing of

2:31:21 ↗ course in the middle of the night I

2:31:22 ↗ thought you know I really want a

2:31:24 ↗ restaurant up there because I want to be

2:31:26 ↗ eating on my barbecue on the top of

2:31:28 ↗ their building and looking at the great

2:31:30 ↗ views they're going to have and that

2:31:31 ↗ seems like a totally missed opportunity

2:31:34 ↗ but

2:31:35 ↗ you know will you give me a restaurant

2:31:38 ↗ okay that's it thanks

2:31:41 ↗ thank you

2:31:44 ↗ at this juncture as I understand the new

2:31:46 ↗ process uh staff and applicant will have

2:31:50 ↗ an opportunity to address correct rebut

2:31:54 ↗ if you so choose

2:31:58 ↗ so um

2:32:00 ↗ Mr chairman mostly we feel that the

2:32:03 ↗ comments that have been made were

2:32:05 ↗ addressed in our briefing response memo

2:32:08 ↗ and we didn't need to add anything but

2:32:11 ↗ I think there are two pieces that Ms

2:32:14 ↗ Marsh brought up that we'd like to touch

2:32:16 ↗ on one clarification is around the

2:32:19 ↗ construction conditions because I

2:32:21 ↗ realize that's a new tool to us and a

2:32:23 ↗ new tool to you so just to hopefully

2:32:27 ↗ um

2:32:28 ↗ give Connie a certain level and everyone

2:32:30 ↗ a certain level of confidence the

2:32:32 ↗ construction conditions is a document

2:32:34 ↗ that's attached to the staff report so

2:32:37 ↗ it isn't a nebulous thing floating

2:32:39 ↗ around it's actually a list that is an

2:32:43 ↗ attachment and part of the materials

2:32:45 ↗ that support the staff report

2:32:48 ↗ um

2:32:49 ↗ and the staff report will be available

2:32:52 ↗ to the public online they can go in and

2:32:54 ↗ call it up on the website

2:32:57 ↗ yep

2:32:59 ↗ that's I'm just underscoring that yeah

2:33:03 ↗ it is immediately available to the

2:33:04 ↗ public I think it I mean it was

2:33:06 ↗ available on this you know a week uh see

2:33:10 ↗ if I can do the math April 9th when we

2:33:12 ↗ issued the staff the first staff report

2:33:15 ↗ um

2:33:17 ↗ the uh I I think staff is supportive of

2:33:21 ↗ the interpretive signage that um I don't

2:33:23 ↗ think we intentionally didn't include

2:33:26 ↗ that in the briefing response memo it

2:33:27 ↗ just was overlooked

2:33:29 ↗ um

2:33:30 ↗ the uh we're so we're supportive of it

2:33:34 ↗ um

2:33:35 ↗ in looking at the central Issaquah

2:33:38 ↗ standards while Ms Marsh finished her

2:33:41 ↗ comments

2:33:42 ↗ um

2:33:43 ↗ there's a clear

2:33:45 ↗ um

2:33:46 ↗ expectation for wayfinding signage

2:33:49 ↗ um I I don't think that the interpretive

2:33:52 ↗ signage is in Conflict but I'm not sure

2:33:54 ↗ that it's specifically called out so it

2:33:56 ↗ seems like something that we will work

2:33:58 ↗ with the applicant on I'm just not sure

2:34:00 ↗ that we can add it as additional

2:34:02 ↗ condition but I'll keep

2:34:04 ↗ looking at the code as we speak

2:34:11 ↗ is there anything else the applicants

2:34:12 ↗ that will clear clear up anything

2:34:14 ↗ comment refute rebut

2:34:18 ↗ all right in that case excuse me it is

2:34:20 ↗ uh time for us to go to the commission

2:34:22 ↗ and we will have this will be two parts

2:34:26 ↗ one will be

2:34:27 ↗ comments by each commissioner if you if

2:34:30 ↗ you are so inclined we'll go around

2:34:33 ↗ and do a cumulative review of that and

2:34:38 ↗ then the next step will be to decide on

2:34:42 ↗ what make the decision

2:34:43 ↗ and record it as needed and I just

2:34:46 ↗ wanted to let the Commissioners know

2:34:48 ↗ that so we've been drafting conditions

2:34:50 ↗ as we go along and just let me know when

2:34:52 ↗ you would like to see that okay

2:34:54 ↗ the last thing

2:34:55 ↗ I think we've got

2:34:58 ↗ similar to the green

2:35:02 ↗ s

2:35:09 ↗ so this uh this is the document that

2:35:12 ↗ we'll use as we're going through the

2:35:15 ↗ ultimate process the decision process

2:35:17 ↗ okay so Katie our commissioner Karis if

2:35:20 ↗ you would like to start with your

2:35:22 ↗ comments reviews if you have any

2:35:30 ↗ is your microphone on

2:35:34 ↗ I think staff and the applicant have

2:35:36 ↗ done a good job with their responses to

2:35:39 ↗ what was brought up in the meeting in

2:35:42 ↗ April and um

2:35:44 ↗ I am generally comfortable with the

2:35:47 ↗ project and the mitigation measures and

2:35:51 ↗ the analysis that's been done I know

2:35:53 ↗ there's a concern about

2:35:55 ↗ flooding

2:35:56 ↗ um

2:36:00 ↗ again I'm comfortable with what has been

2:36:02 ↗ done and the the planning and

2:36:04 ↗ Engineering that's gone into it and I

2:36:07 ↗ think

2:36:09 ↗ I'm in I think it's a well thought out

2:36:12 ↗ project

2:36:14 ↗ um

2:36:15 ↗ am I allowed to ask any more questions

2:36:17 ↗ or is this okay I know that we're at

2:36:19 ↗ really the preliminary preliminary

2:36:22 ↗ stages here but

2:36:23 ↗ um I'm used to seeing a little bit more

2:36:25 ↗ uh discussion about the actual

2:36:29 ↗ construction phase in the super

2:36:31 ↗ checklist and I'm wondering if there's

2:36:34 ↗ any information about

2:36:36 ↗ um

2:36:37 ↗ time period phasing truck routes

2:36:42 ↗ I know it's not a huge project but that

2:36:44 ↗ comes to mind

2:36:46 ↗ when we're talking about all these

2:36:48 ↗ things

2:36:55 ↗ okay the plan would be to initiate

2:36:57 ↗ construction probably first of June as

2:37:00 ↗ soon as we can so first first part of

2:37:02 ↗ June certainly yeah as quickly as we can

2:37:03 ↗ 2014. I'm sorry 2014. yeah oh yeah I

2:37:07 ↗ think with with the approvals we're

2:37:10 ↗ pretty far ahead in terms of our

2:37:11 ↗ architecture to be getting land use

2:37:13 ↗ approvals really so we will be

2:37:16 ↗ submitting for actual building permits

2:37:18 ↗ in about a month and we've just recently

2:37:21 ↗ submitted permits for site work and for

2:37:23 ↗ flood Hazard and those kinds of things

2:37:25 ↗ construction will take about 22 months

2:37:28 ↗ what was your other question oh truck

2:37:30 ↗ Hall routes they were just submitted

2:37:32 ↗ today as part of the demolition permit

2:37:40 ↗ it's kind of moving around okay

2:37:43 ↗ and it's I'm sorry just one thing it has

2:37:46 ↗ it's a follow-up on the staging and the

2:37:48 ↗ timing uh the anything that's going to

2:37:51 ↗ be done with the creek and the

2:37:52 ↗ modification of the of the uh

2:37:55 ↗ riparian area right is already been

2:37:59 ↗ looked at with regard to the run the

2:38:01 ↗ salmon run that starts in August and

2:38:03 ↗ there is not going to be any I mean

2:38:05 ↗ there's there's not specifically gnome

2:38:07 ↗ and that's that's a good thing to point

2:38:09 ↗ out yeah I would yeah because

2:38:10 ↗ schedule-wise these are these are

2:38:12 ↗ federally protected endangered species

2:38:14 ↗ and we need to make real sure that we

2:38:17 ↗ don't run a foul of the EPA when we're

2:38:19 ↗ modifying a habitat right as I try to

2:38:22 ↗ visualize the schedule I think it's

2:38:23 ↗ actually next spring that that work

2:38:25 ↗ would be done anyway we want to catch it

2:38:27 ↗ so that we have as much dry weather for

2:38:28 ↗ the for the plants to take hold as

2:38:30 ↗ possible

2:38:32 ↗ and I would just add that um

2:38:35 ↗ you know this is a land use permit which

2:38:38 ↗ is kind of a big conceptual framework

2:38:41 ↗ there will be construction permits

2:38:43 ↗ required for everything and that would

2:38:45 ↗ be the time where conditions about the

2:38:47 ↗ timing of of work associated with the

2:38:49 ↗ stream would would be worked through

2:38:52 ↗ based on the kind of work and impacts it

2:38:55 ↗ might have okay thanks

2:38:59 ↗ um I I also was just wondering in when

2:39:01 ↗ you did your traffic study is that based

2:39:03 ↗ on uh

2:39:06 ↗ like square footage of type of building

2:39:08 ↗ or number of units or number of people

2:39:11 ↗ all of those things there's yeah there's

2:39:13 ↗ a really extensive model that's been

2:39:15 ↗ developed by ite International

2:39:17 ↗ Transportation Engineers I think

2:39:19 ↗ and we took very conservative positions

2:39:23 ↗ on on all of those things both in terms

2:39:25 ↗ of

2:39:26 ↗ characterizing the existing uses in the

2:39:29 ↗ shopping center we also didn't take into

2:39:33 ↗ account things like people who would

2:39:34 ↗ take buses people who would carpool

2:39:37 ↗ um we did not count those so the

2:39:40 ↗ Assumption was made that all of our

2:39:42 ↗ residents would drive

2:39:43 ↗ so it's it's I think the results are

2:39:45 ↗ very conservative

2:39:52 ↗ compliant and I know that it's a

2:39:55 ↗ requirement that buildings are all ADA

2:39:57 ↗ Compliant I think the concern was during

2:40:00 ↗ a flood

2:40:02 ↗ um

2:40:04 ↗ could you speak to that a little bit or

2:40:06 ↗ well the buildings and the site entirely

2:40:09 ↗ will be ADA Compliant and in fact

2:40:12 ↗ it's important enough to Lennar that we

2:40:15 ↗ pure we actually peer review our civil

2:40:18 ↗ engineers and our Architects work

2:40:20 ↗ separately just in terms of ADA

2:40:25 ↗ okay thanks

2:40:27 ↗ I think I'm done with you I'll stay just

2:40:30 ↗ a minute

2:40:31 ↗ um

2:40:32 ↗ I also I want to

2:40:36 ↗ emphasize that I also feel I think it

2:40:39 ↗ was mentioned the chicken and egg and we

2:40:42 ↗ know what we want Issaquah to look like

2:40:43 ↗ we know what we have in the CIP and this

2:40:47 ↗ project is really meant to

2:40:50 ↗ um

2:40:51 ↗ lead us toward that lead us toward a

2:40:53 ↗ community that's more

2:40:55 ↗ dependent less dependent on vehicles and

2:40:59 ↗ um

2:41:00 ↗ I think this is a step in the right

2:41:02 ↗ direction

2:41:04 ↗ so those are my comments commissioner

2:41:07 ↗ Commission

2:41:09 ↗ well I I also think that the the staff

2:41:12 ↗ and and and the proponent made a

2:41:17 ↗ responded well to the comments that were

2:41:19 ↗ made I think the things that were

2:41:21 ↗ brought up tonight that uh raise

2:41:24 ↗ questions in my mind were while they

2:41:26 ↗ there was a traffic study it wasn't

2:41:28 ↗ obvious that there was traffic study

2:41:30 ↗ affecting Locust Street and maybe there

2:41:33 ↗ was I just it just wasn't obvious to me

2:41:34 ↗ that that happened and so

2:41:37 ↗ all right I I would hope it would it

2:41:40 ↗ just seems like there's a there's a real

2:41:41 ↗ liability there if it doesn't because

2:41:43 ↗ people are going to go the path of least

2:41:45 ↗ resistance and so I would hope that was

2:41:47 ↗ the case

2:41:48 ↗ uh

2:41:50 ↗ I I

2:41:52 ↗ I'm not sure I know what a fun aspect of

2:41:55 ↗ a project like this would be but I I

2:41:57 ↗ think that the colors are appealing the

2:42:01 ↗ modification of architectural design was

2:42:06 ↗ pleasing to me and I think that it was a

2:42:08 ↗ good effort so I don't really have any

2:42:10 ↗ any other comments I the other thing I

2:42:12 ↗ guess other than

2:42:14 ↗ I understand the zero to ten foot

2:42:17 ↗ buildings building line that's not a

2:42:19 ↗ possibility I kind of like those walls

2:42:21 ↗ and I think that it would be valuable to

2:42:24 ↗ have law enforcement take a look at that

2:42:26 ↗ and make sure that wasn't a liability

2:42:29 ↗ but I think that the notion of having

2:42:30 ↗ somebody with their back to the street

2:42:32 ↗ would be way more imposing to me than

2:42:34 ↗ having a wall there that would offer you

2:42:35 ↗ some kind of protection and and I think

2:42:38 ↗ over time we're going to see Gilman

2:42:40 ↗ build up and there's going to be more

2:42:42 ↗ and more structure right next to the

2:42:43 ↗ sidewalk or the property line anyway and

2:42:45 ↗ I think that this is a good start so a

2:42:48 ↗ good job on my on your part

2:42:52 ↗ like

2:42:55 ↗ thank you

2:42:56 ↗ um

2:42:57 ↗ I agree with previous comments about the

2:43:01 ↗ responsiveness of the applicant team

2:43:02 ↗ appreciate you taking the time to

2:43:04 ↗ respond to the questions and concerns we

2:43:06 ↗ expressed initially particularly around

2:43:08 ↗ the building design understand that

2:43:10 ↗ you're getting close to building permit

2:43:12 ↗ that means you've made a huge investment

2:43:13 ↗ in making changes is costly to do that

2:43:15 ↗ but appreciate the changes that you have

2:43:17 ↗ made I want you to encourage you to

2:43:19 ↗ continue to work with staff and tweak

2:43:21 ↗ the building design make sure that it

2:43:23 ↗ really fits in the modulation and things

2:43:25 ↗ you've talked about I thought were nice

2:43:28 ↗ additions there I also appreciate your

2:43:31 ↗ the applicant's patience I'm sure when

2:43:33 ↗ you heard you're the first one coming

2:43:34 ↗ through the new process for the central

2:43:36 ↗ Issaquah plan you probably wondered if

2:43:39 ↗ you wanted to take that risk and

2:43:40 ↗ appreciate you somebody has to do it and

2:43:42 ↗ I appreciate that it's somebody that's

2:43:44 ↗ very competent at what they do so I that

2:43:46 ↗ that that's helpful some of the concerns

2:43:49 ↗ I heard tonight that I I agree with and

2:43:51 ↗ I think they've been addressed in

2:43:53 ↗ addition to just the building design is

2:43:55 ↗ dealing with the flooding and and the

2:43:58 ↗ response in the response memo much more

2:44:00 ↗ detail about the height the uh to study

2:44:05 ↗ the flood study that was done

2:44:07 ↗ the compensatory storage and how that's

2:44:10 ↗ all worked I understand I also

2:44:12 ↗ understand the concern of the neighbors

2:44:13 ↗ and the residents who are familiar with

2:44:15 ↗ what has happened on this site

2:44:17 ↗ previously and not wanting to see that

2:44:21 ↗ uh change on this property create

2:44:23 ↗ off-site impact negative offset impact

2:44:25 ↗ so just a quick comment to Steph there's

2:44:28 ↗ a certification process required for

2:44:32 ↗ FEMA in the flood plain for this

2:44:34 ↗ particular to establish that the

2:44:36 ↗ building has created the floor level

2:44:39 ↗ it's the above above the 100 Year flight

2:44:41 ↗ elevation but what about the

2:44:43 ↗ displacement that might create is there

2:44:45 ↗ a certification process that's required

2:44:48 ↗ to ensure that we're not that we in fact

2:44:51 ↗ are satisfying the compensatory storage

2:44:54 ↗ requirement and we're not creating an

2:44:55 ↗ off-site negative condition you know if

2:44:59 ↗ that's

2:45:00 ↗ part of it there was a comment in the

2:45:02 ↗ response memo that there was a

2:45:03 ↗ certification requirement and it wasn't

2:45:05 ↗ clear to me how that works it says by an

2:45:07 ↗ engineer with appropriate Hydro

2:45:09 ↗ hydrologic modeling methods were used to

2:45:13 ↗ comply with these requirements shall

2:45:15 ↗ comply

2:45:16 ↗ uh shuttle company the flood Hazard

2:45:18 ↗ permit

2:45:20 ↗ so I'm I'm not super familiar with all

2:45:23 ↗ those details I do know that the

2:45:25 ↗ compensatory storage was built many

2:45:27 ↗ years ago right and is associated with

2:45:30 ↗ this project I think the other piece

2:45:32 ↗ that's in progress is that the city is

2:45:36 ↗ doing a third party peer review of the

2:45:40 ↗ flooding design or the the design to

2:45:43 ↗ avoid flooding and so I'm not sure that

2:45:46 ↗ that's is that complete yet

2:45:49 ↗ I think it is but I am okay okay well

2:45:52 ↗ that that's good to know I mean that

2:45:53 ↗ kind of

2:45:54 ↗ and I think it's good just because the

2:45:57 ↗ sensitivity around that

2:45:59 ↗ um

2:46:00 ↗ by the community but I think even by the

2:46:02 ↗ city and from an environmental

2:46:03 ↗ standpoint so I think it's appropriate

2:46:04 ↗ that there is a third party review going

2:46:05 ↗ on to ensure that that that's

2:46:08 ↗ um that it satisfied those concerns or

2:46:10 ↗ address those a question raised about

2:46:13 ↗ the traffic impacts on uh 7th Avenue

2:46:16 ↗ Northwest in the additional demand that

2:46:18 ↗ we're pushing out there and what how

2:46:20 ↗ does that impact potential conflicts

2:46:21 ↗ with other neighboring properties I

2:46:25 ↗ think we want to make sure that that the

2:46:26 ↗ transportation folks are paying close

2:46:27 ↗ attention to that and dealing with

2:46:29 ↗ additional calming or traffic controls

2:46:31 ↗ that are necessary to make sure we don't

2:46:33 ↗ have safety we don't create safety

2:46:35 ↗ issues because that increased demand

2:46:36 ↗ along that street so I'll probably

2:46:38 ↗ suggest adding that condition just to

2:46:40 ↗ make sure that that is being looked at

2:46:42 ↗ I'm guessing it is but I think it'll be

2:46:44 ↗ important so let me say two things that

2:46:46 ↗ you brought up a point that I I forgot

2:46:49 ↗ that maybe we should have touched on so

2:46:51 ↗ speed humps

2:46:52 ↗ um the East Side Fire and Rescue is very

2:46:55 ↗ strongly opposed there are certain kinds

2:46:58 ↗ of pedestrian tables that are being

2:47:00 ↗ employed in Seattle that allow that are

2:47:05 ↗ different than what East Side Fire and

2:47:07 ↗ Rescue has been opposed to but I'm I'm

2:47:10 ↗ not really certain that that is a need

2:47:12 ↗ that we need to go to I think part of

2:47:15 ↗ what we'll see is that the narrower

2:47:17 ↗ design of roads that are in that are

2:47:20 ↗ built into the central Issaquah

2:47:22 ↗ standards are inherently ad traffic

2:47:26 ↗ calming as well as some of the curb

2:47:28 ↗ bulbs that the applicant has proposed is

2:47:30 ↗ consistent with the standards and that's

2:47:31 ↗ part of why that's there is that it help

2:47:34 ↗ with the street trees with the curb

2:47:35 ↗ bulbs with the on-street parking all of

2:47:38 ↗ that

2:47:39 ↗ um

2:47:40 ↗ creates an environment in which drivers

2:47:42 ↗ are not as comfortable driving fast yeah

2:47:44 ↗ no and and I guess my suggestion was not

2:47:48 ↗ to impose a solution like speed humps

2:47:51 ↗ where everybody seems to go real quick

2:47:53 ↗ if they want to try to slow people down

2:47:54 ↗ there are other ways to do it that

2:47:56 ↗ aren't quite as invasive and don't

2:47:57 ↗ slower emergency response folks down but

2:48:00 ↗ I did the point was just making sure

2:48:02 ↗ that that has been looked at let's make

2:48:04 ↗ sure that if there are adjustments that

2:48:07 ↗ need to be made because of the engineers

2:48:09 ↗ are saying they're still going to be

2:48:10 ↗ coming too fast through here we've got a

2:48:11 ↗ lot of volume that is going to create

2:48:12 ↗ conflict let's figure out how to

2:48:14 ↗ mitigate that

2:48:16 ↗ and I'm not going to suggest the

2:48:19 ↗ solution but just the the concern

2:48:22 ↗ other than that I was

2:48:26 ↗ I'm happy with the project I think it's

2:48:28 ↗ a good project oh one more minor

2:48:30 ↗ Connie's point about interpretive signs

2:48:33 ↗ in the park at least down by the creek

2:48:36 ↗ that might be a nice addition simple

2:48:39 ↗ interesting gives people who are

2:48:42 ↗ wandering around something to stop and

2:48:43 ↗ look at and it it's part of the that is

2:48:48 ↗ a qua image it's kind of focused on the

2:48:51 ↗ environment so I think that would be

2:48:52 ↗ something that would be good to see and

2:48:54 ↗ I think I would enjoy that personally

2:48:58 ↗ um that's all I've got to say

2:49:04 ↗ I'm not going to repeat uh

2:49:07 ↗ many of the points that have already

2:49:08 ↗ been made by my fellow Commissioners but

2:49:10 ↗ I do want to say that again we're we're

2:49:13 ↗ feeling our way through this new process

2:49:15 ↗ and I am encouraged

2:49:18 ↗ by the uh by so far how this has come

2:49:22 ↗ out I hope we continue to do this

2:49:23 ↗ they're obviously refinements that need

2:49:25 ↗ to be made I do share the concern that

2:49:28 ↗ was expressed earlier about the need for

2:49:31 ↗ a little bit more detail in some of the

2:49:33 ↗ construction areas I also

2:49:38 ↗ believe that the process and this was

2:49:43 ↗ touched on by one of the members of the

2:49:46 ↗ public that spoke and and you mentioned

2:49:48 ↗ you did address this Lucy but I have

2:49:51 ↗ seen projects that have gone through the

2:49:53 ↗ development Commission

2:49:54 ↗ and then when they were finished and I

2:49:58 ↗ drove past them I said whoa

2:50:00 ↗ when did that happen and I I don't quite

2:50:04 ↗ understand that I I wish there were a

2:50:06 ↗ mechanism

2:50:07 ↗ for

2:50:09 ↗ and I'm not quite sure how to do this

2:50:11 ↗ but but the the fact is that members of

2:50:15 ↗ the commission frequently get asked by

2:50:17 ↗ members of the public did you approve

2:50:19 ↗ that or you know I mean it's just fact

2:50:22 ↗ it's one of the things that goes along

2:50:23 ↗ with the job and uh

2:50:26 ↗ the overwhelming majority of the

2:50:28 ↗ projects that we've done as far as I'm

2:50:29 ↗ concerned are are fine are great but

2:50:32 ↗ every now and then there's one that

2:50:34 ↗ seems to me to be different in the color

2:50:36 ↗ the color palette that's used in the

2:50:38 ↗ building or some of the materials or

2:50:40 ↗ whatever and I'm I'm not sure how that

2:50:43 ↗ happens so this is a general thing I'm

2:50:46 ↗ not saying it's going to happen here but

2:50:48 ↗ I do agree that that that it would be

2:50:51 ↗ nice if there were a way of informing

2:50:53 ↗ the public and the development

2:50:55 ↗ Commission of changes that were agreed

2:50:58 ↗ on by the staff by the city and the

2:51:00 ↗ applicant that are going to result in

2:51:02 ↗ changes in the appearance or the traffic

2:51:04 ↗ flow or you know whatever they are so

2:51:06 ↗ we'll know and and not only will we know

2:51:09 ↗ but we'll know in the future uh when we

2:51:12 ↗ have issues like this that come up that

2:51:13 ↗ this is the way they're addressed or how

2:51:15 ↗ they've been addressed in the past may I

2:51:17 ↗ speak to that sure

2:51:18 ↗ um so I was looking in the staff report

2:51:22 ↗ there's some language that we often have

2:51:24 ↗ used in the urban Villages and I think

2:51:26 ↗ it may actually be somewhere in the

2:51:27 ↗ central Issaquah plan which is why we

2:51:29 ↗ didn't put in the staff report and maybe

2:51:32 ↗ Jerry will um will have a Vulcan mind

2:51:34 ↗ meld and he'll find it for me

2:51:37 ↗ um

2:51:38 ↗ generally speaking the way we approach

2:51:40 ↗ it is that the you know you've seen

2:51:43 ↗ certain plans and drawings and we

2:51:45 ↗ recognize that this is a more conceptual

2:51:47 ↗ level and things are going to continue

2:51:49 ↗ to evolve there's a certain uh

2:51:53 ↗ envelope that's been created through

2:51:56 ↗ this review of of expectation

2:52:00 ↗ um and uh

2:52:02 ↗ if things stay within that sort of

2:52:04 ↗ Envelope as they evolve and refine and

2:52:07 ↗ go through construction then

2:52:10 ↗ it's it's not considered a modification

2:52:13 ↗ because we're pursuing that so if maybe

2:52:16 ↗ to take Connie's example

2:52:19 ↗ um and I'm getting more informal I'm now

2:52:21 ↗ calling her Connie instead of Miss Marsh

2:52:24 ↗ uh that uh

2:52:27 ↗ for instance right now the the Issaquah

2:52:30 ↗ standard design standards talk about

2:52:32 ↗ multi-light Windows they're showing

2:52:34 ↗ multi-light Windows

2:52:36 ↗ um let's say half the windows became not

2:52:39 ↗ multi-light windows then you know and

2:52:42 ↗ and this has come up you're talking

2:52:45 ↗ about a level of detail that might be a

2:52:47 ↗ point at which we need to say the

2:52:48 ↗ applicant we feel like you're beginning

2:52:50 ↗ to get to the edge of that envelope and

2:52:53 ↗ um we need to have a conversation about

2:52:55 ↗ it

2:52:56 ↗ um if there was

2:52:58 ↗ I'm trying to think of something well

2:53:01 ↗ something egregious I mean it's a

2:53:03 ↗ requirement if the park went away we'd

2:53:06 ↗ be back here having a conversation with

2:53:07 ↗ you so you know there's there's a

2:53:10 ↗ certain level of uh of um degrees of

2:53:14 ↗ change it is a judgment call

2:53:16 ↗ um our intent is to use the not only the

2:53:19 ↗ staff report and the memo but the

2:53:21 ↗ conversations that we've had we've heard

2:53:24 ↗ with the public and with the commission

2:53:26 ↗ to sort of establish that envelope if

2:53:29 ↗ something isn't really addressed in the

2:53:30 ↗ staff report the commission's never

2:53:32 ↗ really commented on it we've we feel

2:53:34 ↗ like that's probably a lower priority

2:53:36 ↗ and that we're just working that out

2:53:38 ↗ through the standards that are in the

2:53:41 ↗ plan if it's something that you have

2:53:43 ↗ spent a lot of time talking about the

2:53:44 ↗ public has raised concerns about or

2:53:48 ↗ um it's inconsistent with the plan then

2:53:50 ↗ we may very well be back here having a

2:53:52 ↗ conversation okay

2:53:53 ↗ I I I would just observe that the the

2:53:57 ↗ objective as far as I'm concerned is to

2:53:59 ↗ give the public to give everybody but

2:54:01 ↗ particularly the residents the taxpayers

2:54:03 ↗ as much visibility as and have the

2:54:06 ↗ process be as transparent as possible

2:54:09 ↗ now the definition of as possible

2:54:11 ↗ obviously we're talking about City staff

2:54:13 ↗ time and you know new websites and

2:54:16 ↗ things like that but

2:54:19 ↗ if we're going to have the minimum

2:54:21 ↗ degree of cynicism frankly and the

2:54:26 ↗ maximum degree of faith in the process

2:54:28 ↗ that's going to come about by

2:54:30 ↗ transparency and And Timely awareness of

2:54:34 ↗ changes and proposals and so on and

2:54:36 ↗ we're doing a good job of that but I

2:54:38 ↗ just I just think we need to constantly

2:54:40 ↗ be aware of making sure that when

2:54:43 ↗ there's a change people understand

2:54:45 ↗ why and uh you know what the

2:54:49 ↗ ramifications are Mr chairman

2:54:52 ↗ Mr chairman

2:54:53 ↗ you know I just had an epiphany I guess

2:54:56 ↗ that the new process

2:54:58 ↗ as best I can tell doesn't include some

2:55:01 ↗ of the specificity that we've been used

2:55:03 ↗ to in the past right the consequence of

2:55:05 ↗ that is that we've created an

2:55:07 ↗ environment where there that we can

2:55:09 ↗ express our views and opinions and ideas

2:55:11 ↗ but we're really giving a end end

2:55:14 ↗ product

2:55:16 ↗ uh specification that says in general we

2:55:18 ↗ want it to look like this and so as the

2:55:21 ↗ applicant listens to the public and the

2:55:23 ↗ Commissioners and people that have that

2:55:24 ↗ input there's a trust that starts

2:55:27 ↗ getting developed that has to be

2:55:29 ↗ Redeemed by the applicant and the

2:55:30 ↗ process will only be as valuable as the

2:55:34 ↗ Redemption of that trust you know so as

2:55:36 ↗ you heard the comments and understand

2:55:37 ↗ the concerns you can make this really

2:55:40 ↗ great or you can make it really awful

2:55:43 ↗ and so that's just an exhortation that I

2:55:45 ↗ I would offer to to you folks that as it

2:55:49 ↗ proceeds if it does that you understand

2:55:52 ↗ there's a lot at stake here you know I

2:55:54 ↗ think the the process is is a is a good

2:55:57 ↗ one it requires a knowledgeable group of

2:56:00 ↗ people getting together and saying

2:56:02 ↗ here's our best thoughts here's what we

2:56:03 ↗ want and then having you put that

2:56:05 ↗ together and when we come back here in

2:56:08 ↗ 20 years if it's still here and if it's

2:56:09 ↗ done we say wow we got it that was that

2:56:12 ↗ was really good thing so I I think that

2:56:14 ↗ I think that whole notion of lack of

2:56:17 ↗ specificity is making all of us a little

2:56:19 ↗ nervous because each one of us have a

2:56:21 ↗ certain thing that would like to really

2:56:23 ↗ get wired in and say man I'd really like

2:56:24 ↗ to see 1.5 parking spots for whatever do

2:56:28 ↗ I don't care what the number is or uh

2:56:30 ↗ anyway so I sorry thank you commissioner

2:56:32 ↗ I I so I'm going to continue here and

2:56:35 ↗ I'm just going to say that we brought

2:56:37 ↗ this up at the last meeting as far as

2:56:38 ↗ the applicant and you being the first

2:56:40 ↗ out of the box I used to jump out of

2:56:42 ↗ airplanes in the military and you start

2:56:45 ↗ doing training at 1200 feet and then at

2:56:48 ↗ in daylight and you end up going out at

2:56:49 ↗ 800 feet at night and the first guy in

2:56:53 ↗ the stick the first guy out the door is

2:56:55 ↗ either owes the jump Master money or you

2:56:58 ↗ know is just really asked for it you're

2:57:02 ↗ going to be the first out of the door on

2:57:04 ↗ a night jump with this so the the

2:57:07 ↗ expectation is

2:57:09 ↗ that the system the CIP the application

2:57:13 ↗ the city staff is going to result in a

2:57:16 ↗ net Improvement in the city I mean

2:57:18 ↗ that's that's the ultimate goal so

2:57:21 ↗ you're you're really you know set the

2:57:24 ↗ standard on this and the expectation is

2:57:27 ↗ that it's going to be it's going to be a

2:57:29 ↗ net Edition it's going to address it's

2:57:31 ↗ going to mitigate extant flooding

2:57:33 ↗ problems it's going to make them better

2:57:35 ↗ not worse the traffic coming make a left

2:57:38 ↗ turn right now on 7th Avenue onto Gilman

2:57:41 ↗ I don't go there literally I don't go

2:57:43 ↗ there I never go there I've had to go in

2:57:46 ↗ and get a lunch while I'm waiting for

2:57:48 ↗ the opportunity to get out on Gilman

2:57:51 ↗ so uh I I do take a different opinion on

2:57:56 ↗ the walls behind the benches

2:57:59 ↗ uh it's ironic that on the very first

2:58:02 ↗ application for a project in the central

2:58:05 ↗ Issaquah plan as much work is going to

2:58:07 ↗ that I I would like to see a variance uh

2:58:11 ↗ I just don't

2:58:13 ↗ see the benefit of other than compliance

2:58:17 ↗ with the plan

2:58:19 ↗ and that's important and I understand

2:58:21 ↗ that this is precedent setting as I just

2:58:24 ↗ got through saying but I

2:58:26 ↗ I just uh I I don't to me they're ugly

2:58:29 ↗ and I don't see a functional purpose for

2:58:33 ↗ them other than compliance with the plan

2:58:35 ↗ and

2:58:39 ↗ I I don't I'm not really comfortable

2:58:41 ↗ saying they ought to be done away with I

2:58:44 ↗ maybe maybe I don't know if you've

2:58:46 ↗ considered things like heavy grills that

2:58:48 ↗ are open that can still have Vines

2:58:50 ↗ growing up on them that just aren't

2:58:51 ↗ concrete if we're going to have to have

2:58:53 ↗ something there I don't know if that is

2:58:55 ↗ could be code compliant but the idea of

2:58:58 ↗ gray cement walls every however what the

2:59:02 ↗ feet is the distances between them to me

2:59:05 ↗ hinders appreciation of the Landscaping

2:59:09 ↗ the architecture the swales and

2:59:12 ↗ everything from the street side

2:59:14 ↗ and I don't get the benefit of them

2:59:17 ↗ other than compliance so I'd really like

2:59:19 ↗ to see

2:59:21 ↗ perhaps some negotiation there if it has

2:59:23 ↗ to if it has to result in uh you know a

2:59:26 ↗ request for variance then then maybe

2:59:28 ↗ that's the way we do it but it really is

2:59:30 ↗ a significant issue to me because it's

2:59:32 ↗ right there

2:59:33 ↗ and I think we need to be flexible

2:59:37 ↗ um

2:59:39 ↗ the interpretive signs if for I think

2:59:42 ↗ that's a great idea I would suggest you

2:59:43 ↗ go to the Hatchery and go into the uh

2:59:46 ↗ the native vegetation is that's

2:59:48 ↗ maintained by the Issaquah Garden Club

2:59:50 ↗ uh they have signs there and I I expect

2:59:52 ↗ you to be using native vegetation in the

2:59:55 ↗ in the riparian areas uh it would be

2:59:58 ↗ great for people to go by there and for

3:00:00 ↗ them to understand this is stuff you can

3:00:01 ↗ plant in your property that doesn't need

3:00:03 ↗ fertilizer it doesn't need watering and

3:00:06 ↗ so on and so forth but I would counsel

3:00:08 ↗ it if you're going to put any kind of

3:00:09 ↗ thing like that in there they got to be

3:00:11 ↗ Vandal Proof

3:00:12 ↗ uh it we don't have a problem with that

3:00:14 ↗ at the Hatchery but if they're down

3:00:16 ↗ there they're going to end up in the

3:00:18 ↗ creek if they're not you know so then

3:00:21 ↗ you get into a cost of of individual

3:00:24 ↗ signs but but there's no percentage in

3:00:26 ↗ putting them in if they're not going to

3:00:29 ↗ stay there and resist

3:00:31 ↗ people

3:00:32 ↗ trying to get rid of them for fun

3:00:35 ↗ I think it's very important for the city

3:00:38 ↗ to come to an agreement with the police

3:00:40 ↗ department about consistency I think

3:00:43 ↗ that that is an issue but we can't in my

3:00:46 ↗ opinion you can't tell pedestrians when

3:00:49 ↗ you cross this street you can

3:00:52 ↗ protect yourself by hitting the Flasher

3:00:55 ↗ but when you cross this street you're on

3:00:57 ↗ your own

3:00:58 ↗ and we not only it's not only a

3:01:00 ↗ conditioning of the pedestrians it's

3:01:02 ↗ conditioning of the drivers so I I do

3:01:05 ↗ think there needs to be and if it

3:01:06 ↗ results in the flashers coming out of

3:01:08 ↗ the Newport behind the Hatchery fine but

3:01:12 ↗ but I I understand now that why they're

3:01:15 ↗ hesitant about that and it obviously

3:01:17 ↗ doesn't have to be every intersection

3:01:19 ↗ but at Major places like that where

3:01:20 ↗ we're encouraging people to cross the

3:01:22 ↗ street at other than an intersection

3:01:26 ↗ uh

3:01:27 ↗ it to me it seems to be an obvious need

3:01:29 ↗ for some kind of warning to both drivers

3:01:32 ↗ and the pedestrians that they're

3:01:35 ↗ Crossing at an area where there has not

3:01:37 ↗ been a Crossing before

3:01:39 ↗ um

3:01:43 ↗ the the the the the flood situation I I

3:01:47 ↗ understand I absolutely believe and I've

3:01:49 ↗ had conversations with members of the

3:01:51 ↗ rivers and stream board about this just

3:01:53 ↗ anecdotally about the the studies and so

3:01:55 ↗ on I absolutely understand the work

3:01:57 ↗ that's gone into that I have faith in

3:01:59 ↗ this

3:02:00 ↗ uh but the one thing that I got to be

3:02:04 ↗ really clear about is the observation

3:02:07 ↗ that was made earlier on by a number of

3:02:09 ↗ people that what we don't want what none

3:02:12 ↗ of us want is to have uh Como and Cairo

3:02:16 ↗ and King and Seattle Times out here

3:02:18 ↗ going brand new building in Issaquah and

3:02:21 ↗ the people can't get in or out

3:02:23 ↗ so uh access to even if it's I don't

3:02:28 ↗ know what one one per building or

3:02:29 ↗ multiple potential but some way to get

3:02:32 ↗ in and out of the building in the event

3:02:34 ↗ of a an overflow situation with the

3:02:37 ↗ Swale which I believe will address most

3:02:39 ↗ of the issues most of the time but we

3:02:43 ↗ don't we don't want Issaquah to get

3:02:44 ↗ tagged with that and then it comes into

3:02:46 ↗ how did that happen I think that's an

3:02:48 ↗ absolutely legitimate point and it may

3:02:50 ↗ be

3:02:51 ↗ that you've already addressed that I

3:02:54 ↗ haven't seen that and I think maybe the

3:02:56 ↗ questions that have come up so far have

3:02:58 ↗ been because it hasn't been made really

3:02:59 ↗ clear how in fact people can get out of

3:03:02 ↗ the building

3:03:03 ↗ uh if if there's water everywhere

3:03:06 ↗ and that's going to happen

3:03:09 ↗ uh lastly I I'll just

3:03:14 ↗ restate that this is really a matter of

3:03:17 ↗ faith for all of us I mean the citizens

3:03:20 ↗ of Issaquah have faith that the city

3:03:23 ↗ staff and the applicant are going to

3:03:25 ↗ come up with something that's going to

3:03:27 ↗ be a net addition to the city and it's

3:03:30 ↗ going to

3:03:31 ↗ not have a negative impact on their

3:03:34 ↗ lives whether it's traffic or

3:03:36 ↗ water movement or herbicides in the

3:03:39 ↗ creek or whatever so so far it seems to

3:03:43 ↗ me that this project is going is going

3:03:45 ↗ to be a net addition to the city and

3:03:47 ↗ it's a good way to start the CIP so

3:03:50 ↗ with that

3:03:52 ↗ um

3:03:53 ↗ we will now I I suggest and this is

3:03:57 ↗ again I get keep using this excuse

3:03:59 ↗ rather than reading the entire checklist

3:04:02 ↗ what I'd what I'd like to do is just

3:04:04 ↗ read the subject

3:04:06 ↗ of the checklist and the way this is

3:04:08 ↗ done for those of you who haven't done

3:04:09 ↗ it before with what they used to call

3:04:11 ↗ the Green Sheet you just

3:04:14 ↗ State your opinion whether when I say

3:04:16 ↗ the for example the first one is the

3:04:18 ↗ intent of the circulation development

3:04:20 ↗ chapter is to create a comprehensive

3:04:22 ↗ highly interconnected circulation

3:04:24 ↗ facility Network and then I'm not going

3:04:27 ↗ to read the rest of the stuff we've

3:04:28 ↗ already gone over this so if you agree

3:04:30 ↗ uh then you'll say acceptable

3:04:34 ↗ or not applicable and this is we'll just

3:04:37 ↗ do this as we do when we're voting on

3:04:39 ↗ emotion and say all in favor say aye or

3:04:41 ↗ you know all if you think it's

3:04:43 ↗ successful say yes and we'll mark that

3:04:45 ↗ down if you have a suggested condition

3:04:49 ↗ this is where we do it when we do

3:04:51 ↗ through this and when we're completing

3:04:52 ↗ when we have completed that this review

3:04:55 ↗ uh then we will decide on whether or not

3:04:59 ↗ we're going to make the Motions the two

3:05:01 ↗ motions that we're going to need to do

3:05:03 ↗ it's all right we're good okay all right

3:05:06 ↗ so the first one is uh 6.0 circulation

3:05:09 ↗ development uh the intent of the

3:05:11 ↗ circulation development chapter is to

3:05:12 ↗ create a comprehensive highly

3:05:14 ↗ interconnected circulation facility with

3:05:17 ↗ the three criteria there

3:05:19 ↗ are we do we believe that this is this

3:05:21 ↗ application is acceptable uh in that

3:05:24 ↗ degree

3:05:25 ↗ yes right commissioner commissioner okay

3:05:28 ↗ if you go ahead and check it I don't

3:05:30 ↗ know if we're going to collect these or

3:05:31 ↗ what or if this is just for our benefit

3:05:33 ↗ well I think what will the staff will

3:05:35 ↗ fill it out and that way we'll have one

3:05:37 ↗ to put in the file okay uh 12.0 is

3:05:41 ↗ circulation design the intent of the

3:05:43 ↗ circulation design chapter is to create

3:05:44 ↗ a comprehensive circulation facility

3:05:47 ↗ Network

3:05:48 ↗ have we've done that so the

3:05:52 ↗ I guess this is the place where the

3:05:55 ↗ issues raised and concerns I expressed

3:05:57 ↗ about the 7th Avenue Northwest and

3:06:00 ↗ ensuring I'll probably suggest a

3:06:02 ↗ condition here to something to the

3:06:05 ↗ effect that we'll assess

3:06:07 ↗ the need for the addition of traffic

3:06:10 ↗ calming or controls something to that

3:06:12 ↗ effect I'll I'll enter a condition when

3:06:14 ↗ we come back to the motion okay

3:06:18 ↗ okay

3:06:20 ↗ 7.0 is community space development the

3:06:22 ↗ intent of the community space

3:06:23 ↗ development chapter is to establish

3:06:25 ↗ standards and requirements for the

3:06:27 ↗ provisions of community spaces that will

3:06:29 ↗ inspire an animated and connected Urban

3:06:32 ↗ space

3:06:35 ↗ it's acceptable acceptable to me too all

3:06:38 ↗ right

3:06:41 ↗ 13.0 the intent of the community space

3:06:44 ↗ design chapter is to establish standards

3:06:46 ↗ for the provisions of community spaces

3:06:48 ↗ that will inspire and animated and

3:06:50 ↗ connect a connected urban community

3:06:52 ↗ where and building wait is this am I is

3:06:57 ↗ this a repeat that's kind of sound okay

3:07:00 ↗ oh ones to inspire

3:07:04 ↗ oh yeah all right to inspire an animated

3:07:07 ↗ and connected urban community

3:07:09 ↗ acceptable acceptable

3:07:13 ↗ commissioner right

3:07:15 ↗ 9.0 the intent of the sign chapter is to

3:07:17 ↗ establish standards for the regulation

3:07:19 ↗ of design placement size renovation and

3:07:21 ↗ proper maintenance of all exterior signs

3:07:23 ↗ and science structures within the

3:07:25 ↗ central Issaquah area

3:07:27 ↗ I think you skipped a page I did uh

3:07:30 ↗ number eight and fifteen oh stuck

3:07:33 ↗ together I'm sorry uh 8.0 parking

3:07:35 ↗ development the intent of the parking

3:07:36 ↗ development chapter is to establish

3:07:38 ↗ standards for the design and

3:07:39 ↗ configuration of parking facilities

3:07:41 ↗ based on Urban rather than Suburban

3:07:43 ↗ densities and needs that encourage the

3:07:46 ↗ use of parking garages rather than

3:07:47 ↗ surface parking and support a pedestrian

3:07:49 ↗ friendly and attractive Urban Design

3:07:52 ↗ it's acceptable acceptable okay

3:07:55 ↗ parking design

3:07:56 ↗ the intent of the parking design

3:07:58 ↗ chapters to establish parking standards

3:08:00 ↗ based on Urban rather than Suburban

3:08:02 ↗ densities that supported pedestrian

3:08:03 ↗ friendly small-scale mixed-use Urban

3:08:06 ↗ environment and contribute to the public

3:08:08 ↗ realm acceptable acceptable okay now we

3:08:12 ↗ go to science

3:08:13 ↗ and I already read it so acceptable

3:08:15 ↗ acceptable

3:08:19 ↗ all right uh 10.0 landscape development

3:08:21 ↗ the intent of landscape development

3:08:23 ↗ chapter is to establish standards for

3:08:25 ↗ landscaping and trees with Central

3:08:26 ↗ Issaquah that draw nature into this

3:08:28 ↗ developing urban community and in green

3:08:31 ↗ elements to soften the urban form that

3:08:33 ↗ provides opportunities for transitions

3:08:35 ↗ from the natural edges into the built

3:08:37 ↗ environment and ensures a livable

3:08:39 ↗ verdant attractive public realm that

3:08:41 ↗ restores both nature and human activity

3:08:43 ↗ and contributes to the success of the

3:08:45 ↗ establishment of the green necklace it's

3:08:47 ↗ acceptable acceptable

3:08:49 ↗ landscape design the antenna of the

3:08:52 ↗ landscape design chapter is to establish

3:08:53 ↗ standards for the design of landscaping

3:08:55 ↗ and trees within Central Issaquah

3:08:58 ↗ it's acceptable

3:09:01 ↗ okay

3:09:04 ↗ 11.0 site design the intent of the site

3:09:07 ↗ design chapter is to establish site

3:09:08 ↗ design standards that Orient development

3:09:10 ↗ so that it defines the public realm

3:09:12 ↗ reacts to and acknowledges the natural

3:09:15 ↗ environment and provides the production

3:09:17 ↗ and improves The Pedestrian experience

3:09:19 ↗ acceptable acceptable okay

3:09:23 ↗ uh 14.0 buildings the intent of the

3:09:27 ↗ building design chapter is to establish

3:09:29 ↗ building design standards that create a

3:09:31 ↗ vibrant pedestrian friendly built

3:09:34 ↗ environment through buildings designed

3:09:36 ↗ to frame and engage

3:09:38 ↗ the public Realm

3:09:40 ↗ um that's there was a staff recommended

3:09:43 ↗ additional condition on just to continue

3:09:46 ↗ to emphasize the need for attention to

3:09:50 ↗ the details of the building facades and

3:09:52 ↗ the modulation Etc just so and I think

3:09:55 ↗ it's crafted in a way that essentially

3:09:57 ↗ does that it continues to encourage work

3:10:00 ↗ there so

3:10:01 ↗ not suggesting that you're not on the

3:10:03 ↗ right track I think what we saw tonight

3:10:05 ↗ was a responsive to what we said last

3:10:06 ↗ time but I I'll suggest uh condition

3:10:09 ↗ during the motion right

3:10:13 ↗ and dare I say it last page yes uh 17.0

3:10:18 ↗ is lighting the intent of the lighting

3:10:20 ↗ design chapter is to establish a

3:10:22 ↗ hierarchy of lighting designs and

3:10:23 ↗ illumination levels that provide an

3:10:25 ↗ attractive visual element that supports

3:10:27 ↗ and enhances this developing Urban

3:10:29 ↗ environment while addressing the Safety

3:10:31 ↗ and Security of both pedestrian and

3:10:33 ↗ vehicular traffic Beyond daylight hours

3:10:35 ↗ we didn't get a lot of we didn't receive

3:10:37 ↗ a lot of information on lighting design

3:10:39 ↗ here so I don't know that I can really

3:10:40 ↗ comment

3:10:42 ↗ um

3:10:43 ↗ part of the permitting process yeah

3:10:45 ↗ they'll need to go through I I agree

3:10:48 ↗ with commissioner Brennan uh what is not

3:10:51 ↗ in here and I believe it came up in the

3:10:54 ↗ uh first meeting but uh there is an

3:10:57 ↗ impact to be avoided on the creek the

3:11:01 ↗ lighting cannot uh

3:11:04 ↗ flood or overflow in into the Creek area

3:11:08 ↗ again because of the migratory nature of

3:11:10 ↗ the Enviro the critters that live in the

3:11:13 ↗ creek this is the migrating salmon so

3:11:15 ↗ that I'm sure you're aware of that but

3:11:18 ↗ that's another thing it needs to be

3:11:19 ↗ taken into the design and the placement

3:11:21 ↗ of the lighting

3:11:22 ↗ without looking I'm

3:11:24 ↗ virtually certain that that is what the

3:11:27 ↗ standards say yeah okay okay so

3:11:32 ↗ um

3:11:33 ↗ so can I real quick Steph mentioned that

3:11:35 ↗ during the discussion you had in

3:11:37 ↗ response to the discussion generated

3:11:39 ↗ some additional suggested condition

3:11:42 ↗ language that you wanted us to think

3:11:44 ↗ about

3:11:44 ↗ so one option would be to put it up on

3:11:48 ↗ the document camera so that everyone

3:11:49 ↗ could see it yes yes

3:12:03 ↗ so there are three conditions or two new

3:12:06 ↗ conditions and an edit so I'm I'm just

3:12:09 ↗ going to read these in case my

3:12:10 ↗ handwriting isn't clear during

3:12:13 ↗ construction permit review the city and

3:12:15 ↗ applicant will work to identify elements

3:12:17 ↗ of a public education

3:12:20 ↗ plan plan

3:12:23 ↗ related to potential flooding the

3:12:25 ↗ education plan will include signs in the

3:12:28 ↗ garage and legal notice to ensure that

3:12:30 ↗ future owners of the property are aware

3:12:32 ↗ of the site characteristics

3:12:34 ↗ other possible components might include

3:12:36 ↗ information provided to Residents during

3:12:39 ↗ Leasing and residents

3:12:43 ↗ can I a quick question on that denoted a

3:12:46 ↗ legal notice

3:12:48 ↗ to ensure that future owners this is

3:12:51 ↗ least housing or

3:12:53 ↗ condominium you're talking about owning

3:12:55 ↗ owner of the property this would be the

3:12:57 ↗ property this would ride with the land

3:12:59 ↗ in the building okay okay that makes

3:13:01 ↗ sense I I thought this was targeting the

3:13:03 ↗ ownership so the note the noticing and

3:13:05 ↗ education is for residents and then the

3:13:08 ↗ the more legal notice would be ride with

3:13:12 ↗ the property okay that makes sense thank

3:13:13 ↗ you

3:13:15 ↗ this is fine with me but uh it seems to

3:13:19 ↗ me again I'm the guy that can't find the

3:13:21 ↗ on button on my home computer so I'm

3:13:24 ↗ absolutely but it seems to me that one

3:13:28 ↗ one way of addressing this would be to

3:13:29 ↗ have uh the email addresses of this

3:13:34 ↗ property and other properties that come

3:13:36 ↗ into the picture and eventually I

3:13:37 ↗ suppose everybody in Issaquah so that

3:13:39 ↗ but so that they could be specifically

3:13:41 ↗ notified that there are flood conditions

3:13:44 ↗ and you need to get out now and if

3:13:46 ↗ they're not there they don't read their

3:13:47 ↗ email or whatever whether it's a Twitter

3:13:49 ↗ alert or something some kind of

3:13:50 ↗ technology that is basically Cutting

3:13:54 ↗ Edge I don't know of any other city that

3:13:56 ↗ does that but I also don't know any

3:13:58 ↗ reason why it couldn't be done

3:13:59 ↗ especially with a new project like this

3:14:02 ↗ where it's a finite number of residents

3:14:04 ↗ uh in a in a hazard area so why not see

3:14:08 ↗ if we can develop a system to notify

3:14:10 ↗ people you know there's a flood coming

3:14:12 ↗ and you need to get out and and

3:14:15 ↗ so again I just took a shot at this but

3:14:18 ↗ the intent of the way I wrote it was to

3:14:22 ↗ include those options but not to specify

3:14:24 ↗ them because I don't I no no I'm not I'm

3:14:28 ↗ not hoping that this needs to be a

3:14:30 ↗ requirement for it in our information

3:14:32 ↗ I'm just saying that the city I think

3:14:34 ↗ the city has an opportunity using uh

3:14:37 ↗ this project to establish a Cutting Edge

3:14:41 ↗ alert system based on internet alerts to

3:14:45 ↗ specific addresses okay yeah

3:14:49 ↗ all right

3:14:51 ↗ um so the next new condition

3:14:55 ↗ is

3:14:56 ↗ um

3:14:57 ↗ during the construction of building C

3:14:59 ↗ its Courtyard

3:15:01 ↗ uh will be I left the word be out be

3:15:04 ↗ evaluated by staff and the applicant to

3:15:06 ↗ determine if a secondary minor walkway

3:15:08 ↗ is warranted if appropriate the walkway

3:15:11 ↗ will be low impact such as stepping

3:15:14 ↗ stones

3:15:16 ↗ that works yeah I think that doesn't

3:15:18 ↗ mean that gets it

3:15:19 ↗ and then what I did

3:15:22 ↗ um I sacrificed my memo and tore it up

3:15:24 ↗ to edit um condition

3:15:28 ↗ over a little bit

3:15:31 ↗ um condition eight

3:15:33 ↗ um

3:15:39 ↗ so the edits were um

3:15:43 ↗ in let's see

3:15:47 ↗ this one nope

3:15:48 ↗ um so the first sentence is unchanged

3:15:53 ↗ and then

3:15:55 ↗ um

3:15:56 ↗ so I think it's in the second sentence

3:15:58 ↗ if the city identifies that there

3:15:59 ↗ appears to be offside impacts due to low

3:16:02 ↗ on-site parking usage the city May

3:16:04 ↗ request that the property owner will

3:16:06 ↗ conduct a paid parking survey during a

3:16:09 ↗ peak period acceptable to the director

3:16:11 ↗ to ascertain and confirm that paid

3:16:14 ↗ parking is being rented at a reasonable

3:16:16 ↗ minimum rate based on resident car

3:16:20 ↗ ownership vacancy rates Etc if rental

3:16:23 ↗ rates of paid parking do not achieve a

3:16:26 ↗ reasonable

3:16:29 ↗ rate usage rate of the paid parking

3:16:32 ↗ stalls the property owner must adjust

3:16:34 ↗ the rental charged monthly until such

3:16:36 ↗ time as the reasonable use rate is

3:16:39 ↗ achieved the parking survey must be

3:16:41 ↗ submitted within two weeks Etc as it's

3:16:43 ↗ written so basically in all the the

3:16:47 ↗ intent on the Fly was

3:16:51 ↗ that in that first sentence that we

3:16:54 ↗ identify some of the factors that would

3:16:56 ↗ establish a reasonable uh use rate and

3:16:59 ↗ then it's just that becomes a term

3:17:01 ↗ that's referred to in the rest of the

3:17:03 ↗ condition

3:17:08 ↗ yeah

3:17:10 ↗ um yes

3:17:15 ↗ so I I guess my question identify

3:17:18 ↗ Yourself by name and your business

3:17:19 ↗ address okay Brad Reisinger Lennar

3:17:21 ↗ multi-family communities

3:17:23 ↗ 1325 Fourth Avenue Suite 1700 Seattle 98

3:17:27 ↗ 101.

3:17:29 ↗ um I just want to make sure on this one

3:17:30 ↗ because this everything else is as the

3:17:33 ↗ course of the project

3:17:35 ↗ and two certificate of occupancy this

3:17:38 ↗ one could be open-ended so as far as how

3:17:41 ↗ is that then recorded does it go on to

3:17:43 ↗ title

3:17:44 ↗ is a condition of the property

3:17:47 ↗ probably a condition of the building

3:17:49 ↗ permit

3:17:52 ↗ but for what's the duration of it so

3:17:55 ↗ this wouldn't happen until after

3:17:57 ↗ certificate of occupancy

3:17:59 ↗ so the building permit is complete the

3:18:01 ↗ building the the building the Project's

3:18:03 ↗ complete so does this go on for five

3:18:05 ↗ years 10 years 20 years

3:18:08 ↗ well it only is triggered if if there is

3:18:11 ↗ a perceived impact right

3:18:16 ↗ in perpetuity for the life of the

3:18:18 ↗ building right okay

3:18:20 ↗ that's what it says okay so what sorry

3:18:24 ↗ if you're going to speak we need to come

3:18:25 ↗ to the mic and identify yourself please

3:18:28 ↗ sorry to start extemporaneously speaking

3:18:31 ↗ from the audience my name my name is

3:18:32 ↗ Rich Hill and I'm counsel for the

3:18:34 ↗ applicant uh and so the way I read this

3:18:37 ↗ condition is that it would be it would

3:18:40 ↗ be a condition of the permit so that it

3:18:42 ↗ would be in the city's files it would be

3:18:44 ↗ enforceable by the city for the life of

3:18:46 ↗ the project if the city parking folks or

3:18:50 ↗ the city building department found that

3:18:52 ↗ a bunch of folks from the project

3:18:54 ↗ were parking and Safeway

3:18:56 ↗ that would give a motivation and a

3:18:58 ↗ requirement to do this paid parking

3:19:00 ↗ survey

3:19:01 ↗ and then the the following issues would

3:19:05 ↗ be addressed

3:19:06 ↗ um you know as a

3:19:08 ↗ as a an attorney for property owners

3:19:10 ↗ having the city to determine parking

3:19:12 ↗ rates is very Troublesome uh in in many

3:19:16 ↗ ways but I do understand the intent of

3:19:18 ↗ this particular permit and I would only

3:19:21 ↗ ask that if the commission feels that

3:19:24 ↗ this is the concept of this condition is

3:19:27 ↗ appropriate that the applicant have an

3:19:29 ↗ opportunity to work with staff to see if

3:19:31 ↗ there's a way to achieve that concept

3:19:33 ↗ that doesn't involve the city

3:19:35 ↗ determining parking rates

3:19:38 ↗ so I just to clarify

3:19:41 ↗ we're we're not at we're not asking to

3:19:45 ↗ set the parking rate

3:19:48 ↗ so there is a re so and

3:19:51 ↗ maybe there's some confusion in the

3:19:52 ↗ language so that's why we have these

3:19:54 ↗ conversations

3:19:56 ↗ um the reasonable rate is not the paid

3:19:59 ↗ rate it's the rate of usage of the

3:20:02 ↗ parking

3:20:03 ↗ so

3:20:05 ↗ you the the prop not you but unless

3:20:08 ↗ you're the property owner

3:20:09 ↗ um the property owner would get to

3:20:12 ↗ decide what they're charging for parking

3:20:14 ↗ as long as it does not create a negative

3:20:17 ↗ off-site parking impact

3:20:20 ↗ so the city is not interested in

3:20:21 ↗ establishing what that rental fee is

3:20:25 ↗ as long as it um results in effective

3:20:30 ↗ use of the parking

3:20:36 ↗ um the concern is that the way it's

3:20:38 ↗ drafted the city is determining the rate

3:20:41 ↗ because the city is requiring would

3:20:43 ↗ require the rate to be reduced the

3:20:45 ↗ parking rate to be reduced

3:20:47 ↗ if these conditions weren't met and what

3:20:50 ↗ I think might we might be able to work

3:20:52 ↗ out with staff or the commission if the

3:20:54 ↗ commission is interested is to say this

3:20:56 ↗ that the property owner would have an

3:20:58 ↗ obligation to find a mechanism to make

3:21:01 ↗ sure that there was an overflow parking

3:21:03 ↗ in Safeway in the Safeway parking lot

3:21:06 ↗ and it may involve reducing the rank

3:21:09 ↗ reducing the parking rate but it should

3:21:11 ↗ be something that the property owner

3:21:13 ↗ should be able to work out there's

3:21:15 ↗ probably other Alternatives such as you

3:21:17 ↗ know providing incentives to some of the

3:21:19 ↗ tenants so you know some for parking

3:21:23 ↗ encouraging you know mass transit you

3:21:26 ↗ know use of multimodal uh Vehicles

3:21:28 ↗ rather than encouraging people to park

3:21:30 ↗ in the garage because basically what

3:21:31 ↗ this is doing this condition is

3:21:34 ↗ encouraging tenants to park in the

3:21:36 ↗ garage rather than give up cars and so

3:21:38 ↗ there should be opportunities to work

3:21:40 ↗ out

3:21:41 ↗ opportunities for tenants to take the

3:21:43 ↗ bus and not own a car so that sort of

3:21:45 ↗ thing

3:21:46 ↗ so uh

3:21:48 ↗ completely concur with that I guess what

3:21:50 ↗ I would suggest

3:21:52 ↗ um then is that and I'll write it on

3:21:55 ↗ here if we think

3:21:57 ↗ if we think that this is uh

3:21:59 ↗ appropriate edit

3:22:02 ↗ because I don't have a pointer

3:22:05 ↗ um

3:22:06 ↗ where's your laser pointer when I need

3:22:08 ↗ it that the rental uh

3:22:11 ↗ the property owner must adjust the

3:22:14 ↗ rental charged

3:22:16 ↗ or other methods

3:22:19 ↗ okay

3:22:24 ↗ any concerns with the commission if I

3:22:26 ↗ make those edits

3:22:27 ↗ uh well I

3:22:29 ↗ speaking for myself I I'd like to get a

3:22:32 ↗ comprehensive review I I'm getting

3:22:34 ↗ frankly getting confused about where we

3:22:37 ↗ are in this thing and what we're talking

3:22:38 ↗ about so I was going to write it on and

3:22:40 ↗ then you could see where that change was

3:22:42 ↗ being proposed okay before you do though

3:22:44 ↗ okay let me see if I can

3:22:46 ↗ the objective here is very simple we

3:22:50 ↗ don't want residents of this project to

3:22:53 ↗ be parking other than

3:22:56 ↗ at the pro at the project that's it

3:22:58 ↗ right

3:22:59 ↗ so

3:23:00 ↗ so if we just if it is discovered

3:23:03 ↗ whether it's by Safeway Property

3:23:05 ↗ Management or somebody else that

3:23:07 ↗ residents are in fact using other

3:23:10 ↗ parking areas non-project non-atlas

3:23:15 ↗ parking areas then there needs to be a

3:23:17 ↗ mechanism to encourage them to stop

3:23:19 ↗ doing that if it's selling their car and

3:23:21 ↗ taking a bus fine or if it's whatever it

3:23:24 ↗ is so

3:23:26 ↗ I I I guess I would prefer frankly and

3:23:29 ↗ if the any Commissioners disagree with

3:23:31 ↗ me that's you know this time to bring it

3:23:33 ↗ up that that

3:23:35 ↗ the condition

3:23:40 ↗ recognize the objective

3:23:43 ↗ upon which I believe we all agree

3:23:46 ↗ and the method of

3:23:49 ↗ attaining that objective is not

3:23:53 ↗ specifically defined but it will be a a

3:23:56 ↗ TBD that will be acceptable to the city

3:23:58 ↗ and acceptable to the applicant now I

3:24:01 ↗ understand that we're talking about

3:24:04 ↗ again the first one out the door and we

3:24:07 ↗ don't we need to be aware of the

3:24:09 ↗ precedent aspect of this so if we if we

3:24:12 ↗ adjust the code for the for these

3:24:14 ↗ without an application for variance and

3:24:16 ↗ all that kind of stuff or we what do we

3:24:18 ↗ do with the next applicant that comes up

3:24:20 ↗ but I still think that the basic point

3:24:22 ↗ that we don't want the city to look like

3:24:24 ↗ it's setting parking fees is is

3:24:25 ↗ legitimate and I don't think we have to

3:24:28 ↗ to get to the objective okay I think

3:24:31 ↗ that's why Lucy was going to add that uh

3:24:35 ↗ one option is changing the rental charge

3:24:38 ↗ monthly or other appropriate mechanisms

3:24:41 ↗ until a reasonable rate of usage

3:24:44 ↗ achieved so it's it's it we're not we're

3:24:47 ↗ not we're not saying what you do we're

3:24:49 ↗ just saying right meeting you're in by

3:24:51 ↗ end objective right okay okay

3:25:06 ↗ so while we're waiting has anybody heard

3:25:07 ↗ what the Mariners score is

3:25:16 ↗ so I

3:25:18 ↗ go ahead Mike I'm just a little

3:25:20 ↗ concerned about writing this on the fly

3:25:22 ↗ but let's see how this goes see where

3:25:24 ↗ where we end up here so

3:25:26 ↗ um I I think I one one thing I would

3:25:29 ↗ like to add

3:25:33 ↗ uh is this is the land use condition we

3:25:38 ↗ can polish this language before it's put

3:25:40 ↗ on the building permit

3:25:42 ↗ so I mean I think we're trying to set a

3:25:45 ↗ framework but I don't think it has to be

3:25:47 ↗ this exact language

3:25:48 ↗ that goes on to the building permit what

3:25:52 ↗ would have to do is capture the intent

3:25:55 ↗ of this when it's put on the building

3:25:56 ↗ permit okay I I don't disagree with that

3:25:59 ↗ but that gets into the thing that I was

3:26:00 ↗ talking about earlier about

3:26:03 ↗ uh how do we

3:26:05 ↗ end up knowing that what what's done is

3:26:08 ↗ what you know I mean and there's no

3:26:10 ↗ collusion or anything like that that's

3:26:12 ↗ not the issue but

3:26:13 ↗ I'm not sure how we become aware of what

3:26:19 ↗ the answer here is that that

3:26:22 ↗ you know I'll tell you what let's go

3:26:24 ↗ ahead and read this and see if we have

3:26:26 ↗ any objections from anybody here and

3:26:30 ↗ then we'll

3:26:32 ↗ so the condition as it it stands right

3:26:35 ↗ now is from time to time as the property

3:26:38 ↗ owner conducts surveys of the parking

3:26:39 ↗ usage on site the property owner will

3:26:42 ↗ self-report the information to the city

3:26:44 ↗ if the city identifies that there

3:26:46 ↗ appears to be off-site impacts due to

3:26:48 ↗ low on-site parking usage the city May

3:26:51 ↗ request that the property owner conduct

3:26:54 ↗ will conduct a paid parking survey

3:26:57 ↗ during a peak use period acceptable to

3:26:59 ↗ the director to ascertain and confirm

3:27:02 ↗ that paid parking is being rented at a

3:27:05 ↗ reasonable rate based on resident car

3:27:08 ↗ ownership vacancy rates Etc

3:27:11 ↗ if rental rates of paid parking do not

3:27:14 ↗ achieve a reasonable

3:27:15 ↗ usage rate of the paid parking stalls

3:27:18 ↗ the property owner must adjust adjust

3:27:21 ↗ the rental charge or

3:27:24 ↗ other acceptable actions monthly until

3:27:27 ↗ such time as the reasonable use rate is

3:27:30 ↗ achieved the parking survey must be

3:27:32 ↗ submitted within two weeks of its

3:27:34 ↗ completion and monthly thereafter until

3:27:35 ↗ minimum usage rate is achieved

3:27:39 ↗ can I Mr chair can I suggest another

3:27:42 ↗ path this it's this is very specific

3:27:44 ↗ performance criteria and I'm just

3:27:48 ↗ the long term how this plays long term

3:27:50 ↗ and how this you know parking and

3:27:53 ↗ Etc

3:27:54 ↗ kind of evolves in this part of the city

3:27:57 ↗ over time gets a little concerning to me

3:27:59 ↗ I'm understanding I understand the

3:28:01 ↗ concern that Council has raised on this

3:28:03 ↗ one and I'm a little concerned about

3:28:04 ↗ writing something that is a condition of

3:28:06 ↗ a permit but that we're going to act on

3:28:09 ↗ here that is has legal standing and so

3:28:12 ↗ what here's another suggestion that

3:28:13 ↗ allows maybe a little bit more massaging

3:28:15 ↗ of language as you were suggesting

3:28:17 ↗ maybe we just do a simple condition that

3:28:19 ↗ says something to the effect that from

3:28:22 ↗ the this action that staff will work

3:28:24 ↗ with the applicant to establish a

3:28:26 ↗ process to ensure on-site parking

3:28:28 ↗ management mitigates the potential for

3:28:31 ↗ spillover parking from this project to

3:28:33 ↗ neighboring properties then it says okay

3:28:35 ↗ that's an issue we're concerned about

3:28:38 ↗ um and it just says to establish a

3:28:42 ↗ process to ensure on-site parking

3:28:44 ↗ management so it just it's a way to try

3:28:47 ↗ to hold the applicant and the long-term

3:28:49 ↗ property manager could you say that

3:28:51 ↗ again slowly and I'll write it on here

3:28:52 ↗ and put it up so everyone can look at

3:28:54 ↗ yeah and I would also say that the word

3:28:56 ↗ mitigate there is really relevant I

3:28:58 ↗ think commissioner Brennan used the

3:28:59 ↗ right word as opposed to prevent because

3:29:02 ↗ the issue is not absolute prevention the

3:29:06 ↗ issue is avoidance of a of an issue and

3:29:10 ↗ if it's uh so I I don't think we need to

3:29:12 ↗ say nobody parks and Safeway but we

3:29:17 ↗ don't what we don't want to get in we

3:29:18 ↗ want to mitigate rather than prevent

3:29:22 ↗ okay

3:29:24 ↗ um so the language was staff will work

3:29:27 ↗ with the applicant

3:29:34 ↗ to establish a process

3:29:38 ↗ to ensure hold on your your

3:29:41 ↗ I'm not as fast establish a process to

3:29:44 ↗ ensure on-site parking management

3:29:51 ↗ mitigates the potential

3:30:03 ↗ for spillover parking

3:30:06 ↗ oh this is the right word but he'll get

3:30:08 ↗ the point across

3:30:12 ↗ from this

3:30:13 ↗ project

3:30:15 ↗ to neighboring properties

3:30:18 ↗ essentially says it's not

3:30:22 ↗ legislating an out legislating the

3:30:26 ↗ process that will use it saying work

3:30:28 ↗ with the applicant to

3:30:31 ↗ find a way to address the concern

3:30:36 ↗ and I don't know

3:30:49 ↗ on behalf of the applicant commissioner

3:30:51 ↗ I think this accomplishes what the

3:30:53 ↗ applicant feels they can accomplish in

3:30:56 ↗ terms of working with the city in a very

3:30:59 ↗ practical way

3:31:00 ↗ and as you as as I'm sure the

3:31:03 ↗ commissioner knows parking management

3:31:04 ↗ plans or something

3:31:06 ↗ developers are used to working with yes

3:31:08 ↗ thank you

3:31:11 ↗ I I would I hate to do this but I'm

3:31:14 ↗ going to word Smith here uh because this

3:31:17 ↗ this is again setting a precedent okay

3:31:20 ↗ so uh

3:31:23 ↗ I I think staff and applicant will will

3:31:26 ↗ uh cooperate

3:31:27 ↗ to identify a process

3:31:32 ↗ to mitigate off-site parking

3:31:40 ↗ I need you to say that again okay

3:31:43 ↗ um hold on let me do it this way all

3:31:44 ↗ right

3:31:46 ↗ just

3:31:48 ↗ I'm just I'm typing on the screen

3:31:51 ↗ instead but I didn't think of that

3:31:53 ↗ all right uh oh I guess I can't do that

3:31:56 ↗ okay I guess you're right okay

3:32:00 ↗ staff they do parking was it staff in

3:32:02 ↗ the applicant will collaboratively well

3:32:05 ↗ staff and staff and applicant will

3:32:07 ↗ cooperate or collaborate uh

3:32:14 ↗ to identify

3:32:20 ↗ a process

3:32:22 ↗ now commissioner Brandon you said that

3:32:25 ↗ the the wording of the uh on-site

3:32:27 ↗ on-site parking management is is uh

3:32:30 ↗ technical language

3:32:32 ↗ uh well I mean is that parking

3:32:34 ↗ management plans are as was noted are

3:32:37 ↗ pretty common

3:32:39 ↗ piece of property management so that's

3:32:42 ↗ what they call them parking management

3:32:43 ↗ programs

3:32:45 ↗ okay well the objective that I had here

3:32:47 ↗ was just to say look the applicant and

3:32:50 ↗ the city staff will will identify a

3:32:52 ↗ process to prevent

3:32:53 ↗ uh

3:32:55 ↗ spillover parking

3:32:57 ↗ in neighboring properties

3:33:01 ↗ well

3:33:03 ↗ preventing it I'm sorry mitigating yeah

3:33:06 ↗ yeah mitigate there we go that goes back

3:33:08 ↗ to my own point

3:33:10 ↗ okay

3:33:12 ↗ um

3:33:13 ↗ so I'm sorry I didn't quite follow that

3:33:15 ↗ it's a staff and applicant will

3:33:17 ↗ collaborate to identif to identify a

3:33:20 ↗ process to mitigate spillover property

3:33:22 ↗ from this project to neighboring

3:33:24 ↗ properties

3:33:25 ↗ Medicaid spillover parking

3:33:29 ↗ yeah

3:33:31 ↗ on neighbor on neighboring property

3:33:33 ↗ right

3:33:35 ↗ parking this there spillover parking

3:33:39 ↗ from this project to neighboring

3:33:40 ↗ properties uh can we say the potential

3:33:43 ↗ for spillover parking because as of

3:33:44 ↗ today we don't know that there will be

3:33:46 ↗ any spillover parking

3:33:49 ↗ well

3:33:51 ↗ I think that I think potential is

3:33:53 ↗ implied okay

3:33:56 ↗ that's fine if it doesn't happen then

3:33:57 ↗ there's then this process isn't going to

3:33:59 ↗ be necessary

3:34:00 ↗ okay

3:34:04 ↗ five in a row I think they lost the

3:34:07 ↗ early oh

3:34:11 ↗ okay you didn't identify yourself

3:34:14 ↗ okay so so I I love how the words are

3:34:18 ↗ all dropping yeah okay so staff uh and

3:34:21 ↗ applicant will collaborate to identify a

3:34:23 ↗ process to mitigate uh

3:34:26 ↗ spillover parking from this project to

3:34:29 ↗ neighboring properties yes okay okay is

3:34:31 ↗ that acceptable that's fine with me all

3:34:34 ↗ right

3:34:37 ↗ so I'm um so you have a proposed motion

3:34:44 ↗ these three conditions would appear

3:34:46 ↗ between the two

3:34:48 ↗ in the sort of bulleted area

3:34:51 ↗ and then any other conditions the

3:34:54 ↗ commission wants to propose I I seem to

3:34:58 ↗ remember that commissioner Brennan had

3:35:00 ↗ to right one or two

3:35:04 ↗ so

3:35:06 ↗ um

3:35:07 ↗ how are we going to do this is a motion

3:35:10 ↗ we want to do a main motion and add the

3:35:13 ↗ conditions or boys just want to add the

3:35:14 ↗ conditions as well you can amend it from

3:35:15 ↗ I I Let's uh let's make the motion with

3:35:20 ↗ the following conditions and then that

3:35:23 ↗ would include uh

3:35:26 ↗ the ones that the city has already

3:35:28 ↗ identified and you your proposed

3:35:31 ↗ conditions and then we can

3:35:33 ↗ take some motion and discuss right so

3:35:36 ↗ you there are probably two ways to do it

3:35:38 ↗ one you could do two separate steps one

3:35:41 ↗ is add the conditions and then approve

3:35:44 ↗ the second is to make include the

3:35:48 ↗ revised conditions as part of the

3:35:51 ↗ overall motion either one's acceptable

3:35:55 ↗ so

3:35:57 ↗ um I want to add just so before we make

3:36:01 ↗ the motion because I'm just going to

3:36:02 ↗ going to make a motion that adds all of

3:36:03 ↗ the conditions right that we've

3:36:05 ↗ discussed and I'll try to identify what

3:36:06 ↗ they are but I also just want to note

3:36:09 ↗ that the other conditions that I want to

3:36:11 ↗ add so on in the staff report tonight's

3:36:16 ↗ staff report on page 4 of 19.

3:36:20 ↗ uh under item number one

3:36:23 ↗ there was a proposed new condition that

3:36:27 ↗ I want to include as well and that reads

3:36:31 ↗ the design of all three buildings shall

3:36:33 ↗ include treatments at the top of the

3:36:36 ↗ buildings such as changes in materials

3:36:38 ↗ color and or height to create a top to

3:36:41 ↗ the buildings so the the way the motion

3:36:44 ↗ is written right now the conditions in

3:36:47 ↗ the memo are added okay so you would

3:36:50 ↗ unless you want to edit or not accept

3:36:52 ↗ those conditions you don't need to take

3:36:54 ↗ any further action then that's what I

3:36:56 ↗ would propose we just go ahead and add

3:36:58 ↗ that condition

3:37:03 ↗ so that that allows us that is the the

3:37:07 ↗ warning that allows the permission to

3:37:10 ↗ add the vision

3:37:12 ↗ to add additional motions or I'm sorry

3:37:15 ↗ conditions to this motion

3:37:17 ↗ oh of course you have the ability to do

3:37:19 ↗ that I'm just saying that that if you're

3:37:22 ↗ if the purpose is just to accept the

3:37:24 ↗ conditions that are already right

3:37:27 ↗ acceptable in the memo you don't need to

3:37:30 ↗ to specifically call those out because

3:37:33 ↗ the motion already identifies that the

3:37:37 ↗ conditions in the memo

3:37:39 ↗ would be included

3:37:41 ↗ okay the the other condition that I want

3:37:43 ↗ to discuss here quickly that I'll add to

3:37:45 ↗ the motion if there's concurrence here

3:37:47 ↗ and that was related to the 7th Avenue

3:37:51 ↗ Northwest concerns

3:37:53 ↗ and the condition would read I'll read

3:37:56 ↗ it quickly and then we'll try to capture

3:37:57 ↗ it for the record assess the need

3:38:01 ↗ for the addition of traffic calming or

3:38:04 ↗ controls on 7th Avenue Northwest

3:38:08 ↗ to ensure Traffic Safety is maintained

3:38:11 ↗ in response to the increased use of this

3:38:14 ↗ street created by the project

3:38:16 ↗ so essentially just saying there's

3:38:17 ↗ additional traffic let's make sure that

3:38:19 ↗ we're not creating some condition for

3:38:20 ↗ the existing properties as a result of

3:38:22 ↗ the new trips that are going to create

3:38:24 ↗ safety concerns so it's essentially just

3:38:27 ↗ saying let's look hard at that let's

3:38:28 ↗ make sure that staff is taking a hard

3:38:30 ↗ look at that so that's what that okay

3:38:32 ↗ condition means so we'll give the

3:38:34 ↗ applicant a chance to respond I think

3:38:36 ↗ staff would just say that the streets

3:38:39 ↗ have been designed for the level

3:38:41 ↗ the the standard does it is intended for

3:38:44 ↗ the level of traffic that is proposed

3:38:47 ↗ for what that's worth okay

3:38:51 ↗ any

3:38:53 ↗ body reading again sure it says the the

3:38:56 ↗ question is it it is just

3:38:59 ↗ um again the purpose is the additional

3:39:02 ↗ traffic and concerns that were expressed

3:39:05 ↗ about conflict so it is the condition is

3:39:08 ↗ to assess the need for the addition of

3:39:12 ↗ traffic calming or Contours on 7th

3:39:15 ↗ Avenue North West to ensure Traffic

3:39:18 ↗ Safety is maintained in response to the

3:39:21 ↗ increased use of the street created by

3:39:23 ↗ this project

3:39:25 ↗ doesn't require it it just says let's

3:39:27 ↗ make sure we take a hard look at it if

3:39:28 ↗ the engineers agree that staff has just

3:39:31 ↗ suggested that we've already looked at

3:39:32 ↗ it and we're comfortable with it then

3:39:34 ↗ check the box but I just want to be

3:39:35 ↗ responsive to what we've heard and kind

3:39:37 ↗ of what we're seeing from this project

3:39:39 ↗ so

3:39:41 ↗ the applicant appears to be okay with

3:39:43 ↗ that

3:39:49 ↗ do we need any more for the record no I

3:39:52 ↗ was just gonna it I didn't know if you

3:39:54 ↗ wanted it up there to read

3:39:57 ↗ okay

3:39:59 ↗ I don't know I do better reading than

3:40:01 ↗ listening right crap okay

3:40:03 ↗ Mr chair I move that the development

3:40:06 ↗ commission approved the site development

3:40:07 ↗ permit and the shoreline substantial

3:40:10 ↗ development permit for the seventh at

3:40:12 ↗ Gilman or the atlas project

3:40:15 ↗ file numbers

3:40:19 ↗ sdp13005 and Sho

3:40:26 ↗ 13-00014 as described and evaluated in

3:40:29 ↗ the staff report dated April 10 2014 and

3:40:33 ↗ project drawings received March 13 2014

3:40:37 ↗ briefing response memo dated May 2nd

3:40:41 ↗ 2014 and subject to the conditions

3:40:43 ↗ therein

3:40:45 ↗ with the additional conditions as stated

3:40:50 ↗ there is a condition new condition as

3:40:54 ↗ described

3:40:55 ↗ dealing with construction permit review

3:40:58 ↗ the city and the applicant will work to

3:41:00 ↗ identify elements of a public education

3:41:03 ↗ plan

3:41:06 ↗ related to the potential loading or

3:41:10 ↗ potential flooding

3:41:11 ↗ the education plan will include signs in

3:41:14 ↗ the garage and legal notice to ensure

3:41:16 ↗ that future owners of the property are

3:41:18 ↗ aware of the site characteristics

3:41:21 ↗ other possible components might include

3:41:23 ↗ information

3:41:25 ↗ uh

3:41:28 ↗ I can't read the word

3:41:35 ↗ provided provided to Residents during

3:41:38 ↗ Leasing

3:41:40 ↗ and res and residents

3:41:43 ↗ with an additional new condition

3:41:46 ↗ um

3:41:47 ↗ that says during the construction of

3:41:50 ↗ building C

3:41:54 ↗ the

3:41:55 ↗ it's Courtyard its Courtyard will be

3:41:58 ↗ elevated but evaluated by staff and the

3:42:01 ↗ applicant to determine if a secondary

3:42:03 ↗ minor walkway is warranted

3:42:06 ↗ if appropriate the walkway will be of

3:42:08 ↗ low impact such as stepping stones

3:42:12 ↗ um

3:42:13 ↗ additionally modification to condition

3:42:16 ↗ eight as noted in the staff report to

3:42:19 ↗ read

3:42:21 ↗ staff and the applicant will collaborate

3:42:25 ↗ to identify a process to mitigate

3:42:28 ↗ spillover parking from this project to

3:42:31 ↗ neighboring properties

3:42:33 ↗ and then

3:42:35 ↗ the final additional condition

3:42:39 ↗ would be the addition of the condition

3:42:42 ↗ assess the need for the addition of

3:42:46 ↗ traffic calming or controls on 7th

3:42:49 ↗ Avenue Northwest to ensure Traffic

3:42:51 ↗ Safety is maintained in response to the

3:42:54 ↗ increased use of the street created by

3:42:56 ↗ the project

3:42:57 ↗ commissioner Brennan um

3:43:00 ↗ is it controls or Contours you've said

3:43:03 ↗ you've said it it would be controls okay

3:43:06 ↗ it would be traffic calming or controls

3:43:12 ↗ they have a second is there any further

3:43:14 ↗ discussion

3:43:15 ↗ could you read the lower

3:43:17 ↗ part of the motion as well or do you do

3:43:20 ↗ that as a separate motion we've got a

3:43:22 ↗ single yeah that is a separate motion

3:43:24 ↗ yeah it's gonna be separate so it has

3:43:27 ↗ been moved and seconded there is no

3:43:30 ↗ further discussion

3:43:31 ↗ all those in favor of the motion signify

3:43:34 ↗ by saying aye

3:43:36 ↗ aye

3:43:37 ↗ and there are no there's no opposition

3:43:39 ↗ we will therefore go to the SEC Mr chair

3:43:41 ↗ I move that the development commission

3:43:43 ↗ direct the develop the development

3:43:44 ↗ services department to prepare findings

3:43:46 ↗ of fact and conclusions for review and

3:43:48 ↗ approval by the development commission

3:43:50 ↗ chair affirming the development

3:43:52 ↗ commission's decision to approve the

3:43:54 ↗ seventh at Gilman project AKA Atlas

3:43:57 ↗ file number is sdp

3:44:01 ↗ 13-00005 and Sho

3:44:06 ↗ 13-00014 subject to the conditions

3:44:08 ↗ listed in the staff report dated April

3:44:10 ↗ 10 2014 and project drawings received

3:44:14 ↗ March 13 2014 briefing response memo

3:44:17 ↗ dated May 2nd 2014 and subject to the

3:44:20 ↗ conditions therein and as were amended

3:44:23 ↗ this evening in the previous motion

3:44:26 ↗ exactly there is a second is there any

3:44:28 ↗ further discussion of the motion

3:44:31 ↗ all those in favor signify by saying aye

3:44:34 ↗ aye aye it is unanimous

3:44:37 ↗ therefore thank you

3:44:42 ↗ the meeting is adjourned I don't believe

3:44:44 ↗ there's and I don't believe I just said

3:44:46 ↗ there's adjourned but I don't believe

3:44:47 ↗ there's any further notice for other

3:44:49 ↗ projects or anything that we need to get

3:44:51 ↗ on the public record

3:44:53 ↗ Christopher no okay great we can go home

3:44:57 ↗ yep thank you

3:45:01 ↗ this also be the ones we'll use

3:45:04 ↗ good luck this is a

3:45:08 ↗ here's the condition perfect

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF