Development Commission · Wednesday, August 5, 2015 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

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 June 24, 2015

packet pp.5–12

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

PUBLIC HEARING: Gateway Apartments

Amy Tarce, Senior Planner · packet pp.13–321

Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

Gateway Apartments, PRJ12-00043, SDP15-00002 DC Staff Report: August 5, 2015

Public Comment

Commission Discussion

2119 segments .txt ↗

0:43 ↗ Again, good evening and welcome to the August 5th meeting of the Issaquah Development Commission.

0:48 ↗ Tonight we will be looking at an application for site development permit. For the

0:54 ↗ Gateway Apartments, the project number is PRJ12-00043 and site development

0:59 ↗ permit 15-00002. The agenda for this evening will involve first

1:05 ↗ an approval of the minutes from preceding meeting. And after

1:10 ↗ the approval of the minutes, we will begin the agenda

1:16 ↗ item that will start with the City of Issaquah staff

1:21 ↗ presentation. after which there will be a presentation by the applicant. And after the

1:27 ↗ presentation by the applicant, there will be an opportunity for members of the public to

1:33 ↗ speak on this project. As Christopher pointed out, there is a sign-in sheet there. So

1:38 ↗ we ask that anybody from the members of the public that wants to speak, please

1:44 ↗ sign that in so we have your name and your address on record. We also

1:49 ↗ ask that anybody that wants to speak that comes up to the microphone These identify

1:54 ↗ yourself by your name and your address. And that is going to have to go

1:59 ↗ every time if you're coming back to the microphone later to address, to answer a

2:03 ↗ question or clarify something like that, you still have to for the record so that

2:08 ↗ people will know when they read the record who made the comment and question. So

2:12 ↗ every time you come up there, just remind the record of who you are. After

2:18 ↗ the public comment, there will be an opportunity for each member of

2:23 ↗ the Development Commission to seek clarification from the applicant or the staff

2:29 ↗ and to address any issues that the commissioners might have and to

2:34 ↗ make observations on the request for the site development permit. So with

2:40 ↗ that said, we will start with the staff presentation. I'm sorry, approval of the minutes.

2:46 ↗ Does anybody have any changes that they wish to make in the minutes from the

2:52 ↗ June 24, 2015 meeting? Any changes? We got a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we

2:58 ↗ approve the minutes of the June 24, 2015 Development Commission meeting. Is there a second?

3:03 ↗ There has been a first and second motion. Is there any discussion? In

3:09 ↗ that case, all those in favor of approval signify by saying

3:15 ↗ aye. Aye. The minutes are approved. We'll now go into the

3:21 ↗ staff presentation. Good evening. My name is Amy Tarrs and I

3:27 ↗ am the senior planner for the Development Services Department of the

3:33 ↗ City of Issaquah and the project manager for the Gateway Apartments

3:38 ↗ site development permit. So tonight, I am going to, this is

3:44 ↗ the first of two meetings, public, I should call it public hearing

3:50 ↗ for this project. And for tonight's public hearing, I would like to

3:55 ↗ use this as a time to basically introduce the project to the Development Commission

4:01 ↗ and to the public. Um, and, uh, primarily to get, uh, provide you an

4:07 ↗ opportunity to ask questions, clarifications, um, and also, uh, to solicit comments from both

4:13 ↗ you and the public. So we're not asking for any

4:19 ↗ decisions tonight and this is primarily a time to clarify

4:25 ↗ things and answer questions. So we determined that this proposal

4:31 ↗ is generally compliant with the site development permit requirements as

4:37 ↗ reflected in the staff report subject to several conditions. I'm

4:43 ↗ not gonna go through the conditions tonight. What I'd like to do is use

4:48 ↗ this time to really capture the essence of what this project is about and

4:54 ↗ how it is implementing the vision for Central Issaquah through the Central Issaquah Development

5:00 ↗ and Design Standards. And I'd like to use three themes in my presentation tonight.

5:06 ↗ That will be connectivity, quality, quality open spaces that includes environmental health and social

5:12 ↗ well being and also place making the chapters in the standards all are

5:18 ↗ meant to build up on these three themes. And I thought that this

5:23 ↗ will be a good way to do a short presentation and hopefully a

5:29 ↗ short one and still summarize what how this project complies with the

5:35 ↗ requirements. So under connectivity, I'm gonna touch on the green necklace, the

5:40 ↗ circulation facilities, and a little bit about the views. For the quality

5:46 ↗ open spaces, I'm gonna introduce the two types of public spaces I'm

5:52 ↗ sorry, the two types of open spaces or community spaces that are included

5:58 ↗ in this project, as well as how natural areas are integrated into the

6:04 ↗ development. And then for placemaking, I'm gonna again touch on the idea

6:09 ↗ of how the physical environment creates a sense of place, how it is

6:15 ↗ consistent with the Western Gateway vision, how the urban streetscape prioritizes pedestrians and

6:21 ↗ a little bit on the buildings themselves. One of

6:27 ↗ the things that we'd like to make sure is clear is

6:33 ↗ that there is an ongoing SEPA environmental review concurrent with this

6:39 ↗ project, and the draft mitigated determination of non-significance was published on

6:45 ↗ July 30th for public comment, and the public comment and appeal

6:50 ↗ period will end on August 20th. So the intent is that

6:56 ↗ we will have enough time to again to get to solicit comments for

7:02 ↗ the environmental review before we bring back the project to you for an

7:08 ↗ for a decision. The other the other concurrent study is a citywide

7:14 ↗ road and crosswalk safety study. This is very recent and it is

7:20 ↗ a response to public concerns about some of the crosswalks and roadways

7:26 ↗ in the city that are perceived to be unsafe. This is

7:31 ↗ a citywide study and it will involve several streets

7:37 ↗ including Newport Way and specifically certain intersections and crosswalks.

7:42 ↗ So given that this project is on Newport Way,

7:48 ↗ we wanted to make you aware that there is

7:54 ↗ this ongoing study. of this project is

7:59 ↗ basically in the western side of Issaquah. There are

8:05 ↗ two major natural areas near the development, Lake Sammamish

8:10 ↗ on the north and Cougar Mountains, which is a

8:16 ↗ hiking resource on the south side. It is part

8:21 ↗ of the Western Gateway District of Central Issaquah. The

8:27 ↗ Western Gateway, I got lost, sorry. Let me just read.

8:32 ↗ So the Western Gateway District's vision states that this area

8:38 ↗ is meant to create an attractive gateway to Issaquah that

8:43 ↗ maintains significant open space views from I-90 and hence Tibbets

8:49 ↗ Creek and buffers as key link of the green necklace.

8:56 ↗ So the proposed Gateway Apartments

9:01 ↗ is a multifamily development that

9:06 ↗ occupies currently six acres combined. I'm sorry, six parcels combined

9:12 ↗ with a total of 30 acres out of those out of those 30

9:18 ↗ acres, 21.74 acres is what's developable. The rest is going to be reserved

9:24 ↗ as conservation areas because of the sensitivity of the critical areas. This map

9:30 ↗ or the site plan shows a general idea of where the natural areas

9:36 ↗ are. There are two creeks that are part of this development, Schneider Creek

9:42 ↗ that's northwest of the property and Tibbets Creek which is southeast. There

9:48 ↗ is also a phase two, not part of this project, that is

9:54 ↗ being developed or eventually will come to you for also review and

10:00 ↗ approval. And that is also owned by the same applicant. Later on,

10:06 ↗ I'm going to mention this a little bit when I talk about

10:12 ↗ linkages. So this project proposes 400 units of residential space.

10:17 ↗ in two five-story buildings and 16 three-story buildings. There

10:23 ↗ will be 29,250 square feet of outdoor private community

10:28 ↗ space. So they are required to provide 19,200 square

10:33 ↗ feet, so they are over by 10,000 square feet.

10:39 ↗ So I wanted to talk a little bit about the project

10:45 ↗ site. This is a view of the top left photos of

10:51 ↗ you of the frontage of the property. Basically, it has a

10:57 ↗ undefined driveway entrance. It has an existing farmhouse building and On the

11:03 ↗ bottom is a view of what this current conditions of Newport Way

11:09 ↗ is. Basically, it's a two-way, it's a one-way, two-lane road with a

11:14 ↗ bike lane on the shoulder of the road and an undefined walking

11:20 ↗ area that's also on the shoulder of the road.

11:26 ↗ On the I-90 side, this is a view of the property,

11:31 ↗ basically relatively flat, rolling, with a great view of Cougar Mountain

11:37 ↗ in the background. So staff analysis, and this is reflected in

11:42 ↗ the staff report, determined that this project complies with the zoning

11:48 ↗ district standards. The floor area ratio is 0.78, the minimum required

11:54 ↗ for the Village Residential Zone is 0.75. So they're barely

12:00 ↗ making the minimum FAR. The height is a maximum of

12:05 ↗ 54 feet when you have garage parking under the building.

12:11 ↗ And they are proposing two five-story buildings that will be

12:17 ↗ 54 feet. Currently, their buildings show that the pitch of

12:23 ↗ the roofs or the roof height is actually exceeding the 54

12:28 ↗ feet. We are, the staff is planning to propose an amendment

12:34 ↗ to the IMC's definition of maximum height, given that we've had

12:40 ↗ several situations where this has been a challenge to implement.

12:45 ↗ So, um, the hope is that the amendment will be approved by city

12:51 ↗ council in the fall. If the amendment is not approved, the applicant will,

12:57 ↗ uh, revise their building elevations to provide flat roofs for the five story

13:03 ↗ buildings. So obviously the three story buildings are below that maximum height.

13:08 ↗ Setbacks required is zero and it varies for the different buildings. The build

13:14 ↗ to line is between zero to 15 feet. That's what's required and they

13:20 ↗ are proposing in the range of five to 15 feet with conditions for

13:26 ↗ the community center which is not quite at the 15 feet line.

13:31 ↗ For impervious area, the maximum allowed is 90% and they

13:37 ↗ are providing 65%. So what's out there today in terms

13:43 ↗ of existing development? I failed to mention earlier that the

13:49 ↗ site is in a VR, Village Residential Zone, and around

13:55 ↗ it, what's It's surrounded by predominantly residential development. Most of

14:00 ↗ them are multifamily with also an equal, or I shouldn't

14:06 ↗ say equal, but with single family subdivision type developments. On

14:12 ↗ the east boundary of the project is the Rowley properties

14:18 ↗ and the building closest to it is the arena sports

14:24 ↗ gym. On the south is the Sammamish Point condominiums and Newport Way.

14:30 ↗ And again on the north is I-90, which is the northern

14:35 ↗ boundary of the property. So one of the comments that we

14:41 ↗ received from the public is a concern about the density of this development. So

14:47 ↗ what we did was we looked at the existing developments out there to see

14:53 ↗ how it compares. So this chart basically shows that existing development ranges from five

14:59 ↗ dwelling units per acre to 15 dwelling units per acre. and the Gateway

15:04 ↗ Apartments is at 13.33. And the 1840 is based on the

15:10 ↗ developable area, which is a smaller area. But if we're comparing

15:16 ↗ apples to apples, it would be 13.33 acres, dwelling units per

15:22 ↗ acre. So now I'd like to talk about

15:28 ↗ the elements that I mentioned earlier that contributes to the quality

15:33 ↗ of the open spaces and how it achieves the vision of

15:39 ↗ Central Issaquah or of the Central Issaquah Plan. So the first

15:45 ↗ one is the circulation facilities. The development basically uses several typologies

15:50 ↗ of both vehicular and pedestrian circulation facilities based on the Central Issaquah

15:56 ↗ standards. So we have a parkway standard for the Newport Way. Neighborhood

16:02 ↗ streets basically are the primary vehicular access to this property. And then

16:08 ↗ we have also the through block passages, which are the primary ones

16:14 ↗ are the green lines that you see on the screen. screen and the

16:20 ↗ secondary ones are the brown ones. So the only difference between those two is

16:26 ↗ the width of the sidewalk. The through block passages are limited to

16:32 ↗ pedestrian circulation. So what you see here is a

16:37 ↗ system of gridded streets and sidewalks that make the

16:43 ↗ blocks a lot smaller to walk around and also

16:48 ↗ helps with wayfinding and access to the different points

16:54 ↗ in the development. The other thing The other thing that this

17:00 ↗ development is providing is a shared use route. That's the gray line that's on the

17:05 ↗ left side of the screen, which is actually the south. The site plan is flipped

17:10 ↗ so that the north is actually on the right side of the screen and the

17:15 ↗ south side is on the left. So you see a gray line and that's a

17:20 ↗ shared use route. And I'm going to talk a little bit more about that in

17:25 ↗ a few minutes. So how does the proposal

17:31 ↗ fit into the regional network of transportation? I use

17:36 ↗ this map because it's a non-motorized routes and parks.

17:42 ↗ It's an extra layer of facilities that show how

17:47 ↗ our bike facilities and are actually connected to our system of roadways in

17:53 ↗ the city. So again, the arrows show you where the site is, where Newport Way

17:59 ↗ is. And if you look at Newport Way a little closer, it may be hard

18:05 ↗ for the people who are watching online, but there's actually two lines. One is a

18:11 ↗ green line and the other one is a purple line and both of them are

18:17 ↗ dashes. I'm sorry, one is a solid green line which is the existing shared use

18:23 ↗ route and then the dash purple line is for a proposed bike lane. So this

18:29 ↗ project is going to provide both of those in the Newport Way frontage improvements.

18:36 ↗ So now I'd like to talk about the two types of

18:42 ↗ community spaces. In the Central Osoquois Standards, we differentiate between required

18:48 ↗ public community spaces, which is called significant community spaces, and then

18:54 ↗ there's the required community spaces for specific development, especially residential developments.

18:59 ↗ So for significant community spaces, we have two two required. One

19:05 ↗ is a new neighborhood park and that showed in the red circle

19:11 ↗ again, this is a map from the plan. It's the conceptual green

19:17 ↗ necklace. So it shows how the site is supposed to provide not

19:22 ↗ only a park but also a shared use route. It also shows

19:28 ↗ a dash gridded line which is representing a a gridded street, which is, as

19:34 ↗ I've shown earlier in the site plan, is how they developed the project. So the

19:40 ↗ idea is that the green necklace is not just about open spaces or community open

19:46 ↗ spaces. It's also about streets that create that green necklace and connectivity to the rest

19:51 ↗ of the city. So one of the things that the standards

19:57 ↗ also provide is where a project is required to provide two different types

20:03 ↗ of significant community spaces, the director is allowed to make a decision, I'm

20:09 ↗ sorry, the director can choose which one will be required of the project.

20:15 ↗ In this project, basically the applicant has, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. So for this

20:20 ↗ project, the director has selected the shared use route as the more beneficial facility

20:26 ↗ or community space for the city. In addition to that, the applicant has volunteered

20:32 ↗ to provide an area for a neighborhood park.

20:38 ↗ So the shared use route is actually two shared use routes. As you

20:44 ↗ have seen, one map that I showed showed a shared use route on

20:50 ↗ Newport Way and then one that goes inside the property. So the red

20:56 ↗ arrow show the current alignment as proposed and shows that basically the Newport

21:01 ↗ Way shared use route connects the property to Cougar Mountain and

21:07 ↗ to the Mountains of Sound Greenway bike lane. The other shared

21:13 ↗ use route that's internal to the site, which will eventually be

21:18 ↗ dedicated to the city, will connect basically the Mountains of Sound

21:24 ↗ Greenway and the rest of the city to a section of

21:30 ↗ the Rowley property and over the wetlands of Tibbets Creek.

21:36 ↗ So in addition to that, the map, the Central

21:41 ↗ Issaquah Plan also shows a connection over I-90 for

21:47 ↗ some sort of multi-use trail. Currently, we know conceptually

21:53 ↗ that this connection is required. However, since we don't know the

21:59 ↗ exact location of where that connection will be over I-90, we

22:04 ↗ have asked the applicant to provide a relocatable easement for a

22:10 ↗ future connection and shared use route. Okay, this one. So

22:16 ↗ the neighborhood park, which I mentioned earlier, actually consists

22:22 ↗ of some parts, some areas on the southern end

22:28 ↗ of the site, including the frontage of the property

22:33 ↗ along Newport Way. So it's an irregularly shaped area.

22:39 ↗ And the applicant has proposed to provide improvements that

22:45 ↗ is labeled as the phase one plan in the staff report.

22:51 ↗ And what that means is they will be providing the grading

22:57 ↗ to create areas areas that are usable, but they will not be

23:03 ↗ providing the programming for the spaces. Um, our city parks and recreation

23:08 ↗ department will be taking this to the public for more input in

23:14 ↗ order to determine what are the appropriate uses and programming for the

23:20 ↗ space. So now I'd like to talk

23:26 ↗ about the second type of community space, which are private and but

23:31 ↗ but still required by the by the standards. It basically consists of

23:37 ↗ the central green space and the community center and also the through

23:43 ↗ block passages which create which provide more like a linear park feeling

23:49 ↗ that basically goes north, south and east, west of the project.

23:55 ↗ So here are some views of the bottom view shows you

24:01 ↗ what the community center looks like. It's that red, very yeah,

24:06 ↗ red pitched roof building on the left. And the upper portion

24:12 ↗ shows just a feel for what the streets look like.

24:20 ↗ In addition to the two required community spaces, one of the things

24:26 ↗ that the standards talk about is a requirement of integrating open spaces

24:31 ↗ and green spaces into the development. In this particular project, they have

24:37 ↗ also the the I-90 green edge for the property. So if

24:43 ↗ you recall earlier, there was some mention of the vision for

24:49 ↗ the Western Gateway about the green edge for I-90. And so

24:54 ↗ in this particular project, they will be providing they will be

25:00 ↗ revegetating the area that is, as you have seen in the existing photos,

25:06 ↗ there's really nothing there. So it will be provided with more trees. And

25:12 ↗ the photo below gives you an idea of what it looks like when

25:18 ↗ you're driving going west on I-90. So

25:24 ↗ the other aspect of the project, again, still on the green theme,

25:29 ↗ is the natural edges east and west of the project. As I

25:35 ↗ mentioned earlier, they have two creeks going through this project. So the

25:40 ↗ western creek, Schneider Creek, which is on top of the screen, will

25:46 ↗ involve enhancement of the buffer, and they will also provide a soft surface

25:52 ↗ trail. So in the outer buffer, outer 50 feet buffer for the

25:58 ↗ enjoyment of not only their residents, but basically for people who are

26:04 ↗ using the neighborhood park. The bottom The bottom green that you see

26:09 ↗ is actually the extent of the Tibbets Creek wetland. At the bottom end, they

26:15 ↗ will be providing a connection of the shared use route. So it will be

26:21 ↗ a 10 foot wide multi-use trail that will connect again the property and Newport

26:27 ↗ Way all the way across Tibbets Creek to the other, to the Rowley property.

26:33 ↗ Due to their installation of that connection, they will be

26:39 ↗ required to provide enhancement for portions of the wetlands of

26:45 ↗ Tibbets Creek. So as you can see, not only if you

26:50 ↗ take the whole, I don't have a site plan of everything all together, but basically

26:56 ↗ you're gonna see that all the edges of the property have some natural areas or

27:02 ↗ green spaces that are interconnected, not only to the site, but to the rest of

27:08 ↗ the city. So putting it all together, circulation and open spaces, the whole idea here

27:13 ↗ is When you really think about attractive open spaces, if you can't

27:19 ↗ really get to them, then what's the point? And then again, on the

27:25 ↗ other hand, what's the point of having all these circulation facilities if there's

27:31 ↗ really nowhere to go? So as I mentioned earlier, we have these green

27:37 ↗ spaces, the community spaces in the project. that are connected not

27:43 ↗ only by streets but more so by pedestrian connections and we

27:49 ↗ have a shared use route which is a bike and pedestrian

27:54 ↗ facility that connects not only this property, not only the new

28:00 ↗ neighborhood park but also connects it to existing bike lanes in

28:06 ↗ the outside of the property along Newport Way and that's the

28:12 ↗ Mountains to Sound Greenway Bike Trail and also southwards it connects

28:18 ↗ it to a natural area, the Tibbets Creek area or the

28:23 ↗ Tibbets Creek Wetland. And in the future there will be a

28:29 ↗ connection over I-90 to Lake Sammamish and With the development

28:35 ↗ of the Phase 2 project that I mentioned earlier, Phase 2

28:40 ↗ will actually provide a 10-foot wide bike and pedestrian connection over

28:46 ↗ Schneider Creek to this development. So not only are linkages physical,

28:52 ↗ but they're also visual. So this is just a quick, again,

28:57 ↗ this is in your packet, a video link. an illustration of

29:03 ↗ how when you're inside the property, you will have access to

29:09 ↗ the views of the natural areas around it. And so through

29:14 ↗ the experience of not only the physical linkage to the community

29:20 ↗ or natural open spaces, residents can also appreciate the the visual connection

29:26 ↗ to what makes Issaquah great, which is the Lake Sammamish

29:31 ↗ view, the view of the Cascade Mountains and also of

29:37 ↗ Cougar Mountain. So now I'd like to talk

29:43 ↗ about the urban streetscape and how there are several elements in this

29:48 ↗ project and also required by the Central Issaquah Development Standards that build

29:54 ↗ on what makes for a pedestrian friendly design or a community. So

29:59 ↗ the first element is the street wall. So these two diagrams show

30:05 ↗ on the left, basically a combination. I'm sorry. So on the left

30:11 ↗ is a diagram that shows the green as the through block

30:17 ↗ passages. So these are the pedestrian circulation and how the buildings

30:22 ↗ frame those pedestrian areas. On the right is an illustration of

30:28 ↗ a street, which is again the green, and the blues are the

30:34 ↗ buildings lined up along the street that create a continuous street wall

30:40 ↗ for the streets. So there is one street wall section that has

30:45 ↗ not been resolved, and that is the frontage of Newport Way. So

30:51 ↗ the diagram or the plan on the left shows a detail of what

30:57 ↗ was shown on the phase one park concept. And this is what they

31:03 ↗ proposed to provide as part of their development. As you can see, it's

31:09 ↗ basically an open lawn with street trees. What we have conditioned

31:15 ↗ in the project is that they need to meet the

31:20 ↗ build to line requirements and several of the related standards,

31:25 ↗ including one that talks about enclosure and a safe area

31:31 ↗ for children to play. So recognizing that Newport Way is

31:36 ↗ a vehicular and And currently at 40 miles an hour, it's

31:42 ↗ a road that definitely has to be factored in in the

31:48 ↗ design of this area. So the photos that we have here

31:54 ↗ are just examples of what we mean by an architectural element

32:00 ↗ that's acceptable to to meet the build to line. In other words, just

32:05 ↗ putting shrubs or putting a fence is not something that we would consider

32:11 ↗ as meeting the standard. The other element that contributes to the urban streetscape

32:17 ↗ is the ground floor treatment of the buildings. So the floor

32:23 ↗ plan detail on top of the screen captures basically two

32:29 ↗ different types of buildings. On the left are two smaller

32:34 ↗ buildings, the three-story buildings, and a portion of the five-story

32:40 ↗ building shows how it's being treated currently. So For the

32:46 ↗ three-story buildings, again, you could look at the elevation.

32:52 ↗ They are providing not only patios that extend out

32:58 ↗ to the public realm, but also several detailing of

33:04 ↗ trims and colors on the elevation, again, to engage

33:09 ↗ the pedestrian. Again, we have conditioned the entryways to require

33:15 ↗ them to revise them and make them more inviting. I'm not

33:21 ↗ gonna go through all the details of that. And then for

33:26 ↗ the five-story buildings, they are providing an entry plaza and the

33:32 ↗ treatment of the entry, as you can see here, shows a

33:38 ↗ three-story building definitely more prominent facade feature. And also the main

33:44 ↗ entry of the building looks more like a 14 foot

33:50 ↗ high, what we consider retail entry, which creates a more

33:55 ↗ inviting and more open space. The five story buildings also

34:01 ↗ include patio spaces and trellises again to create a more

34:07 ↗ interesting street or ground floor treatment. Again, we

34:13 ↗ conditioned the berm to create a more urban

34:18 ↗ edge instead of something that looks a lot

34:24 ↗ more suburban. So, oops, uh-oh, what happened to

34:29 ↗ that? Okay, so... Now I'd like to talk about a

34:35 ↗ third element, which is pedestrian comfort and safety. And it has to

34:41 ↗ do with how the streets where vehicular circulation are designed. So there

34:47 ↗ are several elements that help create this comfortable and safe environment for

34:53 ↗ pedestrians. So first you have parallel parking that provides a

34:59 ↗ buffer between the pedestrians and the vehicular traffic. We also

35:05 ↗ have street trees that add another layer and you have

35:11 ↗ continuous sidewalks that also provide multiple ways for people to

35:16 ↗ walk around the development. And so the other method

35:22 ↗ that we create a positive urban streetscape is how we deal

35:28 ↗ with the surface parking. So this diagram shows basically again a

35:34 ↗ detail of the area around two surface parking area for the

35:40 ↗ three story buildings. Basically the treatment for all the buildings are

35:46 ↗ the same. five-story buildings. And so I'm just using this as a

35:52 ↗ way to explain the concepts. So the green is the roadway. And

35:58 ↗ So first of all, the buildings line up on and line up the

36:04 ↗ streets. And so the parking areas are behind the buildings. And in addition

36:10 ↗ to that, where you have the short end of the surface parking abutting

36:16 ↗ the streets, they are providing a very generous planter area that will

36:22 ↗ be provided with hedges. And we also conditioned the project for

36:27 ↗ them to provide architectural screens for these areas. So ultimately, you

36:33 ↗ only have 20 feet of driveway that will be visible when

36:38 ↗ you're walking or driving on the streets. The other

36:44 ↗ item that creates a pedestrian friendly environment are the pedestrian scale buildings. And this

36:50 ↗ is through modulation and articulation. So this floor plan just shows a typical three

36:56 ↗ story building on the left and a five story building on the right. And

37:02 ↗ the ins and outs that you see show a general idea of how modulated

37:07 ↗ both buildings are. On the street, when you're looking at

37:13 ↗ them, there's also another layer of detail, which is the articulation of the

37:19 ↗ building materials. So using different types of materials, different colors. So these are

37:24 ↗ some of the early images that they sent us. So it still doesn't

37:30 ↗ show all the colors. the colors that you see in your elevations. But I use

37:36 ↗ these because it shows very clearly the combination of modulation and articulation for the buildings.

37:42 ↗ So for the image on the right, which is the five-story buildings, you see the

37:47 ↗ treatment of the base, which is the garage. And then you have trellises, and you

37:53 ↗ have almost like full floor windows and and the pitch roof. And on

37:59 ↗ the left, it just shows a side of one of the

38:04 ↗ three story buildings that has the balconies and the patios along

38:10 ↗ a walkway. So next steps, we are we are expecting the

38:16 ↗ SEPA determination to be concluded on August 20th, 2015. This is when

38:21 ↗ the comment and appeal period closes. And we have tentatively scheduled the

38:27 ↗ next development commission meeting or public hearing for a decision on August

38:33 ↗ 26, 2015. Now that is dependent on what happens tonight and whether

38:39 ↗ or not it's it's realistic to have our next meeting at the end

38:45 ↗ of the month. I do wanted to mention that there are two corrections

38:50 ↗ in the report. One is in condition number six, and we'd like to

38:56 ↗ insert the phrase, "If a signal is to be provided." in that condition.

39:02 ↗ And then in page 55, there's a reference to Seventh and Gilman in

39:08 ↗ the second paragraph. And actually, I intentionally slipped that in there just to

39:13 ↗ check if you guys are reading. So, Before I conclude my presentation,

39:19 ↗ I also wanted to mention that we received three more comments

39:25 ↗ from the public after the packet went out. So I have

39:30 ↗ distributed attachment 9, 10, and 11. And these are comments from

39:36 ↗ three citizens. And I just wanted to make sure that these

39:41 ↗ are submitted for the record. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. So

39:47 ↗ I just wanted to add two things. One, the clipboard on the table up

39:53 ↗ here is for public sign-ups. So if you're interested in speaking this evening, please add

39:59 ↗ your name to the clipboard. And the other piece I wanted to add is I've

40:04 ↗ seen that some of you are taking pictures, which you're of course welcome to do.

40:09 ↗ This is being videotaped and a videotape will be available on the city's website in

40:14 ↗ a couple of days up to a week. So all the information and discussion will

40:19 ↗ be publicly available. Well, in following up on Lucy's comment

40:25 ↗ about those of you who wish to speak, excuse me, could I just get an

40:30 ↗ informal show of hands? And you're not-- of the number of people that would think

40:36 ↗ they, at this point, members of the public that would like to make a comment

40:41 ↗ on the record. One, two. Is that it? OK. Three. All right. Three. All right.

40:47 ↗ The point is, you're welcome when the public comment period starts. You're welcome if you

40:52 ↗ haven't indicated now. You're welcome to come up and just sign it and do that.

40:57 ↗ But in the interest of giving everybody an opportunity to speak that would like that,

41:01 ↗ we do ask that you hold your comments to five minutes in order for everybody

41:06 ↗ to get a shot at it. OK? All right. Thank you.

41:12 ↗ Is there anything further from the staff at this point? Not yet.

41:18 ↗ I'm done. So at this point, we will go to the applicant

41:24 ↗ if the applicant cares to make a presentation, which I anticipate they

41:30 ↗ will. Good evening. First of all, thank you for allowing us the

41:36 ↗ opportunity to present our project to you tonight. We're excited about it.

41:42 ↗ I am Greg Van Patten. I'm with the Wolf Company. We are

41:48 ↗ the developer of the project. And the Wolf Company, a little bit

41:54 ↗ about us, we are a third generation family company founded in Spokane in 1949. So

42:00 ↗ been around for quite a while, like I said, third generation family company with deep

42:05 ↗ roots in Spokane. We have been very active in development in the Seattle area over

42:11 ↗ the last about four years. I oversee all of our development activity here in the

42:17 ↗ region. And we have, this would be our 10th development actually in the region stretching

42:23 ↗ from Bothell to Columbia City and out here to Issaquah in various stages of development

42:28 ↗ and construction. And I can say that as a developer, we really pride ourselves on

42:33 ↗ being a thoughtful, high-quality developer, and I think that's a consistent theme that you'll see

42:38 ↗ in all of our projects that we do, including this one. So we're excited to

42:43 ↗ be a part of Issaquah, and with that, I'll turn it over to Matt Roey

42:48 ↗ with Viya Architects.

42:54 ↗ Thank you, Greg, and thank you, Development Commission, for your time tonight.

43:00 ↗ I'll just get our PowerPoint up and we'll get going. Oh, sure.

43:06 ↗ Full screen mode, always better. My name is Matt Rowey. I'm an

43:12 ↗ architect and the head of development planning for Viya Architecture. I've been

43:18 ↗ working with the Wolf Company for about a year on this project.

43:23 ↗ And before I go further, I'd just like to introduce that there's

43:29 ↗ more to our team. Everyone who's on our design team is here.

43:35 ↗ Please raise your hand. there's a lot of us because it's a big site

43:41 ↗ and there's a lot of issues so we have a lot of specialty consultants in

43:46 ↗ the interest of time i won't introduce all of them but another part of our

43:50 ↗ team is really amy and and the city and working with the staff here because

43:55 ↗ this has been a project that's really tested the new central issaquah plan and um

44:00 ↗ It's a large site and these central principles are the kind of the key to

44:06 ↗ what we're doing on the project building community, creating more connectivity, enhancing the environment and

44:11 ↗ providing appropriate growth here in a village livable walkable manner. We like to call it

44:17 ↗ village scale density because we don't have any real mixed use here. It's just residential.

44:23 ↗ And so we're utilizing all these great goals to create a real neighborhood that's family

44:28 ↗ friendly. It's a place for empty nesters and there's much needed housing in this, apparently

44:33 ↗ in this community that's rental housing. And so we can provide it to a diversity

44:38 ↗ of different users. And Amy did such a great job of kind of going through

44:42 ↗ a lot of this. I'll try not to be redundant, but it is the western

44:47 ↗ end of the Central Issaquah plan. I think we're all familiar with the site. great

44:53 ↗ assets in place that are actually opportunities as well as sometimes barriers. Like I-90 is

44:58 ↗ a very big barrier for any development to be next to. It's clearly noisy, it

45:04 ↗ generates vibration, it's not exactly attractive to look at or be right next to, but

45:10 ↗ we found some ways to kind of work with that and find a way to

45:15 ↗ buffer it in our development. But it also is a it is a gateway. It

45:20 ↗ is a great exposure for this project and it does kind of represent connectivity and

45:25 ↗ it's the lifeline to the rest of the region. So in that way it is

45:29 ↗ an asset. And then we're bounded on both sides by two creeks and wetlands. The

45:35 ↗ Tibbetts Creek is a large drainage area, as you can see here, much more significant

45:39 ↗ creek that runs between us and Rowley. But Snyder Creek is a smaller drainage, comes

45:44 ↗ down the hill and finds its way under the highway to Lake Sammamish. So we've

45:49 ↗ got both those next to us. And as the site stands right now, it's a

45:55 ↗ farm. And it's been a farm for many generations. And you can see the creek

46:00 ↗ is right here. uh, Snyder Creek and that it's been farmed for a long time

46:05 ↗ and I think they've been tilling it right over the creek because in the summertime

46:10 ↗ it almost goes away. But it's significant during the winter time because it fills the

46:14 ↗ drainage area fills up again. So we're taking it back to what it shouldn't really

46:19 ↗ be as a prominent wetland and I'll show you more on that in just a

46:25 ↗ minute. So as Amy went over, we're next to Arena Sports. There's a big wetland

46:29 ↗ that's already there that was part of the mitigation for I-90 back when it was

46:33 ↗ built. So this is a piece of wetland that we can't touch. It's got a

46:37 ↗ fence around it. We're going to keep all those trees as part of it. There

46:41 ↗ is also a future development site that the Wolf Company has also acquired. It's not

46:45 ↗ part of this application, but they're looking at another development there as well, and we're

46:50 ↗ going to connect to that in our proposal. The Sammamish Point condos are just over

46:54 ↗ here next to us, but we're leaving as much space and buffer towards them as

46:58 ↗ possible. We're leaving a lot of the significant trees there, and that's where we're placing

47:02 ↗ the park and that joint-use trail you just saw. And next to Arena Sports is

47:08 ↗ another kind of wet drainage area. And we're going to leave that as

47:14 ↗ pristine as possible and enhance it as well. So here's an overlay of

47:19 ↗ our proposed site plan. As you can see, the park in this condition.

47:25 ↗ We're preserving this wetland here, creating a boardwalk to connect to rallies and

47:31 ↗ replanting and reworking those wetland areas so they become more habitat friendly.

47:40 ↗ So I've turned the whole site plan 90 degrees for the rest of the presentation

47:43 ↗ because it fits better on the screen and on the page. So north is to

47:47 ↗ the right. So try not to confuse you too much with that. So as Amy

47:53 ↗ pointed out, our organization of the site was around creating this great loop through the

47:59 ↗ developable area. And the development area is only about half of the entire site. It's

48:04 ↗ a very small part because of the wetlands that bound us on all four sides.

48:09 ↗ And so there's some constraints. So we're very compact within the site, leaving as much

48:15 ↗ of the natural environment as we can. So that organizing loop is that is that

48:20 ↗ primary neighborhood street that we organize everything around and that's the one that has all

48:24 ↗ the front doors and that's the one that um uh creates the sense of community.

48:29 ↗ And so when you look at it from an arrow perspective and some of these

48:33 ↗ are new images apologize tonight we kept working on it after we gave everybody the

48:38 ↗ package that this will all be available to as we proceed. But the premise in

48:42 ↗ organizing the way we put the buildings on the site was to create more of

48:47 ↗ a buffer along I-90 with the taller four and a half, five story buildings here

48:52 ↗ that create a sound wall and also a visible wall that kind of protects the

48:57 ↗ rest of the development as well as everybody up the hill. So that was the

49:02 ↗ starting point. Of course, that's also the lowest part of the property. So those taller

49:06 ↗ buildings are in the lowest grade on the property as well. And they're on the

49:11 ↗ north side where they only cast shadows kind of against the edge of I-90. So

49:15 ↗ they don't cast shadows into the more residential areas. And from here you

49:21 ↗ can see our central greenway, this organizing spine, the central clubhouse. We've got an area

49:26 ↗ here we're calling the Village Green that's kind of at the end of this destination.

49:32 ↗ And here's Arena Sports, pretty good-sized building by itself, but we have a good green

49:37 ↗ buffer against that as well. And then some Amish Point Parkways over here where we're

49:42 ↗ placing the park and the joint or the shared use trail.

49:49 ↗ So there's a lot of significant community benefit in this project. The open space shown

49:54 ↗ in green is it's not only just the park dedication and the trail that we're

50:00 ↗ creating, but it's the establishment and the preservation of wetland areas here and on Snyder

50:06 ↗ Creek and enhancing these areas around I-90 and against the arena sports. and

50:11 ↗ internally creating these connections east-west in the middle of our block. So it's

50:17 ↗ like a series of great open spaces that are public and then semi-public

50:23 ↗ within the development. And as Amy pointed out, we have a significant amount

50:29 ↗ of wetland mitigation work we're doing here to enhance these areas. Snyder Creek

50:35 ↗ here, Tibbets Creek there, And it's more than just enhancement. It's like it's creating habitat

50:41 ↗ that isn't there right now and kind of restoring it back to where it should

50:46 ↗ have been or should be as a natural drainage. And here's a cross section through

50:51 ↗ what we're doing along the creek. It's kind of a berm that we're creating that

50:56 ↗ helps create a very specific channel, a naturalized channel for the creek. Right now it's

51:01 ↗ kind of an undefined line, but this will help establish that as more habitat friendly

51:06 ↗ and This cross section here is an exaggeration vertically of about four to one, but

51:12 ↗ it does show you how it slopes from here down to I-90 and how there'll

51:17 ↗ be new plantings, native species. We're taking out the canary reed grass, which is invasive

51:23 ↗ species in this area and putting in plantings that are appropriate and more applicable. And

51:28 ↗ we've met with the Rivers and Streams Board and they've seen this project as well.

51:36 ↗ So the other part of the trail system is this boardwalk that will be connecting

51:41 ↗ Rowley to our development. And here's a similar project at the Nisqually Delta. If you're

51:46 ↗ familiar with that, it's down by Olympia, where this is a tidal wetland. We're more

51:51 ↗ of a riparian wetland where there'd be grasses and it floods occasionally. But this is

51:55 ↗ the same idea. This is a low impact type of construction that they can come

51:59 ↗ in and do very easily during the dry season. And it's a nice strong structure

52:03 ↗ that you can have bike trails on and pedestrians and it'll last a good long

52:07 ↗ time. So that's down here, and it's about 300 feet long. It's elevated

52:13 ↗ where the land depresses down as the wetland. And it pretty much lands-- it's flat,

52:18 ↗ and it lands at the two ends where the grade is more elevated. So you're

52:23 ↗ also seeing on here is a neighborhood park that Amy introduced as well. That is

52:28 ↗ a dedication of land by the Wolf Company. And the programming and design will be

52:33 ↗ done by the city. But we're hinting at it here that there's multiple different spaces

52:38 ↗ possible for different generations to use. Maybe the seniors and adults could be using this

52:43 ↗ as more of a neighborhood gathering spot. And then there's more children friendly areas where

52:48 ↗ you could toss a frisbee or a tot lot or places to climb on for

52:54 ↗ older kids. And then the whole thing is really a trail system, a park that

52:59 ↗ goes from here to there. And there just happens to be nodes for activities for

53:04 ↗ perhaps some natural signage about the, the wetlands so you can learn about the wetlands

53:09 ↗ and places to sit and that kind of thing. There's a more detailed plan and

53:15 ↗ I'll zoom in a little further so you can see it. There's the different types

53:20 ↗ of activities, the flat play area here, tot lot, older kids can climb and have

53:25 ↗ free climbing areas here. But that's all programmed that the city will go through with

53:31 ↗ stakeholders and develop more specific, but the opportunities are there. So also in

53:36 ↗ our project is significant amount of interior community space. It's kind of more targeted towards

53:42 ↗ the tenants. First of all, we'll look at the community club, the clubhouse. And that's

53:47 ↗ this red building in the forefront. As you see as you drive into the project,

53:52 ↗ it's kind of the place you'll, if you're new and you want to rent an

53:57 ↗ apartment, that's where the leasing center will be. It's also the heart of the community

54:01 ↗ because everyone will come here to get their mail every day. We don't have separate

54:06 ↗ mailboxes. It all happens in one spot. So it's kind of a forced socialization so

54:10 ↗ everybody gets to know everybody and there's a reason to come to this on a

54:14 ↗ daily basis. But in the foreground is kind of an amphitheater that steps down into

54:18 ↗ a green space and then we have our pool terrace with outdoor barbecue and seating

54:22 ↗ areas. And this is a more detailed site plan of what that looks like. Here's

54:26 ↗ the L-shaped building. It has like a party room, a big hall that you can

54:31 ↗ rent or use on a daily basis for activities. The pool is here, surrounded by

54:36 ↗ a terrace, barbecue areas, outdoor seating. This is kind of a natural retaining wall that's

54:41 ↗ meant for seating and gathering. And then there's less formal ones over on this side

54:45 ↗ which face the sunset. and the lobby and central spine is here, the mail room,

54:50 ↗ and there'll be another entrance so everyone from the community can come up here and

54:55 ↗ come in this door or they come in that door. So there's a lot of

55:00 ↗ things going on. It's a two-story building, has an elevator. Upstairs will be activity rooms

55:04 ↗ and workout rooms and exercise equipment. And another part of the

55:10 ↗ design was establishing parking courts so that we would very cleverly hide most of

55:16 ↗ the parking. Because previous developments and developers that have looked at working on this

55:22 ↗ site, It's challenging because you can't go below grade. It's wet soil. So you have

55:27 ↗ to have surface parking or put it in some surface level structure. And here we

55:32 ↗ tried to minimize the impact of that by not having surface lots kind of off

55:37 ↗ in the distance, which we'd seen in earlier plans. So we're creating parking courts that

55:42 ↗ really minimize that impact to that neighborhood street that Amy was talking about. So that's

55:47 ↗ what the parking court starts to look like. There's one curb cut. This will serve

55:53 ↗ 20 to 60 units. Excuse me, 20 to 40 units. That would be almost 40

55:59 ↗ to 60 cars using one curb cut. And we felt that even though we're landscaping

56:05 ↗ the interior of this and providing trellises and screening it with landscaping on the outside,

56:10 ↗ we wanted to take it a step further and enhance it even further by creating

56:16 ↗ low fences and trellises with vines growing on it to screen that even more. So

56:21 ↗ the impact of that to the streetscape is greatly enhanced by enclosing that with like

56:27 ↗ a cedar material that's naturally stained that's a a good way to kind of

56:32 ↗ hide this and when amy mentioned that we only have 64 64 impervious surface

56:38 ↗ A big reason for that is when we made these parking courts very efficient and

56:44 ↗ they have very little paving area because we have parking inside these garages and a

56:49 ↗ tandem spot behind them that would be used by two and three bedroom apartment tenants

56:55 ↗ that have keys to both cars. So that's a very easy way to get plenty

57:00 ↗ of parking and reduce the amount of paving in the project. And

57:06 ↗ so our central spine here that leads from the community clubhouse to the Village Green

57:11 ↗ has a wonderful way finding passageway between the buildings. But the Village Green is kind

57:16 ↗ of a nice spot in itself. I don't think you've seen this rendering yet. We

57:22 ↗ just did it. actually finished it today. So we call it the Village Green. It's

57:27 ↗ a nice open space, real family friendly. If you're renting those apartments, your kids can

57:32 ↗ play out there. It's real easy to keep it safe and keep your eye on

57:36 ↗ everybody. At the end of that destination is a place for maybe an outdoor barbecue

57:41 ↗ or a fireplace or gathering area. So kids can play in that area and it's

57:46 ↗ defined by hedges and a walkway around the edge. And there's entrances to all these

57:50 ↗ apartments at ground level that come out onto this. So it's a really nice amenity

57:55 ↗ inside the project. And this is that same Village Green looking back at the community

58:00 ↗ clubhouse. So there's a vista at the end of that walkway highlighted by that big

58:05 ↗ red barn kind of look which will be the community clubhouse. And you can see

58:10 ↗ the play field in the foreground. So I'll talk about

58:15 ↗ architecture and the character of the project. We were inspired by--

58:22 ↗ Some of the history around Issaquah, the idea that there was a lot of mining

58:27 ↗ camps here in the early days and that they used these simple roof forms that

58:32 ↗ were fairly steep pitched and board and batten siding. And there wasn't big overhangs on

58:37 ↗ these things. They're pretty short little overhangs, more like a salt box look. So we

58:42 ↗ wanted to differentiate this project from maybe the more craftsman style that you might see

58:47 ↗ more prevalently in the neighborhood. is to follow this kind of character and use board

58:52 ↗ and batten siding and standing seam metal roofs and pick up on some of the

58:58 ↗ agricultural themes that were part of the history of the place and keep it fairly

59:04 ↗ clean and crisp and not doll it up too much. And then our community building,

59:10 ↗ the big red barn idea is the jewel box in the project because this is

59:15 ↗ where everyone gathers. There will be a pool and we can use heavy timber with

59:20 ↗ that project and have a more expressive and a higher level of finish on that

59:24 ↗ building. And this is a project the Wolf Company did up in Bothell a few

59:29 ↗ years ago. And this is another project that our lead designer has done and

59:35 ↗ our landscape architect near Puyallup, where the use of timber and standing seam metal

59:41 ↗ roof is the character we're trying to develop. So another inspiration was in Scandinavian

59:47 ↗ countries, there's this village character that they developed there where they've used color to

59:52 ↗ really accent their cities and just in a more restrained manner. And because of

59:58 ↗ the similar conditions with light, being a northern country with dark winters and a lot

1:00:03 ↗ of hills and trees and forest, we felt this was kind of a nice inspiration

1:00:08 ↗ for our project to kind of pick up on that character and use it within

1:00:13 ↗ our development because we have 18 buildings of which there are five different typologies and

1:00:18 ↗ we didn't want it to feel monotonous. So the idea of bringing some color into

1:00:23 ↗ the project to differentiate different buildings but in a restrained manner was what we were

1:00:28 ↗ trying to develop. So when you see this picture, you get the big red barn

1:00:32 ↗ for the community club, but then you get some spots of color and character and

1:00:37 ↗ other areas that have neutral colors on them as well. So the idea in here

1:00:42 ↗ is that you just, in certain areas, use the color to identify buildings. You never

1:00:47 ↗ see the same color too often, and it's kind of just cleverly designed placed in

1:00:52 ↗ recesses or on base so it works with the architecture to create very nice vocabulary.

1:00:57 ↗ So here's our five different building types. This is our four and a half story

1:01:02 ↗ elevator building, our 20 unit building, and these are two 10 unit buildings with different

1:01:07 ↗ arrangements of plans and our clubhouse. So you can see the restraint in the color

1:01:13 ↗ and the usage and how it differentiates different buildings this way.

1:01:19 ↗ So kind of going through the site, everyone knows where the clubhouse is, but the

1:01:23 ↗ 10-unit buildings are kind of clustered in the middle and turned at different orientations. And

1:01:28 ↗ they'll have different colors on them, something like this. And then the 20-unit buildings, the

1:01:33 ↗ longer ones, are kind of ranged around that village green and down kind of on

1:01:37 ↗ the south end of the site where the main entrances are here and here.

1:01:44 ↗ And then the elevator building, which has about 79 units in it, has this berm

1:01:49 ↗ in front of it because what we're doing is because we have above grade parking

1:01:55 ↗ in structure, we're putting that parking slightly below grade and berming up against it so

1:02:00 ↗ you don't see a parking garage. And then we're bringing the entry in at a

1:02:06 ↗ half level above the parking garage so it's at this point. So the intent there

1:02:10 ↗ is that the berm helps conceal the parking garage and give it a nice green

1:02:15 ↗ look. And so we have a color board here. The colors aren't really great on

1:02:20 ↗ the screen, but we have the actual colors right here. I'd like to take a

1:02:25 ↗ closer look. And then as Amy pointed out, there is this issue with

1:02:31 ↗ the height limit. We do want to do pitched roofs. They're fairly steep, 8 and

1:02:35 ↗ 12 to 12 and 12. That with the height limit measured from more of a

1:02:40 ↗ finished grade or a new sidewalk condition, we'll easily accomplish that. But if we have

1:02:44 ↗ to measure it from current grade, which is down here, then we'll have to go

1:02:48 ↗ to a flat roof. So we hope we can get your support for this change

1:02:52 ↗ in the way this is kind of written. Since we have such a big site

1:02:57 ↗ plan, we're raising the grade on the taller buildings. It's just for the two taller

1:03:01 ↗ buildings along I-90. The grade is coming up about three or four feet, and we'd

1:03:05 ↗ like to measure that from the final grading. So it's really a four and a

1:03:10 ↗ half story building from that point because the garage is behind it. And then we

1:03:14 ↗ have this innovative stormwater collection system to mitigate the runoff in the project. But that's

1:03:18 ↗ all underneath the garage where you won't see it. So this is an example of

1:03:24 ↗ what the five-story building looks like with a pitched roof on it up here or

1:03:29 ↗ a flat roof. And we think this is just more in keeping with the spirit

1:03:34 ↗ of Issaquah, the surrounding mountains, and having pitched roofs as more of a residential character.

1:03:38 ↗ So and looking at it from I-90, you've seen these pictures. That's the screen you'll

1:03:43 ↗ see from the landscaping we'll be adding. But the hills are still prevalent behind. And

1:03:49 ↗ we've also studied the views in cross section because I know there's interest in knowing

1:03:55 ↗ where this sits. So this red line represents a cross section from I-90 through our

1:04:00 ↗ clubhouse and our buildings up the hillside. So you can see I-90 here. This is

1:04:06 ↗ our development site down in the lowest part. And then the grades take off up

1:04:12 ↗ to the hills. So the red lines kind of represent viewpoints from various different residential

1:04:17 ↗ dwellings that are on the other side of Newport Way. So we're all down much

1:04:23 ↗ lower. And then we've done view studies that show how we would impact. This is

1:04:28 ↗ taken up at Newport Way up here at this location. And when you insert our

1:04:34 ↗ building into it, it's just this area down right there. So I'll just go back

1:04:39 ↗ one more. Whoops. So you have without our building and with it. so the

1:04:45 ↗ grade change is significant from there it's all down in the valley up against i-90

1:04:50 ↗ and then from oakridge drive the vegetation is so thick we couldn't do a photo

1:04:56 ↗ montage because it's so much lower where our project is from that point of view

1:05:01 ↗ which is up on the hill here and then from i-90 It's certainly more of

1:05:07 ↗ an elevational change, but that's the idea of a gateway is that it announces

1:05:12 ↗ you've arrived to an urban village and this is the presence it'll have from

1:05:18 ↗ down there. And again, we're showing landscaping, kind of young trees there, but those

1:05:24 ↗ will all grow up and be more significant with time. And looking the other

1:05:29 ↗ way back towards Seattle, that's our development before and after. So a lot of the

1:05:35 ↗ hills are still very visible and from that side of the freeway it doesn't appear

1:05:40 ↗ very tall at all. And then we've looked at within some Amish Point condos but

1:05:45 ↗ there's a lot of vegetation in there. We're keeping as many trees as we can

1:05:50 ↗ and we're planting new ones that there would only be little visible spots between these

1:05:55 ↗ trees. So we didn't bother with a photo montage there or there. But there's quite

1:06:00 ↗ a buffer of green vegetation between us and them. And then up the hill from

1:06:05 ↗ Pacific Elm Drive, this is where our entrance would be. And all these trees remain

1:06:09 ↗ because that's part of that WSDOT wetland. These trees are part of the development on

1:06:14 ↗ this side of the road. And so our clubhouse will appear about right there, just

1:06:18 ↗ that little spot where that tree would be removed. So that's our presentation. Just

1:06:24 ↗ to reiterate, it's been great working with the city planners to have their participation and

1:06:29 ↗ interest in our project and help guide us through the variable design guidelines that come

1:06:35 ↗ with the Central Issaquah plan and find the right fit for this location, creating better

1:06:40 ↗ community, better connectivity, enhancing the environment and accommodating growth in a reasonable manner. So I'll

1:06:46 ↗ turn it back to the planners and the and the Development Board for

1:06:51 ↗ your questions. OK. Thank you. Does that conclude the applicant

1:06:57 ↗ presentation? All right. In that case, we will go from--

1:07:03 ↗ the applicant presentation to public comment as we defined

1:07:08 ↗ in the agenda. So if you would like to

1:07:14 ↗ speak, we invite you again to come up, sign

1:07:20 ↗ in, and go over to the microphone. And we

1:07:26 ↗ do ask that everybody that speaks make room for

1:07:32 ↗ the people to come after you by speaking for

1:07:38 ↗ five minutes or less. Thank you. Sir, when you're

1:07:44 ↗ finished with that too, would you hand it back

1:07:50 ↗ there so they can be passed around so other

1:07:55 ↗ folks that want to sign in can do so?

1:08:01 ↗ Thank you. Sir? Do you want to speak? Go

1:08:07 ↗ ahead. Good evening. My name is Hart Sugarman, resident of Issaquah

1:08:13 ↗ for 19 years. I live at 2550 Northwest Oak Crest Drive.

1:08:19 ↗ My only concern with this project is the traffic that it's

1:08:25 ↗ going to create, specifically on Newport Way. I did a quick

1:08:30 ↗ math calculation of the section of Newport Way from Oak Crest

1:08:36 ↗ Drive on the east side to Southeast 54th on the west side.

1:08:42 ↗ So that's a stretch of road there. I added up all the

1:08:47 ↗ dwellings that exist today, which include all of the homes in Summerhill,

1:08:53 ↗ the condominiums at Sammamish Point, the condominiums at Spyglass Hill, the homes

1:08:59 ↗ at Bentley House, the homes throughout the Pinecone neighborhood. If you add

1:09:04 ↗ up all those dwellings, This project outnumbers all those dwellings. So today's

1:09:10 ↗ traffic volume on Newport Way with the current speed limit of 40 miles

1:09:15 ↗ an hour and the curves in the road, the sight lines, and the

1:09:21 ↗ elevation of the road puts a lot of stress on an existing roadway

1:09:27 ↗ So to put in this dwelling, this project, 400 units with cars coming

1:09:33 ↗ and going throughout the day, the whole modification of Newport Way has to

1:09:39 ↗ be considered. or to consider perhaps moving the whole dynamics of this project

1:09:45 ↗ and putting the traffic on the frontage road parallel to I-90 because most of the

1:09:51 ↗ people want to get to Gilman Boulevard, State Road 900, and most likely the I-90.

1:09:57 ↗ So I really want to draw the attention to the traffic congestion that's going to

1:10:03 ↗ exist. and to make sure that no cars are allowed to park on Newport Way

1:10:08 ↗ at any time because we see now along Newport Way some sections where we have

1:10:14 ↗ cars now parked on the shoulder of the road further down west from there. So

1:10:19 ↗ those are my concerns. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Yes, sir.

1:10:32 ↗ Hi, my name is Qadir Maghraie and I live at 124 Oakwood Place,

1:10:37 ↗ Northwest Issaquah. And actually, I'm going to pretty much reiterate what Mr. Hart

1:10:43 ↗ says, but in different ways. We all talked about the inside the development

1:10:49 ↗ But we didn't talk about a couple of things that I would like to actually

1:10:54 ↗ make the council think about it and the city planners and also developers please. One

1:11:00 ↗ of them is actually the access. I think for this kind of development that we

1:11:05 ↗ have so big, one access which is right now as existing roadway and Newport way

1:11:10 ↗ is only two way, one lane each direction. For having this kind of a development,

1:11:16 ↗ I think I will actually second Mr. Hart, have another access in the frontageway. That

1:11:21 ↗ would relief for emergency and also people going in and out of the, even if

1:11:27 ↗ you put a signal at the intersection, it still would be need that. And the

1:11:33 ↗ second one is actually the, I wanna know the, if we have rental and single

1:11:39 ↗ family in this area, development have been considered the number of parking.

1:11:44 ↗ Actually not just the owners and the people coming, trip generations for

1:11:50 ↗ the people going in and out of the development during different time

1:11:56 ↗ of the day. That would be also the second one is actually

1:12:02 ↗ another thing that I like to be considered is the parking area.

1:12:08 ↗ The parking for excess of this for even though we have a community centers

1:12:14 ↗ and all these uh perfect things, it's going to be on a new port

1:12:19 ↗ way. If you drive right now at the new port where you would see

1:12:25 ↗ Bellevue side of it, they built the several complex and they all park along

1:12:31 ↗ this side of the street and that will bring the street less. So uh

1:12:38 ↗ Another thing is what facility the park, because each time developer

1:12:43 ↗ comes in, they put these kind of parks in different areas

1:12:49 ↗ between the two developers. Normally what I have seen, there are

1:12:55 ↗ extra land that are not usable. And what facility as a

1:13:01 ↗ park Would be in this park that will be accessed or usable for other

1:13:07 ↗ community people they can use it Because this is a city's program So what kind

1:13:12 ↗ of a facility is that going to be a child proof or is that going

1:13:17 ↗ to be or is going to be a land? Would be turning to develop or

1:13:22 ↗ the homeowner association or the city so they're going to be encounter it So these

1:13:28 ↗ are actually the basic concert I have and then also traffic volume if we don't

1:13:33 ↗ have a two axis on that. So these are my comments. I would appreciate

1:13:39 ↗ if it could be considered. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you.

1:13:45 ↗ I would just ask that everybody, if you haven't put your name on the

1:13:50 ↗ sign up sheet to please write it down to ensure that the recording secretary

1:13:56 ↗ gets everyone's name spelled correctly. Thank you. As well as introducing yourself. Thank you.

1:14:02 ↗ I'm Laura Milliken and I live over on Front Street. So I drive down Newport

1:14:08 ↗ Way all the time as I work in Bellevue. So yeah, traffic is definitely an

1:14:13 ↗ issue. But as far as building a new apartment complex, I'm concerned or at least

1:14:19 ↗ curious about How much of that would be accessible for affordable housing? Would low-income residents

1:14:24 ↗ be able to afford this? Or is this going to be completely out of their

1:14:30 ↗ price range? For me personally, I've been on the wait list with King County trying

1:14:35 ↗ to get into low-income housing for six years. There's a dire, desperate need for low-income

1:14:41 ↗ housing. So if at least a portion of this complex could be considered for that,

1:14:46 ↗ that would be fabulous. King County opened up their Section 8 wait list and they

1:14:51 ↗ got 25,000 applications from King County. They're only allowing 10% of that to even go

1:14:56 ↗ on the wait list, let alone get an apartment. So there's a dire need for

1:15:01 ↗ it. Secondly, as far as the parking and transportation and all that, let's really try

1:15:06 ↗ and encourage Metro to increase buses along there because that's a lot of people. And

1:15:11 ↗ if we can get them using mass transit, that'll ease up traffic a lot. So

1:15:16 ↗ try to encourage them. And they need a lot of encouragement, because they don't always

1:15:21 ↗ think about that. The village green-- this is a comment for the developers. Honestly, I'm

1:15:26 ↗ a single parent. I have a young child. Shade-- we need shade out there. I'm

1:15:32 ↗ not going to want my son playing out there for hours. He'll get sunburned after

1:15:37 ↗ about an hour. So shade trees in that village green would be fabulous. Also having

1:15:42 ↗ the playground visible from the apartment. from some of the units at least so the

1:15:47 ↗ parents can look out the windows and at least see their kids or have their

1:15:51 ↗ older child watching the younger kid but still be able to check in on them

1:15:54 ↗ would be great. And again, I'll go back to the low income thing. Native plants

1:16:00 ↗ that are edible, that produce some sort of an edible fruit. I know along Gilman

1:16:05 ↗ there's a lot of apple trees. I think that's fabulous. Salal berries have been around

1:16:10 ↗ this area for centuries. Puggle berries, apples, cherries, plums, the vines that you wanted to

1:16:15 ↗ plant on those arbors, grape vines. So let's try to make that a little bit

1:16:21 ↗ more usable that way. And that's everything I had. Thank you.

1:16:26 ↗ Thank you. Anyone else? Next person.

1:16:32 ↗ Hey, I'm Connie Marsh. I'm at

1:16:38 ↗ 1175 Northwest Gilman Boulevard, Suite B11,

1:16:44 ↗ and also live in Issaquah. And

1:16:50 ↗ I sent you an email so you have some of this, so I'm going to

1:16:54 ↗ go fast. No mixed use, so that means pretty much everybody in all of these

1:16:59 ↗ is going to have to get in their cars and drive to do anything except

1:17:04 ↗ for maybe walk on a trail, 'cause there's no support. And that does not adhere

1:17:09 ↗ to our central Issaquah plan vision. I don't think

1:17:15 ↗ you should pass this forward without the road improvements out on Newport

1:17:21 ↗ reviewed and perused by the public, and I think that that is

1:17:26 ↗ what they're intending to do. Within the development, as I was reading

1:17:32 ↗ the road standards, I was seeing that they were actually removing sidewalks on one

1:17:38 ↗ side of the road. When the Central Iskwa Plan standards were written, there was

1:17:44 ↗ a priority structure created so that we wouldn't just be dropping sidewalks off on

1:17:50 ↗ one side of the road 'cause that has been an issue. And so if you

1:17:55 ↗ look at the priority order, it does not say you can ever just drop a

1:18:00 ↗ sidewalk off. Now there may be a different pathway that they could do that with,

1:18:05 ↗ but I don't think it is allowed within the plan in the pathway that they're

1:18:10 ↗ currently using. The wash dot mitigation area that's in the middle

1:18:15 ↗ is basically fenced by, on several sides, by posts and wire, which is ugly. And

1:18:21 ↗ so I would suggest if you want a more attractive interface with the wash dot

1:18:27 ↗ area that they should change out that fencing. It is allowed within the conservation easement,

1:18:33 ↗ 'cause I read the conservation easement just the other day.

1:18:39 ↗ I also did not see the condition that I thought I heard at the River

1:18:45 ↗ and Streams board for the boardwalk where it was supposed to allow wildlife access underneath

1:18:50 ↗ the boardwalk. Right now their picture is showing the crossbars which would effectively make it

1:18:56 ↗ difficult to get under the boardwalk. River and Streams Board talked about it, but it

1:19:02 ↗ doesn't seem that the River and Streams Board minutes are available, and I think they

1:19:08 ↗ need to be available as a part of the record for this hearing, so maybe

1:19:14 ↗ you could get that by next week. Also, the Central Issaquah Plan prioritized two different

1:19:20 ↗ styles of trees, one of which was evergreen trees, yet the only evergreen trees are

1:19:25 ↗ on the I-90 corridor. So I think I wrote in my comments that in the

1:19:30 ↗ wintertime it's going to look a lot like Indiana in the winter as compared to

1:19:35 ↗ the Pacific Northwest, 'cause it is awfully nice to have some shades of green all

1:19:40 ↗ year round here. And so now I know the descriptive language was awesome that the

1:19:45 ↗ gentleman used for the architecture, and I would say that the clubhouse actually looks like

1:19:50 ↗ something interesting. But from the pictures, The apartments look like all

1:19:55 ↗ the other apartments I've seen being built in the last five years, and they

1:20:01 ↗ don't evoke a sense of, this is our Issaquah Gateway off of I-90. This

1:20:07 ↗ is a place that has character that we're determined to maintain forever instead of,

1:20:13 ↗ look, there's another set of apartments that looks like, I don't know, Renton. Okay,

1:20:19 ↗ that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is

1:20:24 ↗ there anyone else that cares to speak

1:20:30 ↗ at this time? All right, sir. JIM

1:20:35 ↗ LIPPENCOTT: I'm Jim Lippencott, 2258 Newport Way.

1:20:41 ↗ I'm a Sammamish Point resident, also very

1:20:46 ↗ close to Newport, very close to the

1:20:51 ↗ west entrance or egress of Sammamish Point

1:20:57 ↗ is right where the interchange will be

1:21:02 ↗ also for going into this complex.

1:21:08 ↗ I'm very concerned of whether we'll be able to use that egress anymore

1:21:14 ↗ once the development of that interchange between Newport and the Gateway is considered.

1:21:20 ↗ I know there's some talk of maybe even there being a traffic circle

1:21:26 ↗ or even traffic circle and lighting there with the backup of cars coming

1:21:32 ↗ in and out. I don't-- you know, I-- I want Sammamish

1:21:37 ↗ Point to be protected from the development and that's current situation to

1:21:43 ↗ not have modification to our unusability of our entrance and exits. I

1:21:49 ↗ want that to be a priority. All right. Thank you, sir. And

1:21:54 ↗ if you haven't signed up already, I've put the clipboard back out.

1:22:00 ↗ So please make sure you add your names if you'd like to

1:22:06 ↗ speak. Thank you.

1:22:13 ↗ Good evening everyone. My name is Tina Conforti. I also have a lot

1:22:19 ↗ of concern on traffic going through the corridor of New Parkway. We already

1:22:24 ↗ having a lot of problems. This is one of my bigger concern by

1:22:30 ↗ having this big project right close by New Parkway. That's the only way

1:22:36 ↗ they're going to get down to Hisakwa area. So how are we going

1:22:41 ↗ to avoid the whole of the traffic and what are you going to do about

1:22:47 ↗ it? Is the speed limit going to be low? How are we going to protect

1:22:53 ↗ the safety of the cyclists or the children in the area? So there is a

1:22:58 ↗ concern about the safety of the area already and we're going to have more concern

1:23:04 ↗ with the bigger development in the area. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

1:23:21 ↗ Hi, I'm John Sheridan and address is written down 675 Jasmine Place,

1:23:27 ↗ Northwest, Inisikwa. Good evening. Just to be fair-minded, I didn't have anything

1:23:33 ↗ particularly planned to say except some general thoughts. Try to be fair-minded

1:23:38 ↗ as I said. So in one regard, I'm glad they're thinking about

1:23:44 ↗ preserving the space with some greenery and trees, buffer zones. That part

1:23:50 ↗ is good. and we can partially conceptualize everything. I do wonder, other

1:23:56 ↗ than traffic too, what are the ramifications for existing residents? Now, just to backtrack

1:24:02 ↗ for a moment, let's look at the development that is here for Issaquah doing

1:24:08 ↗ its share. We have a humongous project with a lot of benefits too. I

1:24:13 ↗ think it turned out a little better than we thought it would maybe at

1:24:19 ↗ Highlands, depending on your perspective with the amenities, and that's good. TALIS is very

1:24:25 ↗ huge. I think Issaquah has done its part to meet growth quite well. Quite well.

1:24:31 ↗ We've been really good sports and should be, you know, thanked, I guess, in that

1:24:36 ↗ regard for reaching the outer rungs of King County growth line. So we're going through

1:24:41 ↗ a lot of growing pains very fast. We all acknowledge that. And we should catch

1:24:46 ↗ our breath at some point. Look what's going up right with the former Lombardis. Does

1:24:51 ↗ anyone else think that's a big enhancement? It seems a little bit in our face,

1:24:56 ↗ a little bit, to be honest. I hope it turns out better than what it

1:25:01 ↗ looks right now. It does block a good part of the mountain if you're on

1:25:05 ↗ Gilman. Already the turn lanes on Gilman, just speaking about development right now, everyone will

1:25:10 ↗ acknowledge if you drive there, it's pretty tricky. And there's been a lot of accidents

1:25:15 ↗ and just crossing over. So I'm wondering how much of Gilman we're going to lose

1:25:19 ↗ and what are they going to do about Newport Way in the same regard. And

1:25:24 ↗ so I just think we should catch our breath. I think some thought has been

1:25:30 ↗ put into this development with the community, sensor community, that part's good. We just have

1:25:36 ↗ to wonder with our terrain, how much can we handle? And the other part of

1:25:41 ↗ the equation is then with growth and the multiplication of cars that exist and gas,

1:25:47 ↗ what is the ramification of increased police force now needed? Most people we trust will

1:25:52 ↗ move here will be good people. Sorry, there will be crime and friends of friends

1:25:58 ↗ that come along. that are going to bring crime. We're going to have to

1:26:04 ↗ increase the police force. We know it and you know it. And who's going to

1:26:10 ↗ pay for that? We have to be ready. I'm not sure the exact percentage that

1:26:15 ↗ developers are handling for that. Increase school space. Are we handling that already? We just

1:26:21 ↗ want to know how much extra will our property taxes go up. We should know

1:26:27 ↗ that. rather than winging it, you know what I mean? So there's a few things.

1:26:33 ↗ Again, extra police, extra firemen and firewomen, extra teachers, school space. Are we going to

1:26:39 ↗ be put into portables or suddenly a new school's going to have to be built,

1:26:44 ↗ a new elementary, this and that? Oh, surprise, you know, another bond. So let's just

1:26:50 ↗ be ready. Should we, therefore, really see the full impact of Highlands Highland? Fully built

1:26:56 ↗ out is Talos complete. I'm not sure maybe close the new apartment complex on Gilman

1:27:01 ↗ among some others So let's just kind of catch our breath. I think is there

1:27:06 ↗ really a rush and why is there a rush? We want residents. Why know what

1:27:12 ↗ is the rush? This is supposed to be a 20 to slash 50 year plan

1:27:17 ↗ and it seems like we're packing it in to what five years Who's making us

1:27:22 ↗ do that? Who's putting the pressure on? What is the benefit to anyone? The City

1:27:28 ↗ Council, Development Commission and the residents. So you have to weigh out while keeping together

1:27:33 ↗ the treasures that make up. Remember the list that had the 10 treasures of Issaquah.

1:27:39 ↗ So can we keep our charm, grow at a nice pace or are we just

1:27:44 ↗ going to be off to the races on accelerated steroids and, you know, super duper

1:27:50 ↗ dark caffeinated coffee here. Let's just catch our breath and really think this through and

1:27:55 ↗ I hope it's not going in a year or two. That's pretty quick. But again,

1:27:59 ↗ to the benefit, I do think there's pride. I'll give that. I think there's genuine

1:28:04 ↗ pride and wanting it to be a good development. Going back to the history of

1:28:08 ↗ Issaquah and looking at the former buildings. So that part I tip my hat to

1:28:13 ↗ them for, you know, and so let's just make sure there's enough public comment and

1:28:17 ↗ thinking this through all together, everyone in the community. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

1:28:23 ↗ So I'm asking your question. Oh, I said thank you. OK. Is

1:28:29 ↗ there anyone else that would care to speak? All right. If not,

1:28:35 ↗ we will move-- we'll close the public comment section, and we will

1:28:40 ↗ move to-- I have a hand. I'm sorry? I have a hand.

1:28:46 ↗ Oh, yeah. One more? Sorry. Did you sign in, ma'am? Yes, I

1:28:52 ↗ did. OK. Thank you. Hello. My name is Carol Lopez. I live

1:28:57 ↗ at Sammamish Point Condominiums. Address is 2262 Newport Way Northwest.

1:29:03 ↗ I've lived at Sammamish Point Condominiums now for 17 years. I bought when it had

1:29:09 ↗ been on the market for one year. I bought a one bedroom. It was my

1:29:15 ↗ first purchase of real estate ever. And I was very proud to do that, working

1:29:21 ↗ at the time at Washington Mutual, a now famous former bank. After seven years there,

1:29:26 ↗ I sold and upgraded to a three bedroom townhouse, which I was also very proud

1:29:32 ↗ of, to be a homeowner. I'm going to try and keep this as short as

1:29:38 ↗ possible. Just trying to really, as I listen to the comments of you fine individuals,

1:29:44 ↗ professionals, I can see the care you've put into the plans you've put together. I

1:29:49 ↗ understand the growth that's taking place in Issaquah, the growth that's taking place in Seattle.

1:29:55 ↗ I've seen articles recently stating that Seattle is one of the fastest growing cities in

1:30:00 ↗ the country right now. And that's a good news, bad news story.

1:30:06 ↗ It means we need to really manage the growth. So many people want

1:30:12 ↗ to live in Issaquah, want to live in Bellevue, want to live in

1:30:18 ↗ Seattle, and there's a need for housing. But what about existing homeowners? I

1:30:23 ↗ implore you to please take into account, as you make your plans and

1:30:29 ↗ appeal to our city, the existing homeowners in Issaquah who pay taxes,

1:30:35 ↗ we have concerns about crime. We have concerns about the future. We have concerns about

1:30:41 ↗ traffic. And in the 17 years I've lived at Sammamish Point Condominiums, I watched

1:30:47 ↗ exit 13 get created. It didn't even exist to be when I first moved in.

1:30:53 ↗ So it wasn't even an exit off the freeway. We've watched the traffic increase. Now

1:30:59 ↗ Newport Way between Sammamish Point, Conminium, so I would back it up and even go

1:31:04 ↗ back to exit 13. The traffic between Newport Way on exit 13 from that point

1:31:09 ↗ on all the way through Target, all the way to Front Street is a crawl

1:31:15 ↗ during commuter hours. It's a crawl. So where are all these individuals who are going

1:31:20 ↗ to be renters, not property taxpayers by the way, Where are they going to

1:31:26 ↗ be driving? So we do need infrastructure. One of my big concerns, and

1:31:32 ↗ I'm trying not to be entirely selfish about this, but my front door

1:31:38 ↗ literally faces the front entrance to your proposed complex. Please take into account

1:31:44 ↗ existing homeowners. We have backyards that face Newport Way. The noise level on

1:31:50 ↗ Newport Way has increased radically. over the recent years and the

1:31:55 ↗ main reason is Newport Way is an alternate route to I-90 between

1:32:01 ↗ exits 13, exits 15, exits 17. These are all major on roads

1:32:07 ↗ and off roads to I-90. I'm not seeing any proposals for an additional on-ramp

1:32:13 ↗ to I-90 that would divert much of the traffic from this community to other

1:32:18 ↗ routes. Many of these residents are going to want to get directly onto I-90.

1:32:24 ↗ They're going to be working in Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, you name it. They're going

1:32:30 ↗ to be going south. They mainly just want to get onto I-90. They want to

1:32:35 ↗ go into downtown Issaquah and do their shopping. But they're all going to be ending

1:32:41 ↗ up on Newport Way. So I just want to encourage you. I understand the importance

1:32:47 ↗ of growth. I have many colleagues who are architects. I understand the priorities here. However,

1:32:52 ↗ there are existing residents who are homeowners who have worked hard, very hard through the

1:32:58 ↗ years, to be able to own a home in Issaquah. please take into

1:33:03 ↗ account the existing homeowners. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there

1:33:09 ↗ anyone else who would like to speak? All right. If not, then

1:33:15 ↗ we will close the public discussion section of tonight's meeting. And we

1:33:21 ↗ will go to the portion of the meeting that presents the commissioners

1:33:27 ↗ individually with the opportunity to make observations, to ask questions, and to

1:33:33 ↗ go from there. So we'll start with Commissioner Brennan.

1:33:39 ↗ I should have known better to sit down. So I want to start with

1:33:44 ↗ probably the topic that is on most people's mind here so that I get

1:33:50 ↗ a better understanding of what the city's thinking and so this is more of a

1:33:55 ↗ staff conversation about Newport Way. So obviously this project has an obligation to do their

1:34:00 ↗ frontage improvements aligned with the plans for Newport Way but I'm curious about kind of

1:34:04 ↗ the, this is a street in the city that's getting a lot of attention right

1:34:09 ↗ now and just where is the thinking or the conversations or the planning with regard

1:34:13 ↗ to the improvements along Newport Way outside of the scope of this project just

1:34:19 ↗ so we get some sense for where that is on the radar for the

1:34:25 ↗ city? So there are three to five projects that are proposed that are in

1:34:31 ↗ various stages of discussion with the city between SR 900 and sort of where

1:34:37 ↗ Newport touches back to I-90 just west of this project. As a

1:34:43 ↗ result, the city staff have been looking at that corridor, both in

1:34:49 ↗ terms of implementing the Central Issaquah standards and how to make that

1:34:55 ↗ whole section of roadway work. As Amy mentioned, there is

1:35:01 ↗ a safe crossing study that's underway due to the

1:35:07 ↗ tragedy that happened on Newport. That is a citywide

1:35:12 ↗ study, but where there are a number of crossings,

1:35:18 ↗ several crossings, whole corridors are being looked at, and

1:35:23 ↗ Newport Way is one of those. Central Issaquah road

1:35:29 ↗ section and how that is being applied to the corridor has been given

1:35:35 ↗ to the consultant that is doing this safe crossing study to look at

1:35:41 ↗ how that whole roadway is working. So there's a great deal of attention

1:35:47 ↗ being paid to it right now. Is there In the city's capital facilities

1:35:53 ↗ plan, is there any capacity improvement project funded along Newport Way at this point, or

1:35:58 ↗ are we going to stay with, at least in the foreseeable future, the current prison

1:36:03 ↗ that's there? So, because there are so many projects, a significant

1:36:09 ↗ amount of that roadway with the frontage improvements associated with those

1:36:15 ↗ projects, significant portion of the corridor would be improved, and we

1:36:21 ↗ have very early in that process began talking with public works

1:36:27 ↗ engineering about whether a capital project to complete the sections of the

1:36:33 ↗ roadway that would not be modified from those projects is underway as

1:36:38 ↗ well. But at this point, we're really waiting to understand what comes

1:36:44 ↗ out of that study that is looking at it at the entire

1:36:50 ↗ corridor. So we are looking at the frontage of this roadway. There

1:36:55 ↗ is a center turn lane that is proposed as part of this,

1:37:01 ↗ which would significantly help and change the traffic along the roadway

1:37:07 ↗ so that the two lanes would function better. And we're hoping

1:37:12 ↗ they prioritize the Newport corridor as part of that study and

1:37:18 ↗ we're hoping to hear something back quite soon. Thank you. Another kind

1:37:24 ↗ of more specific to the project. So, and it was the modified condition, Amy, that

1:37:29 ↗ you put up earlier said that should a signal be provided at this intersection. And

1:37:33 ↗ somewhere along the way I was reading my assumption that there was a signal being

1:37:38 ↗ added at this intersection. So it's not clear if that decision hasn't been made yet

1:37:43 ↗ whether a signal, this is going to be a signalized intersection at the entrance. So

1:37:49 ↗ a lot has transpired since the project or the applicant submitted

1:37:54 ↗ their project. And again, originally the idea was that a traffic

1:38:00 ↗ signal will be sufficient and appropriate. But given that we have

1:38:05 ↗ additional concerns about Newport Way, we are looking at several other

1:38:11 ↗ options. So it kind of like pushed them back a little bit because of

1:38:17 ↗ some of the other things that we're doing in the city. Go ahead. I'm going

1:38:23 ↗ to keep going? Okay. I think what I'll do is my comments related to Newport

1:38:29 ↗ maybe and then I'll pass the baton here. Others will probably catch some of the

1:38:35 ↗ others. Mr. Brennan, if I may, let me see if we can do something a

1:38:40 ↗ little different. Each one of us has a comment or question about traffic.

1:38:46 ↗ Let's see if we can do that first. So Commissioner Brennan has opened that subject.

1:38:52 ↗ It's obviously of significant interest to many members of the public here. So let's, when

1:38:58 ↗ Commissioner Brennan finishes his questions and clarifications on traffic, if there's anybody else that has

1:39:04 ↗ something that has not been addressed, let's let's do it that way and then we'll

1:39:08 ↗ go around with Commissioner Hicks and so on and we'll try to do it by

1:39:12 ↗ still in the same order but we'll stay focused on one topic at a time

1:39:17 ↗ as we go around. Is that does that sound all right? Okay let's go. So

1:39:21 ↗ and then there was just one comment from that I grabbed out of one of

1:39:25 ↗ the written comments from the public and that was regarding School bus access and I

1:39:30 ↗ don't know if any conversations have been had with the school district about how the

1:39:36 ↗ school district will be providing bus service the pickup location safety of the students accessing

1:39:42 ↗ bus service etc. Has that been discussed. So staff has already reached out

1:39:48 ↗ to the Issaquah School District and their transportation division that plans all of

1:39:53 ↗ these. And they are aware of all the new developments that's coming in

1:39:59 ↗ on Newport. And so they are looking at some options for locations for

1:40:05 ↗ the bus stop or the school bus stop. It's somewhere between further because

1:40:10 ↗ of all the other new developments further east. So it's kind of like in between

1:40:15 ↗ this project and then some of the other projects further down. I guess that just

1:40:20 ↗ raises one more concern about, you know, got more pedestrian traffic, safety features along that

1:40:25 ↗ frontage, et cetera. So that'll be -- and I know there's limited scope here what

1:40:30 ↗ the Commission can address within the boundaries of this project, but I just want to

1:40:35 ↗ raise those concerns so that staff, obviously hearing it from the public, but the Commission

1:40:40 ↗ can obviously share those concerns. So I'll end my comments with that related to transportation.

1:40:45 ↗ Commissioner Hicks, traffic. Yes. I'm concerned about the access for fire trucks.

1:40:51 ↗ I noticed in our packet that there was a conversation about

1:40:57 ↗ fire turnaround. And I'd like to know if any other conversations

1:41:03 ↗ have transpired since then or what you have to add about

1:41:09 ↗ what's being done to fix that. So basically

1:41:14 ↗ for fire truck access, there is another connection. And again,

1:41:20 ↗ this is just limited to basically emergency vehicles. And I

1:41:26 ↗ don't know if my cursor is showing it. So this

1:41:32 ↗ is the arena sports. part of the Raleigh property. So they actually have

1:41:38 ↗ an access easement for fire trucks to come in here. All the roads

1:41:44 ↗ and even all the way into the parking areas of the buildings have

1:41:49 ↗ been evaluated by staff with all the turning radii. There is a model that you

1:41:55 ↗ can use to do that. And so we wouldn't even bring this in front of

1:42:00 ↗ you if we didn't go through that process. Okay, so the issue with

1:42:06 ↗ the fire truck turnaround is you've looked through all, because it seems to me that

1:42:12 ↗ it might be a little hard for the trucks to get back to where the

1:42:18 ↗ area is for the children, where the park is. So that's my main concern is

1:42:24 ↗ making sure that the fire trucks can get in and out easily. Through, you mean

1:42:30 ↗ through this roadway? Yes. Yes. They, they, And get to

1:42:36 ↗ all of the buildings. Yes. We have that basically

1:42:41 ↗ modeled and analyzed. Okay. Well, obviously everybody's concerned about

1:42:47 ↗ the traffic and I think that the it

1:42:53 ↗ really would serve as well to take a hard look at Newport and make sure

1:42:58 ↗ that we aren't creating huge liability for ourself. I think that the, so I think

1:43:04 ↗ everybody's gonna say the same thing. That's a lot of people to put on an

1:43:09 ↗ already kind of crowded road at a fairly high speed. - The question I have

1:43:15 ↗ is with regard to traffic and as Commissioner Brennan mentioned, I'd like to

1:43:21 ↗ clarify what the limitations of what we can do are with regard

1:43:26 ↗ to offsite traffic. Definitely hearing a concern about the volume of traffic

1:43:32 ↗ on Newport Way. But as I understand, that doesn't impact our decision

1:43:38 ↗ one way or another. It's presumed to be adequate in terms of

1:43:43 ↗ this project, right? Right. I mean, the traffic study is

1:43:49 ↗ looking closely at not only -- so you brought up a

1:43:55 ↗ number of great topics, Mel, of course. So one is the

1:44:00 ↗ access to the project and is it designed -- you know,

1:44:06 ↗ what is the intersection control method and the traffic study is

1:44:11 ↗ looking at that and also we're waiting for information from the crossing

1:44:17 ↗ study that's taking place. That ingress/egress access is part of our purview

1:44:23 ↗ as part of this project to say whether we think that's appropriate

1:44:28 ↗ or not. Well, actually that's a pretty technical review. We know that

1:44:34 ↗ some kind of intersection control is likely necessary whether it was

1:44:39 ↗ one kind or another is really a technical decision.

1:44:45 ↗ Now, we're interested in your thoughts and your preferences,

1:44:51 ↗ but it probably will be an engineering decision on

1:44:56 ↗ the specific type of control that goes in. As

1:45:02 ↗ to Newport Way, the comment, you know, because this traffic,

1:45:08 ↗ this, not traffic study, the corridor study is underway, you know, we're anticipating that there

1:45:13 ↗ will be comments that are more appropriate in that venue and we would gather those

1:45:18 ↗ and provide those to the study as well because -- But if we felt, in

1:45:24 ↗ other words, if we felt like there is too much traffic on Newport Way, it

1:45:29 ↗ wouldn't impact our ability to make a decision with regard to this project. At

1:45:35 ↗ this point, we're not seeing from the traffic study that Newport is not capable of

1:45:40 ↗ handling the traffic that's associated with this project as well as other projects that are

1:45:45 ↗ coming along the way in terms of the level of service standards that the council

1:45:50 ↗ has established. That's part of what I want to clarify, I guess, for the public's

1:45:55 ↗ sake is that the decision that we make with regard to the project does not

1:46:00 ↗ cover volume of traffic on Newport Way as a deciding factor.

1:46:06 ↗ Unless the traffic study did not support that Newport could handle

1:46:12 ↗ the traffic that's projected. Right. So the other thing, you probably have heard

1:46:17 ↗ about this already, but more of just a clarification and reminder. When the

1:46:23 ↗ city conducted the concurrency study a year ago, they modeled Newport Way to

1:46:29 ↗ be able to accommodate and handle the type of traffic based on the

1:46:34 ↗ new Central Issaquah plan. So it's already based on the higher densities that

1:46:40 ↗ we were anticipating. And if you if you think about the FAR

1:46:45 ↗ for this project, they're on the lower end too. So if that

1:46:51 ↗ makes you feel better. In other words, the impacts of this development

1:46:57 ↗ in so many ways was already accounted for through the concurrency study.

1:47:03 ↗ - Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, and I just

1:47:09 ↗ want to dovetail into what Commissioner Morgan had mentioned, is that the traffic, I

1:47:15 ↗ think we're all hearing tonight that traffic is an issue here in the city

1:47:21 ↗ of Issaquah. And for Development Commission to make a decision based on that, I'm

1:47:27 ↗ not sure or hold the project up because of that. I think it's a

1:47:33 ↗ little bit unfair to the applicant. Cost goes up and that's why they're

1:47:39 ↗ here to move along with the project. But that's something that I think the

1:47:44 ↗ city ought to look at it, which they are looking at this Newport traffic

1:47:50 ↗ issue. But at the same time, on the other side of the coin,

1:47:56 ↗ I would like to suggest the issue about the school bus. Since we are

1:48:02 ↗ having so much problem or a lot of traffic going on Newport Way, is

1:48:08 ↗ the applicant open to the bus stop going into that development so that it's

1:48:14 ↗ not bolting traffic as it's moving along in the peak hours. So it

1:48:19 ↗ gets out of the Newport traffic way, goes into the development so you can

1:48:25 ↗ provide a bus stop there where the kids can gather and then get on

1:48:31 ↗ the bus, and then the bus stop comes back out. So that would help

1:48:37 ↗ in alleviating any major traffic. So that's something that I'll just throw out in

1:48:43 ↗ reference to traffic. So one thing I would add is that we've been working

1:48:49 ↗ closely with the school district and they have very specific preferences about how they like

1:48:54 ↗ to operate relative to which projects they enter and where they stop, whether it's in

1:49:00 ↗ traffic or not in traffic. And so we're coordinating with them based on that.

1:49:06 ↗ The other piece I want to add that although we are providing answers tonight for

1:49:12 ↗ some of the public that may not have attended development commission meetings before, all of

1:49:17 ↗ the questions, concerns, and issues that are being raised tonight will be consolidated into a

1:49:24 ↗ series of topics. Traffic is obviously one big one. And we are writing -- we

1:49:29 ↗ write a briefing response memo that addresses each of the topics that has come up

1:49:35 ↗ tonight. If we have your e-mail on the list, you will get a copy of

1:49:40 ↗ that briefing response memo which will come out in about two weeks. And so even

1:49:46 ↗ though we are providing responses to some of the questions tonight, we will also provide

1:49:51 ↗ written responses to all the topics that have come up. And I would just like

1:49:56 ↗ to add, excuse me, if you haven't already, you might want to check the city

1:50:01 ↗ website. And I say this as someone who doesn't own a smartphone. Seriously, there

1:50:07 ↗ is a great deal of information on the website about what's going on now, what's

1:50:13 ↗ planned to go on in the future, and what has gone on in the past.

1:50:19 ↗ So those of you who are property owners now or residents of Issaquah can get

1:50:24 ↗ an idea of what happened when the area that you now live in was proposed.

1:50:30 ↗ and what the people who lived here before you did said and how the city

1:50:35 ↗ handled it. And there is a process that's changing. And it's all on the website.

1:50:40 ↗ So if you have questions like this, you can keep up with what's going on

1:50:44 ↗ just by looking at the website. OK? Commissioner Long? Is there anything else? COMMISSIONER LONG:

1:50:49 ↗ I'm done, sir. COMMISSIONER CLARE DUDA: OK. COMMISSIONER CLARE DUDA: I won't beat a dead

1:50:54 ↗ horse in regards to Newport Way, but has the preliminary traffic study determined a number

1:50:59 ↗ of peak hour trips this is going to generate? How does it affect

1:51:04 ↗ concurrency? Do we know that? So I think that's what

1:51:10 ↗ Amy was speaking about, that concurrency is different now. There's

1:51:16 ↗ simplified concurrency, which probably won't sound simplified once I start

1:51:22 ↗ talking about it. The method the city is using now

1:51:28 ↗ is that traffic impact fees are paid by the developer. So they

1:51:34 ↗ have to build the improvements associated with their project. - Based on the

1:51:40 ↗ bank of-- - But the regional or city-wide traffic impact. - Do we

1:51:45 ↗ know how many trips this is gonna generate? 'Cause the neighbors might like

1:51:51 ↗ to know how many peak trips are gonna be generated. in regards

1:51:57 ↗ to coming in and out of the development. I guess it

1:52:03 ↗ affects transportation, but one of the conditions talked about half neighborhood

1:52:09 ↗ street design. I didn't quite understand what a half neighborhood street

1:52:14 ↗ design was, but if it's found to be substandard by the

1:52:20 ↗ fire marshal, which means to me it's questionable to start with,

1:52:27 ↗ then what happens? Your whole design goes south? You lose parking spots? I'll ask

1:52:32 ↗ that question of the developer. If the fire marshal says your half street design

1:52:38 ↗ doesn't work, then what happens? So the fire marshal has been involved since the

1:52:44 ↗ very beginning with this project and has been reviewing it at both preliminary and

1:52:50 ↗ this stage. I'm reading the condition. so the adjustments really made to

1:52:56 ↗ the site plan if the half neighborhood street design is found to be substandard by

1:53:02 ↗ the fire marshal okay means it's still a question so so we usually have what

1:53:08 ↗ we call the catch-all condition because we are reviewing a site plan based on the

1:53:13 ↗ information they have today and as they go into construction phase if for whatever reason

1:53:19 ↗ the there are some shifts in the design of the streets, the building locations. We

1:53:25 ↗ wanna have the prerogative to say you can't do certain things because it doesn't

1:53:31 ↗ meet the fire marshal standards. So it's the same thing that we do for

1:53:36 ↗ every project. - Okay, but that'll-- - And I have to, I'm culpable for

1:53:42 ↗ using that term half neighborhood street because now I understand it could be confusing,

1:53:48 ↗ but it sounds like you only have half of a lane. And so

1:53:54 ↗ we use that term only to refer to, for instance, this, my cursor

1:54:00 ↗ show it. So this street in front of building 17, it does have

1:54:06 ↗ the full 20 foot wide but because it only has sidewalks

1:54:12 ↗ and parallel parking based on the Central Issaquah standards of what

1:54:17 ↗ a neighborhood street is, we called it the half neighborhood street.

1:54:23 ↗ - Okay, well. - I apologize, I will never use that

1:54:29 ↗ term again. - I just wanna follow up on Commissioner Swidberg's

1:54:35 ↗ comment. I was under the impression When going through 321

1:54:41 ↗ pages of this, Amy, what exactly is the concurrency of the security

1:54:47 ↗ and the fire approval of the plan? I was under the impression

1:54:52 ↗ from reading this that the fire marshal and the police department have

1:54:58 ↗ already looked at this and basically said it's okay. So they

1:55:04 ↗ have, yes. And in fact, the fire marshal has looked at every

1:55:10 ↗ iteration of the site plan. - Is up in the upper right

1:55:16 ↗ corner, is that the fire truck hammerhead? - Yes. - There's only

1:55:22 ↗ one for the development? - So this one, obviously this one is

1:55:27 ↗ serving this, but down here there's, basically it depends on where the

1:55:33 ↗ fire trucks are going. So where they were there were there required, then

1:55:39 ↗ that's what they're providing. We discourage them only because they add so much more

1:55:45 ↗ impervious area and their single use. So in fact, what we have conditioned in

1:55:51 ↗ the project is that all this area back here and back here are going

1:55:56 ↗ to be designed like plazas. even though they're for parking to make it at

1:56:02 ↗ least a little bit more appealing. Okay. Well, and again, the fire department. Yes.

1:56:08 ↗ Let's talk to the Pope and it's okay. Yes. And I think the thing that

1:56:13 ↗ I would say is our goal with Central Issaquah is to ensure that, well, with

1:56:18 ↗ anything, that it works for the fire trucks getting to all the places they need

1:56:23 ↗ to. Our goal with Central Issaquah is to embed those in other things as opposed

1:56:28 ↗ to making them single use. So the fact that you only see one, Carl, means

1:56:33 ↗ that we've hidden all the rest. They're all there. We have just not tried

1:56:39 ↗ to make them only for the purpose of the turnaround. So I would also

1:56:45 ↗ like to add that those buildings are sprinklered. So in addition to having the

1:56:50 ↗ truck access. Okay. The other question I had was regards to pedestrian traffic. I

1:56:56 ↗ guess it falls under the same thing. You talk about one of the conditions

1:57:02 ↗ that all the crossings shall be of distinctive material compared to the asphalt, concrete,

1:57:08 ↗ be dividing, be able to see where the pedestrian traffic is.

1:57:14 ↗ Then there's a comment in another set of an attachment three.

1:57:19 ↗ It says, "Markings for crosswalks shall not be allowed

1:57:29 ↗ And I'm curious as to what that means and why it's there.

1:57:35 ↗ Are you talking about you don't have crosshatch painting? - So actually

1:57:40 ↗ we had some, and I'm glad you brought it up because that

1:57:46 ↗ was the other revision that we will do for the next, for

1:57:52 ↗ the briefing memo. In some cases where we have, actual striping

1:57:58 ↗ with the reflectorized paint is the only option, then we will

1:58:03 ↗ continue to allow those. But the idea is again to make

1:58:09 ↗ this development and basically all developments in the central Issaquah area

1:58:15 ↗ more pedestrian friendly is to also require something more special than

1:58:20 ↗ just mark, you know, like your usual striping.

1:58:29 ↗ TODD BANDUCCI: OK. I don't agree, but OK.

1:58:35 ↗ Just to try to clarify, Amy and Lucy,

1:58:41 ↗ could you give us as definitively as possible

1:58:46 ↗ what the status of Newport Drive will be

1:58:52 ↗ at build out, simultaneous with build out, people

1:58:58 ↗ moving their mattresses into Gateway? what will Newport Way

1:59:04 ↗ look like at this point in the planning process? - We don't know.

1:59:10 ↗ - So-- - I mean, I know it says there's a lot of

1:59:16 ↗ things in the packet that said a phrase that was in there several

1:59:21 ↗ times to be determined at construction or And I think that's what's got people

1:59:27 ↗ a little bit concerned. And I understand, we all understand that there are studies going

1:59:32 ↗ on and there are proposals and there's funding to go in and it goes to

1:59:37 ↗ the whole thing. But there's got to be, I would think, at least a conceptual

1:59:42 ↗ idea of what Newport Way is going to look like to accommodate 400 new units.

1:59:46 ↗ And I'm not, I don't expect anything to be nailed down, but just if we

1:59:51 ↗ can give give the public and frankly us too, just what we think it would

1:59:57 ↗ look like now. And I know it's in here, but let's just get it out

2:00:03 ↗ there. - Well, let's start with what's required by the Central Issaquah Development Standards. So

2:00:08 ↗ what's required is a 10 foot wide shared use route So we will be

2:00:14 ↗ seeing that. It requires a commuter bike lane that's five feet. It will

2:00:20 ↗ be provided. It will have street trees and planter strip. And then the

2:00:25 ↗ rest of it will be part. It will be part of that green

2:00:31 ↗ area. How much of that will... be dedicated for the future Newport way improvements

2:00:37 ↗ if for whatever reason that's needed as part of safety, we don't know. But generally

2:00:42 ↗ speaking, that's what you're gonna see. - But you also, I believe we had in

2:00:48 ↗ the packet, they're talking about turn lanes at the entrance, at the entrance and egress

2:00:54 ↗ from Gateway, is that correct, addition of turn lanes? - Addition of turn lanes. -

2:00:59 ↗ So if you're on Newport and you're gonna turn into coming either way on Newport,

2:01:04 ↗ coming into Gateway. - Yeah, the median, yes. - There's a median and then at

2:01:09 ↗ intersections, there is a turn lane. - Will be. - There will be a turn

2:01:14 ↗ lane. - That's what I'm looking for. So the frontage of this property along

2:01:19 ↗ Newport will have all the improvements, and then they will transition across the

2:01:25 ↗ adjacent properties. CHRIS RODGERS: That's what I was looking for. Another traffic question.

2:01:31 ↗ We had the really good consultant study that was presented to the public

2:01:36 ↗ a couple of months ago and was very heavily attended. What is

2:01:42 ↗ on the red, green, yellow listing of intersections? Do we

2:01:48 ↗ know what Newport and State Road 900 are now? Are

2:01:53 ↗ they red, yellow, or green? CHRISTIE WOOD: Doug, do you

2:01:59 ↗ know that? CHRISTIE WOOD: Do you know, Doug? CHRISTIE WOOD:

2:02:04 ↗ Do you know the color? OK, then we'll include-- We'll just get back to

2:02:10 ↗ you on that. Yeah, because for those of you who don't know, I haven't seen

2:02:14 ↗ the study. It's conducted by the city with a consultant. And it just was promulgated

2:02:19 ↗ this year, wasn't it? Earlier this year? the public hearings on it. And it goes

2:02:24 ↗ through every intersection in the city and grades them, red, yellow, green, to give folks

2:02:29 ↗ an idea of what the priorities are for the improvements and try to do it

2:02:34 ↗ systematically. So I just don't remember what-- I attended the meeting, but I don't remember

2:02:40 ↗ what it was. CHRISTIE WOOD: And the reason you don't remember, because I'm having a

2:02:45 ↗ Vulcan mind melt here, is that it's-- SR 900 is a WSDOT facility. And

2:02:51 ↗ so they are not graded in the same way as the rest of

2:02:56 ↗ the intersections in the city. We will double check that and provide whatever

2:03:02 ↗ information we have, but that is different kind of intersection than intersections that

2:03:08 ↗ are on at City Road to City Road. Okay. That's it for traffic

2:03:14 ↗ for me. Why don't we just continue this? Commissioner Brennan, did you have questions

2:03:19 ↗ or clarifications about any other topic? And we'll just-- - Did you get to pick?

2:03:25 ↗ - Yes, sir. - Excellent. So some comments or questions about kind of the architectural

2:03:30 ↗ elements of the project. Most specifically around the five-story buildings that are down adjacent to

2:03:36 ↗ I-90 and heard some public comment and read some public comment and just looking at

2:03:40 ↗ the design, this is an important, this will be an important feature for the city,

2:03:45 ↗ particularly as you're coming eastbound on I-90 and down the hill, you'll be looking right

2:03:50 ↗ at this. This is the gateway coming into Bellevue, or excuse me, into Issaquah. Sorry,

2:03:54 ↗ Bellevue's the other direction. Coming into Issaquah and I think it's going to be an

2:04:00 ↗ important statement to make. I don't have huge issues with the architecture inbound buildings, the

2:04:06 ↗ two, the three story buildings, but I'm hoping we get something that's a little bit

2:04:12 ↗ more striking, I think, as a gateway element to the project. Putting flat roofs on

2:04:18 ↗ this building is not, in my mind, an acceptable outcome. That would just not be

2:04:23 ↗ the sorts of element we would want to see. So I know there's work going

2:04:28 ↗ on about code amendment. But even with a pitched roof, they're interesting buildings, but they're

2:04:33 ↗ not pulling out features that are really kind of reflective of the Issaquah character,

2:04:39 ↗ the more heavy timber element or something more interesting at the roof line that makes

2:04:44 ↗ it a bit more of a statement would be something I would like to see

2:04:50 ↗ explored a little bit. These are not, again, I think the architecture is nice, but

2:04:55 ↗ it's not especially unique for the community. And so being where these are located and

2:05:00 ↗ the size of these buildings, I think some thought In that design, some

2:05:06 ↗ additional work could be useful. Can I get a clarification about

2:05:12 ↗ that? Sure. Could you give examples of buildings in the CQAD

2:05:17 ↗ that would be representative of an architecture with a striking roof?

2:05:23 ↗ Striking roof. or a striking design? I think, I guess what I'm visualizing

2:05:29 ↗ is something that is more of a northwestern kind of like a, even like a

2:05:34 ↗ heavy timbered sort of elements that would be up at the roofline. There's some things

2:05:39 ↗ that are larger that I've seen that have done that are like, well, that's probably

2:05:45 ↗ not a good example. It's the Overlake or at the group health facility in Bellevue,

2:05:50 ↗ it's a large hospital facility, but the roofline's got some interesting elements that were added

2:05:56 ↗ that are not structural, they're just visual and they really make the building character

2:06:01 ↗ change in an interesting way. And so something that is, that's more massive obviously,

2:06:07 ↗ but something that's more of a unique character to the building that is more

2:06:13 ↗ reflective of kind of the gateway into the Cascades and of Northwest architectural elements.

2:06:18 ↗ You showed some examples of elements that for the park facility, you know,

2:06:24 ↗ that would be kind of character, character pieces. It seems to me that this is

2:06:28 ↗ where we need to create some character as we're coming into the city. And I

2:06:32 ↗ just, maybe I'm the only one, and everybody else is fine, but it seems like

2:06:36 ↗ we need something that's got a little bit more Issaquah character to it.

2:06:43 ↗ Commissioner Hulme. Okay. I agree with the pitched roof. I'd prefer to see a pitched

2:06:48 ↗ roof rather than a flat roof. I think that is more in line with the

2:06:54 ↗ character in Issaquah. I have a few things I have heard seen

2:06:59 ↗ in the packet mentioned that there's wetland I'd like to see it

2:07:05 ↗ for available for public comment for public and for us what that

2:07:11 ↗ categorization is possibly when we get the review back from ecology or

2:07:17 ↗ the SEPA review and also it was brought up in public comment

2:07:23 ↗ about the On page 17, figure 6, the multi-use 10-foot trail in lieu

2:07:29 ↗ of two sidewalks. And I do see on topic A that it's due to critical

2:07:35 ↗ mitigating for critical areas. But because it was brought up in public comment, I'd like

2:07:41 ↗ to maybe talk about that a little bit more, maybe review that in the future.

2:07:47 ↗ And then also I'd like for the developer to reconsider number 22

2:07:53 ↗ on page 23 and replace annuals with low water native plants that's more

2:07:59 ↗ in line with what we're used to seeing around here in Issaquah and based

2:08:04 ↗ on public comment, I think it's a good idea to integrate maybe some edibles

2:08:10 ↗ and definitely some more shade as we're seeing hotter summers. Parents would want to

2:08:16 ↗ congregate in that green around some shade. As far as the pedestrian area striping,

2:08:22 ↗ I agree with Commissioner Swenberg. Striping is what drivers are used to seeing. And I

2:08:27 ↗ understand that you want to see something prettier or new or different, but we've had

2:08:33 ↗ a tragic accident right around here. This community is reeling from it, and we need

2:08:38 ↗ to stay consistent with what drivers are used to seeing, and that's striping. So I'd

2:08:44 ↗ like for that to be put in there. To me, that's very important.

2:08:50 ↗ And also, the last thing I'd like to say is that I think the August

2:08:56 ↗ 26 decision is pretty soon for me as a commissioner. I think that we need

2:09:01 ↗ more time. for the public to give more comment. There's a lot of, there's a

2:09:06 ↗ lot here. And people need to be able to really go online and read it.

2:09:12 ↗ A lot of people are on vacation. I believe it was Mary Lynch who mentioned

2:09:18 ↗ that in particular, that it's kind of, things are happening a bit quick for the

2:09:23 ↗ community and especially with the accident that's happened, people really want to talk more about

2:09:29 ↗ this, learn more about this. I'd like for the community to know exactly what the

2:09:35 ↗ development commission does in regards to this particular project so that they know the

2:09:40 ↗ proper channels in which commissions they should be talking to, what they should be addressing

2:09:46 ↗ us with, and what they should be addressing city council with and other commissions. And

2:09:53 ↗ Also, the fact that we get the SEPA review back by August 20th, I think

2:09:58 ↗ that six days is a little too soon for us to be making a decision

2:10:04 ↗ without reading that and having that available to the public as well. And that is

2:10:09 ↗ all. Thank you. Commissioner Schell? I got hung up on the dwelling unit per acre

2:10:15 ↗ chart and the I just want to understand what the role of the commission is

2:10:21 ↗ in-- it seems like if there's a proposed development and if they enact that proposed

2:10:26 ↗ development that I thought I read somewhere that was going to start in the next

2:10:32 ↗ couple of years, that it was going to exceed the dwelling unit per acre of

2:10:37 ↗ any other place. It seemed like it was kind of not addressing a potential issue

2:10:43 ↗ that we know is coming. So this project is

2:10:49 ↗ within the-- is less than the allowed density? Right,

2:10:54 ↗ but when you go to the future-- future multifamily density

2:11:00 ↗ exceeded what the maximum was, I thought. I can't, I've lost my page number. No,

2:11:05 ↗ it's just barely over the minimum required. Oh, got the wrong table. So I, we

2:11:11 ↗ will try and clarify that in our response to make sure it's clear. I just

2:11:17 ↗ might have made a more than willing to. Yeah, this is, this is the required

2:11:23 ↗ minimum of .75 and there, barely making the 0.75. Is this

2:11:28 ↗ the senior, the proposed senior development? This one? The dwelling

2:11:34 ↗ unit per acre chart was the one that I thought

2:11:39 ↗ we exceeded, not the floor area ratio. Oh, that's actually

2:11:45 ↗ what this shows is that it's even less than the Bentley House

2:11:51 ↗ and the Sammamish Point condos. I understand that, but if you look

2:11:57 ↗ at the 18.4, which is consistent with the proposed development in the

2:12:03 ↗ future, it's the highest by far. I'm sorry, those two

2:12:08 ↗ numbers are both the same density. It's not a range. So the

2:12:14 ↗ first number, the 13.33, is based on the 400 dwelling units divided

2:12:20 ↗ by 30 acres because the whole site is 30 acres. And that's

2:12:25 ↗ also how I calculated the density for the Sammamish Point condos

2:12:31 ↗ in Spyglass Hill and Bentley House. So if you're comparing apples

2:12:36 ↗ to apples, 13.33 is, based on the same calculation method

2:12:42 ↗ that I use for the three other existing development. How did

2:12:48 ↗ you determine the 18.4? So 18.4 is based on, in so

2:12:53 ↗ many cases in the Issaquah development standards or the central Issaquah

2:12:59 ↗ development standards, we base it by taking out all the

2:13:05 ↗ critical areas because you can't really build on them.

2:13:11 ↗ All right, I got it. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you.

2:13:17 ↗ Yeah. Thanks for clarifying, though. A few questions. Amy,

2:13:23 ↗ on page 37 of the report, it mentions-- What

2:13:29 ↗ page 37? Oh, right. Two pages. Sorry. 37 out

2:13:35 ↗ of how many pages? That'll tell us which one

2:13:41 ↗ you-- 37 out of 83. I believe if

2:13:46 ↗ I get there. It's with regard to the number of parking units. So

2:13:52 ↗ it states there are more on the on-street parking credit. It says there

2:13:58 ↗ are more than 400 parking spaces provided in the garages. And I believe

2:14:04 ↗ there are 291 spaces provided in the garages, which is stated on the

2:14:09 ↗ prior page. So again, that might be

2:14:15 ↗ an error on my part. The way I calculated it is basically

2:14:21 ↗ looking at what parking spaces are confined in areas where you know

2:14:27 ↗ it's very clear whose spaces those are. So that would include the

2:14:32 ↗ tandem parking, for the three-story buildings. So if you took all the garage

2:14:38 ↗ parking for the three-story buildings plus the garage parking of the five-story buildings and

2:14:44 ↗ added them together, it should be around, it should meet the minimum. - And

2:14:50 ↗ we will clarify with the 400. - Yeah, we can do that. - On

2:14:56 ↗ the prior page, it says there are 692 stalls. within the garage

2:15:02 ↗ and surface and then it says there are 401 surface 692 minus the 401

2:15:07 ↗ would be 291 then went back to the architects plans and went through those

2:15:13 ↗ numbers and came up with the same 291 within the garages so the extent

2:15:19 ↗ that this was changed to 291 would it still would your conclusion still be

2:15:25 ↗ the same for the on street parking credits - I

2:15:31 ↗ guess something to look into. - I will look

2:15:37 ↗ into that, yeah. Not sure. - Thank you. And

2:15:43 ↗ then on page 19, let's see if I have

2:15:48 ↗ the right one. So page 19 of 83. So

2:15:54 ↗ item four in that, where it talks about sufficient

2:16:00 ↗ reason for the change to the street, it says,

2:16:06 ↗ "Due to site constraints, "Building 17 must be located

2:16:12 ↗ along I-90 "to provide a sound barrier." And

2:16:17 ↗ I guess that didn't make sense to me. There's no -- you can design any

2:16:23 ↗ sort of buildings you want that fit within an envelope. I don't understand that a

2:16:29 ↗ building has to be located -- a certain building has to be located next to

2:16:35 ↗ I-90. They've chosen to put that building there for a sound barrier, but I don't

2:16:41 ↗ think it has to be there, does it? So I had the same

2:16:47 ↗ question when I first saw the site plan and I played around with the site

2:16:52 ↗ plan to see where else can you put that building. So there are other factors

2:16:57 ↗ to why it's there. First, it's the lowest part like what Mr. Rowe said earlier,

2:17:03 ↗ it's the lowest part of the property. So by putting it over there, then

2:17:08 ↗ it has the least impact on any of the neighbors. There's also the shadows

2:17:14 ↗ and again, the orientation of the building, having the tallest building on the north

2:17:20 ↗ end so that it doesn't affect any of the smaller buildings on the north.

2:17:26 ↗ - Okay, so it's more to the reasons why it's a good

2:17:31 ↗ thing to have that building there. I guess maybe it's just say,

2:17:37 ↗ having this building there has these things, it doesn't have to be

2:17:42 ↗ there. There isn't a must that it has to be there. -

2:17:48 ↗ Okay, I see, all right. - The shared use trail lighting, there

2:17:54 ↗ was a mention about the shared use trail paving and lighting was

2:17:59 ↗ mentioned in that. in condition 38, but I don't think I found

2:18:05 ↗ something that specifically said whether the shared use trail would have lighting along

2:18:11 ↗ its entire length or have no lighting and what did we think

2:18:16 ↗ about that one way or the other um so the standards doesn't specify uh under

2:18:22 ↗ the you know when you look at the elements for a shared use route whether

2:18:27 ↗ or not lighting is part of it but we have been coordinating this with our

2:18:33 ↗ parks department and they they will be determining at you know probably in certain parts

2:18:38 ↗ of the trail, the lighting will be more important and necessary than in other parts.

2:18:43 ↗ So it's this next level of detail of review and that's something that we, we

2:18:48 ↗ would finalize at construction. Okay, and would that be then determined by the Parks Department?

2:18:54 ↗ Yes, Parks and Public Works. Okay, great. So one thing I will add though, that

2:19:00 ↗ the part of the trail that goes to the critical areas, my memory is that

2:19:05 ↗ it is either prohibited or discouraged in the critical areas. So for the boardwalk, I

2:19:11 ↗ don't know that we-- The critters, bad for safety. I know. And so that's

2:19:17 ↗ a discussion we're going to have to have between parks and our biologists to

2:19:23 ↗ try and figure out what the -- are there light limiting ways of putting

2:19:28 ↗ lights in there that maintain the safety and yet don't impact the critical area?

2:19:34 ↗ And that's a question that we're going to work through at construction. Okay. Great.

2:19:40 ↗ And then with regard to the shared use trail, As I understand

2:19:46 ↗ it ends at the property line right at the Rowley property line but I didn't

2:19:51 ↗ see anything that says it has to be extended across Tibbetts Creek over to 19th

2:19:57 ↗ and so is it possible that this gets built and the shared use trail just

2:20:02 ↗ ends at the property line and we don't get a trail that connects the downtown

2:20:08 ↗ which what doesn't get us any of the benefit? So we cannot require

2:20:14 ↗ them to build on someone else's property that they don't control. However, we've already

2:20:19 ↗ had several meetings. The applicant has had several meetings, and then we've had one,

2:20:25 ↗ a three-way meeting with the rallies and the city and the applicant to coordinate

2:20:31 ↗ because our intent is to build all the way to 19th. We just

2:20:37 ↗ have not finalized that agreement, but the rallies are open to it, so we're hoping

2:20:43 ↗ we're going to get there. And so that's why the condition is written as it

2:20:48 ↗ is, or the expectation is that we can't require it to be built in 19--

2:20:54 ↗ We don't end up with the off-branch to nowhere. The bridge to nowhere. Yes. Our

2:21:00 ↗ own Issaquah bridge to nowhere. Right. OK. Is there any way to-- Would

2:21:06 ↗ the city be able to do eminent domain to create that kind of connection? I

2:21:11 ↗ don't think so. I don't think for a trail, but we'll ask. I'll find out.

2:21:16 ↗ Because I think this is a real critical piece of this whole development. And in

2:21:21 ↗ order to get, especially bicyclists, and pedestrians also from Newport Way to downtown Issaquah to

2:21:27 ↗ get off of Newport Way there and go through that trail I think is a

2:21:32 ↗ huge benefit of this project. And I'd hate to have them get that close and

2:21:37 ↗ wait across the river. COMMISSIONER MIKE BOYLE: Commissioner, can I just ask one thing? A

2:21:42 ↗ long time ago in one of these meetings, and I mean we're talking years ago,

2:21:48 ↗ There was some significant discussion-- and maybe you remember this, Christopher, and frankly, I

2:21:54 ↗ don't remember who from city staff was here-- about a pedestrian overpass on 900

2:21:59 ↗ right around the area of Newport. And I think that discussion may have

2:22:05 ↗ come up even before the CIP was put in place. But it was to

2:22:11 ↗ -- the concept as I recall it was to allow bicycle and pedestrian passage

2:22:16 ↗ over State Road 900 from all of the areas west of State Road 900

2:22:22 ↗ that were in Issaquah to use to get to Issaquah downtown and the transit

2:22:28 ↗ center. I haven't seen or heard anything since then. We discussed that with the

2:22:34 ↗ Rowleys at the time we were working on their development agreement. I'm not aware

2:22:39 ↗ of a project right now, and one of the reasons

2:22:45 ↗ that it seems unlikely is because usually the ramps, to have ADA ramps that get

2:22:50 ↗ to the height that that would have to be, you know, 14 feet up in

2:22:55 ↗ the air. Well, it's also a state, as you pointed out earlier, it's a state

2:22:59 ↗ road, so it would have to be a state project. It wouldn't be a city

2:23:04 ↗ project, would it? Even if there was movement toward it? That's a good question. I

2:23:09 ↗ don't know who would build it, but I'm just not even sure that to get

2:23:14 ↗ up that high whether we would get significant use because of the kind of ramping

2:23:20 ↗ that would be required. No worries. Let's see. On, I guess one, sort of

2:23:26 ↗ condition 64, where it talks about consider putting rooftop gardens in. I guess two questions.

2:23:31 ↗ One, I would agree with the other commissioners about not wanting to have flat roofs

2:23:37 ↗ next to I-90 in terms of what we envision for the gateway. But also conditions

2:23:42 ↗ that say consider, we've always been told if we try to put a condition into

2:23:47 ↗ a, that saying consider doesn't really mean anything at all. It's

2:23:53 ↗ just sort of an intent type of thing and it doesn't require

2:23:59 ↗ them to do anything. But again, I would agree that we would

2:24:05 ↗ not want flat roofs next to I-90. Let's see, the seven foot

2:24:11 ↗ wide parking spaces. So this would be page 18. And the first

2:24:16 ↗ question, I guess, the administrative adjustment that's being done to,

2:24:24 ↗ moving the both sidewalks to a larger sidewalk on the south side. Connie Marsh

2:24:30 ↗ brought up a point if she didn't think that was allowed under there, I

2:24:36 ↗ presume you've gone through that and the code and decided that is possible for

2:24:41 ↗ the. - The priorities that she's referring to are guides And so we

2:24:47 ↗ definitely take those into consideration and I think the point that she's bringing

2:24:53 ↗ up and that we would certainly take is that we are not interested

2:24:58 ↗ in prioritizing cars over sidewalks and that was part of the genesis of

2:25:04 ↗ creating a wider sidewalk on one side and keeping people away from the

2:25:10 ↗ critical area. So I'd also like to add, again, we looked at

2:25:16 ↗ the intent of the standards and it talks a lot about

2:25:21 ↗ pedestrian, you know, intuitive way finding, connectivity. In this particular case,

2:25:27 ↗ this is the condition of what the what the western edge of the

2:25:33 ↗ neighborhood park is. And as Mr. Rowley mentioned earlier, this is the Washed

2:25:39 ↗ Out Conservation Area. There's a fence here, so it is already a barrier

2:25:44 ↗ for pedestrian. Over here, you do have pretty much all the buffer wetland

2:25:50 ↗ area. And even though we do want pedestrian access to the wetland,

2:25:56 ↗ we are also limiting those access at certain locations. So this exposes

2:26:02 ↗ it more to the whole area. So by having the 10 foot wide

2:26:08 ↗ walkway here, and I mentioned this in the report, and I feel very strongly

2:26:14 ↗ about this. If you're talking about good urban design, you want to look at

2:26:20 ↗ where what we call desire routes are for people. And because you have the buildings

2:26:25 ↗ on this side, then chances are people will more likely to walk on this side.

2:26:30 ↗ And also, if you look at the connection, this is the shared use route. This

2:26:36 ↗ is where it's going. So when you cross the street here, automatically you are funneled

2:26:41 ↗ into the sidewalk on this side of the street. So it just made a lot

2:26:46 ↗ more sense. And given that the shared use route is 10 feet wide, we also

2:26:51 ↗ thought then make that continuously 10 foot wide and that it's visually and intuitive to

2:26:56 ↗ people that that's where to go. And I agree with all that. The one thing

2:27:01 ↗ I don't agree with though is reducing the parking stall width to seven feet. This

2:27:07 ↗ is a really large site. I've got to believe they can find one foot

2:27:13 ↗ extra to maintain the eight foot width parking stalls. And I've seen the narrower

2:27:19 ↗ parking stalls in Iskwa Highlands and I think they just create more chances for

2:27:25 ↗ door dings or accidents, things like that. And I didn't see a reason why

2:27:30 ↗ we had to reduce those car stall widths to seven feet. We're

2:27:36 ↗ already reducing the requirement from 12 feet of sidewalks to 10. I don't see a

2:27:42 ↗ reason to take away another foot. So I agree with all your statements. I just

2:27:48 ↗ strongly feel like we should leave those car stall widths the same as the code

2:27:53 ↗ requires. We'll definitely look into that. And we'll come back to you guys at the

2:27:59 ↗ next meeting to let you know how they could comply. Right.

2:28:04 ↗ building height amendment. So is this, would the amendment essentially

2:28:10 ↗ involve eliminating the existing grade as a possible, as a

2:28:15 ↗ default for the measurement? So at this point, we're looking

2:28:21 ↗ at different options, looking at case studies of how they

2:28:26 ↗ do it in Seattle, how they do it in, you

2:28:32 ↗ know, so we are And I don't know if we would be available or

2:28:38 ↗ if we would be ready to discuss any option, you know, like any methodologies next

2:28:43 ↗ time. But basically it's something that we're looking at. So as I understand it, it's

2:28:47 ↗ the where you measure from is the lower of the existing grade or the new

2:28:52 ↗ grade. whichever is lower. Whichever is lower. So you would have to in this case

2:28:57 ↗ take out the existing grade. My concern would be if you change it to that

2:29:01 ↗ to say that you can measure from the new grade, what would stop somebody from

2:29:06 ↗ saying great I'll put 10 feet of fill into my site and start building from

2:29:10 ↗ there and call that the right. So we have the lower of in there. So

2:29:15 ↗ my recommendation would be to consider a revision to the height the height limit

2:29:21 ↗ from the 54, if we've gone from 48 to 54 to allow for taller

2:29:26 ↗ retail spaces or for under building parking, if we really like the under building

2:29:32 ↗ parking, maybe we go from 48 to 60 or 65. make that change instead

2:29:38 ↗ of making the change to where we measure the building height from. So one of

2:29:44 ↗ the pieces that plays into this and the reason why we are, so we share

2:29:49 ↗ your concern where people can manipulate grades to get an extra floor or better views.

2:29:55 ↗ At the same time, one of the things we're seeing is sites where the sidewalks

2:30:01 ↗ are higher than the interior grades, which means that the first floor of the building

2:30:07 ↗ is not related to the sidewalk, which is part of what we're trying for in

2:30:13 ↗ central Issaquah. So instead of focusing on finished grade and existing grades, perhaps we're focused

2:30:19 ↗ on sidewalk grades and road grades because that's really what we want the building to

2:30:24 ↗ be related to. So that's why, as Amy very correctly said, we're trying, instead of

2:30:30 ↗ reinventing the wheel, we're trying to look at other communities that have to topography and

2:30:35 ↗ figure out how they measure so that you have a good relationship to the

2:30:41 ↗ building of the building to the sidewalks and streets rather than focusing on grades

2:30:46 ↗ that may not be relevant to what we're really trying to end up with

2:30:52 ↗ as our final condition while avoiding that exact concern we share that concern okay

2:30:57 ↗ that sounds good and then the sorry that i've got so many questions and comments

2:31:03 ↗ but the we're here for yeah the um i guess the the last comment would

2:31:08 ↗ be with regard to the as i mentioned before the sloped roofs on i-90 i

2:31:13 ↗ think we're very important i think one of the issues that commissioner brennan brought up

2:31:17 ↗ in terms of a northwest look the i think the buildings need eaves to them

2:31:22 ↗ i think the lack of eaves and the important batten siding To me, it likens

2:31:28 ↗ back-- I think back to World War II and the inability to spend the money

2:31:32 ↗ on having eaves on a building and you end up without them. I think in

2:31:37 ↗ the Northwest, we see eaves a lot because we get a lot of rain and

2:31:41 ↗ we want to keep the water off the building. I think the addition of eaves

2:31:46 ↗ to the buildings would make a big difference, as well as whatever else can be

2:31:50 ↗ done to the roofs to make them appear maybe not just as solid masses of

2:31:55 ↗ black asphalt roofing. And then the last question would be for the architect. There

2:32:01 ↗ were a lot of comments and conditions that are put into the report by

2:32:07 ↗ staff with regard to recommendations for changes. And I wanted to give you a

2:32:12 ↗ chance to respond. Are any of those that you think you would not want

2:32:18 ↗ to do, the tripartite articulation? I hadn't heard tripartite. That was a good one.

2:32:24 ↗ Any of those that you would want to push back on or that we should?

2:32:30 ↗ I was just about to say, yes, they already agreed to all of them. But

2:32:36 ↗ I'd like to hear, since part of what we do is look at these things,

2:32:42 ↗ there's recommendations by staff, we would be approving all these recommendations. So if there's something

2:32:47 ↗ you would want us to reconsider, I think now would be the time to do

2:32:53 ↗ it. Absolutely. Absolutely. Can you join me, please? And you, my fellow architects? Because

2:32:59 ↗ I'm not familiar with all those bullet points. Please identify yourself. Yeah, Matt

2:33:05 ↗ Rowey with Viya Architecture. Bethany Madsen with Viya Architecture. And Jim Bedoya with

2:33:11 ↗ Viya Architecture. And I'm sorry, we just got the final staff report with

2:33:16 ↗ the '91 conditions this afternoon, and we kind of sped read through all

2:33:22 ↗ of them. I can't speak definitively to everything that's in there. There

2:33:28 ↗ were a few things that caught my attention. I think the classic

2:33:33 ↗ statement about tripartite architecture should be looked at a little bit more

2:33:39 ↗ abstractly. I think in our case, every one of our buildings treats

2:33:45 ↗ the base, the middle, and the top We went to a lot

2:33:51 ↗ of trouble to create interesting roof scapes on all the buildings. We're

2:33:57 ↗ addressing the ground plane differently than the typical middle floors. The middle

2:34:03 ↗ floor on the three story building and the middle two floors on

2:34:09 ↗ the larger building. So I think we meet that intent. And

2:34:14 ↗ so to not take it too literally, I mean, you see so many of these

2:34:19 ↗ buildings that look like layer cakes. You know, you've got a change of siding that

2:34:24 ↗ happens at the top of the first floor and then something else set back at

2:34:28 ↗ the top floor. And it makes for a lot of difficulty in terms of laying

2:34:33 ↗ out the units. creates a lot of expensive weatherproofing conditions and I really don't

2:34:39 ↗ think it helps the architecture. So I think we'd like to push back

2:34:45 ↗ if it's going to be a literal interpretation on the tripartite and would

2:34:50 ↗ like to argue in the favor of good design for those elements. I

2:34:56 ↗ can't speak to a lot of other things that are in the comments. Like I

2:35:02 ↗ said, we were working so hard to pull everything together at the last minute, we

2:35:06 ↗ haven't really had a chance to study through the multiple pages of conditions that staff

2:35:11 ↗ so carefully put together. But I guess we'd like to leave the door open if

2:35:16 ↗ we find something in there that we would like to debate with the commission and

2:35:21 ↗ with staff. Have a healthy design discussion, I think is always a good thing. So

2:35:26 ↗ that's one of the opportunities of the briefing response memo. As we work through preparing

2:35:31 ↗ that, it would be an opportunity not only to respond to the public and commission

2:35:37 ↗ comments, But if the applicant wanted to discuss some of the conditions, we could propose

2:35:42 ↗ something revised coming back to the commission so that we're bringing a consensus position back

2:35:47 ↗ to you. That would be great, I think, because there's so many here that it's

2:35:52 ↗ almost hard to understand what we're going to end up with with all the changes

2:35:58 ↗ to the extent that you can work some of those out before the next time

2:36:03 ↗ we meet. It would be great. So thank you. Okay. Commissioner Long. - If it

2:36:09 ↗ honors the board, I had a few other ones if we can entertain it. I

2:36:13 ↗ don't even know if it was actually one of the conditions, Sometimes good code is

2:36:18 ↗ written for various reasons and then it's applied in circumstances that may not make

2:36:24 ↗ as much sense. And the essential so-called plan has some requirements that are very

2:36:30 ↗ much geared towards very urbanized locations and given out where we're at the western

2:36:35 ↗ edge, we're not necessarily an urban center, but we're more of a village. Some

2:36:41 ↗ of the requirements of street walls and 10 foot wide sidewalks. in that

2:36:46 ↗ circumstance does doesn't necessarily make for good design. Um, when we were talking about having

2:36:52 ↗ a street wall and Amy had that image up there against the entry and where

2:36:58 ↗ the park was, it kind of creates a high safety issue in which you can't

2:37:03 ↗ see into the park space that we're creating at the entryway and it also lacks

2:37:08 ↗ visibility as an entrance sequence to the project. So there's a place where I'd kind

2:37:12 ↗ of push back and say that that's a park. You want to be able to

2:37:16 ↗ see into it. You want it to be safe. You don't want to establish a

2:37:21 ↗ street wall that's more for an urban area where you want to put a building

2:37:25 ↗ like downtown or something. And so it didn't seem to make sense to apply it

2:37:30 ↗ there. And then some of these internal walkways where we have nothing but six foot

2:37:34 ↗ wide sidewalks feeding an area and then all of a sudden to require a 10

2:37:39 ↗ foot wide sidewalk. That might make sense if we were like in the middle of

2:37:44 ↗ a retail area or a mixed use area with a lot of density where a

2:37:49 ↗ 10 foot sidewalk would be necessary. But going from a six foot to a wider

2:37:53 ↗ sidewalk when everything it feeds it is just six feet seems a little unnecessary. And

2:37:58 ↗ when it's not that much population here, it's certainly not a destination for retail or

2:38:03 ↗ a lot of visitors other than occasional guests. So those kind of things, I just

2:38:07 ↗ think it makes for better design. It gives us more room for landscaping. It gives

2:38:12 ↗ us less impervious, it meets a lot of other goals. So there are a few

2:38:16 ↗ of those things I just kind of wanted to point out that we're having ongoing

2:38:21 ↗ conversations with the city about those things. But since you asked,

2:38:26 ↗ I thought I'd bring them up. - Thank you very much. -

2:38:32 ↗ Thank you. I got a couple of questions and then some design

2:38:38 ↗ issue that maybe we can work together. On your drawings, SDP00, there's

2:38:44 ↗ a whole bunch of tables here. One of them is bike parking

2:38:50 ↗ requirements. And we're required to put-- you're providing 276 bike parking.

2:38:56 ↗ These are regular bike-- 276. We've got four-- DAVID ROSACKER: Can you

2:39:02 ↗ give the page number already? Or is it in the plan? OK,

2:39:07 ↗ it's in the plan. All right. DAVID ROSACKER: Yeah. SDP. And I'm

2:39:13 ↗ trying to calculate how did we come up with 276. And I

2:39:19 ↗ could come up with that. So there's something missing here. So are you

2:39:25 ↗ questioning that that's too much bike parking? I'm just trying to see how the numbers

2:39:30 ↗ came up. OK. Yeah. That's the applicant's proposal. So that is the-- look at the

2:39:35 ↗ totals. That's the applicant's proposal? Yeah. They're not required to provide that much. That's their

2:39:40 ↗ choice in how much bikes-- Well, it says provided. That's what he's providing. Yeah, it's

2:39:46 ↗ on the second page. If you look at the totals, it's 3, 3, 6, 18,

2:39:52 ↗ and that adds up to 276. Right. But I'm looking at the staff report, and

2:39:58 ↗ only 116 bike parking spaces are required. So the applicant has decided that is not

2:40:04 ↗ sufficient, and they are providing more. what i'm saying

2:40:10 ↗ the table doesn't the math doesn't add up okay if you look at the if

2:40:16 ↗ you look at the table it adds up to 30. sdp zero zero sheet sdp

2:40:22 ↗ zero zero the second page second page bike parking requirements down yeah bike parking requirements

2:40:28 ↗ down towards the bottom i'll look at it again Yeah, if you could,

2:40:33 ↗ because it just doesn't add up. I see what you're saying. Yeah.

2:40:39 ↗ The original version that I reviewed had the right numbers. There's a

2:40:44 ↗ lot of parking. And then the other thing I wanted to clarify

2:40:50 ↗ is that walkway that you were talking about off the project site

2:40:56 ↗ onto Rowley's property, how high were you thinking? You showed a picture

2:41:01 ↗ of something like-- I don't know, maybe five feet tall. Oh, the

2:41:07 ↗ boardwalk? Yeah.

2:41:13 ↗ I want to clarify something about that boardwalk. I'm sorry, sir. Every time we go

2:41:18 ↗ to... Okay, Matt Rowey with Fire Architecture. One thing I didn't say was it actually

2:41:23 ↗ enables a lot of things in the greater area to occur. And I'm just using

2:41:28 ↗ this opportunity, and I'll answer your question in a second, to make more walkability and

2:41:33 ↗ more access for bicycles, because it's really only about 0.6 miles from our site to

2:41:38 ↗ the grocery store at Gilman and SR 900. and it's only three quarters of a

2:41:43 ↗ mile to the transit center. And Raleigh is expected to build 4.2 million square feet,

2:41:48 ↗ which will include a lot of job creation and retail. There'll be an urban village

2:41:52 ↗ right next to us across that boardwalk. And so I want to just kind of

2:41:57 ↗ mention that tonight because there was some question about the traffic increases and whatnot, but

2:42:02 ↗ that is one mitigating circumstance. So it's a very important part of our project. And

2:42:07 ↗ I also want to clarify that I believe the property line between us and Rowley

2:42:12 ↗ at that bridge is the creek is on our side of it where we're crossing

2:42:17 ↗ it. Correct. So we're definitely going to cross the creek and that's the whole point

2:42:22 ↗ of doing it. And then how it meets the ground on the Rowley side, we'll

2:42:27 ↗ work very close with them as we proceed. So what was your question regarding the

2:42:33 ↗ height of the boardwalk? When you were doing your presentation, you showed some walkway. That

2:42:38 ↗ was at Nisqually. Yeah, that was at Nisqually. That was a very good point that

2:42:44 ↗ someone brought up about the animals being able to pass underneath. When we saw the

2:42:48 ↗ cross bracing we had on an earlier design that you might still have in your

2:42:53 ↗ packet, we realized we could do it like they did at Nisqually where there wasn't

2:42:58 ↗ an X bracing down low. It was actually just a smaller frame bracing up high.

2:43:03 ↗ So there'd be probably about five feet or so. Five feet high? Yeah, at least.

2:43:08 ↗ Yeah. I think we haven't really designed it yet, but you know, I think it'd

2:43:13 ↗ be up there. There's also a grade change. It almost drops 8, 10 feet. on

2:43:18 ↗ both sides, and we're kind of keeping this flat. And on our side, it's up,

2:43:23 ↗ and it stays flat. And Rowley's is here, and that whole wetland depresses 8 to

2:43:27 ↗ 10 feet. So we'll probably have-- 10 feet is the clearance then. Well, that's how

2:43:32 ↗ much difference there is. And when the beams are in there and whatnot, it's probably

2:43:36 ↗ going to be at least 5 to 6 feet, maybe more. Yeah. So we don't

2:43:41 ↗ want to really slope it. We want to keep it flat. The pitched roof versus

2:43:45 ↗ flat roof, I like your presentation about keeping in line with the red barn and

2:43:51 ↗ I think that's where you're getting your pitch roof and the red. And I think

2:43:57 ↗ that's a good idea. But coming from Seattle or Eastgate, you come down the freeway

2:44:03 ↗ and you see this is a clock. And with the red roof, red pitch roof,

2:44:09 ↗ I think would be nice versus a flat roof. I would definitely ask

2:44:15 ↗ that you look into a pitch roof there. And for all that

2:44:20 ↗ matters, maybe the clubhouse be put in there so you have a

2:44:26 ↗ distinct building that looks like the red barn and that signifies Issaquah

2:44:31 ↗ with the red pitch roof. So it's just common. When I first

2:44:37 ↗ look at it, I would have to say that you have a

2:44:43 ↗ lot of straight which saves a lot of utility construction

2:44:48 ↗ in there. But to me, I think we could maybe

2:44:54 ↗ put some design issues onto the street and not just

2:45:00 ↗ street with row houses. When I first looked at it,

2:45:06 ↗ it looks like row houses. So I understand the site

2:45:11 ↗ that you're trying to put in 400 units, but...

2:45:17 ↗ By golly, you know, if we could put some design into

2:45:23 ↗ the street design and not just straight shot, you know, all

2:45:28 ↗ perpendicular, that would be a lot better. Somebody looking at it,

2:45:34 ↗ it's like apartment buildings, straight apartment buildings. Although I do like

2:45:39 ↗ your green, village green concept. It's a central area we can draw the

2:45:45 ↗ residents in. But again, it's a row house. The things that went through my mind

2:45:51 ↗ when I was looking at it is that whoever designed it probably looked at the

2:45:56 ↗ Rowley's storage building and says, well, we want to match the environment, the surroundings, so

2:46:01 ↗ we're going to do the same thing here. So that's Rowley's storage building. So maybe

2:46:07 ↗ you need to look at it a little bit. Just a comment. So

2:46:13 ↗ the other thing is on parking. You mentioned that parking on the

2:46:18 ↗ clubhouse, people would come in, pick up their mails, which is a

2:46:24 ↗ good point. But I think you may need some parking in there

2:46:29 ↗ for people to park, run in, get a mail, and then come

2:46:35 ↗ back out and then drive back into their units.

2:46:42 ↗ I see a few parking slots in there, I think like five,

2:46:48 ↗ and you might need a little bit more. There's people coming in,

2:46:54 ↗ you know, do their business, they have to just run out and

2:46:59 ↗ then drive back to their units. So maybe add, you know, look

2:47:05 ↗ at some loading and unloading areas, parking spots in there. The other

2:47:11 ↗ thing is on your second means of egress, the fire engine,

2:47:17 ↗ Is that a second mean of egress that nobody could use except fire engine? That's

2:47:23 ↗ right. Okay. So do you have a gate that close it? And what's stopping people

2:47:29 ↗ from... I'll respond. Matt Rowey, VIA. Yeah, it would be probably a bollard

2:47:35 ↗ condition, a breakaway bollard. No, it's a -- It will be a gate. Okay.

2:47:41 ↗ That's been negotiated. Okay. There it is. So it's been negotiated with sports arena

2:47:46 ↗ then that you could use that access for fire engine? Yes. Okay.

2:47:54 ↗ There was an existing easement. There was an existing

2:47:59 ↗ easement that allowed emergency access between the two properties.

2:48:05 ↗ Yeah, emergency. And then how about for regular use?

2:48:10 ↗ It's just emergency. OK. So people using the gym

2:48:16 ↗ cannot use that access to go back into their

2:48:21 ↗ residence? They could if they walk. I like the

2:48:26 ↗ way you separate the pedestrian and the motor vehicle.

2:48:33 ↗ uh again you know the it's just so straightforward it's

2:48:38 ↗ uh um looks like a row house um you had

2:48:44 ↗ those uh five-story high building the d-type along the freeway

2:48:49 ↗ there um it's really going to stand out as you're

2:48:55 ↗ coming into issaquah so um i don't know what you

2:49:01 ↗ can do about it i think the pitch roof is

2:49:06 ↗ a good idea um but you need to do something

2:49:12 ↗ about that in that Maybe the clubhouse is what I can think

2:49:18 ↗ of off the top of my head. Put a clubhouse there so that it stands

2:49:23 ↗ out. And then the tall building just blocks the noise. But I'll leave that up

2:49:28 ↗ to you. That's all that I have, sir. CHRIS JERRAM: Thank you. Mr. Chair? TODD

2:49:33 ↗ BANDUCCI: Can I jump in? Just for the record, I guess, a comment was made

2:49:38 ↗ that the creek was on your property. But the triad survey on page six of

2:49:42 ↗ nine in your package shows Tibbets Creek, between your property and 19th

2:49:48 ↗ Avenue Northwest. So the wetland portion is on your property.

2:49:54 ↗ Tibbetts Creek appears to be on Rowley's property. Just to

2:50:00 ↗ clarify. Well, we'll make it work. Yeah. I cross that

2:50:05 ↗ creek about every day. And it's definitely-- it's Rowley's. I

2:50:11 ↗ mean, there are Rowley properties on the west side of

2:50:16 ↗ the creek. I can interject a little.

2:50:22 ↗ This is Matt Rowey. What I was thinking of is there's a plan to relocate

2:50:28 ↗ the creek. And that is part of the development agreement, I believe, for the rallies.

2:50:34 ↗ And then it would be on our property. That's what I was thinking of. And

2:50:40 ↗ so that's got to be worked out. And I stand corrected if I was incorrect

2:50:46 ↗ on the location of the property. Mr. Svedberg? One of

2:50:51 ↗ the questions asked by Connie Martian hasn't been answered is, are

2:50:57 ↗ any of these units low income or affordable housing designated? Great.

2:51:03 ↗ So there are none. We don't require affordable housing in

2:51:09 ↗ the Central Issaquah standards. We do have the bonus density

2:51:15 ↗ option for developments that go above the base height or

2:51:21 ↗ the base FAR. Okay. Just answering her question. I agree

2:51:27 ↗ with Commissioner Leong that the hitch roof I think looks

2:51:33 ↗ good. Question I have is one of the requirements in the building conditions is that

2:51:38 ↗ roof color shall be light colored with a solar reflective index and all the pictures

2:51:44 ↗ show dark roofs. So - Which is it? - So again, the standard

2:51:50 ↗ is very specific about the light reflectance level. And so we put that in

2:51:56 ↗ there for something to be worked out with the applicant during construction. We have

2:52:02 ↗ no way to do an administrative adjustment of standards for that. - Another one

2:52:08 ↗ of those things to be worked out down the road. Same

2:52:13 ↗ question in regards to the condition 78. The five-story building

2:52:19 ↗ shall be further refined during the construction permit review to

2:52:25 ↗ employ a tripartite articulation of the facade. In other words,

2:52:31 ↗ we're going to redesign what the picture looks like. So

2:52:36 ↗ refinement means they would have had to add some additional, you

2:52:42 ↗ know, - Modulation. - Exactly. But since, you know, they expressed that they'd

2:52:48 ↗ like some flexibility on that, we'll continue to talk to them about, you

2:52:54 ↗ know, what that's gonna look like. And including, once you start changing that

2:53:00 ↗ roof form or character, I have no idea what that final elevation's gonna

2:53:05 ↗ look like. So we'll work those out and we'll bring, you know, after

2:53:11 ↗ hearing what your concerns are, we'll bring something next time. And I don't know

2:53:17 ↗ if you can answer this question, but condition 90 talked about offsite sewer main

2:53:22 ↗ must be upsized. And I'm curious as to exactly what that means. Are we

2:53:28 ↗ going to have to dig up all of Newport Way to make a bigger

2:53:34 ↗ sewer line to accommodate existing developments? So I'm going to invite Doug

2:53:39 ↗ Schlepp here because he's the engineer for staff representing the city for this

2:53:45 ↗ project. So my name is Doug Schlepp. I'm a consultant to the City

2:53:51 ↗ of Issaquah for Engineering Services, DSD. And this is with regards to the

2:53:57 ↗ sewer line that's in Poplar, which is a private road owned by the

2:54:03 ↗ Rowleys. And so the existing sewer that's there does not have the capacity

2:54:09 ↗ to serve this project. And we're currently working with the Rowleys and Arena Sports

2:54:15 ↗ on the improvements to the utilities in that corridor. Okay, so we're not having

2:54:21 ↗ to dig up Newport or, because it sounded like it was for the existing

2:54:26 ↗ off-site properties, maybe the - Spy Hill development, anything else along Newport Way? No?

2:54:32 ↗ - No. - Okay. - And the plans show the sewer and water lines, or

2:54:38 ↗ I think, I believe they do, the offsite sewer and water improvements. - Okay. -

2:54:44 ↗ And it's for the utilities in Poplar. - Okay, thank you. - Thank you. -

2:54:49 ↗ And the final thing is I agree with Commissioner Hicks that the 26th of August

2:54:55 ↗ seems to be pretty quick determination for the Development

2:55:01 ↗ Commission to make a review, particularly with the SEPA review six days before

2:55:07 ↗ that. We might want to push it back a week or two. Thank

2:55:13 ↗ you. CHRIS RODGERS: Thank you. Let's pick up with the time issue. This

2:55:19 ↗ has been a consistent issue for the Development Commission or the last several

2:55:25 ↗ meetings, not all of them, but certainly with Costco and so on, the feeling that

2:55:30 ↗ there's been too much to review and too short a period of time. And to

2:55:36 ↗ find out today that the applicant didn't get as I understand it, until

2:55:41 ↗ today. - That's a clarification. They did not read it until today,

2:55:47 ↗ but they've had it. They've had it. - That's an important clarification,

2:55:53 ↗ thank you. But that said, I agree that Basically, we all understand

2:55:58 ↗ the crush that is on now that has happened. And everybody saw it. We

2:56:04 ↗ went for a long time with no DC meetings and no proposed construction because

2:56:10 ↗ of the economic downturn. And now we're getting to the point where it's accelerating.

2:56:16 ↗ And I would also like to see us get more time to look at

2:56:22 ↗ things, particularly final things. So that's one thing. I have a question

2:56:28 ↗ about the distinction between village residential and urban village. And I know that there

2:56:34 ↗ are two separate things, and Lucy, I assume you're the one that can answer

2:56:40 ↗ this because of your background. But things like parking, the definition of parking spaces

2:56:46 ↗ and the widths and the location of them. And I asked this specifically even

2:56:52 ↗ before I read this, when I go up to the Highlands, I'm struck by the

2:56:58 ↗ number of parallel parking places where the cars are sticking out in the street and

2:57:04 ↗ they're parked legally, but the parking space, the parallel parking space don't seem to be

2:57:10 ↗ wide enough. And we've talked here about parking space size. So is there a different

2:57:16 ↗ set of, same standards or are they different? Most of the

2:57:21 ↗ standards are similar. And I didn't bring this up with

2:57:27 ↗ Commissioner Morgan's comment, but I would note that Issaquah Highlands

2:57:33 ↗ started with six-foot parallel parking stalls. So the seven --

2:57:39 ↗ I know. I didn't have anything to do with

2:57:45 ↗ it. I just implemented it. And then later we went

2:57:51 ↗ to 7 and occasionally 8 foot. So 7 has been

2:57:56 ↗ used quite widely also in some parts of TALIS.

2:58:02 ↗ We feel that seven feet is sufficient. Eight feet is a little more

2:58:08 ↗ generous. We would not recommend going to six feet. So I wanted to

2:58:14 ↗ provide some more information relative to that in response to Commissioner Morgan's question.

2:58:19 ↗ Okay. I'm going to jump around here a little bit, but I'm going

2:58:25 ↗ to try not to go over things that have already been addressed. The pitched roof

2:58:30 ↗ is great for the five-story building. In my opinion, it's preferable. I do share the

2:58:35 ↗ concern about the elevation of the foundation and how it's measured. I think we ought

2:58:40 ↗ to either address it in terms of changing the code or not, and not keep

2:58:46 ↗ coming back because this seems to be something that we're seeing with almost every

2:58:51 ↗ project that's come up now. So there's an opportunity for refinement there. I guess

2:58:57 ↗ I'm the only one on the commission, which will tell you how much this

2:59:03 ↗ is going to be worth, that believes that the better way

2:59:08 ↗ to address the i-90 interface would be to have very large trees

2:59:14 ↗ that screened the whole thing because for two reasons one is

2:59:20 ↗ because uh of the mountain to sound greenway ethos that we've got in place here

2:59:25 ↗ and the second is frankly uh i i don't know what kind of marketing you're

2:59:30 ↗ doing in terms of price determination or rent determination but i don't think i'd want

2:59:35 ↗ to live in one of those apartments that looks the illustrations and i know that

2:59:40 ↗ they were immature trees and i know that there was a notation that they're they're

2:59:45 ↗ going to grow but That's really problematic for me. Now, you're going to see

2:59:51 ↗ the buildings over the top, and that's where you get into the roof and

2:59:57 ↗ the orientation and the northwest look. And I do agree that there's an opportunity

3:00:03 ↗ there to make the architecture more representative of the northwest. And there is a

3:00:09 ↗ condominium complex in Issaquah, which I personally think is the only one that I can

3:00:14 ↗ think of that meets the objective that Commissioner Brennan was talking about. And I don't

3:00:19 ↗ even know the name of it. But it's off Wildwood Road. And it's on Issaquah

3:00:23 ↗ Creek. - Calcari is the name. - Calcari, yeah. And it's frankly, it looks like

3:00:29 ↗ a resort. It's a lodge look with timbers and Christopher maybe, you know, the background

3:00:35 ↗ of that. But it's very definitely Pacific Northwest and it's a large unit. I don't

3:00:40 ↗ know how many dwelling units, but it's a couple hundred at least So there's

3:00:46 ↗ an opportunity there to take a look at something that is absolutely

3:00:52 ↗ clearly Northwest. Now, I understand that you're way down the road when

3:00:57 ↗ it comes to architectural design. I understand that. But if there is

3:01:03 ↗ an opportunity to consider more representative Northwest architecture, that's something you might

3:01:08 ↗ look at. As far as staff is concerned, I noticed that we're

3:01:14 ↗ seeing a lot of things in this staff report and in others that say

3:01:20 ↗ things like generally compliant. And that's like totally unique. It's either compliant or it

3:01:26 ↗ isn't. And I know that we get variations and we get changes and so

3:01:32 ↗ on. That's what we're doing here. But I'd be really careful about generally compliant. Because

3:01:37 ↗ I'm not an English teacher, but it's either compliant or it isn't. So the wording

3:01:43 ↗ of that through, I think, should be examined to come up with something that reflects

3:01:48 ↗ the fact that we're not there yet, that there's a lot of work to be

3:01:54 ↗ done. doesn't say because it's a contradiction in terms. So it's either compliant or

3:02:00 ↗ it isn't. So as the person who has to write and fill out the checklist,

3:02:05 ↗ the quandary when you have a project as complex as this where you have several

3:02:11 ↗ buildings and the site improvements are of different types, it will be be hard to

3:02:17 ↗ say that it's completely compliant, right? And at the same time, it will be unfair

3:02:23 ↗ to tell them that they are not compliant because I started out with saying that,

3:02:29 ↗ but then if 90% of the site and elements are compliant and only 10% isn't,

3:02:35 ↗ like how would you state that in a checklist. - I'm gonna leave that to

3:02:40 ↗ you. - Yeah, so it's one of those things where regardless, in other words, we

3:02:45 ↗ debated over this. What does it mean if, there is a false impression if you

3:02:50 ↗ use the word compliant that they're good to go. and there's nothing else that they

3:02:54 ↗ need to do, and that's not the case because we know even as we take

3:02:59 ↗ this all the way to construction, we are still seeing things that-- - Absolutely, and

3:03:04 ↗ I understand that. So I'm not saying that it has to be ironclad. I'm just

3:03:09 ↗ saying that in terms of pure English, It's a contradiction in terms. So there might

3:03:14 ↗ be a better way of reflecting the fact that the goal is this and we're

3:03:20 ↗ working toward it. We've made exceptions here, here, and here. So some general phrase like

3:03:25 ↗ that. - Maybe we can say compliant with conditions. - Compliant with conditions. Or compliant

3:03:31 ↗ at this stage. I don't even, I don't know. But to move smartly along, I'd

3:03:36 ↗ like to ask about the dog parks. There was a mention of dog

3:03:42 ↗ run and dog park. So are they two separate things or are

3:03:48 ↗ they one thing? So as one who wrote the staff report, there is

3:03:53 ↗ a difference when you talk to people who design dog parks and there's a difference

3:03:59 ↗ between a dog park and a dog run. So I wanted to make sure that,

3:04:04 ↗ and maybe I made a mistake of saying dog park in some parts, but

3:04:10 ↗ I normally use the word dog run to mean it's basically

3:04:16 ↗ an enclosed area where you could take your dog for a

3:04:21 ↗ walk or off leash. So that's kind of how I was

3:04:27 ↗ thinking when I used the word dog run. Amy, would that be for general

3:04:33 ↗ public or just for the residents? And if so, because there aren't many dog,

3:04:39 ↗ as far as I know, there's no dog park in Issaquah. So what we

3:04:45 ↗ have asked of them to consider is for their own residents. Okay. Well, I...

3:04:51 ↗ Yeah, I don't know if that's indicated in the study. You might want

3:04:57 ↗ to clarify that it's just for residents only, because if word gets out

3:05:03 ↗ that there's a dog park around there, they're going to have to take

3:05:09 ↗ tickets at the gate, because people are going to really want to use

3:05:15 ↗ a dog park if the one's available without having to drive to Mercer

3:05:21 ↗ Island or Snoqualmie, which I do. OK. proposed, quote, proposed senior

3:05:26 ↗ housing project, unquote. I mentioned that earlier. Could you tell us what

3:05:32 ↗ that is and where it is? That's their phase two. OK. I

3:05:38 ↗ thought I asked about that earlier. The chunk of property on the

3:05:44 ↗ other side. I think we may have misunderstood. I thought you were

3:05:50 ↗ asking about this piece. We may have misunderstood your question. So the senior

3:05:56 ↗ housing project is for the adjacent property to the west that is not to be

3:06:01 ↗ developed yet. It's the second, the next phase. Is that phase two? Yeah. Yeah. It's

3:06:06 ↗ not part of this. Right. No, I understand that. But I'm looking forward. We're trying

3:06:12 ↗ to get traffic and trail connectivity and things like that. So when I saw that,

3:06:18 ↗ that was and I believe actually it came up earlier by a question

3:06:24 ↗ from another commissioner. So so that's part of the same ownership and the

3:06:29 ↗ plan at this point is to make phase two a senior uh senior

3:06:35 ↗ housing project. Um so the applicants indicated that they're still looking at uh

3:06:41 ↗ their options. They haven't um finalized that it will be a senior

3:06:47 ↗ housing. Okay, but that would be a providence point or something like

3:06:52 ↗ that where it's senior folks, but they're able to drive their cars.

3:06:58 ↗ Yeah, this is active. Okay, so active seniors. I love that term.

3:07:04 ↗ So would that use the same at the conceptual stage, which I understand we

3:07:10 ↗ are now, would that use the same egress ingress? No, it will have as

3:07:16 ↗ a primary entrance to on Newport Way on their side of they do have

3:07:21 ↗ a frontage on Newport Way. Yeah. OK. Where's my mouse? That would be a

3:07:27 ↗ different egress ingress than is planned for Gateway. Right.

3:07:33 ↗ CHRIS RODGERS: OK. I know I'm hopping around here, but I'd like to go back

3:07:38 ↗ to the school bus issue. I know we're not the school district. I understand that.

3:07:44 ↗ But it seems to me that the safest way to address kids getting on buses

3:07:49 ↗ is to have the school bus pick up kids inside the project. ELIZABETH BUTLER: The

3:07:55 ↗ school district is very adamant that they will not do that. CHRIS RODGERS: Will not

3:08:00 ↗ do that. ELIZABETH BUTLER: Yeah. Well, you know, okay, I know it's not our

3:08:06 ↗ purview, and I'm not going to hammer it, but it's interesting in light of

3:08:12 ↗ what has happened here. And we hear you, and that's why we've already reached

3:08:18 ↗ out to them, because we want to make sure we understand their needs and

3:08:24 ↗ expectations and are accommodating them. Okay. All right. Good, Lucy. The bus comes in

3:08:29 ↗ hard, though. Yeah. Okay, I want to, the phrase review

3:08:35 ↗ at construction was through it, through in several different places,

3:08:41 ↗ and I, again, for public benefit, what does that mean

3:08:46 ↗ other than the obvious? So the subject in question is

3:08:52 ↗ noted to be reviewed at construction. which could sound to

3:08:58 ↗ people that have come here or are looking at the documents online or whatever, like,

3:09:04 ↗ so it sounds like they're going to build it and then we're going to approve

3:09:09 ↗ it. So I think you had a great turn of phrase, Randy, which was compliant

3:09:15 ↗ at this stage. You know, we're looking from sort of the most conceptual and we're

3:09:20 ↗ making it more specific. And right now the reason that we have this substantial review

3:09:25 ↗ at this point is to make sure can they get the buildings on the site,

3:09:30 ↗ can they get the parking on the site, can they get the walkways on the

3:09:35 ↗ site, can they get the roadways on the site. So looking at all those pieces,

3:09:40 ↗ And then we have to take it the next stage down and say, now how

3:09:46 ↗ do you construct those things? Some pieces of it, like there's a central ISCWA standard

3:09:51 ↗ around you can't have flush windows. We wouldn't review that now. It doesn't affect land

3:09:57 ↗ use. So we're going to review that at construction. We may have looked at the

3:10:03 ↗ road-- Excuse me, at construction? OK, with construction permits. There you go. OK. You're such

3:10:09 ↗ a writer. You're our personal editor. But you know what I'm--

3:10:15 ↗ I do, and I appreciate the clarification. OK. All right. I don't

3:10:21 ↗ have anything else. So at this point-- I'm going to do that.

3:10:27 ↗ My Vice Chair just reminded me, which I didn't need to be reminded of, but

3:10:32 ↗ he's right. We want to thank all of you who have showed up and sat

3:10:37 ↗ through this meeting. We realize that this is a work night, and particularly the members

3:10:42 ↗ of the public that have come here and sat through this. We do this primarily

3:10:47 ↗ for the benefit of the taxpayers of the City of Issaquah. The applicants part of

3:10:52 ↗ the game, obviously a huge bet, but the purpose of this meeting is to allow

3:10:57 ↗ all the parties involved, the city, the applicant, and the members of the public to

3:11:02 ↗ have an opportunity to understand what's going on and why it's going on and what

3:11:07 ↗ kind of input you can have into this. So we very much appreciate the fact

3:11:12 ↗ that you have taken your time to come here tonight. And also on behalf of

3:11:17 ↗ the commission, as always, the staff report was impressive. uh showed a lot of work

3:11:23 ↗ and we very much appreciate the applicants uh work to get this word out

3:11:29 ↗ to everybody as well so as it's scheduled we'll be back here on the

3:11:35 ↗ 26th of august unless there is a an adjustment in the schedule to give

3:11:41 ↗ folks some time to look at that Mr. Morgan? I would just

3:11:47 ↗ like to reiterate, especially with this one, the tremendous amount of effort that's gone into

3:11:52 ↗ it by both the architectural team and by staff in terms of the report. I

3:11:57 ↗ can't think of a more thorough staff report that I've ever read. And so I

3:12:03 ↗ greatly appreciate it. And all the exhibits and the explanations provided by the architectural team

3:12:08 ↗ really helped in understanding the project. - And just to ride on that, I like

3:12:12 ↗ the idea of the name of it. It is a gateway. This is the first

3:12:16 ↗ thing when you're coming east that you're going to see at this stage in the

3:12:21 ↗ game. Who knows what's gonna go further west of it on out. But at this

3:12:25 ↗ stage in the game, it is the entrance. to the city, and there's a

3:12:31 ↗ tremendous opportunity here to do it right and to do it

3:12:36 ↗ in such a manner as has been said, but to reiterate

3:12:42 ↗ it, that says Issaquah and not Bellevue, Redmond, Brooklyn, whatever. OK?

3:12:48 ↗ Anything else? One more thought here on the timing question that I've been kind of

3:12:53 ↗ pondering over here for a minute and that's related to the adjustment of the code

3:12:58 ↗ that would be necessary to allow for a pitched roof on this building. So that

3:13:02 ↗ takes an amendment to the city's code to do that. So there's a process that

3:13:07 ↗ has to go through that will take significant time to get there once you figure

3:13:11 ↗ out what the change is. So we're going to be asked to make a decision

3:13:16 ↗ on this permit before that happens. So we're going to be making a decision on

3:13:20 ↗ a permit that's going to either say, well, you're going to have a pitched roof

3:13:25 ↗ or it's going to be a flat roof. And we've all pretty much concluded that

3:13:29 ↗ we don't want to see a building with a flat roof at this location. So

3:13:34 ↗ I'm kind of out in the middle trying to figure out timing of the decision

3:13:39 ↗ we make or what the nature of the decision would be to ensure we get

3:13:43 ↗ the right outcome, even if that code amendment hasn't been passed. Can I jump in?

3:13:48 ↗ Would we actually change the condition to state that the-- roof line, you know, if

3:13:53 ↗ we stayed it has to be a pitched roof. Right. They would lose the story

3:13:58 ↗ and have to change the grade. So I think the thing that we need to

3:14:03 ↗ go back, I mean, that's why we have this two meeting format because it's so

3:14:08 ↗ important to hear the thoughts, expectations and desires of the public and the commission.

3:14:14 ↗ I'm not sure that there is a basis for us requiring a pitched roof. That

3:14:20 ↗ is the piece that I need to go back and Amy needs to go back

3:14:25 ↗ and study in the code because we've heard your desire for that. And so I

3:14:31 ↗ think we need to lay out the different options related to the code, code changes,

3:14:36 ↗ and what the commission and public have expressed.

3:14:42 ↗ We'll wait to hear back. Mr. Chairman, can I add some light on this? Just

3:14:47 ↗ for, since we brought it up real quickly, the consequences of that are impact a

3:14:52 ↗ lot of different development codes. If we were not allowed to do a flat roof,

3:14:57 ↗ we would have to take a whole floor off of both buildings. which would, I

3:15:02 ↗ don't know, something like 30 units we'd lose or more, and I don't know how

3:15:07 ↗ you feel about that. But it would also take us under the threshold for minimum

3:15:12 ↗ density requirement of .75. So as Lucy stated, I don't think there's a code requirement

3:15:17 ↗ that mandates one way or the other, but that would be a consequence of it.

3:15:22 ↗ We're hoping, though, that it can be resolved soon because we need to know what

3:15:27 ↗ to do and that it could be a pitched roof on the structure we're proposing.

3:15:32 ↗ But Commissioner Morgan, your suggestion is that we change the condition to address that. I

3:15:36 ↗ was saying if we really want a pitched roof, we change the condition that they

3:15:41 ↗ have to have a pitched roof, Lucy, you're saying you're not sure we can require

3:15:47 ↗ that. That's why I want to go back and study the code in light of

3:15:53 ↗ the comments we've heard and have conversations with the applicant to understand what our options

3:15:59 ↗ are between their needs and desires, the code, and what we've heard tonight and try

3:16:04 ↗ and clearly lay out what your options are in making a decision. Because

3:16:10 ↗ I think you've done a great job of

3:16:16 ↗ telling us really what your vision and preferences

3:16:22 ↗ are. Okay. All right. Anything else? We break

3:16:27 ↗ breakfast? Yeah. All right. Again, thank you very

3:16:33 ↗ much. The meeting is adjourned.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.