← Back to City Council Digest

Meeting concluded — minutes pending. The agenda below is what the City posted; minutes haven't been published yet. Issaquah approves Council minutes at the next meeting and ships them embedded in that next meeting's packet, so they typically land here 1–3 weeks after the meeting. Transcript and recording will appear once the City posts the YouTube video and our pipeline catches it.
Development Commission Auto captions

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

7:00 PM · 1h 28m · Council Chambers, 135 East Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Watch on YouTube ↗ Agenda PDF ↗ Transcript .txt
Topic tracked across meetings:
PUBLIC HEARING: Fieldstone Memory Care › 2/2
Development Commission · Mar 4, 2015 → Development Commission · Sep 2, 2015
◀ Prev: Development Commission · Mar 4, 2015 View full lifecycle →
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.3
Previously discussed: Development Commission · Aug 26, 2015
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
2a
Meeting Minutes from August 5, 2015
packet pp.5–16
Previously discussed: Development Commission · Aug 26, 2015
Open packet at p.5 ↗
Staff report:
CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3a
PUBLIC HEARING: Fieldstone Memory Care
Jennifer R Woods, Associate Planner · packet pp.17–125
Open packet at p.17 ↗
Staff report:
CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
970 segments .txt ↗
0:15 ↗ - Actually all that kind of stuff we have to read
0:21 ↗ and talk to the . - We're on the air, good
0:27 ↗ evening. The September 2nd, 2015 meeting of the Developmental Commission will
0:32 ↗ come to order. First item of business this evening is approval
0:38 ↗ of minutes from August 5th. Are there any additions or corrections?
0:44 ↗ Any members? I have a correction on page 11.
0:51 ↗ I raised the question about pedestrian crossing marks. And the question was
0:57 ↗ directed because the document from planning said that striping of crosswalks shall
1:03 ↗ not be allowed. And my comments in here said shall be allowed.
1:09 ↗ So missing a not. Chair Greg Musil: Mr. Chair, question two. Is
1:14 ↗ that from the, is the original minutes I think were replaced, the
1:20 ↗ different set, a couple days ago if I remember right?
1:29 ↗ Yeah, we got an email with a new set of minutes that was different from
1:32 ↗ the ones in the package itself. What? So I don't know if that's different at
1:36 ↗ all. Oh, I don't know. I didn't see them. I don't know. I didn't check
1:39 ↗ to see what the differences were, but... We'll check and see if it's in the
1:45 ↗ same way. That's the only thing I saw in my comments. Any other comments? Well,
1:49 ↗ if that's the case, if we don't have, if we haven't reviewed the actual minutes
1:54 ↗ that were forwarded to us, maybe we should postpone action until we actually have the
1:59 ↗ minutes to review. If we haven't reviewed the online, the emailed copy. Yeah, let's do
2:03 ↗ that. And if these aren't the changed minutes, let's wait until the next meeting and
2:08 ↗ we'll just do them the next meeting then. make that correction if it
2:14 ↗ isn't already been done but I suspect not okay so we'll
2:20 ↗ postpone the approval of minutes until the next meeting tonight's agenda
2:26 ↗ is a public hearing on fieldstone memory care and we'll have
2:32 ↗ a presentation a Jennifer Woods the assistant planner if there are
2:38 ↗ members of the public that want to speak we have the
2:43 ↗ open hearing we'll ask you to Do we have a sign-in sheet?
2:49 ↗ Yeah. On the chair over right by the door is a sign-in sheet. Please sign
2:55 ↗ in with your name and address. And when we do have you speak, I'd like
3:01 ↗ to keep the meeting progressing. So keep your comments to five minutes, please. Okay, Jennifer.
3:06 ↗ Thank you. Good evening. So we are here to discuss SDP 15-1, which is a
3:12 ↗ site development permit for Fieldstone Memory Care. What I wanted to do first was
3:18 ↗ kind of go over the staff report and its contents and how they kind of
3:22 ↗ work together. So the staff is recommending conditions of approval using provisions of the
3:27 ↗ Esquire Municipal Code Chapters 1807, the Development and Design Standards, 1812 Landscaping and Tree
3:33 ↗ Retention, and the Appendix II Design Criteria Checklist. The checklist itself is actually an
3:39 ↗ exhibit in the staff report that I filled out based on the conditions required
3:45 ↗ to this proposal. The exhibits in the staff report, just to kind of
3:51 ↗ go over those, is the building materials board, the SEPA checklist, the SEPA MDNS,
3:57 ↗ which is the mitigated determination of non-significance, and the plans, design criteria checklist, like
4:03 ↗ I just said, construction conditions, and a vicinity map. So all of those contents
4:08 ↗ are within the staff report. The notice of application, a proposed land use
4:14 ↗ action sign, the notice of public hearing to the parties of record, and to
4:20 ↗ neighbors within 300 feet of the adjacent property, excuse me, and a notice in
4:26 ↗ the paper were all completed as required prior to this public hearing. And to
4:31 ↗ date, we haven't received any public comments regarding this proposal. The SDP
4:37 ↗ conditions, which are at the very end of the staff report, are conditions that are
4:42 ↗ applicable to this permit. In addition, you'll find an exhibit called construction conditions, and those
4:48 ↗ are conditions associated with construction permits that come subsequent to the SDP. So the reason
4:54 ↗ why there's kind of two sets of conditions is because it's about timing, when those
4:59 ↗ conditions have to be complied with. So additional staff analysis, like I
5:05 ↗ was saying, for the design standards is in exhibit five of the staff report. And
5:10 ↗ it's actually the design criteria checklist, just in case. If you want to compare the
5:15 ↗ green sheets to that checklist, they're the exact same, except I've filled things in.
5:22 ↗ So, onto the project. The applicants are seeking an SDP for the construction of an
5:28 ↗ Alzheimer's and memory care facility. This facility will be located at the southern corner of
5:33 ↗ the intersection of Southeast Issaquah/Fall City Road and Highlands Drive Northeast. The property is shown
5:39 ↗ shaded in black with a white star in it. This is in context to kind
5:45 ↗ of the rest of the city around it, to Sammamish, to Isquah Highlands and whatnot.
5:51 ↗ I have another kind of closer map that shows some of the adjacent land uses
5:56 ↗ and kind of where's Sammamish from this, where's the county, where is Isquah Highlands and
6:02 ↗ whatnot. As you'll notice, there is multifamily to the north. This is a
6:08 ↗ multiple, I think they're mostly two-story townhomes or attached townhomes. And then
6:13 ↗ surrounding that are various single-family residences of various levels. Here's a zoning
6:19 ↗ map that shows the actual district boundaries a little more in detail.
6:25 ↗ The property is split between multifamily medium density zoning and the single-family
6:30 ↗ small lot zoning. So here's the site and a
6:36 ↗ few different perspectives from the ground level from the sidewalk or the trail adjacent to
6:41 ↗ the property. One is looking northeast. There's a little key here in the center of
6:47 ↗ the slide. Number one, we're looking northeast. Number two, we're looking easterly. Three is looking
6:52 ↗ south and four is looking at the west boundary of the property, but it's looking
6:57 ↗ a little north.
7:03 ↗ So onto buildings and site design. So the basic development standards being setbacks, building
7:09 ↗ height, impervious/pervious coverage have been met as proposed. The building design and landscape meets
7:14 ↗ or is conditioned to meet the green sheet. So you'll notice in the exhibit
7:20 ↗ with the green sheets, the design criteria checklist, that I have actually added conditions
7:26 ↗ of approval right next to the places where they're not quite meeting the requirements.
7:33 ↗ There is a boundary line adjustment needed prior to the construction. Essentially, property lines aren't
7:39 ↗ allowed to be underneath a building. The building can't be over property lines. So they
7:44 ↗ have to do a boundary line adjustment to move that property line, which is located
7:50 ↗ right here in the center of the property. It cuts right through it. in order
7:56 ↗ to separate the developed parcel, which will have the building on it and the parking
8:00 ↗ lot from the wetland and residual property to the south. And so there will be,
8:05 ↗ I'll have a few more, another slide that shows this in greater detail, but this
8:09 ↗ is kind of the overview. The critical area south of the proposed parking area, the
8:14 ↗ wetland and the buffer is also going to be protected in a native growth protection
8:18 ↗ easement. And the critical area protection
8:24 ↗ requirement is actually in exhibit six as construction condition number 34.
8:31 ↗ Buildings and site design continued. The requirement of community space for an assisted living facility
8:37 ↗ has been met as proposed. Lighting levels, however, will need to be reduced in order
8:43 ↗ to comply with the maximum number of foot candles allowed in the parking lot and
8:49 ↗ the common outdoor spaces. That is construction condition 11 in exhibit 6. Additionally, screening
8:55 ↗ of the ground mounted or roof mounted equipment will need to be screened as well.
9:00 ↗ That equipment hasn't been shown in these plans. They are rather conceptual, but we know
9:05 ↗ they could possibly have them. So we have added that condition to the possibility of
9:10 ↗ any mechanical or rooftop equipment so that we make sure it's screened with the building
9:15 ↗ permit. Additionally, fencing needs to be compatible with the building design. Chainlink has been
9:21 ↗ proposed and will need to be revised to be more compatible with the actual building
9:26 ↗ design. There are some recommended materials in the code and so we'll be looking for
9:31 ↗ the applicant to propose a different type of material as fencing in those areas. There's
9:36 ↗ fencing around the courtyard area, which is a common open space adjacent to the building.
9:40 ↗ The trash enclosure has fencing. Additionally, the part of the parking area that's directly adjacent
9:45 ↗ to the wetland will also have some kind of fall protection, which will probably be
9:50 ↗ some level of fencing as well. So you just want to make sure that that
9:54 ↗ fencing is compatible with the building design and the architecture and the site design overall.
10:02 ↗ Onto pedestrian circulation. So there is a perimeter building walkway that connects to the sidewalk
10:07 ↗ here at the northern part of the site. I've highlighted it with a little blue
10:12 ↗ arrow. And it connects to the sidewalk there on Esquire Falls City Road. And you
10:18 ↗ take that sidewalk around to the trail on Highlands Drive. So there is a connection
10:24 ↗ to the sidewalk there. And additionally, there are walkway requirements for navigation through parking areas.
10:30 ↗ And there are specific requirements for those. So we have conditioned-- we have made a
10:35 ↗ construction condition so that those walkways meet the code requirements. And I can talk
10:41 ↗ about, I have another slide that actually pulls out the illustration of the staff report
10:47 ↗ and I can go into that a little bit further in just a moment. Vehicle
10:52 ↗ circulation. So there's one driveway to the development from Southeast Issaquah Falls City Road. The
10:58 ↗ exact driveway location is being evaluated by our Public Works Engineering Department and there is
11:03 ↗ a requirement that it must meet sightlines. So that is what our engineering department is
11:09 ↗ reviewing right now. No matter what, wherever the driveway is located, it will have to
11:14 ↗ meet sightlines. So that's what's being evaluated right now. The driveway then connects to the
11:19 ↗ parking lot and then circulation throughout the parking lot is provided through walkways as conditioned
11:25 ↗ with the permit. A sidewalk and planner will be relocated to meet the
11:30 ↗ city standards. Right now the existing condition is that there's it's curb, sidewalk.
11:36 ↗ and typically there's a landscape strip in between that curve and sidewalk. So they're gonna
11:42 ↗ be pushing the sidewalk back, providing that landscape strip in areas where it's appropriate. They
11:48 ↗ have requested a deviation to a portion of the standard, only because where the roadway
11:54 ↗ crosses over the wetland, there's some constraints there in even being able to put landscaping
11:59 ↗ potentially there. So we're evaluating it. I say we, our Public Works Engineering Department is,
12:05 ↗ is the department that reviews deviations and so they're reviewing
12:11 ↗ this deviation as well. Parking. So with a 45,000 square
12:16 ↗ foot assisted living care building with 60 units and 15
12:22 ↗ employees at max shift, 46 stalls are required or 45
12:28 ↗ stalls are required, excuse me. The applicant has provided 46
12:34 ↗ stalls. In addition, the appropriate number of ADA stalls will be provided in accordance with
12:39 ↗ the building code. The applicant has provided the appropriate amount of ADA parking stalls, but
12:44 ↗ it needs to be reviewed with the building permit as well to make sure that
12:49 ↗ the square footage is equated properly to the number of ADA parking stalls required. So
12:54 ↗ no matter what, they're gonna have to provide the required amount of ADA parking stalls
12:59 ↗ that the building code requires. Additionally, when loading space is required, the applicant has provided
13:04 ↗ that. A little more on parking. There are some construction conditions associated with
13:10 ↗ parking that include the curbs being rolled where they're located within an emergency
13:16 ↗ vehicle access zone so that the fire truck can run over them if
13:22 ↗ they need to instead of bumping into them. And additionally, lights and trees have also
13:28 ↗ been conditioned to not impede or to be relocated outside of that emergency vehicle access
13:33 ↗ area. Even aerial projections need to have clearance or, excuse me, emergency vehicles need to
13:38 ↗ have clearance from these overhead projections. That might be a light pole, that might be
13:43 ↗ a tree, but we need to make sure they're out of that vehicle zone. So
13:48 ↗ additionally, the loading zone will also need a little bit additional design. There needs to
13:54 ↗ be 52 feet of maneuvering space behind that space, and so there may be a
14:00 ↗ little design work. The loading zone is actually located right here, right on the edge
14:05 ↗ by the dumpsters at the edge of the building. Sorry, right here.
14:12 ↗ And so we'll have to get that vehicle space incorporated, the maneuvering space, excuse me,
14:16 ↗ incorporated. Additionally, some of the parking stalls are a little bit too long, and so
14:20 ↗ we're gonna need to reduce those to make sure that they meet the standard. So
14:25 ↗ those items are all located in exhibit six. There are multiple construction conditions
14:31 ↗ for them being numbers six, seven, eight, 10, 16, 20, 21 and 25.
14:37 ↗ So those, I went through them very quickly but they're all listed as
14:43 ↗ construction conditions in appendix six, in exhibit six, excuse me. So, When I
14:49 ↗ was telling you I would go back to some of these images in a little
14:54 ↗ more detail, this is the point of my presentation when I am going to do
14:59 ↗ that. The first one that I wanted to go back to was the zoning district
15:04 ↗ boundaries and the applicable zoning. And the property is going to be required to do
15:09 ↗ a boundary line adjustment. That is actually a site development permit condition. It's SDP condition
15:13 ↗ number three. The adjustment will create, if it's not already created, a lot divided by
15:19 ↗ district lines. However, the code says if 50% or more of that square footage is
15:24 ↗ within the most restrictive zoning district, you use the most restrictive zoning. But as shown
15:29 ↗ in this illustration, 50% of the square footage or more is actually gonna be in
15:34 ↗ the MFM zone, the least restrictive district, and so that's the district that we would
15:39 ↗ apply because the majority of the property is in that district.
15:48 ↗ Back to the pedestrian circulation through the parking lot, I've provided an illustration in the
15:53 ↗ staff report that is conceptual and it's a picture of how the standard could be
15:58 ↗ met. The standard is what it is, so the applicant's gonna have to meet the
16:02 ↗ standard no matter what. It may not be like this, but this was the illustration
16:07 ↗ that I showed to show that it could meet the standard. And so when we
16:11 ↗ get into a construction permit, they're gonna have to replicate something that has the same
16:16 ↗ intent as this layout does. The idea here is that pedestrians
16:22 ↗ can walk from their parking space to the front door without having to walk behind
16:26 ↗ vehicles to have a clear path for them to get from their car to the
16:31 ↗ front door. Additionally, there are some requirements that say this walkway
16:37 ↗ has to be obvious. It needs to be physically separated from vehicular areas by grade,
16:43 ↗ by landscape, by curbs, or other similar mechanisms. So that's an additional construction condition that
16:49 ↗ will be applied to this area as well. And
16:55 ↗ at the end here, I have some images that I pulled from the plans and
16:59 ↗ elevations to show on the big screen. And just in case we need to refer
17:04 ↗ back to them, but these were the elevations provided. And I can say the building
17:09 ↗ design does meet the design criteria. And these are renderings of kind of different sides
17:13 ↗ of the buildings. And we can come back to this if you need to as
17:18 ↗ well. And here is a picture from above, a rendering from above of the footprint
17:23 ↗ and the roof of the building. It's a single story building and it's got two
17:28 ↗ wings and a courtyard there in the middle you can see landscaped. So that is
17:34 ↗ the end of my presentation. I am here for your questions, questions about code, questions
17:39 ↗ about process. The applicant may have some words to say after I finish and you
17:45 ↗ may also ask them questions as well. So I'll ask Justin do you want to
17:50 ↗ say a few words or?
17:57 ↗ Justin Yonker with Cascadia Development. We went in great detail last
18:02 ↗ time we were here at the commission on the details of
18:08 ↗ the building. So really, we're just here to answer questions that
18:13 ↗ you may have. So-- You want to ask questions first and
18:19 ↗ then do the public hearing? Proceed with any public comments. Anybody
18:24 ↗ from the public want to-- we'll open the public hearing. And
18:30 ↗ please, if you want to make statement, go to the microphone.
18:37 ↗ Please give us your name and address. My name is Mary Lynch. I
18:42 ↗ reside at 2690 Northwest Oak Crest Boulevard, or Drive, excuse me, Issaquah, Washington,
18:48 ↗ 98027. Sorry that I haven't gotten my comments in writing, but we've got
18:54 ↗ a lot of development happening out on Newport Way. One of the reasons
19:00 ↗ I'm here tonight is I'm trying to look at the projects that are
19:05 ↗ going on in Issaquah for safety, especially traffic safety and emergency access safety.
19:12 ↗ And parking. And one of my first comments is having visited a lot of nursing
19:17 ↗ homes, care homes and senior homes in the area, most of them do not have
19:21 ↗ adequate parking. Especially when you consider that shift changes normally require staff to have a
19:26 ↗ little bit of overlap. So if you're looking at 15 staff, you're really looking at
19:31 ↗ close to 30 parking spaces that may be needed at one time. Where this is
19:36 ↗ located, it's also really not accessible by bus. It's not a safe corridor to walk.
19:42 ↗ I know if you remember, I think it was in 2005, we had a hit
19:47 ↗ and run and a person was killed walking on those sidewalks out there. The traffic
19:53 ↗ is extremely fast coming from the transit center to this development. The hours that the
19:58 ↗ staff would be coming except some that would be coming on to swing shift, A
20:04 ↗ lot of times they're going to be walking in the dark. And although a lot
20:07 ↗ of your staff is minimum wage or just above minimum wage, they probably prefer to
20:11 ↗ use transit. I think if you look at the Aegis and a lot of the
20:15 ↗ others that are in the downtown area, their staff does use public transportation. But I
20:19 ↗ don't think where this is located that that's really going to be optimum. So people
20:23 ↗ are going to have to drive. So they're going to need parking. A lot of
20:27 ↗ people who visit the homes normally do so after work or around the dinner time.
20:32 ↗ So I think definitely the city should be looking at this much closer from a
20:36 ↗ traffic and a parking standpoint of view than what was submitted in the one report
20:41 ↗ I saw, which had a very low count on, uh, traffics in and out of
20:45 ↗ the development. during your peak hours. Morning may be more closely aligned with what they
20:50 ↗ said, but I think if you look at peak hours, it's going to be a
20:55 ↗ lot higher due to shift change and people visiting the facility. That being said, I
21:00 ↗ also think there needs to be a very close look at that road. I don't
21:04 ↗ know how many of you go home that way, but that road is backed up
21:08 ↗ during rush hour traffic anymore due to through traffic and other people trying to get
21:12 ↗ out to the other areas located further out of Issaquah. And sometimes you've got all
21:16 ↗ four lanes, the two turn lanes and the two other lanes going eastbound blocked up.
21:20 ↗ could easily be well past wherever this entrance does end up. So I think that
21:25 ↗ needs to be considered and possibly a turn lane in and out should be part
21:30 ↗ of the entrance. Also with that, because of the sight lines, the one traffic report
21:35 ↗ I saw said it clearly did not have where it currently was located sight line
21:39 ↗ down to the left as you're looking out or west. The way this is situated,
21:44 ↗ that is the only way emergency vehicles are going to get into that area. And
21:48 ↗ if any of you have been, again, around a senior home or that, emergency vehicles
21:52 ↗ are there routinely. And where are these trucks going to be coming from or where
21:56 ↗ are the emergency vehicles going to be coming from? How are they going to get
22:00 ↗ there? I think that needs to be part of the traffic study too so that
22:04 ↗ we're not giving them a convoluted way that they have to go down to East
22:08 ↗ Lake Sammamish to come back up. I think that needs to be part of the
22:12 ↗ traffic study and I did not see that considered at all. We're asking our, like
22:17 ↗ with the closing off of Maple, we're asking our emergency vehicles to try and second
22:21 ↗ guess where traffic's going to be stopped and where they're going to be able to
22:26 ↗ get safely into these places when they're called out on emergencies. And seconds count when
22:30 ↗ you're trying to save a life. So they need to have emergency access plans in
22:35 ↗ place that they know they can go and get there. And using the Fall City,
22:40 ↗ the Black Nugget Road is not a nice street to go down or to turn
22:45 ↗ off of to go to the left and then come back to Issaquah. off of
22:50 ↗ City Road. I don't know if you guys have done it. I've driven in a
22:54 ↗ school bus and it's not a nice turn. I would hate to have to do
22:58 ↗ it in a fire truck going at the speeds they're going. We're required to slow
23:02 ↗ down to 10 miles an hour when we make our turns. And I know firemen,
23:06 ↗ they don't normally want to slow down to 10 miles an hour making their turns.
23:11 ↗ So you are setting this up for failure and possible death if they can't get
23:15 ↗ to their place on time. So I think that needs to be looked at. You
23:19 ↗ also internally need to really make sure that they can get in there and have
23:23 ↗ more than one vehicle at a time. A lot of these times they may have
23:27 ↗ two or three vehicles depending upon what has happened or the seriousness of the nature
23:30 ↗ or if it be a fire. So you need to look at that and what
23:34 ↗ if there is a truck in the loading zone at the time when the vehicle
23:38 ↗ has to pull in and all the parking stalls are full. Where is the vehicle
23:42 ↗ going to go? How are they getting in there and how are they going to
23:45 ↗ safely get out? I think the egress, that's probably getting pretty close to
23:51 ↗ what I want to say. I mean we do need more of these
23:57 ↗ facilities and it's probably an ideal place to go but I think you
24:03 ↗ need to look at pedestrian access and safety getting there and
24:09 ↗ The emergency access I think is a real critical one because I
24:14 ↗ think with the Highlands we've done our firefighters a total injustice by
24:20 ↗ asking them to have to maneuver through those tight spaces through there.
24:26 ↗ And I would hate to see some of those things repeated in
24:32 ↗ future constructions. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public?
24:38 ↗ Still time to come down from home. Seeing none. We'll close the
24:43 ↗ public hearing and now open it up to questions and comments from members of the
24:49 ↗ commission. We'll start on the end with Essie if you have any and work this
24:54 ↗ way. I thought I had read somewhere in our packet that the there had been
25:00 ↗ a study on access for emergency vehicles. Can you tell me has there been a
25:05 ↗ study done? Has the fire marshal or emergency medical folks taken a look at this
25:11 ↗ and been satisfied with their ability to access the facility? Yes, Eastside
25:17 ↗ Fire and Rescue is a reviewing party to this
25:22 ↗ proposal and the Fire marshal did review this and work with the applicant to actually
25:28 ↗ make some changes to make it better for instance when I made the Condition about
25:33 ↗ the rolled curb that came from Eastside fire and rescue So they were very much
25:37 ↗ in tune with making the access both Into the site especially any impediments that may
25:42 ↗ have been there for them for their the biggest truck they could possibly have the
25:47 ↗ bucket truck and That's what they review against. So Eastside
25:52 ↗ Fire and Rescue has reviewed this. There actually
25:58 ↗ is a firetruck access exhibit in the plans.
26:03 ↗ So that would be exhibit, I think it's
26:09 ↗ exhibit five. Exhibit five will show us the
26:14 ↗ plans. I'm going to find it. I think
26:20 ↗ I might be wrong. Design criteria checklist. Exhibit
26:25 ↗ four. Exhibit four. Exhibit four. Elevations and details.
26:31 ↗ Yes. And it is... It's the last sheet in that
26:37 ↗ exhibit. Oh, okay. And this was actually the exhibit that was requested by Side Fire
26:41 ↗ and Rescue, and so once they got this exhibit, they were able to complete the
26:46 ↗ review and add all the conditions that I kind of mentioned before in the parking
26:50 ↗ lot. Okay, so the concerns that Ms. Lynch are bringing up about the traffic, the...
26:55 ↗ fire truck coming in there at the speeds that they need to come
27:01 ↗ into. That's satisfactory. That has been reviewed and approved by the fire department.
27:07 ↗ And as far as access for staff for transit, the transit center is
27:13 ↗ up in the Highlands, correct? Yes, it is. Okay. And so there should
27:19 ↗ be, that should be about, if I'm not mistaken, pretty good walking distance
27:25 ↗ from that transit center. Let's see.
27:31 ↗ I think I have a bigger picture. So the transit center is actually right here.
27:37 ↗ Oh, okay. And then the site is in black up there. And from basically from,
27:43 ↗ well, along Highlands Drive, there's a trail right adjacent to this particular property. And of
27:49 ↗ course, there's sidewalks that get you up to the property as well. Okay, that's all
27:54 ↗ for now. My recollection when we were talking last time was
28:00 ↗ that looking at the courtyard, it didn't look like there were any covered spaces there.
28:04 ↗ And I, especially after the last couple of days, it rained kind of hard. And
28:09 ↗ I can just imagine some people sitting out trying to enjoy the sun. I don't
28:13 ↗ think you want to cover the whole thing, but I think it'd be really valuable
28:17 ↗ to think about some benches with covers so that if
28:23 ↗ it were inclement weather people could still go
28:29 ↗ outside they may choose to do that and
28:35 ↗ I didn't see it maybe that's in there
28:41 ↗ part of the design I just didn't see
28:47 ↗ it. Yeah so the second to last you
28:53 ↗ can see looking back this way, there is a covered patio
28:59 ↗ right off the back, about 10 feet, and then we've got,
29:05 ↗ On the east side, we just do pergolas in the courtyard area and maybe we
29:10 ↗ do want to consider covering those so it's rather than a slatted pergola, it's a
29:16 ↗ covered area with a bench under it for additional seating outside. I don't think you
29:21 ↗ need to do that everywhere but I just think that would be valuable having some
29:26 ↗ covered seating. Yep, absolutely. That's it for me.
29:32 ↗ - Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. On your
29:37 ↗ lighting, on sheet 120, talks about lighting and
29:43 ↗ the foot candles. Everywhere it reads on paragraph
29:49 ↗ 11 on page 120, paragraph 11 says, "The
29:54 ↗ lighting within the parking area "is limited to
30:00 ↗ five foot candles. And then except
30:06 ↗ for the beginning of the boundary of the critical area, buffer is limited to 0.3
30:12 ↗ foot candles. Couple questions. One is that, is that five foot candles, is that maximum
30:18 ↗ or minimum? Maximum. Okay, so maybe we should say maximum. You just say five foot
30:24 ↗ candles. What does that mean? Okay. And then the other question is five foot candles
30:30 ↗ versus 0.3. That seems to be a big gap in there. So, And
30:36 ↗ I'm trying to think, you know, remembering back in my days of college, 0.3 foot
30:41 ↗ candles, that can't be a whole lot. The five foot candles, is that a required
30:47 ↗ criteria? It is, and it's required in the parking area. So the lower foot candles
30:52 ↗ are going to be either next to the critical area or in pedestrian areas, whereas
30:58 ↗ the higher foot candle allowance is going to be where visibility is needed, say, in
31:03 ↗ the parking area. Mm-hmm. And what is being provided right now? Do we
31:09 ↗ know? There's a photometric plan in there, but to summarize it, sometimes around some
31:15 ↗ lights it exceeds that foot candle. Essentially a photometric is a display of anywhere
31:21 ↗ you could possibly be standing, what are the foot candles there? And so some
31:26 ↗ places the foot candles exceed what's allowed. And so we just need to make sure
31:32 ↗ that the lights are dimmed enough to both meet the requirement but to not exceed
31:37 ↗ it either. And so there's some adjustment that can be done to the lighting levels,
31:42 ↗ both in the parking lot and in the common areas in order to meet the
31:47 ↗ standard. And I appreciate the addition of a maximum to that condition. It makes it
31:52 ↗ more clear that this is a requirement and this is the maximum required. Okay.
32:00 ↗ And I had a question about the fire access also. Looking at the
32:05 ↗ last sheet that Commissioner Easy had mentioned, fire truck access. And I guess,
32:11 ↗ you know, first of all, is that the roadway, Issaquah Falls City, is
32:17 ↗ that a one-way road that goes? No, it's four lanes. Four lanes. Okay.
32:23 ↗ So... So this is showing just half of the road then? Yes, it's
32:29 ↗ just showing basically the closest part of Issaquah Falls City. I think it shows two
32:34 ↗ turn lanes, so it's really just showing the northbound traffic. Yeah, northeast traffic. Okay. So
32:39 ↗ what you're showing here is, so the truck, fire truck would have to go pretty
32:45 ↗ much to the center of the roadway to make that turn going up the hill
32:50 ↗ then. And then the one coming from the northeast would have to
32:57 ↗ It shows that it's getting onto the curb pretty much and then turning
33:02 ↗ left to go into the facility. Is that what I'm reading correctly? So
33:08 ↗ you're seeing the actual truck access and there are other requirements that were
33:14 ↗ made to the proposal from the fire department that included basically them being able
33:20 ↗ to get to the building, say they parked the truck on Highlands, say they pulled
33:25 ↗ in Highlands Drive, they could come in from that side, use the perimeter building walkways,
33:29 ↗ connect to the store's fittings and get into the building that way. So there's some
33:33 ↗ additional contraptions that are put on the building in order to provide fire protection to
33:38 ↗ various sides of the building, not just the side that is the most obvious vehicular
33:42 ↗ access, but also the sides that aren't obvious. So Highlands Drive is one of those
33:46 ↗ sides as well. And the perimeter building walkway, while it is a requirement in
33:52 ↗ the design standards, the fire department actually made that requirement as well so that they
33:58 ↗ could have access to various points in the building on that side of the building,
34:03 ↗ on the Highlands Drive side of the building. And I guess the fire department looked
34:08 ↗ at it. I was always under impression that they always want to be able to
34:14 ↗ drive a truck around the building. And right now, we're not providing that in the
34:19 ↗ facility. It just stops... in front of the building pretty much in the parking lot.
34:25 ↗ They don't require any access to go around the building. There was no requirement for
34:30 ↗ vehicular access on site around the building. Yeah. I think it's because as we mentioned
34:36 ↗ it's accessible from Highlands Drive, right? If they had to park their truck on that
34:41 ↗ side of the building, they could do it on Highlands Drive and then use the
34:47 ↗ walkways to get to where they need to go. Yeah.
34:55 ↗ And then the other thing is on your construction
35:01 ↗ conditions, somewhere there's the issue about tracking dirt while
35:06 ↗ construction is going on. What is P-E-S-C? You would
35:12 ↗ use that? Temporary. erosion and sedimentation control. And I think I would get a pat
35:18 ↗ on the back by my engineers and ask for that. - Yeah, it's a four
35:22 ↗ letter word. Okay, so it's gravel and then the truck gets up to it, you
35:27 ↗ hose it off before it gets off the site? - TSC is associated with construction
35:32 ↗ and it basically says all the dirt and any of the plant material anything on
35:37 ↗ your property in wet weather dry weather whatever has to stay within your limits of
35:42 ↗ construction and so you'll see around construction sites siltation fences the little black or orange
35:48 ↗ fence that is really short but it goes around the whole site that's what that's
35:53 ↗ for to hold everything in in case it wants to escape okay that's all thank
35:58 ↗ you So related to, and this is I guess a question, access
36:04 ↗ you mentioned that fire could potentially access off of Highland Drive, but I'm looking at
36:10 ↗ how they would accomplish that and there's no pathway that leads down to Highland Drive
36:15 ↗ and I guess ask this on two levels. Just responding to the question or getting
36:21 ↗ clarification on the question about fire department access, but also about pedestrian access, particularly those
36:25 ↗ people coming from the transit center to the property. How do they get, what's the
36:30 ↗ most convenient access point to a pedestrian coming from the transit center? So I guess
36:34 ↗ it's the answer to both of those questions. Okay, so the most convenient access, the
36:39 ↗ route that I would take from the transit center, which is the quickest one, right,
36:44 ↗ would be up Highlands Drive. So you take Highlands Drive up to The King County
36:49 ↗ Trail you'd have to cross over and then go north and so the perimeter building
36:54 ↗ walkway that starts I'm going to try and use my cursor here right about here
36:58 ↗ Would be the closest way to get from the trail to this building and so
37:03 ↗ you take this perimeter walkway building up right here that would be the closest spot
37:08 ↗ where you could get into the site and physically walk around the building and Was
37:13 ↗ an opportunity explored to connect it closer? I know there's a grade difference that starts
37:17 ↗ to occur as you come down the hill there. But so you essentially got to
37:22 ↗ go all the way up to the intersection, make the turn to get into the
37:26 ↗ property. So did you explore the option of trying to create a more convenient point
37:31 ↗ of access? Go ahead. - The requirement was for one and they've met the requirement.
37:36 ↗ It's not a bad idea to add more of those. What I will say is
37:41 ↗ along the building perimeter, there are some stands of trees probably in and around here
37:46 ↗ that are proposed to be retained. So that area, trying to put something through that
37:51 ↗ area may not, for tree retention, may not be a good option. But north of
37:56 ↗ that, it could be a viable option. Yeah, and I get, you know, obviously there's
38:02 ↗ security issues, et cetera, that go along with that. But I was just thinking about
38:07 ↗ it from trying to improve the quality of the experience for people who are taking
38:12 ↗ transit to the property, whether they're, you know, employees or they're visitors. So I think
38:17 ↗ that was good. A couple of questions related to the parking lot configuration. Sounds like
38:23 ↗ it's still a little bit unsettled in a couple of points. One is the driveway
38:28 ↗ access point is still being reviewed by Public Works Engineering. How significant of a change
38:33 ↗ are we potentially looking at there? Because once you move it, you start creating a
38:38 ↗ bit of a domino effect on the configuration of the parking lot. So I don't
38:43 ↗ know how far along that conversation has gone. - Well, from my
38:49 ↗ conversations with Public Works Engineering, there are some, issues with
38:55 ↗ meeting the sight lines in the current location based on some where existing improvements are
39:00 ↗ located. So they're researching whether or not those existing improvements can be relocated and whether
39:06 ↗ or not, so I'm not sure at this time I could say that the driveway
39:12 ↗ might move completely over and change everything. At this point I think the actual site
39:17 ↗ access that we're looking at is somewhere in the vicinity of where it's located now.
39:23 ↗ However, if it were to change so drastically that it changes the whole concept, we'd
39:28 ↗ be back before you. Yeah, there's a point at which you can do minor amendments
39:33 ↗ to an approved site development permit and major amendments to an approved site development permit.
39:38 ↗ If it's a major change, you know, enough that it affects the site and the
39:43 ↗ building location or anything like that, then we would bring it back to you. But
39:48 ↗ if it's just a minor change, then we would review it administratively. That makes sense.
39:53 ↗ And so another question regarding the kind of constraints you're facing with the parking lot
39:58 ↗ configuration. So in the staff report it's talking about the frontage improvement requirement along the
40:03 ↗ Issaquah-Fall City Road frontage. And you showed up and so you've got a bit of
40:07 ↗ a squeeze going on there trying to get the sidewalk, the frontage that required I
40:12 ↗ believe it was minimum of five feet of landscaping. Yes. I think it was type
40:17 ↗ one landscaping in there. really dense. And then you also talked about the concept of
40:22 ↗ the pedestrian access walkways so that you don't have people going behind the vehicles. And
40:27 ↗ the concept that you showed showed the pathway also within that space. So thinking about
40:33 ↗ the profile now with all of that going on in there, can you get it
40:38 ↗ in there? Right, and that's part of what's being looked at in the deviation request.
40:43 ↗ The deviation is actually a process that's outlined in the city street standards, which is
40:48 ↗ implemented through the Public Works Engineering Department. But what they're going to be looking at
40:53 ↗ is where is it so constrained it's not feasible? Where is the intent being met
40:58 ↗ the same way? For instance, you mentioned the type one screen adjacent to the parking
41:03 ↗ lot. is that an effective measure for street landscaping or not?
41:09 ↗ But that's part of the deviation that our engineering department is
41:14 ↗ looking at. So they are looking at where is it absolutely
41:20 ↗ necessary and where are other functions providing the same equivalent function.
41:25 ↗ So just again on that, So the type one land, this is something
41:31 ↗ that I would be a little concerned about if you were giving up landscaping and
41:36 ↗ a little softening of the edge at that location because of the visibility. It's fairly
41:41 ↗ visible. It's currently a fairly wooded and there's some open space there, but fairly wooded
41:46 ↗ property and having the cars pushed right out to the edge of the sidewalk, right
41:51 ↗ onto the street, essentially as people are cresting the hill would probably not be a
41:56 ↗ good kind of aesthetic option. kind of appearance, particularly right as you're approaching the building.
42:01 ↗ I mean, all you see initially would be the cars parked in a parking lot.
42:05 ↗ So I think, I guess my understanding, you're still working that, but I want to
42:10 ↗ encourage that we make sure we're trying to preserve as much landscaping in there as
42:14 ↗ we can get. And what I want to clarify, what is actually being looked at
42:18 ↗ is only the right-of-way landscaping. The type one screen is a requirement for the parking
42:22 ↗ lot. So they are required to put that screen in to do exactly what you
42:26 ↗ just said, abate that visual. And then
42:32 ↗ just one more question and it has some impact I think on the access driveway
42:37 ↗ access point and that was one of the concerns that Ms. Lynch raised was the
42:42 ↗ queuing from the intersection back and whether or not we start to get a conflict
42:47 ↗ now with the driveway access point and is that also I'm guessing that's part of
42:52 ↗ the evaluation that public works is doing on this so we don't start having a
42:57 ↗ lots of conflict occurring at the driveway entrance. I think the the biggest focus in
43:02 ↗ the evaluation right now is sight lines. I don't think there were any queuing issues,
43:07 ↗ but you have to kind of investigate that after you've figured out where the sight
43:12 ↗ lines will work, right? So wherever this driveway ends up, they'll have to do another
43:17 ↗ analysis to see if there are any queuing implications or not. But as of right
43:22 ↗ now, the biggest issue, the main issue has been the sight line. One more. And
43:27 ↗ on that point, so did they, are they also considering just a right
43:33 ↗ in right out of this driveway? Absolutely. In addition to meeting the sight
43:39 ↗ line. Right. Because traffic's moving fast here, sight line, you're just coming off
43:45 ↗ that corner. I understand that concern about, okay. The applicant has proposed right
43:51 ↗ in right out. Is that? Don't mind if I jump in. Is that a requirement?
43:57 ↗ Because I don't remember seeing that as a condition that it be right in, right
44:01 ↗ out. It's not a requirement, but I think it all depends on where the driveway
44:06 ↗ is located, and it has to do with distance from the intersection. So as a
44:11 ↗ result of this analysis of the driveway, the access point, if there is a movement
44:16 ↗ in the driveway, it's still going to have to be right in, right out.
44:23 ↗ Because of the distance from the intersection. Okay, I guess I'm still confused. So that,
44:28 ↗ yeah. As it stands right now, does it have to be right in, right out
44:33 ↗ where it is? Yes, the standards say that. It's not a condition in the SDP.
44:39 ↗ It's actually our, the street standards that we use would require that. Okay, and if
44:44 ↗ it gets moved, it might not be required? I'm not a traffic engineer, so I
44:49 ↗ can't say yes or no for certain. The applicant has proposed it right in and
44:54 ↗ right out from the very beginning, even at the community conference level. That's what I
44:59 ↗ thought, Mayor, from the conference, but I couldn't find it in here where it said
45:05 ↗ that it would be that. And is the final decision by Public Works? Yes. Okay.
45:10 ↗ Yes. So we would not need to make that as a condition here? No, because
45:16 ↗ it needs to meet the street standards and it needs to meet the sight lines,
45:21 ↗ the sight lines being the biggest issue right now. And it is proposed as right
45:27 ↗ in, right out? Absolutely, yes. On page 7 of 20 of your report, under findings
45:32 ↗ of fact at the bottom, and this is the living facility standard, says the parking
45:38 ↗ lot shall be required to provide ADA parking stalls and two are proposed.
45:44 ↗ Should there be a number in there that are required to provide two ADA?
45:50 ↗ They're required to provide the amount of ADA parking stalls required by the building code,
45:55 ↗ and the building code has very specific requirements on how many they're gonna need. And
46:00 ↗ how many is that? Well, it depends on the final square footage, but right now,
46:05 ↗ based on the proposal, it is two. So based on this current proposal, they're meeting
46:10 ↗ that requirement. Okay, so that sentence, as I read it, I thought it should say,
46:15 ↗ "The parking lot shall be required to provide a certain number of ADA parking
46:21 ↗ stalls, not just provide ADA parking stalls. And I think maybe to kind of clarify
46:26 ↗ that if it is to become a condition, it would be the amount of ADA
46:31 ↗ stalls required by the building code. Because if the building code ends up saying they
46:36 ↗ need three, then we want to make sure that they have three. Okay, gotcha. Thank
46:41 ↗ you. Just one minor correction, also same page. The building code is the international building
46:45 ↗ code. The uniform building code hasn't been used in the state for a while. Thank
46:50 ↗ you. And then on on page
46:56 ↗ 8 you mentioned this oh just on page 8 I guess the
47:02 ↗ very bottom of page 8 the code requires a lot of words
47:08 ↗ says Required to have a maximum of 45 stalls should that say
47:14 ↗ a minimum of 45 stalls? Question I had to yes, that is
47:19 ↗ a minimum number okay great and the
47:25 ↗ - I guess later on, I was surprised to read in here, to hear you
47:30 ↗ mention that some of the parking stalls are too long. I thought we had a
47:35 ↗ minimum parking stall depth. I didn't know that was also the maximum. - That is
47:40 ↗ the standard. That's a way to put it. It's a standard. So regular stalls have
47:45 ↗ a standard, is it nine by 18 and a half feet long? Compact stalls have
47:50 ↗ their own standard. So it's kind of, it's an exact measurement. It's not
47:56 ↗ just a minimum depth view. Okay. What if your car
48:01 ↗ doesn't fit? Yeah. Get a smaller car. There you go.
48:07 ↗ Okay. Well, I learned something. Great. I think that's all
48:13 ↗ I've got right now. Thank you. Should be on? Okay.
48:19 ↗ Jennifer, thanks for the report and thorough answering of the questions
48:25 ↗ and also thank you for helping me learn a new acronym tonight so that was
48:31 ↗ pretty exciting so uh i to echo the concerns of fellow commissioners about the driveway
48:36 ↗ i think that's uh critical in this whole plan i i've been up and down
48:42 ↗ that road several times and uh The traffic's moving really fast, and this
48:48 ↗ looks like a really tight right turn where you'd almost have to slow down and
48:53 ↗ stop to take a right turn in. So I think that is something that could
48:59 ↗ be looked at and is going to be critical to the success of the property.
49:04 ↗ And then the other that I'd like to hear more from, you mentioned that one
49:09 ↗ of the conditions is around changing the fencing. Correct. And what are some of
49:15 ↗ the plans around that? Does the applicant have any plans on that that
49:21 ↗ they could discuss at this point? So on the back of the courtyard
49:26 ↗ area, we do the black wrought iron fencing. I believe the chain link
49:32 ↗ was proposed up against the parking lot in between the parking lot and
49:38 ↗ the wetlands area. And yeah, have we proposed a new fence type? I
49:44 ↗ mean, I'm not sure what the city is recommending or would like to see
49:50 ↗ there. I don't know if we need a wrought iron black fence along that
49:56 ↗ area, but we're open to whatever will work. Yeah, I
50:01 ↗ think the site will be fairly visible and that
50:07 ↗ you'd want something that is attractive or fits in
50:13 ↗ with the work and thought that you've put into
50:19 ↗ the building. Absolutely. So that's just my comment there.
50:25 ↗ OK. Otherwise, I'll pass. I have a couple, and
50:31 ↗ hopefully you can answer them relatively quickly. Traffic study
50:36 ↗ talks about 12:00 AM peak trips and 20:00 PM.
50:43 ↗ And then it says that it falls within the traffic concurrency model
50:48 ↗ and 20 trips fall within the trip bank and passes. What happened
50:54 ↗ to those other 12? You only have to pay for the evening
50:59 ↗ ones? Or shouldn't it be 32 trips that are being charged to
51:05 ↗ the bank? So the new concurrency model that passed the new concurrency program
51:10 ↗ requires that the PMP cower trips be logged into the trip bank. The trip bank
51:16 ↗ is the set number of trips that development in the city is allotted. - Okay,
51:22 ↗ so it's just the evening one? - Yes, it is. - Okay. I have concerns
51:27 ↗ as all the other commissioners do with the traffic pattern and the staff
51:33 ↗ report says on page 13 that the city will evaluate if an alternative
51:39 ↗ driveway location is necessary or if channelization improvements are needed when is that
51:45 ↗ going to be done it's it's being done now So the Public
51:50 ↗ Works Engineering Department is working with the applicant to analyze that. Yeah, it's being done
51:56 ↗ now, but when is it due to be done? I mean, do we have a
52:02 ↗ date? It has to be done before any other construction permits can be submitted. Okay.
52:07 ↗ So basically, from now until the time they want to submit a construction permit, it
52:13 ↗ would have to be done before that. It's something that we'd have to know with
52:18 ↗ certainty before we could accept any construction permits. Okay. So that's still ongoing.
52:24 ↗ One of the concerns-- and I had the same thing that Commissioner
52:30 ↗ Morgan had was the maximums, but that solves minimum to maximum has
52:35 ↗ been changed. I also don't really understand that the stalls are too
52:41 ↗ long. Are we just talking about the length of painted stripes?
52:47 ↗ Yes. So a stall is supposed to be 19 feet, 19 and a half feet
52:52 ↗ deep. Right. Some of them are showing as 20, 21. And so we want to
52:58 ↗ make sure that those parking stall links are, we want to make sure that the
53:03 ↗ parking lot isn't larger than it really needs to be.
53:10 ↗ So by having oversized parking stalls, it increases the impervious area, it increases the impact.
53:15 ↗ And so we want to make sure that the standard's met to keep the area
53:21 ↗ of the parking lot to the minimum necessary. Okay, well that assumes that the parking
53:27 ↗ lot is designed based on the length of the stalls. And I assume the parking
53:33 ↗ lot's based more on the physical area that's available and how much impervious service they
53:39 ↗ can have, and then they fit I guess it's a
53:45 ↗ moot point. I'm not sure I understand. If they stripe at 20 feet long versus
53:50 ↗ 19, I'm not sure I understand where that's a big problem. Well, what you have
53:56 ↗ to keep in mind is that they aren't... They aren't painting a 19 and a
54:01 ↗ half foot stripe in a fixed space. What they're doing is they're saying if you
54:06 ↗ have a space longer than 19, you have to increase the footprint of the parking
54:11 ↗ lot because you have to be able to move vehicles around in there. So it's
54:16 ↗ -- the longer the parking space is, the larger the area -- the larger the
54:21 ↗ pad that you'd be parking on. It's not just a stripe line. It's a dimension
54:25 ↗ for the parking. Yeah. You should turn it around and say the turning radius is
54:31 ↗ not large enough. That's the question. And the size of the parking lot, the size
54:36 ↗ of the stalls isn't the critical thing. It's the area between the stalls. Yeah. That
54:41 ↗ is the critical for being able to park back out and make turns. Right. But
54:46 ↗ that's... That's how they're going to determine how big the parking area
54:52 ↗ is, because they have to have an adequate turning radius to get
54:58 ↗ into the parking stall. CLARE DUDA: We've never seen that before in
55:03 ↗ any stat that says there's got to be-- I don't know, pick
55:09 ↗ a number-- 30 feet between parking stalls. Is there? We've never seen
55:15 ↗ that delineated before. There is a drive aisle requirement and it depends on if it's
55:19 ↗ one way or two way. And if it's a fire lane or not. If it's
55:24 ↗ a fire lane or not. You'll notice parts of this parking lot are larger. The
55:28 ↗ drive aisles larger where the fire truck needs to access. And so there were some,
55:32 ↗ you mentioned a whole lot of things that definitely go into the layout of the
55:37 ↗ parking lot. That answers the question. Yeah, I mean, the long story short, what we
55:42 ↗ want to avoid is more paving than what's necessary. We don't want to lose a
55:47 ↗ foot of landscaping just so the stall can be a foot longer. But reducing the
55:53 ↗ parking stall length, are we reducing the parking lot? Are we gaining more? Potentially, yeah.
55:59 ↗ If they're adding on a foot to that parking stall that doesn't need to be
56:04 ↗ there, they're taking it out of the periphery landscaping. No, we
56:10 ↗ have asphalt right now. I presume that's what it is. We have X
56:16 ↗ number of square feet of asphalt. And the issue is we have too
56:22 ↗ long of a parking stall. So by reducing the parking stall, we're hoping
56:28 ↗ to gain more natural previous and reduce the parking stall. Are we reducing
56:33 ↗ the parking area? The number of parking stalls would not be reduced. Is that your
56:39 ↗ question? The length of it. The length of the stall would be, well, if it's
56:43 ↗ too long right now, if it doesn't meet the standard, then it would need to
56:48 ↗ be reduced to meet the standard. But you wouldn't, I guess you would be. And
56:52 ↗ the reason being is, is what? Because of the turning radius? Well, it's all connected.
56:57 ↗ So you've got drive aisles, you've got the parking lot length, you've got turning radius,
57:02 ↗ what curve is in and around that parking stall. And you know, there's a lot
57:08 ↗ of dynamics that play into it. Okay. So by reducing that, the requirement, by reducing
57:14 ↗ the parking stall length, are we reducing the parking lot then? The total
57:19 ↗ area, presumably, yes. The total surface area that the parking
57:25 ↗ lot would be encompassing would be reduced if they reduced
57:31 ↗ those parking stall sizes. Okay. This is a minor point.
57:37 ↗ I didn't really understand the zone standards in regards to
57:43 ↗ maximum building height. They said it's not applicable. They said
57:48 ↗ that the base building height is 30 feet for single-family,
57:55 ↗ small lot and 40 feet for multifamily medium and the applicants proposal
58:01 ↗ is 20 foot base building height and then I saw in the
58:07 ↗ I think SEPA review that the max height is 34 feet I
58:13 ↗ got a little confused in regards to what we're talking about regards
58:19 ↗ the base building height if if their proposal is 20 feet I
58:25 ↗ don't understand where their 34 foot height comes in
58:31 ↗ If I'm understanding correctly, so the majority of the
58:37 ↗ building is within this, and I think I found
58:42 ↗ what you're discussing in the... Page 23 of 125
58:48 ↗ is the table comparison between single-family, multi-family, and Fieldstone's
58:53 ↗ proposal. And page 49 of 125 is the SEPA
58:59 ↗ review, I believe, that says building
59:04 ↗ height will be 34 feet? This is a great question because
59:10 ↗ the critical areas regulations measure building height differently than the land
59:16 ↗ use code measures it. The critical areas regulations measures building height from the bottom to
59:22 ↗ the very top, whatever's the tallest of the top. In this case, I believe it
59:27 ↗ was that front awning. There's a bit of a roof projections up at the top
59:32 ↗ there that actually projects way over the roof of the main part of the building.
59:37 ↗ That's what he's saying is 34 feet. Because he's measuring its absolute top to bottom,
59:42 ↗ that's the highest point in the building, that's why that number was used in the
59:47 ↗ checklist. because that's how the SEPA regulations look at it. Now on the land use
59:52 ↗ code, you have base building height and max building height. And just to differentiate the
59:56 ↗ two, the max building height is used when you're trying to do incentives to bump
1:00:01 ↗ yourself up above the base building height. So if you're providing affordable housing or some
1:00:06 ↗ other things, I'm sure you're kind of familiar with that with Central Issaquah. But this
1:00:10 ↗ is when you want to kind of get above that base height. Everybody's allowed to
1:00:16 ↗ get to the base height. But when you want to go above that base height,
1:00:21 ↗ you got to do a little extra to get there. And that's why it's not
1:00:27 ↗ applicable to this. They're not asking to go above the base. And so that's why
1:00:32 ↗ in that table it says NA under the max height allowed. Okay. They've got that
1:00:37 ↗ their proposal is 20 foot. Now they can go up to 40 feet because it's
1:00:43 ↗ multifamily medium. Yes. I guess I don't understand why it shouldn't be there
1:00:48 ↗ going to 34. Okay. So we also measure building height a little bit differently in
1:00:54 ↗ the land use code than they do for SEPA. So the way that they measure
1:00:59 ↗ building height in the land use code is from Correct me if I'm wrong,
1:01:05 ↗ Christopher. I'm going to try and get this out in one breath. It's the existing
1:01:10 ↗ or finished floor elevation, whichever is lower, and they measure from that point to the
1:01:16 ↗ midpoint of the highest gable on the building. Now, the portico or the entryway awning
1:01:21 ↗ is an architectural feature. It's not a livable space. And so when we're talking about
1:01:26 ↗ the building, we're talking about the occupied building. Okay. Okay. The four
1:01:32 ↗ walls, I think. It was a really good, that's a
1:01:38 ↗ really good question. Okay, the other question I had was
1:01:44 ↗ in regards to tree retention. And right now that there's
1:01:49 ↗ not an issue of replanting because they're at 27%. Then
1:01:55 ↗ in addition, in regards to the construction on the road,
1:02:04 ↗ There's language to the effect of one of the construction conditions is
1:02:09 ↗ that trees located near the entrance shall be evaluated on site distance
1:02:15 ↗ and may be required to be removed. Some of these trees have
1:02:21 ↗ to be removed. That drops, I would guess, since there are only
1:02:26 ↗ two percentage points above the requirement, it might kick them down into
1:02:32 ↗ a problem with tree retention. So I think you're talking about
1:02:37 ↗ new trees they're gonna plant. And so we're kind of looking at kind of
1:02:43 ↗ two different buckets of tree regulations. We've got required parking lot trees, we've got
1:02:49 ↗ required landscape screening that includes evergreen, could potentially include evergreen trees. then we have
1:02:55 ↗ the existing trees on site that need to be retained. Right. And so that's kind
1:03:00 ↗ of a separate regulation that we look at separately from all the trees that they're
1:03:06 ↗ adding on the property. So when it comes to retention, we're not counting trees. I
1:03:12 ↗ thought that might be the case, but the language talks about site distance may require
1:03:18 ↗ to be removed or relocated. Removed to me means Trees that are there not
1:03:24 ↗ ones that have been planted or are going to be planted So I
1:03:30 ↗ read that to me and if it's on that end on the what
1:03:35 ↗ is it? Falls City's is a cough on the Northwest side if they
1:03:41 ↗ have to adjust the entryway there's trees there now are those some of
1:03:47 ↗ the ones that are meant to be retained? And if they have to be cut
1:03:53 ↗ out because of site distances, is that going to make a difference regarding that they're
1:03:58 ↗ going to plant more trees? The quick answer to your question is no. But the
1:04:03 ↗ reason why is because there are some flowering pear trees on Issaquah Falls City Road
1:04:09 ↗ that have been there. They're on the other side of the sidewalk, what I'd say
1:04:14 ↗ the wrong side of the sidewalk right now. But those trees due to sight lines
1:04:18 ↗ may need to be removed. They may also need to be removed as within the
1:04:23 ↗ process of moving the sidewalk back and putting that landscape strip there. So those are
1:04:28 ↗ the only trees that could possibly be removed. The relocated trees are those trees that
1:04:34 ↗ could be proposed, let's say, in and around the driveway. We want to make sure
1:04:39 ↗ that all those trees are back far enough in addition to any new street trees
1:04:44 ↗ that are proposed that are back far enough to where if you get out or
1:04:50 ↗ into that driveway, you can see. Thank you. So the trees, in essence, need to
1:04:55 ↗ meet the sight lines too. Okay. - Mind if I ask a question?
1:05:01 ↗ - Sure. - I'm just thinking about this, and the reason I bring it up
1:05:06 ↗ is 'cause it's related to one of your conditions. And it looks like the intent
1:05:11 ↗ was to move the property line so it's at the edge of the critical area
1:05:17 ↗ buffer, is that what we were thinking? - Yes. - Yeah? Okay, so at the
1:05:22 ↗ very least, the condition applies because that lot line will need to be either removed
1:05:27 ↗ or moved but there may be an issue with just moving it to the
1:05:33 ↗ edge of the buffer because we can't create a lot that's unbuildable. So it'll either
1:05:38 ↗ be removed or moved. We'll have to look at that. Yeah, and we talked about
1:05:44 ↗ this a while back, and I think we're all right either way. Okay. Yeah, either
1:05:49 ↗ way, the critical areas will be a native growth protection easement. It doesn't affect anything,
1:05:54 ↗ but we can figure that out. Thank you, Christopher. Anybody else have any other questions?
1:06:01 ↗ Follow up question. One of the things we discussed at the community conference was a
1:06:07 ↗ possible deceleration lane and that mentioned that the study determined that something like that would
1:06:12 ↗ not be necessary. I'm curious across the street there's a condominium project that I don't
1:06:18 ↗ think has either deceleration or acceleration lane that comes right out in the street.
1:06:24 ↗ Did the study have any statistics about any accidents there that might be illuminating as
1:06:29 ↗ to how they came to their conclusion? Because that is a concern about the speed
1:06:35 ↗ on that road, especially at rush hour, people racing home doing 50 miles an hour
1:06:40 ↗ and somebody slowing down to take a 90 degree right turn. So was there any
1:06:45 ↗ information on that? I don't know if there was
1:06:51 ↗ any information on that. I didn't review the TIA. Our traffic engineer did. And I
1:06:57 ↗ don't know that Summerhill, was Summerhill in the city? So it was in the county
1:07:03 ↗ before it was in the city, right? Yeah, and I'm not so concerned about their
1:07:09 ↗ approval, just the idea of do we have any history that would be illuminating on
1:07:15 ↗ safety. Okay. Yeah. And then I guess my other, I don't know, this is more
1:07:21 ↗ of a question or recommendation as to that thinking about the fencing along the parking
1:07:26 ↗ lot and what that could be. And you mentioned in there a possibility of a
1:07:31 ↗ hedge along there. Since that parking lot is all highly visible from Issaquah Falls City
1:07:36 ↗ going east, and I know that the condominium project recently removed a fence, painted fence
1:07:41 ↗ they'd had for a long time that deteriorated and replaced it with hedges that seemed
1:07:46 ↗ far more attractive and easier to maintain perhaps in a painted
1:07:51 ↗ fence. So hopefully that would be a recommendation that would go into
1:07:57 ↗ it. - Quick question, Mr. Chair. What kind of schedule are you
1:08:03 ↗ looking at for construction? We're past the window of construction for this
1:08:09 ↗ year now. - Yeah, so the site distance, that's our highest priority
1:08:14 ↗ and working through that with the city along with this approval.
1:08:20 ↗ You know, we were planning when we met in March, you know, our goal
1:08:26 ↗ is to get this going before year end. I mean, we're just pushing as
1:08:32 ↗ hard as we can in all directions. That's all we can do. Does the
1:08:38 ↗ city have any requirements or limits? If you don't start a project by, say,
1:08:44 ↗ October, you cannot start until March? Not exactly, but there is another level of
1:08:50 ↗ You mentioned the task, the erosion control. There's another level of criteria that need to
1:08:55 ↗ be met if you're working in wet weather. So there's additional conditions that are required.
1:09:01 ↗ Yeah, yeah. Because I know it doesn't prohibit it, but there's an extra level of
1:09:06 ↗ erosion control that has to happen. Oh, you can even start a construction as
1:09:12 ↗ long as you provide the soil erosion control in there. Right. Okay. It just gets
1:09:17 ↗ more expensive. Yeah, it gets more expensive. So, but then, you know, as time goes
1:09:23 ↗ on, you know, construction costs gets more expensive too. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, our intent
1:09:28 ↗ is as soon as possible. So, once we get the site distance, figured out
1:09:34 ↗ in the exact driveway location, which we think is going to slide 6 to
1:09:40 ↗ 11 feet. So it's not going to be a major site plan revision to
1:09:46 ↗ meet all the codes. Once we get that ironed out, have this decision, meet
1:09:52 ↗ the conditions there, we're wanting to do the dirt work as soon as possible.
1:09:58 ↗ Yeah. OK. Okay. And Ray, we don't need any more
1:10:03 ↗ pressure put upon us to issue those permits any quicker. We
1:10:09 ↗ get enough of that already. Do we need to sign anything
1:10:15 ↗ tonight? We have to make a choice on that proposal. Any
1:10:21 ↗ other questions? No. I guess we move into, I'll let you
1:10:27 ↗ go through the green sheets. Green sheets. Two pages of these,
1:10:33 ↗ we'll try to do them. First one is site layout, overall
1:10:39 ↗ design concepts. They'll just sort of paraphrase and go through
1:10:45 ↗ them. If you have an objection or think there's a condition necessary, speak up. Building
1:10:51 ↗ location. Mr. Chair, I guess just a question here. So in the packet, Jennifer has,
1:10:56 ↗ I think, put all these same questions, the green sheets, in essence, in here with
1:11:02 ↗ the recommendations included in there. So instead of going through the green sheet, would we
1:11:07 ↗ be going through what she's prepared in the package so we know the condition that's
1:11:13 ↗ applicable and... That would be Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5. I guess the
1:11:19 ↗ thing to do, maybe go down to the first one that has
1:11:24 ↗ a condition to see if there's any objections to it. Well, if
1:11:30 ↗ we go through each item, and so if we agree that there's
1:11:35 ↗ no condition needed, any of them, like building location, yes, comments, no
1:11:41 ↗ conditions, as long as we agree with that. I guess. Yeah. Okay.
1:11:46 ↗ Yes. Okay. I agree with that on a relatively high level, so
1:11:52 ↗ just take it by category. Building location?
1:11:58 ↗ Acceptable. That's acceptable. Energy efficient
1:12:03 ↗ design, acceptable? Acceptable. Function site
1:12:09 ↗ design or conditions? I think
1:12:14 ↗ acceptable with the conditions. Right.
1:12:20 ↗ Yeah, a little bit of
1:12:25 ↗ talk about a lot of
1:12:30 ↗ those. A lot of work
1:12:36 ↗ needs to be done. Acceptable
1:12:41 ↗ with the load? Yeah, acceptable.
1:12:47 ↗ Lighting? Lighting. Acceptable. Acceptable. I agree.
1:12:53 ↗ The noted conditions. Yeah. We're going to add the word for five foot candle,
1:12:58 ↗ maximum five foot candles. And then-- I'm sorry, where do we add that? That's
1:13:04 ↗ in the next one. That's in lighting supplies. On B? Yeah, on B. On
1:13:10 ↗ B, under condition of approval number one, we talked about the limit of five
1:13:16 ↗ foot candles. It wasn't clear, and we were going to add the word maximum
1:13:21 ↗ of five foot candles. I mean, the sense the lighting
1:13:27 ↗ within the parking area is limited to five foot candles?
1:13:33 ↗ Limited to maximum five foot candles. Maximum. Maximum. Maximum. Maximum.
1:13:39 ↗ Oh, okay. Limited and maximum would be redundant. To a
1:13:45 ↗ maximum of five foot candles. Okay. And then, Mr. Chair,
1:13:50 ↗ on item two, the lighting levels proposed adjacent to the
1:13:56 ↗ critical areas buffer appeared meet the code requirements. I guess I'm
1:14:02 ↗ not sure what appear really means that do they meet it or do
1:14:08 ↗ they not meet the code requirements? Well, it'll be reviewed with the construction
1:14:13 ↗ permits. They might not have all of the fixtures and the next one
1:14:19 ↗ says it's all going to be reviewed in compliance with the building permit
1:14:24 ↗ submittal. So they'll all be in compliance before the building permits granted.
1:14:30 ↗ So number two is really not a
1:14:36 ↗ question, it's more of a statement. It's
1:14:42 ↗ not a condition. It's more of a
1:14:47 ↗ statement. You could actually merge those two
1:14:53 ↗ together, two and three. Yeah, maybe merge
1:14:58 ↗ it. That's a good idea. The natural
1:15:04 ↗ setting is N/A. Hillside design? Acceptable. Acceptable.
1:15:09 ↗ The existing vegetation is acceptable? Acceptable.
1:15:15 ↗ Historical as N/A. N/A.
1:15:20 ↗ Design elements. Fastened closure.
1:15:24 ↗ Acceptable with the noted
1:15:29 ↗ conditions. Agree. Yep. Concur.
1:15:34 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. With conditions.
1:15:39 ↗ With the noted conditions.
1:15:44 ↗ Right. Yeah. Design utility
1:15:49 ↗ acceptable. Acceptable. Enhanced design
1:15:54 ↗ acceptable. Acceptable. Acceptable. Acceptable.
1:15:59 ↗ Trees and shubs acceptable.
1:16:05 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. Arcing acceptable. Acceptable. Yeah,
1:16:11 ↗ for the landscape. Yeah. Acceptable. Usable
1:16:16 ↗ open space design. Acceptable. Acceptable. I
1:16:21 ↗ thought just second on that usable
1:16:27 ↗ open space. I think there would
1:16:32 ↗ be a valuable condition to try
1:16:38 ↗ to put some covered seating in
1:16:43 ↗ the courtyard. Yeah. It would seem
1:16:49 ↗ like a condition for approval. Provide.
1:16:54 ↗ Provide. Provide. Which one? Which? Four. Four. Usable open space design. Usable open
1:17:00 ↗ space? Yeah. Yes. Are you looking for more than the covered patio? They've
1:17:06 ↗ got the covered patio already. Off the back of the building, we've got
1:17:12 ↗ about a-- is it 10 feet? Yeah, you said it was 10 feet.
1:17:17 ↗ 10 feet patio that's covered. That's OK. I'll take that back.
1:17:23 ↗ okay acceptable then yeah acceptable acceptable except
1:17:29 ↗ that material acceptable appearance and maintenance acceptable
1:17:35 ↗ noxious and destructive there's a condition acceptable
1:17:41 ↗ with the condition acceptable with condition yep
1:17:46 ↗ acceptable acceptable safety acceptable acceptable with the
1:17:52 ↗ condition acceptable into the work they're doing
1:17:58 ↗ the parking site line or the access
1:18:04 ↗ site line yep design element
1:18:09 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable with the condition on the chain link fencing? Yep.
1:18:15 ↗ Could I propose a change to that to say chain link
1:18:21 ↗ is not compatible with site design or building architecture, so another
1:18:27 ↗ fence style or hedge shall be chosen? Add or hedge? Or
1:18:33 ↗ hedge. I think hedge is defined as a fencing style, but
1:18:39 ↗ just to make it clear that, okay. Or hedge or similar
1:18:45 ↗ planting. Filling materials? acceptable acceptable acceptable we didn't
1:18:51 ↗ talk much about those tonight but they
1:18:56 ↗ were nice and durability and maintenance acceptable
1:19:01 ↗ compatible compatibility acceptable acceptable colors i don't
1:19:07 ↗ know i didn't see any orange in
1:19:12 ↗ the designs which is a good thing
1:19:19 ↗ I think he likes orange. That's your
1:19:25 ↗ theme, right? Your signature? Happy color. Happy
1:19:31 ↗ color. Okay, modulation acceptable? Acceptable. Facade? Acceptable.
1:19:37 ↗ And ground level? Acceptable. And large structures?
1:19:43 ↗ Acceptable. Corporate style, N/A. And architectural style,
1:19:49 ↗ all the way architectural style is all
1:19:55 ↗ N/A. I have a question. Transition.
1:20:01 ↗ Chair, can we back up one second? Sure. I'm sorry, question on
1:20:06 ↗ after corporate style on signage. Question, Jennifer, will the signs for this
1:20:12 ↗ come in front of the development commission since they would be on
1:20:17 ↗ Issaquah Falls City Road? No, it'd be a sign permit according to
1:20:23 ↗ the sign code, chapter 1811. We don't get to really see any
1:20:28 ↗ signs anymore? No, I think a new sign on a major
1:20:34 ↗ street. Yeah, I'll have to check it, but it might come back to
1:20:40 ↗ the Development Commission. Okay. Be nice to him now and then. I thought
1:20:46 ↗ we submitted a conceptual sign. Maybe it was after the last Commission meeting,
1:20:52 ↗ the community conference. And because we on the site
1:20:58 ↗ plan, I know we had a proposed location. And then we just had a standard
1:21:03 ↗ monument sign similar to what we do in our other communities. So if
1:21:09 ↗ I may interject as well, that monument sign is going to have sightline
1:21:15 ↗ implications. And so when it comes in, it'd have to be reviewed against
1:21:21 ↗ the sightlines. Additionally, a code review will actually have to be done on
1:21:27 ↗ the signage to make sure whatever's presented to you actually is compliant. So
1:21:33 ↗ that material hasn't been presented tonight, obviously. Okay. Okay. Good. No, no. Yeah.
1:21:39 ↗ Thank you. Transition. Acceptable. What's that for? Acceptable?
1:21:45 ↗ What is that? What page are we
1:21:50 ↗ on? Oh, no. Conflicting architectural style. The
1:21:56 ↗ architectural element was all with regard to
1:22:01 ↗ the signage. Those are all subcategories of
1:22:06 ↗ signage. We're in transition number six. Yeah,
1:22:12 ↗ 18, 19. And we're on top of
1:22:17 ↗ 19. Yeah, top of 19. Conflicting architectural
1:22:23 ↗ style. - It's acceptable. - Projects
1:22:28 ↗ with multiple structures is N/A. Barrier free. -
1:22:34 ↗ It's acceptable. - And circulation trail access. -
1:22:40 ↗ That's the right code. - Right code on
1:22:46 ↗ that one. - Acceptable with the noted condition.
1:22:52 ↗ - Agreed. - Agreed. - Correct. - Acceptable.
1:22:58 ↗ - Design parking area, acceptable.
1:23:06 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. Acceptable. Public access adjacent to the site
1:23:12 ↗ acceptable? Acceptable. Public access within site acceptable or NA?
1:23:18 ↗ I'm sorry, I have a question. I'll bring this
1:23:23 ↗ up. Providing access to the King County Trail along
1:23:29 ↗ Highlands Drive, where's the trail? The trail is located
1:23:35 ↗ along the road right here. It's just a sidewalk.
1:23:41 ↗ It's a very large sidewalk. Oh, okay. It's a
1:23:47 ↗ 12-foot shared use route. So I think it's an
1:23:52 ↗ asphalt surface, where the portion that I walked was
1:23:58 ↗ all asphalt. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so that's considered a
1:24:03 ↗ trail. Okay, great. Thank you. You ride your bike
1:24:09 ↗ on it. Exactly. But it's wide. Trail and non-motorized
1:24:14 ↗ facility. Acceptable within stated conditions? Agreed. Yep, agreed.
1:24:21 ↗ Mm-hmm. CHRIS RODGERS: Transition of design elements. Acceptable. CHRIS RODGERS:
1:24:26 ↗ Acceptable. Mm-hmm. CHRIS RODGERS: Acceptable with the conditions from above.
1:24:32 ↗ That's six. CHRIS RODGERS: Screening, service yards, and outdoor storage.
1:24:37 ↗ Acceptable with the stated conditions. Acceptable. CHRIS RODGERS: Acceptable. CHRIS
1:24:43 ↗ RODGERS: Agreed. CHRIS RODGERS: That's acceptable. CHRIS RODGERS: Condition of
1:24:48 ↗ approval. CHRIS RODGERS: Screening material acceptable with the stated condition.
1:24:54 ↗ Acceptable. CHRIS RODGERS: Acceptable. CHRIS RODGERS: Screening display areas
1:24:59 ↗ - Thank you for filling in the blanks. - We don't
1:25:05 ↗ have to do these. - I like that approach better. That's
1:25:11 ↗ a good approach. - Yeah. - So we good to go?
1:25:17 ↗ You ready for a motion? - I don't have, do I
1:25:23 ↗ have anything to sign? - Gotta have a motion at some
1:25:29 ↗ point. - Mr. Chair, I move the approval of the site
1:25:35 ↗ development permit for SDP 15-00001 for the Fieldstone Memory Care.
1:25:41 ↗ Exhibits 1 through 7 and the conditions of approval provided
1:25:47 ↗ in Exhibit 5, design criteria checklist, and Exhibit 6, the
1:25:52 ↗ construction conditions. Second. Move and seconded. All in any discussion?
1:25:58 ↗ All in favor? Aye. Opposed? I guess one note that
1:26:04 ↗ those would be the conditions as amended, I presume. Right.
1:26:09 ↗ Thank you. I have a motion
1:26:15 ↗ on the-- Mr. Chair, move we direct the Development Services Department to
1:26:21 ↗ prepare findings of fact which affirm the Development Commission's approval of the
1:26:27 ↗ site development permit for Fieldstone Memory Care Application SDP 15-00001. Staff report
1:26:33 ↗ dated August 27, 2015 will serve as the findings of fact. With
1:26:39 ↗ a couple of corrections that were in there. Second. Any discussion?
1:26:44 ↗ Just one question, Christopher, could this then be, you have the
1:26:50 ↗ option of just having it approved by the chair or signed
1:26:56 ↗ by the chair? Yeah, okay. Don't need a meeting. No discussion.
1:27:02 ↗ All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, that's passed. Any
1:27:08 ↗ new business? Any other business? No, I think our next meeting
1:27:14 ↗ is the 23rd, September, which is the second meeting for the
1:27:20 ↗ Gateway Project. We don't have one next week. And then there's a few others that
1:27:26 ↗ are in the pipeline, so we'll keep you busy. Yeah, you guys are working us
1:27:31 ↗ hard now. We're going to have the stamina we used to have. If you're done,
1:27:36 ↗ thank you very much. Thank you very much. And thank you for being available to
1:27:41 ↗ answer questions. Appreciate that. Thank you. And thank you all those at home watching and
1:27:46 ↗ taking good notes. With that, we'll adjourn at 8.31. Thank you. Wow.
1:27:52 ↗ This chair is really
1:27:57 ↗ efficient.
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.