Development Commission · Wednesday, November 18, 2015 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Sep 23, 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

Meeting Minutes from September 23, 2015

packet pp.5–16

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Sep 23, 2015

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission Page 1 of 12 September 23, 2015

3. AGENDA ITEMS

MULTIFAMILY: SUNSET WAY OLDE

packet pp.17–49

Topics: Housing

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

933 segments .txt ↗

0:37 ↗ in the next meeting just because there's an omission at the very bottom on who

0:42 ↗ made the motion. It says applicant blank. To

0:48 ↗ move to approve the site development permit and it doesn't say who it was. And

0:54 ↗ I'm the only one that's here that was there. And I don't remember specifically who

0:58 ↗ it was. I think it was Richard. I'm almost sure it was, but I need

1:00 ↗ to confirm. Let's delay approval on the next meeting. I'll just raise that and then

1:06 ↗ you can say let's do it. But you can go

1:11 ↗ for approval in a minute. OK. Well, OK. Good evening, and welcome to the November

1:17 ↗ 18th Community Conference hosted by the Development Commission of the City of Issaquah. Tonight, we

1:23 ↗ will be looking at a project that is

1:29 ↗ scheduled to go in on Newport. We'll get the details of it in a few

1:32 ↗ minutes. The way this meeting works is that There are a sequence of events. The

1:37 ↗ first part of it will be a presentation by the city staff on the application.

1:43 ↗ And then the applicant will have an opportunity to come up and address the members

1:48 ↗ of the public and the commission on their application. That will be followed by public

1:54 ↗ comment, period. Again, as I did before, if you think you might want to talk

1:59 ↗ about it, I would ask you to sign in there and give your address. And

2:02 ↗ then when you come up to the mic, If you could also give your name

2:07 ↗ and your address for the record, we'd appreciate it. At the close of the public

2:13 ↗ comment period, we'll have an opportunity for the individual commissioners to

2:19 ↗ ask questions of the staff, the applicant, clarify issues with the members of the public,

2:24 ↗ or whatever. So I will. The only other thing that I'll

2:30 ↗ do here is real quickly. I know that some of you said you had not

2:33 ↗ been to one of these things. So I'm going to read to you what the

2:35 ↗ definition of a community conference is. It's just one paragraph. The community conference is an

2:40 ↗ informal community meeting hosted by the Development Commission. The purpose of the meeting is to

2:44 ↗ generate discussion, raise issues, and propose creative options relative to the proposed project. It

2:50 ↗ is intended to provide means by which the applicant, the city staff, the Development Commission,

2:55 ↗ and the public are able to work together in a productive and creative manner. However,

3:01 ↗ opinions and issues raised may not be all inclusive, and no guarantees on the project

3:06 ↗ are made at this stage. OK? So with that said. Mr. Chair, before

3:12 ↗ we proceed with the community conference, maybe address item number two on the approval of

3:16 ↗ the meeting minutes for September 23rd.

3:22 ↗ So I did, there is an omission in the meeting minutes.

3:29 ↗ Commissioner that made the motion for approval approval of the physical gateway apartments project

3:35 ↗ The Commission members name is not included in the mission. I don't recall who that

3:39 ↗ person was And looking at the attendees we don't have unless you recall

3:45 ↗ who made the motion we may need to look at the video to confirm that

3:49 ↗ Yeah, so before we can approve it. Why don't we? I might suggest that we

3:53 ↗ postpone approval until we have an opportunity to actually look at the video or determine

3:58 ↗ who the commissioner was that made the motion so we make the official, have that

4:01 ↗ official down the road. Okay, Commissioner Brennan has made that suggestion. Is everybody okay with

4:07 ↗ that? That we delay the approval of the minutes until the next meeting? Okay. Go

4:12 ↗ to the replay. Noted and well done. Thank you, Commissioner, appreciate it. Amy?

4:23 ↗ Good evening, members of the Commission and the public. My name is Amy Tars and

4:29 ↗ I'm the senior planner for the City of Issaquah. And I'm here to basically just

4:34 ↗ provide a very quick overview and

4:40 ↗ providing the context for this particular project. So the project that we're discussing

4:46 ↗ tonight is the Sunset 7. And for the purposes of the commission,

4:52 ↗ we requested a different name than Issaquah Apartments because of how generic the name is,

4:57 ↗ just to help us distinguish this project from all the other projects that we have

5:02 ↗ in the city. So the staff report in your packet would still have

5:08 ↗ the words Issaquah Apartments, but moving forward, we'll be calling this Sunset 7. So the

5:12 ↗ project, This site is along

5:18 ↗ Sunset Way, very clearly shown. So the I-90

5:24 ↗ access ramp is to the right of this screen, and to the left where you

5:29 ↗ see the darker areas is our Old Town CBD area. So the zoning,

5:36 ↗ again, highlighted in blue, the zoning for this site, as well as the properties along

5:42 ↗ Sunset Way is multifamily high density. And all the other

5:48 ↗ gray tones represent the other zoning districts around the area. So the

5:54 ↗ lightest shade is, which is adjacent to this property, is a single family duplex

6:00 ↗ zoning district, which in this particular case would be relevant to note

6:06 ↗ because of the properties just south of the project site. And again, as I mentioned,

6:12 ↗ the dark areas is the CBD, the Cultural and Business District, and further

6:18 ↗ away are properties that are zoned single-family small lot.

6:26 ↗ So as far as the existing land uses around the project, this was an image

6:32 ↗ or graphic that was provided by the applicant. It gives you a predominant idea of

6:38 ↗ what's around there. The three-story multifamily building that's all the

6:44 ↗ way to the left of the screen is relatively new, and it kind of reflects

6:48 ↗ the type of development that we are encouraging for Sunset Way in the

6:54 ↗ future. The two single-family houses and

7:00 ↗ also the existing single-family house on the project site kind of reflects what has been

7:06 ↗ more predominantly the type of development in the area for a long, long time.

7:13 ↗ So here is just a quick view of what the property looks like from Sunset

7:18 ↗ Way. One thing that I'd like to note is the street

7:24 ↗ conditions. So currently, we don't really have a raised sidewalk. kind of a strip of

7:30 ↗ area that looks almost like the shoulder, but also looks like the sidewalk in front

7:36 ↗ of the property. So there are some trees in the border

7:42 ↗ of the property, including one that's up front, which is proposed to be removed as

7:47 ↗ part of this development. This is a view from the alley and

7:53 ↗ shows basically a a carport and what looks like

8:00 ↗ a ramp that goes down to what looks like a garage. However, it doesn't have

8:05 ↗ any driveways to the garage or any other paved areas

8:11 ↗ in the back of the property. And this alley is also being used, as you

8:16 ↗ can see from the trash containers, this is also where trash is

8:22 ↗ collected for the properties along the street. The project

8:28 ↗ proposes three floors of residential over ground floor garage, total of

8:35 ↗ seven residential units of different sizes from one

8:41 ↗ bedroom to a three bedroom with 14 parking spaces that's equivalent to

8:47 ↗ two spaces per unit. and with the access through the alley for

8:53 ↗ the garage and street trees behind the sidewalk. And these are all

8:59 ↗ pretty much consistent with what's envisioned for the Sunset

9:04 ↗ Way area. So my Our staff review and my presentation today

9:11 ↗ will primarily focus on these five bullet points. So first, we'd

9:16 ↗ like to establish that this is a level three site development permit review due to

9:22 ↗ the location of the property on Sunset Way. For the comprehensive plan, we

9:28 ↗ looked at what policies apply, primarily in terms of land use and transportation.

9:34 ↗ and there this is also in the east sunset way development area

9:40 ↗ and also in the old town sub area

9:47 ↗ plan under the development standards we looked at the zoning and also the

9:52 ↗ non-motorized facilities section of the code and in addition to just the

9:58 ↗ general standards There's also specific standards for multifamily development,

10:05 ↗ and also we did have an initial review of the services

10:11 ↗ required, including storm, water, sewer, and fire.

10:18 ↗ So in the Old Town Sunset Way

10:23 ↗ sub-area plan, There is actually two chapters that specifically

10:29 ↗ identify a vision for Sunset Way.

10:36 ↗ So in Chapter 3, it talks about basically the East Sunset Way

10:41 ↗ development area as an area targeted for landscaping and streetscape improvements.

10:48 ↗ and to encourage pedestrian activity, transit accessibility,

10:54 ↗ and to buffer residential areas. In chapter four, it talks about two things

11:00 ↗ of note. One is that Sunset Way is one of the transit routes, and the

11:06 ↗ other one is a planned on-street bike facility. So

11:13 ↗ this on-street bike facility was originally identified in the Old Town sub-area

11:19 ↗ plan and then further refined in the walk and roll study and then eventually

11:25 ↗ incorporated into the Ped Bike Mitigation Projects map,

11:32 ↗ which can be found in the current comprehensive plan. So this is very new. This

11:38 ↗ is basically in the updated comprehensive plan. So the photo on the right is just

11:44 ↗ an illustration of what Sunset Way may look like in the future with a

11:49 ↗ two-lane bikeway and a sidewalk adjacent to it. And then

11:56 ↗ I think right now we're looking at three lanes of traffic or vehicular lanes and

12:02 ↗ then parking on the north side and then sidewalks on the north side. So there

12:07 ↗ will be sidewalks on both sides, but only the north side will have on-street parking.

12:14 ↗ So the East Sunset Way development area, in summary, there reflects

12:20 ↗ these principles. Small-scale high-density mixed-use development with neighborhood-oriented

12:26 ↗ commercial uses as a transition and buffer for single-family residential area,

12:34 ↗ as a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, and to encourage courtyard housing and building

12:39 ↗ articulation, and enhance pedestrian connections to front street, the

12:45 ↗ transit center, parks, open space, and trails, and to have

12:51 ↗ landscaping both on the streetscape and on private properties to offset the

12:57 ↗ increased land use intensity and traffic. So as far as with the

13:02 ↗ development standards, the proposal, as as it stands today, meets

13:08 ↗ all the standards and with the maximum base building

13:14 ↗ height of 40 feet, they're actually requesting an administrative adjustment of

13:20 ↗ standards to go up to 45 feet and 10 inches. And our code actually allows

13:25 ↗ for incremental increases with with certain criteria being

13:31 ↗ met. So staff's initial review has established that they've met

13:37 ↗ all the general standards or requirements for an AAS.

13:45 ↗ And there are a couple of outstanding items that can be

13:50 ↗ addressed easily with a little refinement to their design.

13:56 ↗ We bring this project before you with the confidence that where they're at today, there's

14:02 ↗ not any major deal breakers or

14:08 ↗ changes to the site plan that we would require in order for them to meet

14:13 ↗ any of our standards. So the next steps

14:19 ↗ after this community conference is that this applicant will be submitting their site development

14:25 ↗ permit. And the items that we didn't review today that will be

14:31 ↗ part of their SDP review includes the Old Town Design Standards and

14:38 ↗ the Land Use General Design Standards, SEPA and other environmental impacts and mitigation,

14:44 ↗ parking dimensions and design, lighting, landscaping and tree preservation, waste facilities, signage,

14:52 ↗ as well as all the other standard utilities and fire requirements.

14:59 ↗ We expect that they would also be addressing staff concerns to meet the

15:05 ↗ AAS criteria for hike. And then we will be returning to the Development

15:11 ↗ Commission for a public hearing for the approval of the SDP.

15:17 ↗ So that concludes my presentation. We have the applicant here today. They're

15:23 ↗ not doing a PowerPoint presentation. They'd rather use this time to just

15:29 ↗ talk directly to the commission about their project.

15:40 ↗ Good evening, I'm Rick Goldstrom from GMS Architectural Group, where they architects a record on

15:44 ↗ this project. And I think Amy's gone over most of the stuff that She has

15:50 ↗ presented to us and we tried our best to make sure that this met all

15:54 ↗ the requirements the City of Issaquah needed for this seven unit. As it's been

16:00 ↗ mentioned before, our base on the building and the elevations, as you see, are gonna

16:03 ↗ be CMU block, as shown on this rendering here. Exterior

16:09 ↗ siding will be hardy plank, which is cement-based siding. It will have

16:18 ↗ horizontal and vertical right now along with a front entranceway that identifies the main entry

16:24 ↗ into the lobby and in the lobby there will also be the elevator which is

16:28 ↗ this large shaft here on the left giving it an identity for

16:34 ↗ the front of the building. With that we'll also have a trellis for the entranceway

16:39 ↗ and we'll also have a trellis in the back which will cover the one stall

16:44 ↗ that's in the back part of the project next to the alley.

16:50 ↗ We feel it's well modulated and it has lots of changes

16:56 ↗ on all the elevations and also the roof has a lot

17:02 ↗ of vertical heights that have given it some design criteria that I think has

17:08 ↗ helped this project tremendously. The one question I think that came up was is it

17:15 ↗ top of the elevator shaft maybe needs a bigger or a stronger cap to it.

17:22 ↗ We've already looked at that and there is a possibility we can either make a

17:25 ↗ steeper slope on the top or we can expand the eaves a little bit on

17:31 ↗ all the way around the building. The other item was in the back

17:37 ↗ I believe we're about three and a half square feet too big for the top

17:40 ↗ floor as far as the 30 I think it's the 33% of the

17:46 ↗ lower floor has to be reduced. We've already changed that or can change that very

17:51 ↗ easily by moving a wall about six inches and that'll change it back to in

17:56 ↗ conformance. Otherwise, I think we meet everything we need for

18:02 ↗ handicap accessibility. We got a van stall inside and the

18:08 ↗ other area that we're concerned about was this area here.

18:17 ↗ The other thing is that in the plan, the window to the far right is

18:22 ↗ in a storage room. We believe we can change this to a workshop, which could

18:27 ↗ be for somebody in the place working on plants. We could also have it for

18:31 ↗ them to work on their bikes, let's say, if they wanted to work on their

18:35 ↗ bike there. So I think we can pretty much say that this is gonna show

18:39 ↗ up as glazing on the front of the building that will be more of a

18:43 ↗ commercial look on the lower floor facing the sunset.

18:50 ↗ I think that pretty much covers any of the issues that I remember seeing on

18:54 ↗ the list. Do you remember any on those on there, Reed?

19:00 ↗ I think again being six feet over the building on all four sides is gonna

19:04 ↗ be easy to show the modulation that we've met. Exterior materials are a variety of

19:11 ↗ those on the building. And we're gonna have decks on all seven units in

19:18 ↗ go into the building to give it some more modulation and give them a private

19:23 ↗ deck surface to work for their unit.

19:29 ↗ That concludes my scenario. Thank you,

19:34 ↗ Gary. Are there any members of the public who wish to

19:40 ↗ address the commission?

19:53 ↗ Good evening, David Kappler, 255 Southeast Andrews Street. I think a very northeast corner of

19:59 ↗ my property was in the 300-foot range, so I did get the mailing. If this

20:05 ↗ were a corner building, I could see the massivity or whatever of that northeast

20:10 ↗ corner, but I don't, it just seems out of balance or something.

20:16 ↗ Just how massive it is and somewhat lack of windows and all on that side.

20:23 ↗ seems a little strange in terms of a design element.

20:31 ↗ Another design issue is that it's got potential great views to the south of, well,

20:36 ↗ solar access and also of Squawk Mountain, and I'm not sure why the south

20:42 ↗ face is, which isn't shown here, is so devoid of windows or

20:48 ↗ taking advantage of the views in that direction. It's also the quiet direction.

20:55 ↗ If you spend any time out here along East Sunset with the dump trucks and

21:00 ↗ the buses and all the rest, you can appreciate that noise level on what will

21:06 ↗ be on the north side of this building. Taking advantage of the quiet side, the

21:09 ↗ south side, the solar side, the view side, seems to be something that should be

21:15 ↗ more appreciated. Parking is gonna be a frustration for us. I'm sure not so much

21:22 ↗ as far as I am away from it, but for other people, especially with the

21:26 ↗ elimination potential in the future of eliminating parking on the south side of East

21:32 ↗ Sunset. With almost all the parking being behind, I assume, a garage door

21:38 ↗ kind of thing, it's great for the people who live there as long as

21:44 ↗ they don't have visitors or whatever, so how that's going to be, where parking is

21:49 ↗ gonna be handled is an issue. I believe it does meet city codes and those

21:55 ↗ kinds of things is partly what you're facing, but it is kind of a frustration

21:59 ↗ with these kinds of buildings meeting the parking but not really having

22:05 ↗ available visitor parking and then impacting the other residents

22:12 ↗ in the community. Those are

22:18 ↗ my main thoughts. Thank you. I'll sign in. Is there anyone else?

22:36 ↗ I'm Gail Given. I live at 360 Southeast Andrews directly behind the project.

22:44 ↗ I agree with everything that Dave has just said. I would like to

22:50 ↗ point out that on one of the drawings there's an indication that the zoning

22:57 ↗ directly behind the project is for a two-story duplex, which it is.

23:04 ↗ But as far as what's really there, that's kind of a hypothetical

23:09 ↗ representation, because right now it's just me and my little one-story cottage.

23:16 ↗ So there's quite a larger contrast between this new project and what's really

23:22 ↗ there. I'm concerned about

23:29 ↗ the limited parking and the possibility that people are going to

23:35 ↗ actually be parking in the alley because there isn't enough parking and all of us

23:41 ↗ get lazy and I've seen a lot of that in the past. People don't want

23:46 ↗ to walk too far so they'll just park in the alley even though they know

23:49 ↗ that they're not supposed to. Also

23:56 ↗ the provision for the trash pickup, I'm curious as to how that will be addressed.

24:07 ↗ And as far as the variance on

24:13 ↗ the elevator height, as far as I'm concerned,

24:19 ↗ it's too tall already. And so when you add that extra amount,

24:25 ↗ it may not seem like a lot, but it's making a change that's going to

24:30 ↗ set a precedent And we all know that these apartments are gonna end

24:36 ↗ up being built all down Sunset Way, and I think this will just encourage

24:41 ↗ developers to make requests to make whatever changes they deem proper for their

24:47 ↗ project. So I would hate to see it set that precedent

24:53 ↗ that the community's willing to just bend over every time and say, sure, fine.

25:03 ↗ I'll sign in too. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like

25:08 ↗ to make a public comment?

25:14 ↗ Well, if not, we'll close the public comment period.

25:21 ↗ One once. And turn it over to the members of the commission,

25:28 ↗ beginning with Essie. Do we have observations, questions? comments if not

25:35 ↗ I Want to conjure them up, but if I do, it's fine I am concerned

25:39 ↗ with some of the design elements of this project one thing I've always noticed about

25:45 ↗ this particular lot is the amount of sunlight it gets This lot gets a

25:51 ↗ tremendous amount of sunlight, and I I'm just not seeing that Taken advantage of

25:57 ↗ in this design I think the the windows look quite

26:03 ↗ small. And I'm concerned about the starkness in

26:09 ↗ the appearance of this tower. I see

26:16 ↗ bare blank walls and some windows. But I think something

26:21 ↗ could be done with that tower to make

26:27 ↗ it a little more aesthetically pleasing. and a little little

26:33 ↗ warmer especially considering the

26:39 ↗ advantages that to this site the the views as mr. Kapler commented on

26:46 ↗ and I think it would be more attractive to the residents who might who might

26:49 ↗ live here if they had a little more aesthetic value to the

26:56 ↗ the tower and and the sunlight So I think that might be looked at.

27:02 ↗ And also the other concern that I noticed was the amount of biking

27:07 ↗ space that's being provided for. This is a very walkable, very bikeable community,

27:13 ↗ as even pointed out in Chapter 3. And Amy went over that quite well with

27:19 ↗ the goals of the region with the walk and roll project. And it seems that

27:24 ↗ if somebody wants to live here, they're probably going to want to bike. And that

27:29 ↗ would also alleviate some of the parking problems. Theoretically, if somebody worked and lived

27:35 ↗ in Nissaquah, they wouldn't even need to use their car unless it was raining. So

27:39 ↗ I think that might be something we could look at as well. And the parking

27:44 ↗ issue has been brought up several times by the public and I think is something

27:48 ↗ that we should discuss further. And that is all. Thank you. Commissioner?

27:54 ↗ Yeah. Yeah, I guess my questioning

27:59 ↗ I'll ask some questions about the backside of the property. What is the

28:05 ↗ scheme for the garbage pickup? Everyone's going to have their individual

28:10 ↗ cans and put them out in the alley. They're only separated cans. I'm sorry. If

28:16 ↗ you're going to speak, would you come to the mic and identify yourself, please?

28:22 ↗ Sure. My name's Reed Geck from GMS, the architect's record. Garbage will

28:28 ↗ be picked up based off of the size of the apartment complex. There is an

28:34 ↗ equation that basically determines how many garbage bins will

28:40 ↗ be used per the site, whether it's a rollable 64 gallon, 96

28:46 ↗ gallon, or a, I guess what would you call them, an oversized

28:56 ↗ Bigger larger container and right now it's size that there will be personally smaller 96

29:00 ↗ gallons and 64 gallon It'd be like a normal

29:06 ↗ residence right where they'll have their own and they'll just be rolled out and they'll

29:10 ↗ have to roll them out and put them in the back I'm looking at Yes,

29:14 ↗ the garage And then also

29:23 ↗ With the alley and the whole parking issue, it doesn't look like a very big

29:28 ↗ space So will parking be and maybe this is a city question. I'm not

29:34 ↗ sure not allowed or because I could get really Messy back there I would think

29:40 ↗ well all the requirements for the actual structure are maintained within the garage Except for

29:45 ↗ that one stall that's in the rear. So it is up to the zoning of

29:49 ↗ the area That one pad is for a single? Single car.

29:55 ↗ Single, so there's 14 in the garage and then one outside? Is that the reading?

30:01 ↗ 13 in the garage. There's one and then one outside, okay. Got it.

30:13 ↗ Most of the site issues were based off of the impervious for this site, which

30:19 ↗ is limited to 50%. So that's why there is no extra space for any

30:25 ↗ public parking per se. And then

30:31 ↗ I think the first architect began to address it, but it's confusing from the

30:37 ↗ drawing. There's some areas that on the exterior,

30:45 ↗ I'm not sure if they're windows or I I'm

30:51 ↗ looking at some of the like the west elevation there's a couple of ground floor

30:56 ↗ let's see a 4.2

31:04 ↗ are those going to be the glazed windows or what's the plan for those or

31:09 ↗ what what kind of material is that on the west elevations at the garage level

31:14 ↗ you're speaking of Yeah, that those would just be open ventilation for the garage

31:21 ↗ Okay, so will that be like steel grade steel grading? Okay

31:28 ↗ I'd be interested in what that kind of pans out from a design and street

31:32 ↗ appeal standpoint And those are the main questions that I had

31:39 ↗ Thank You Commissioner. Mr. Brennan, so I'll start with the bigger And then narrowed

31:44 ↗ down to some details here real quick so and and maybe this first question is

31:51 ↗ Directed to staff and so the the plan And on page 5 of 20 of

31:56 ↗ the staff report talks about Sunset Way activities and An

32:02 ↗ old town plan with regard to the encouragement or requirement of

32:08 ↗ mixed-use High-scale Density multifamily

32:14 ↗ residential neighborhoods and mixed-use developments and encouraging mixed-use within these projects

32:20 ↗ and what we've got so far of these of the three projects including this

32:26 ↗ one are garage level first floor Apartments on top our condos on

32:32 ↗ top and we're really struggling to accomplish this neighborhood retail

32:38 ↗ Services sort of a commercial application.

32:44 ↗ Talk a little bit about what's the plan here to try to accomplish that because

32:48 ↗ what we're going to end up with is more of this, I think. So for

32:54 ↗ Sunset Way, what's interesting is the standards actually try to balance a lot of different

33:01 ↗ priorities. So on the one hand, we would like to see more mixed

33:07 ↗ use with ground floor activated spaces instead of garages. However,

33:13 ↗ given the sensitivity to the height and the density, the code

33:19 ↗ also imposes a very demanding impervious area

33:26 ↗ restriction, which is at 50%, what happens is when you have sites that,

33:32 ↗ first of all, are not really that big, and then once you start putting in

33:37 ↗ the parking, there's hardly any place left for the activated areas.

33:43 ↗ And I even made a note of that on my report that It would have

33:48 ↗ been nice if we could even get a little patio in the front, but they've

33:53 ↗ already maxed out their impervious area with just trying to meet our parking standards.

34:00 ↗ So I understand your concern, which was also being a new

34:06 ↗ staff person, I was struggling with how to implement that

34:12 ↗ vision, given all the restrictions in the standards. So

34:19 ↗ the tradeoff with this project is that you end up with these very large

34:25 ↗ side setbacks, which protects the adjacent properties. That's assuming

34:31 ↗ that they remain single family. So given the height of the building

34:37 ↗ and the shadows that it's going to cast on adjacent properties, there is definitely a

34:43 ↗ consideration of the impacts and basically the side setbacks

34:48 ↗ mitigates for that. Same thing with the rear. I don't have the graphic in my

34:54 ↗ PowerPoint, but in the staff report I've shown how, again,

35:00 ↗ the rear massing is set up, and this kind of to address one of the

35:05 ↗ concerns about how does this project impact the properties across the alley.

35:14 ↗ Once you take all of those different standards together, basically

35:21 ↗ what loses out is the availability of space on the front for retail.

35:28 ↗ So essentially, in short, the code doesn't accomplish the vision

35:34 ↗ that's been defined in the comprehensive plan. If we're trying to meet all of those

35:37 ↗ standards, and obviously this project is maximizing development potential on this site. I mean they're

35:43 ↗ pushing the maximum essentially development potential that they can accomplish and not only in units

35:48 ↗ but just in how many square feet of impervious space that they've got maximizing essentially

35:53 ↗ the height because they essentially that stepping up eccentric essentially described it's required

35:59 ↗ that transition on the south side to the single family zone so I guess I'm

36:05 ↗ just bringing it raising as a point that maybe staff could think more about We

36:10 ↗ have a code that's having this struggling to achieve the vision and I'm not sure

36:15 ↗ we can solve it here tonight But it's it's we've got three of these now

36:19 ↗ that are doing that are accomplishing essentially the same outcome and that is they're adding

36:23 ↗ the multifamily which is clearly what the code wants and it's you know larger

36:29 ↗ projects aligning the sunset, but the whole

36:35 ↗ pedestrian experience and activating the sunset way is

36:41 ↗ not happening I think the way the comprehensive plan envisioned it might so that's just

36:45 ↗ that more of a comment and thanks for I appreciate the explanation of where we

36:48 ↗ are so but I whatever we can do to encourage

36:55 ↗ that to happen I think would be good the the next The next question is

37:00 ↗ the common space. I know we're back to a really constrained site again. We're maximizing

37:05 ↗ it. And the other thing, just one more quick note on the last point. The

37:08 ↗ code also suggests consolidation of properties to allow for development that's

37:14 ↗ a little bit more flexible than maybe we're finding on these smaller individual single family

37:19 ↗ lots as they exist now. But anyway, the common space or the shared space, how

37:24 ↗ is that being accomplished in this project? We have individual open space for decks,

37:30 ↗ but isn't there also a requirement that there's some shared space or common space, either

37:35 ↗ interior or exterior on the property?

37:42 ↗ That will probably be addressed by a landscaper at the next step, which is the

37:48 ↗ site development. But mostly, you can see with the larger setbacks, there is plenty of

37:53 ↗ open space. Obviously, we won't be able to put patios because it's impervious, but whether

37:59 ↗ grass or any other type of common space where people can use can be

38:05 ↗ proposed during that phase. Yeah, so I think that would be good and I think

38:11 ↗ how it's located will be important. Obviously one in an area will get sun and

38:16 ↗ and you know people where they can gather maybe there's a the ability to have

38:19 ↗ a barbecue some something that's a common outdoor space that the people that live there

38:24 ↗ can enjoy I think would be important.

38:31 ↗ I'll kick off a couple more and then maybe I'll pass the baton here. The

38:37 ↗ vertical shaft, you've already heard some comments about that, for the elevator, that element of

38:42 ↗ the project is really, this is my term, it's kind of in your face as

38:47 ↗ you're looking at it, particularly at that corner of the building.

38:53 ↗ And there seems to be, and we've got vertical siding there that even makes it

38:56 ↗ look because you've got vertical lines. So I think we really need to think about,

39:01 ↗ and I know Amy, you were talking about a stronger statement with the

39:08 ↗ top of it. Making a steeper pitch may not be the right thing to do

39:12 ↗ just because now you're taking it up taller when you do that, and that's already

39:16 ↗ an issue. But something I think at the top, maybe there are some things we

39:20 ↗ could do with horizontal bands or something to try to create some, visual

39:26 ↗ separation in that height. It also creates maybe an opportunity for some sort of a

39:31 ↗ piece of art or symbol or something that's integrated in to the top of the

39:35 ↗ building too. I've seen projects, and not an expensive feature, but something that's got a

39:39 ↗ little creative. Maybe think about that. I don't have any brilliant ideas there, but something

39:45 ↗ that makes that more interesting than it is I think will be important. I think

39:49 ↗ that's a challenge that you need to confront.

39:58 ↗ And then maybe I'll pass and maybe we'll come back, Mr. Chair. I've got a

40:04 ↗ couple more, but I'll. OK. Mr. Swidberg. Yes, Amy, I have a question

40:12 ↗ in the report. And it was just reading the staff analysis on page 7 near

40:16 ↗ the bottom. It talked about one of the questions raised was the appearance from the

40:21 ↗ alley. And it said, figure two shows the view of the building from the single

40:26 ↗ family property has crossed the alley. Tallest roofs are significantly set back and will not

40:32 ↗ be visible from the alley because of the building period. Yeah.

40:38 ↗ I noted that too. Seems to be an incomplete sentence. About four or five lines

40:43 ↗ up from the bottom of page seven. Because of the building

40:49 ↗ setback, because of the building dimensions, That

40:54 ↗ should have said because of the setback. Yeah, the building setback. Because of the

40:58 ↗ 30-foot setback in that? Right. Okay. I just was reading that, and it just

41:04 ↗ stopped. Thank you. The other

41:10 ↗ question I have, and maybe it's a lack of knowledge on my part, but when

41:14 ↗ you talk about the strategy on page five, Commissioner

41:20 ↗ Brennan had to say in regards to what the theory is that talked about the

41:24 ↗ transit center along Sunset Way. I have the same question. What transit center

41:30 ↗ along Sunset Way? Unless I've missed something. So. Transit centers over by.

41:36 ↗ Well there's one up in the Highlands and there's one in the Highlands and there's

41:40 ↗ one down the hill from my house. So I have to confess that being the.

41:44 ↗ The. new staff person, I was going by what

41:50 ↗ was in the comprehensive plan and the sub-area plan. And a few

41:56 ↗ hours before this meeting, I found out that there are some things in that sub-area

42:01 ↗ plan that are no longer applicable, including the sunset,

42:08 ↗ what do you call that, over, there was a... Bypass. Bypass, thank you.

42:15 ↗ the bypass. So I realized that there's some things, and this one was one of

42:19 ↗ those that I didn't get to confirm. So I apologize. I thought maybe I'd missed

42:23 ↗ something going along that the city was building one over there somewhere. Wouldn't it be

42:27 ↗ nice? So anyway, thank you so much. I will make a note of that.

42:33 ↗ The other question I have, and it may be easily answered, is in regards to

42:38 ↗ parking, we talk about number of spaces, how many can be compact stalls,

42:45 ↗ In fact, there's got to be one spot to park a bicycle. Is

42:51 ↗ there any requirement for handicap parking? So they are showing one,

42:58 ↗ which is, let me see if this cursor works. So this is actually their handicap

43:03 ↗ parking. By law, it's required to be closest to the lobby.

43:09 ↗ I did mention it in the report. I just wanted to make sure. I don't

43:12 ↗ know if the one, is one sufficient? Yes. Okay, thank

43:16 ↗ you. Chairman? Okay, why don't you stay up there, Amy, because I've got a couple

43:22 ↗ of questions. We'll start with staff issues. On page 420, on the last

43:27 ↗ paragraph, circulation and parking element figure for a circulation

43:33 ↗ network identifies Sunset Way as a, quote, minor arterial, unquote.

43:43 ↗ I didn't mean to bring up laughter, but I don't. What is the definition of

43:48 ↗ a minor arterial as opposed to a major arterial?

43:54 ↗ And I'll warn you ahead of time. The next question is, what is the long-term

43:59 ↗ vision or sunset way? When everything is done,

44:06 ↗ what's it going to look like?

44:43 ↗ for not providing the definition. I know it's somewhere here because I read it.

44:49 ↗ I just didn't make note of it. Well, I'll tell you what, if you can't

44:55 ↗ find it for this one, I would like that the next meeting, public

45:01 ↗ meeting, I'd like the city to be able to tell the DC and the members

45:06 ↗ of the public what the difference is between a minor arterial and a major arterial.

45:12 ↗ And a related question that I have is understanding there are significant

45:18 ↗ plans that will result in the changes to East Sunset Way.

45:24 ↗ I'd like to get a really good understanding of when

45:30 ↗ people look at Sunset Way, East Sunset Way now, it's hard to imagine, for me,

45:36 ↗ frankly, I don't speak for anybody else, but for me, it's hard to imagine bike

45:40 ↗ lanes, curbs, sidewalks, without significant taking of property,

45:47 ↗ which is maybe in the plan. But I just can't get my head around where

45:53 ↗ those things are going to be. And I think, frankly, it would be good for

45:58 ↗ the city to say, OK, here's what it's going to look like when it's finished

46:04 ↗ so that It'll just, it'll be out there. And there may be something, there may

46:08 ↗ be something already in a city document or city, you know, in some of the

46:12 ↗ planning stuff that has drawings or artist concepts of what East Sunset Way

46:18 ↗ will look like when it's done, if that ever happens. But I think that, I

46:23 ↗ think people are kind of scratching their heads now, going, hmm, I wonder where the

46:28 ↗ sidewalks, the bike lanes, the curbs and things like that are gonna go. And I

46:33 ↗ think I recall, Some talk about another turn lane in there somewhere. So

46:40 ↗ the more the city can show concepts at

46:46 ↗ build out of everything, since that's what people are worried about, I think the better.

46:51 ↗ And it could be just an artist concept. So we can leave that here. And

46:55 ↗ then maybe at the public hearing, you could say at the community conference there was

47:01 ↗ this question, and here's what the answer is. So I can at least provide you

47:06 ↗ with some of the general answers. We did look at the right-of-way to see if

47:12 ↗ we would require any extra width to accommodate the bike lane.

47:18 ↗ And we were able to determine that we won't. So currently the right-of-way is 60

47:24 ↗ feet, and it will remain 60 feet. And like what I described

47:29 ↗ earlier, basically we'll have three lanes of... Six feet to 70.

47:36 ↗ of vehicular travel with middle lane that in some cases becomes a

47:42 ↗ median and in some cases becomes a turn lane depending on each block. We even

47:47 ↗ looked at Sunset Way block by block. So these are all just very preliminary

47:53 ↗ evaluation by staff of what the conditions are out there, what the land uses are

47:58 ↗ out there, and again, future plans for Sunset Way.

48:05 ↗ So having said that, currently there's parking on both sides of the street. So this

48:11 ↗ bike lane or protected bike lane will basically replace the current parking

48:19 ↗ the on-street parking on the south side of the street. Will that be a two-way

48:23 ↗ bike lane? Yes. So all bicycle traffic should be in that dedicated lane. Right. And

48:29 ↗ we also looked at options, whether it should be on both sides of the street.

48:34 ↗ And we determined that it's safer to put it on the south side because once

48:39 ↗ you connect down to the I-90 ramp, there's no way for a bike to

48:45 ↗ get across. So there was some general evaluation that we've

48:50 ↗ already done. So Amy, I think you said earlier, correct me if I'm wrong, under

48:56 ↗ the present configuration of the right of the public right-of-way, it's possible

49:02 ↗ to put either a median strip or another or turn lanes. Turning lanes. Right. Turning

49:08 ↗ lanes. Yeah. Okay. So I also

49:14 ↗ found the section in the comprehensive plan. I don't know if you'd like me to

49:19 ↗ read about one or two. Oh yeah, if you have it there, sure. Minor arterial,

49:25 ↗ this is Chapter 4, page 24 of the Old Town sub-area

49:31 ↗ plan. It says, Sunset Way is a two-lane minor arterial with on-street

49:37 ↗ parking through the Cultural and Business District. Traffic volumes, and these are all

49:43 ↗ numbers, I'm not going to read them. This is 1999. The speed limit is 25%.

49:50 ↗ miles per hour between Southeast Newport Way and the Eastern City limits.

49:56 ↗ The pavement surface is good between Front Street and Second Avenue Southeast. It's talking again

50:01 ↗ about back then. But that's basically what

50:07 ↗ it's always been. Okay, it sounds to me like it's I don't quote minor

50:13 ↗ arterial because somebody said it's a minor arterial, but I still didn't hear the difference

50:17 ↗ between a minor arterial and an arterial and a major arterial. And I, you know,

50:23 ↗ I just, again, you heard the reaction from the members of the public here when

50:27 ↗ you say it's a minor arterial. I mean, it's bumper to bumper, very

50:33 ↗ significant parts of the day in both directions. And so if

50:39 ↗ that's not a, If that's a minor arterial, I'm kind of dreading getting stuck on

50:43 ↗ a major arterial. We'll address that at the public hearing, but I just know real

50:48 ↗ generally it does relate to the speed limit. It relates to how many driveways directly

50:54 ↗ access it. It's a combination of things. That's great. I mean, that's what I'm looking

50:58 ↗ for. Something so people can go, okay, that's why it's a minor arterial as opposed

51:02 ↗ to a major one. And it's not just traffic volume. Okay. All right.

51:10 ↗ While you're up there, Amy, there is a, and I'm trying to see page 10.

51:21 ↗ Paragraph three, sun and shadow analysis, shadows created by the additional height and bulk will

51:26 ↗ not adversely affect the surrounding area. And I guess that's in the

51:33 ↗ eye of the beholder, but the next statement, the planning director manager may require a

51:39 ↗ sun shadow analysis in order to determine if this criteria is met. So

51:46 ↗ what will be the criteria for may or shall? So basically

51:53 ↗ it depends on whether we have concerns from the public, which we heard tonight.

52:00 ↗ we will be bringing back and we will be requesting the applicant to do some

52:05 ↗ sun and shadow analysis, both for the tower and also what happens in the

52:11 ↗ back alley. Okay, and the sun and shadow

52:16 ↗ analysis, the definition of that is to determine whether or not the structure as proposed

52:22 ↗ will have a negative impact on adjacent properties. Adjacent properties.

52:29 ↗ Loss of commercial or loss of value because it's in the shade three-quarters. What are

52:34 ↗ the criteria for that? We don't have any. Okay. Okay. Usually

52:40 ↗ what that analysis just shows is how much shadow is being

52:46 ↗ occurs at different times of the day, different seasons of the year. And

52:52 ↗ then that analysis, how far it's approaching onto the neighbors. Okay. All right.

53:04 ↗ I have a question for the applicant now. Obviously there has been

53:11 ↗ concern expressed by my fellow commissioners and members of the public about the height. So

53:17 ↗ I guess have all of the structures, this will be the third one, have all

53:23 ↗ of them received AAS so far? I mean the other two and then this is

53:28 ↗ the third one that's gone in there that's requesting an adjustment. I don't think the

53:33 ↗ other two went through an administrative adjustment of standards for height. But

53:40 ↗ there I don't know if any of you remember this. There was something strange about

53:45 ↗ the pitch of their roof and what the midpoint was and how they did their

53:49 ↗ gables and so they almost kind of did a workaround on how we measure height.

53:56 ↗ So I don't think they did an AES, but we've since tightened up how we

53:59 ↗ define the height. Okay. Obviously the

54:05 ↗ concern I think that some of us expressed is that we're gonna get more exceptions

54:10 ↗ than we're gonna get adherence to the code. And that would defeat, in my opinion,

54:16 ↗ that would defeat the purpose of the definition of height limitations to begin with. So

54:22 ↗ if the height limitations can, everybody that comes in there that wants to build a

54:25 ↗ structure like this can request an adjustment for six, five feet, four feet,

54:31 ↗ whatever, then one has to wonder what the value of the definition of the

54:37 ↗ code height is to begin with. So we've got, I

54:43 ↗ think, two so far, whether they went through an AAS or not, but the issue

54:49 ↗ is really here's what the code says is the height, Is the code going to

54:55 ↗ be enforced or if they're going to be routinely Modified at the

55:00 ↗ request of the applicant to get to make it higher. Yeah, the only thing I

55:05 ↗ particularly point out is there's several criteria that need to be met in order for

55:10 ↗ us to grant that administration is that it's not just based on asking for it.

55:15 ↗ No, I understand that I understand right so We have to balance all of that,

55:19 ↗ okay Now as far as the application is concerned,

55:26 ↗ gentlemen, is there no alternative to that tower? I mean,

55:32 ↗ to making it shorter than it is? Well, the concern because of the

55:38 ↗ height is once you've established an elevator on your property, you have to go above

55:43 ↗ that top floor for clearance. For the mechanism? Yeah. The lift mechanism? Yeah. There's no

55:48 ↗ other way that I can see at this point that you can lower that roof,

55:54 ↗ because it's not, we didn't push it up on purpose, it was there because of

55:58 ↗ the physics that you have to do when you do an elevator. And obviously we

56:03 ↗ don't want a flat roof up there for design. Not in Seattle normally. No, I

56:07 ↗ mean it's for aesthetic reasons as well as climate reasons. Right, it would be the

56:10 ↗ only area then that would have a flat roof and what are you gonna gain?

56:14 ↗ You're gonna gain only a few feet actually. So you're saying that there is no

56:18 ↗ alternative to that height? that you're asking for? Not that I know of, no.

56:24 ↗ So excuse me. If you stay with an elevator, obviously you're gonna have to have

56:27 ↗ that physical height above the top floor to be able to get the elevator and

56:32 ↗ all the equipment above it to go up. And usually it's about six or eight

56:35 ↗ feet. Would you, just for the record, would you say your name every time you

56:39 ↗ hear? This is Rick Goldstrom from GMS Architectural Group. So Amy, do you know if

56:44 ↗ the other two buildings have elevators in them that are similar in construction? Actually,

56:50 ↗ Christopher, you want to answer that? And then I have something else to clarify.

56:56 ↗ They have internal elevators. I think the difference between those

57:02 ↗ and this one is that they're trying to design this one to be a significant

57:06 ↗ feature of the architectural design, whereas the other ones, I don't think you would know

57:10 ↗ where they are. we felt it was important to put the lobby obviously to the

57:16 ↗ street instead of allowing the side like one of the projects down the street is

57:21 ↗ so that you walk into the lobby from the front, you know right away where

57:25 ↗ the stairs are, you know right away where the elevator is. And obviously the elevator

57:30 ↗ is on this left-hand corner, which you can see in the plan up there. And

57:33 ↗ obviously in this perspective. So, yeah. And I agree with you

57:39 ↗ on we can come up with another scheme of design

57:54 ↗ I'm sorry they can't hear you on the mic. So we can bring in the

58:00 ↗ horizontal siding up to maybe the next floor line and draw a horizontal heavy line

58:05 ↗ of material to break up the horizontal and vertical. Or maybe the best thing is

58:09 ↗ to do is get rid of all the vertical on that elevator altogether.

58:21 ↗ For the staff, you can stay there for a second. Who enforces parking in terms

58:26 ↗ of tow aways? So if there are signs in the back there that say no

58:32 ↗ parking will be towed like there are in restaurant parking lots, who enforces that? Does

58:37 ↗ the property owner have to call? Yes, basically.

58:44 ↗ OK, so let's say that someone. It depends on whether it's if it's in right

58:47 ↗ of way. If it's in city right of way, then the police enforce it. If

58:51 ↗ it's on private property, then it's up to that private property owner to hire the

58:56 ↗ towing company or whatever. OK, so the owner of the property, since these are apartments,

59:02 ↗ the owner of the property would be responsible for ensuring that

59:08 ↗ there's no unplanned or use of the site

59:14 ↗ for visitor parking or whatever. On the site, that's right. The alley, however, is city

59:20 ↗ right of way. So that would be enforced by the police. And that, just for

59:26 ↗ clarification, who is that an apartment dweller can call up and say, hey, there's somebody

59:30 ↗ parked out there. Somebody across the street or across the alley can call the city

59:35 ↗ or the police department and say that needs to be towed or sighted or whatever.

59:39 ↗ Yep. So we just wanted to

59:45 ↗ kind of clarify regarding the height for this building. Elevator shafts are actually

59:51 ↗ exempt from the height limit. So it's not the elevator shaft that's

59:57 ↗ pushing their building beyond. It's actually that element, and it's not shown on this one,

1:00:03 ↗ it's in the staff report. I mentioned how If you

1:00:09 ↗ look at the east elevation, then it becomes very clear. So it's only the portion

1:00:14 ↗ that's kind of in the center of the building that's really, really, that's

1:00:21 ↗ the part that exceeds the height limit. So what they

1:00:27 ↗ did was they modulated the building so that on every side, it actually,

1:00:34 ↗ steps back a little bit so that the highest point is further back from the

1:00:39 ↗ pedestrian view. Okay. Now the next one is

1:00:45 ↗ for the applicant. Can I just ask on that point a clarification. So when we're

1:00:50 ↗ looking at the highest ridge line on the east elevation, that's the

1:00:56 ↗ 45-foot over height condition that you just said. So

1:01:04 ↗ Basically, just to clarify, so we measure height

1:01:10 ↗ at the middle of the pitch, right? So of the highest gable. So the

1:01:16 ↗ highest gable, if you look at the east elevation, is this element right behind, I

1:01:21 ↗ mean, it's probably not directly behind, but in this image, it seems like it's

1:01:27 ↗ just behind the tower. So that's the part that's exceeding this little... this little element

1:01:33 ↗ here. Do you have that on the east elevation?

1:01:41 ↗ So that folks can see it.

1:01:44 ↗ Yeah,

1:01:50 ↗ I don't have. Yes, so I don't. This one?

1:01:56 ↗ Yeah, I don't. I didn't bring it up. All right. Oh, here, here. Sorry. Yeah,

1:02:01 ↗ so this is the line that we're talking about. This is the midpoint that

1:02:07 ↗ basically exceeds the height limit. So it's not the tower, it's

1:02:12 ↗ the little ridge line right there. Yeah, this part here. Because

1:02:18 ↗ the elevator shaft is exempt from the... Right.

1:02:23 ↗ Okay. Any other? Yeah, so then what's the elevator shaft?

1:02:31 ↗ Understanding it's exempt it just understanding the massing that's going on here. What's the height

1:02:36 ↗ of that element then? Doesn't show on the plan what the overall height is?

1:02:43 ↗ This highest ridge line, but we don't have it. I didn't

1:02:48 ↗ mention it. Yeah. Technically these are all

1:02:54 ↗ ornamental, right? Basically. You know what you can do is you can make a flat

1:02:59 ↗ roof and then you can put like the roof this way. It's still pitch, but

1:03:04 ↗ it's not going to read as a pitch. I'm sorry, it's not going to read

1:03:07 ↗ as a flat roof. I can't intrude into the space. That's to the original. It's

1:03:13 ↗ not to the surface on the outside. I can't go through it.

1:03:19 ↗ Because that's already the tower. This has to be 50-some feet. Oh, yeah.

1:03:25 ↗ really the only part that's over is just this little roof. So it's literally on

1:03:29 ↗ top of the, that's how you attach it. It's called a penthouse for the elevator.

1:03:34 ↗ We didn't give you an elevation of that, but

1:03:41 ↗ we're pretty much limited to what the elevator dictates as far as height, and so

1:03:45 ↗ we obviously by our design here, we went with a very flat roof, four to

1:03:50 ↗ 12, to keep it as low as possible. but it is a couple feet higher

1:03:55 ↗ than the normal height that's given there on the highest ridge.

1:04:01 ↗ So that's gotta be higher than, the ridge line is 45, nine and 11 sixteenths.

1:04:08 ↗ So it's gotta be, it's to be three, four feet higher than that.

1:04:14 ↗ Okay. Sorry, that's all right, that's what we're here for.

1:04:21 ↗ Could you, you didn't, your presentation, and the packet didn't give us any indication of

1:04:26 ↗ the colors that you're thinking about. Can you give us a little idea? Is it

1:04:30 ↗ going to be similar to the other two similar structures, or what are you looking

1:04:34 ↗ at? Because, well, let's let me stop there. Well, we haven't talked to the client

1:04:37 ↗ about colors yet. We were assuming that would be the next step, where we put

1:04:41 ↗ together color boards and explain some of the colors and siding and materials. But

1:04:47 ↗ I'm going to assume, again, that based on what we've done in the past for

1:04:51 ↗ other projects, we're looking at basically northwest colors we're not going to go on out

1:04:56 ↗ there with the pink and the in the greens are bright and stuff like this

1:05:00 ↗ it'll be all more natural looking and fit in with the this what's going on

1:05:05 ↗ on that street when I think just a comment I think that's what we're looking

1:05:09 ↗ for right that if there's going to be obviously you're going to comply with code

1:05:13 ↗ but but there's compliance and then there's really a spirit of the thing and that

1:05:20 ↗ structure that size if it were significantly different and that's again in the eye of

1:05:25 ↗ the beholder in terms of the colors and the materials are a different issue in

1:05:29 ↗ terms of the colors it could it could be jarring. Well I don't see us

1:05:33 ↗ doing that. I think we're gonna keep it to more northwest colors. Okay. Mr. Frederick.

1:05:38 ↗ Yeah. Amy I had another question in regards to we're on the height of that

1:05:43 ↗ building and it's on page 11. It's regards the views

1:05:50 ↗ Mm-hmm I did too the taller structural not significantly obstruct scenic corridors

1:05:56 ↗ and then I get us the same kind of question that we had in regards

1:05:58 ↗ to shadow and Sun and shadow that the Planning Director may

1:06:04 ↗ require a view analysis Then the staff analysis said there's no scenic corridors associated with

1:06:10 ↗ this property However significant views of the hillside may be blocked by the building

1:06:17 ↗ staff determined that if the building stayed within the base height of 40 feet, it

1:06:23 ↗ would have blocked the scenic view, if there wasn't

1:06:29 ↗ one to block, according to the earlier statement, and the additional six feet does not

1:06:34 ↗ exacerbate this future condition. That doesn't make any sense. Just for the record, I had

1:06:38 ↗ exactly the same question. Okay, so I was distinguishing the difference between a scenic corridor

1:06:43 ↗ and scenic views. And again, this is just from things I've

1:06:49 ↗ heard with other projects in the past where there's

1:06:55 ↗ discussion about scenic corridors. And it seems to me that there's a more specific meaning

1:07:00 ↗ to that, that there's designated scenic corridors. In this particular

1:07:07 ↗ situation, we don't have one of those designated scenic corridors. However, I brought this up

1:07:12 ↗ because If you're standing on Sunset Way today, because of

1:07:18 ↗ a one-story building there, you can see the mountains in the back, right? So

1:07:25 ↗ my point was, once you have this building here,

1:07:31 ↗ the units in the back, oops, sorry, because of the way it's designed

1:07:37 ↗ in a cascading way, then you actually afford more views for a lot

1:07:43 ↗ of the units. And then as far as with

1:07:50 ↗ a view from across Sunset Way, even if you were to just build a two-story

1:07:55 ↗ building, it would have automatically blocked the views behind it. So

1:08:02 ↗ in this particular case, it's it's unreasonable to expect them to,

1:08:08 ↗ in order to provide access of the same views, then you wouldn't be able to

1:08:14 ↗ develop this site. And I guess I didn't clarify that in my statement. So

1:08:20 ↗ what I'm saying is we recognize that the view of the mountains will be

1:08:26 ↗ obviously blocked from Sunset Way with this development. However, the way

1:08:31 ↗ Sunset Way and the vision for the land used for Sunset Way would

1:08:37 ↗ automatically factor that in.

1:08:43 ↗ The last question I have is for the applicant. A member of the public asked

1:08:48 ↗ about the south face, the south face of the structure and the relative lack since

1:08:54 ↗ that does look out at Squawk Mountain and Tiger Mountain.

1:09:02 ↗ Can you tell us why you designed it the way you did at this stage,

1:09:06 ↗ which is if you compare the south elevation with the other ones, there are clearly

1:09:12 ↗ fewer windows on the south elevation than there are in the east, west, and north.

1:09:19 ↗ When you look at the south elevation, up on the upper part, there's two gable-end

1:09:24 ↗ roofs. We see that there is a possibility of putting a window in there, but

1:09:28 ↗ what you're getting into there in plan is the bathroom and also a

1:09:34 ↗ walk-in closet. So it's very difficult to put windows in a walk-in closet and then

1:09:40 ↗ not lose, obviously, the storage for clothes, et cetera.

1:09:47 ↗ So we chose not to put one in there, but it can go possibly in

1:09:51 ↗ these bathrooms that are up there I know this is already,

1:09:58 ↗ this train has already left the station, but why would you not take advantage in

1:10:03 ↗ the initial design of the building? Why would you not take advantage of the views

1:10:07 ↗ being to the south for the residents? Well, the main reason is all the restrictions.

1:10:13 ↗ I hate to bring that up. There's a tremendous amount of restrictions on this, especially

1:10:17 ↗ on the south side. As you know, we have to step back. like a layered

1:10:20 ↗ cake, we have to keep going back and up. And as you do, the roofs

1:10:24 ↗ below will come up and block windows with a minimum slope of four to 12.

1:10:31 ↗ So you can see that on the second floor of the multifamily, how the lower

1:10:35 ↗ roof comes up and starts to block some of those walls, so there's no chance

1:10:40 ↗ for windows being there. The only answer I can give you is we go back

1:10:43 ↗ to a flat roof, and then you can probably see some more windows. Okay.

1:10:50 ↗ All right, are there any other comments? Yes, Mr. Chair, I just had a couple

1:10:55 ↗ more. I want to, in the staff report, there's discussion about frontage improvements along

1:11:01 ↗ Sunset Way and kind of the timing of those improvements. And I have two questions.

1:11:05 ↗ One is that, that you addressed in the staff report, if you'd speak to that,

1:11:09 ↗ kind of the timing. And the second, and Mentioned this and that is what is

1:11:14 ↗ sunset way going to look like is there a frontage design? Standard because it feels

1:11:18 ↗ a little bit like what we're putting in is no project specific and there's no

1:11:24 ↗ continuity between projects and I don't know if that's true or not, but it There's

1:11:28 ↗ no discussion about ensuring street replacement within a certain spacing a certain species

1:11:35 ↗ Certain treatment that would provide some continuity as you either pedestrians or drivers travel

1:11:41 ↗ on sunset. So if you could speak to both of those, that would be helpful.

1:11:45 ↗ So there is no plan. In fact,

1:11:52 ↗ what we did for, in other words, this will be something that will require several

1:11:59 ↗ public input and community meetings. I think Sunset Way is

1:12:05 ↗ waiting for the task force, you're probably aware of the downtown task force study,

1:12:12 ↗ to kind of inform how Sunset Way will eventually be timed as

1:12:18 ↗ far as when the improvements will happen. We also looked at

1:12:24 ↗ should we require frontage improvements for this project, and it became a little

1:12:30 ↗ awkward because then we would be asking for a little bike lane just in front

1:12:36 ↗ of their property, but it doesn't continue anywhere. So initial

1:12:42 ↗ staff discussion, in fact, talked about what is the most reasonable thing

1:12:48 ↗ to do for Sunset Way. And in terms of timing and in terms of practicality,

1:12:54 ↗ you really have to improve the whole street, given the streetscape improvements and also

1:13:00 ↗ the bike lane being installed in it. So we can't

1:13:06 ↗ wait for that to happen before we allow single property owners who want to

1:13:12 ↗ develop their property. So the best we can do is then look at this and

1:13:18 ↗ Sunset Way is actually in the CIP, it's identified in the CIP, so we can

1:13:24 ↗ basically collect mitigation for bike and ped fees in lieu of

1:13:30 ↗ requiring them to improve Sunset Way. Good appreciate that it

1:13:36 ↗ feels like because it's starting to redevelop me Like everything let's hurry up and get

1:13:40 ↗ it done to you, but I get it There's a lot to do and but

1:13:43 ↗ I think it's going to be important because I think this is a will be

1:13:46 ↗ a an important gateway as you come into old town And or leave old town,

1:13:51 ↗ so there's great opportunity I think to make a nice statement entry statement into the

1:13:56 ↗ city Mike, excuse me, Commissioner Can I just ask for clarification so the study is

1:14:01 ↗ the study? has started in this that you referred to? Or

1:14:07 ↗ is it? MARIAH KUZAKAVANI- For Sunset Way or for? CHRISTIAN COLLINS- No, the comprehensive. You

1:14:12 ↗ said that there is a study. MARIAH KUZAKAVANI- The Downtown Task Force? CHRISTIAN COLLINS- Yeah,

1:14:16 ↗ the Downtown Task Force, which will hold meetings, which will then make recommendations to the

1:14:21 ↗ city if this is the way it normally works. So we're talking about a couple

1:14:25 ↗ of years before, at the earliest, before there could be something that resembles a

1:14:33 ↗ Approach to what sunset East sunset way Will look like in terms of

1:14:38 ↗ code standards, right? Right so far Yeah, I was just gonna

1:14:44 ↗ say real generally speaking So the Old Town design standards in the Old Town sub

1:14:49 ↗ area was created in the late 90s and and Then we went off and did

1:14:54 ↗ our central Issaquah plan and then focused all on that and I think now enough

1:14:58 ↗ time has passed that now that the city Again, generally speaking is is refocusing on

1:15:03 ↗ Old Town again and that task force is part of that and the creation of

1:15:08 ↗ the new standards and addressing some of the things that Mike was bringing up as

1:15:12 ↗ far as the how impervious surface coverage and parking requirements are kind of

1:15:18 ↗ Forcing a certain design and so all of those things will start to be looked

1:15:22 ↗ at you're right within the next year CHRIS JERRAM- Next year or two. I would

1:15:26 ↗ just like to underscore what Commissioner Brennan said, that there are clearly

1:15:32 ↗ identifiable gateways to Issaquah, whether it's Central Issaquah, the Old Town, or whatever.

1:15:38 ↗ And it's or new Issaquah in the Highlands, which

1:15:44 ↗ has a very clearly planned approach off of Interstate 90 up there that gives

1:15:50 ↗ you the feel of the community. So I think this is really

1:15:56 ↗ critical for the city to get these standards and expectations in place for

1:16:02 ↗ folks, for the property owners, as soon as possible. And for the

1:16:08 ↗ long-term benefit of everybody here, to get it to be clearly

1:16:13 ↗ identifiable as a gateway into the town, gateways. So

1:16:19 ↗ I really would like to enforce what Commissioner Brennan said, The opportunity here is really

1:16:24 ↗ great, but if we don't have that for years,

1:16:32 ↗ then we're going to end up with jury rigging what we think is the best

1:16:36 ↗ we can do in terms of both the applicant and the city. And it may

1:16:39 ↗ not be remotely close to what could have been done if we had these things

1:16:43 ↗ done. And I know that's not that we're talking about a massive thing here, but

1:16:47 ↗ the concept is what we're looking at. OK? So kind of back to the front

1:16:52 ↗ engine improvement kind of thoughts and comments or questions so one of the

1:16:59 ↗ Again, I know we don't have the refined design as far as landscaping or kind

1:17:03 ↗ of materials or color treatments here But it feels you know looking at the north

1:17:07 ↗ elevation and then just looking at the site plan that that it's just kind of

1:17:12 ↗ a There are a number of just variations that lack

1:17:18 ↗ continuity as it come across the front of the building to me And that's that's

1:17:22 ↗ my reaction to just looking at the elevation And also that the entry to the

1:17:27 ↗ building is really understated and this is the essentially the front way This is the

1:17:31 ↗ front door to the building the stairs as you mentioned And the elevator and so

1:17:37 ↗ it seems like maybe there's something else that could be done to add a little

1:17:40 ↗ bit more emphasis I think to the entry

1:17:46 ↗ well I think to help you understand one thing again is that we're restricted by

1:17:51 ↗ 50% impervious and we can't add one more square foot on this site

1:17:57 ↗ it is so tight that we did our best in our opinion that to provide

1:18:02 ↗ an entranceway doesn't have to be shouting at you but at least to have something

1:18:06 ↗ that says here's the entrance and when you walk in it's pretty obvious when you

1:18:09 ↗ get in there that there's a stair system a lobby and an elevator right there

1:18:12 ↗ to your left and to make it larger,

1:18:19 ↗ possibly, but the only way we could go larger would be vertical and not horizontal,

1:18:23 ↗ because again, we get stuck with that 50% coverage. Okay, well, I

1:18:29 ↗ guess it's just a... Yes, it's a good point, and we recognize the issue, but...

1:18:35 ↗ Right, I understand that. That's part of the challenge of trying to

1:18:41 ↗ be creative, but within the confines of the code, obviously is a challenge but it's

1:18:46 ↗ just it and I understand that the people who live there will know it's the

1:18:51 ↗ entrance but I'm kind of thinking about it from the what's the personality of the

1:18:55 ↗ building what's the public going to see that many of the most people won't be

1:18:59 ↗ entering this building and it's so it's kind of makes a statement to the front

1:19:03 ↗ door statement I guess is yeah what I was after so if you can make

1:19:07 ↗ If something happened there, that would be wonderful. If you're constrained by the code and

1:19:11 ↗ staff confers, if we're stuck, then we're stuck. We'll also

1:19:17 ↗ study the elevation again to see if there's any other type of approach as far

1:19:22 ↗ as the siding. That makes a lot of difference, which in turn then would be

1:19:26 ↗ colors that would help identify certain things that we want to point out as you

1:19:31 ↗ go by the front of the building. So those things will come into play later.

1:19:36 ↗ Yeah, I think obviously the opportunities as you refine the design we do color materials

1:19:41 ↗ and colors and etc. Right one other thing that we've been kind of dwelling on

1:19:46 ↗ is parking which we understood was you know how do people come to the site

1:19:50 ↗ if they have a car There's no place to park. Well, obviously we had parking

1:19:54 ↗ that on the south side. That's going to be taken away So the end result

1:20:00 ↗ is we have 50% Impervious with no chance of adding another stall or two in

1:20:05 ↗ the back because of the coverage Is so restrictive so it's kind of funny that

1:20:11 ↗ here we are with parking in on street now Presently, but as soon as a

1:20:16 ↗ couple years from now that's gone away There will not be any parking available on

1:20:20 ↗ site except for that one stall So yeah, I

1:20:26 ↗ don't know exactly the percentages, but if you went up maybe 5% more coverage and

1:20:31 ↗ maybe we could drop in another stall in the back to help that alleviate that

1:20:37 ↗ but I guess that's pretty much written in granite and can't change that well that's

1:20:42 ↗ that's the IMC does not yeah you're right it does not allow adjustments for pervious

1:20:46 ↗ area right so Commissioner Brennan so the purpose of this

1:20:53 ↗ community conferences it also says is to solve certain issues,

1:20:59 ↗ if we have design issues, we can try to find creative solutions. And so maybe

1:21:05 ↗ one of the ideas regarding creating a more pronounced entry, I know

1:21:11 ↗ they currently have that trellis element. And let me see if I could

1:21:17 ↗ find the elevation. Because maybe

1:21:23 ↗ as an alternative to the trellis element,

1:21:30 ↗ Okay. So here's this trellis element. Maybe as an alternative with all the materials and

1:21:35 ↗ the pervious, if they extend this and then make this wider

1:21:42 ↗ for a more welcoming presence

1:21:48 ↗ on Sunset Way. Yeah, I mean, that would certainly be

1:21:55 ↗ an option to consider. I mean, like I said, I think... a kind of a

1:21:58 ↗ mixture of elements across the front of the building there and I was kind of

1:22:01 ↗ searching for some continuity and the trellis kind of stands out there on it so

1:22:04 ↗ and I understand what you're trying to do try to create some interest across the

1:22:07 ↗ building but I mean yes I guess it's kind of rearranging the pieces to the

1:22:13 ↗ puzzle and maybe we can come up with something that's a little bit different I

1:22:16 ↗ guess again my point was it just feels understated for the size of that building

1:22:22 ↗ that the entry in and so I thought maybe if there's something we could do

1:22:25 ↗ to emphasize that make it bigger of different materials color

1:22:31 ↗ landscape features that you might um and lighting installed we'll probably do some

1:22:36 ↗ emphasis on lighting lighting exactly right so just that that's it creative and i

1:22:42 ↗ think you can probably come up with something and i think as an example on

1:22:45 ↗ the lighting the other project is always coming in this evening um i don't

1:22:51 ↗ remember the address or the name of the project but it doesn't have any street

1:22:54 ↗ level lighting at least turned on if they have it and it's very dark. So

1:22:58 ↗ from a pedestrian standpoint walking in front of that building it's not inviting at all

1:23:03 ↗ right now. So I think lighting will be an important thing to look at for

1:23:06 ↗ this too. So we learned from our experience. So thanks for

1:23:12 ↗ that and real quick just a couple of minors. So the alley in the back

1:23:16 ↗ is that currently paved or is that gravel surface? It's paved. Okay thank you. And

1:23:21 ↗ then the The question about garbage and

1:23:27 ↗ wheeling the residents, wheeling the garbage cans out and garbage collectors coming to get them.

1:23:33 ↗ So we're gonna have more activity in that alley now, we're gonna have more residents.

1:23:38 ↗ And looking at again the site plan, the only place to put the

1:23:43 ↗ canisters or the totes when you're putting them out there is actually in the alleyway.

1:23:48 ↗ There's no space on the property to leave them for pickup. So they're gonna get

1:23:53 ↗ pushed out into the drive lane. I'm just wondering, it's going to get awfully crowded

1:23:59 ↗ out there, and it gets to be uncontrolled chaos in some of these,

1:24:05 ↗ if we don't figure out a design solution to ensure that there's an organized way

1:24:10 ↗ to deal with it. So the way I'm seeing this on the site plan is

1:24:13 ↗ they're in the garage, they come out through the main garage entry, and the only

1:24:17 ↗ place to locate those canisters is in the alley itself. Or we can put it

1:24:22 ↗ on the drive area, off to the right. Line them up. Line them up. You

1:24:27 ↗ have to work with the garbage haulers to make sure that the pickup location works

1:24:32 ↗ for them. But it seems like we need to think about how garbage management is

1:24:36 ↗ going to happen on the property and not require the residents to push those into

1:24:39 ↗ the alley. And maintain the clear driveway so they can get in and out of

1:24:43 ↗ the garage. We all know sometimes it takes us a little longer than

1:24:49 ↗ others to go get our garbage cans and pull them back in. So I just

1:24:52 ↗ want to make sure that that happens. And...

1:25:00 ↗ Just a quick question for staff, and this again has been raised several times. For

1:25:03 ↗ visitors parking, there's no specific requirement in multi-family projects of this size to have

1:25:10 ↗ designated visitor parking? Okay. Just a note to

1:25:16 ↗ ourselves, right? Okay.

1:25:23 ↗ Okay, good, thank you. That's the last of my question. The last, I just realized

1:25:29 ↗ I had one more thing. The storm drainage on page 20 of 20, it says

1:25:34 ↗ that all runoff from the site will be infiltrated on site, which is great.

1:25:40 ↗ How is that going to be accomplished? Is it a rain garden type of concept?

1:25:43 ↗ Because then the water from the downspouts and the roof goes into an underground storage

1:25:49 ↗ vault. How does, what is the plan for infiltrating

1:25:55 ↗ the storm runoff? Right now there is no plan. We're planning on getting a civil

1:25:59 ↗ engineer involved that can help us establish all that. Because he'll have to have all

1:26:04 ↗ the calculations done to figure out what size we're talking. This information

1:26:10 ↗ needs to be brought up next. Okay, but the concept is to do it out

1:26:15 ↗ on the property, Side of the structure or you know not not under the roof

1:26:21 ↗ line, but somewhere No, I don't see it underneath the building at all here Because

1:26:26 ↗ if you do you're going under the slab and that's going to be negatives below

1:26:30 ↗ where the drain system is right now So I don't know how how that would

1:26:35 ↗ work at this point unless there is something this civil engineer comes up with it

1:26:40 ↗ will work. I know the city is working very, very hard to address the

1:26:46 ↗ issue of runoff. The whole Seattle area has become very aware of the

1:26:52 ↗ ultimate effect of that in the sound where it all winds up. So it would

1:26:56 ↗ be interesting to see what you come up with and I think you may have

1:26:58 ↗ an opportunity here to really set a new standard for that in collaboration with what

1:27:03 ↗ the city is already trying to do. Right. Any further input

1:27:09 ↗ from the commissioners? All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I particularly appreciate

1:27:15 ↗ the members of the public that gave your time to come here tonight. We always

1:27:19 ↗ value that. We know it's a commitment on your part, and we appreciate it. We

1:27:25 ↗ think it helps the process a great deal. And with that, the meeting will be

1:27:29 ↗ adjourned. Thank you. CHRIS

1:27:35 ↗ JERRAMS. So those stormwater bolts. collect it all and redistribute it underground.

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.