Development Commission · Wednesday, February 3, 2016 · 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 November 18, 2015

packet pp.5–11

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Sep 23, 2015

▶ Watch from 1:57 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES 11/18/15

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Briefing on CIDDS Amendments

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager

Public Comments for administrative decision on Administrative Adjustment of Standards for Gateway Senior Housing

Topics: Housing

Gateway Senior Housing Site Development Permit, SDP15-00005

packet pp.13–202

Topics: HousingLand Use

Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

AGENDA ITEMS c) Gateway Senior Housing, PRJ14-00051, SDP15-00005 DC Staff Report: January 27, 2016

2269 segments .txt ↗

0:19 ↗ Permit development and things related to that, that's the white one. We also ask that

0:24 ↗ you keep your comments in respect to the number of people we've got here tonight

0:28 ↗ to five minutes if you can. Okay? Can I just add one thing? So I

0:32 ↗ just, for any audience members who may be kind of confused, Amy is going to

0:37 ↗ do a presentation that kind of explains what the administrative adjustment of standards is. So

0:43 ↗ you can sign up at the time that you're, hearing what's contained in that if

0:47 ↗ you, so that you have a sense of which one you may want to speak

0:50 ↗ to and you're able to speak to both if you're interested in doing so. Absolutely,

0:56 ↗ you can talk to both subjects if you want, but just indicate which ones you

1:00 ↗ want by the signing one or both. We have,

1:07 ↗ we're on, okay. Oh yeah. Alright,

1:13 ↗ today is the The agenda for the Development Commission is to as I said

1:19 ↗ look at the request for Two separate items We're

1:25 ↗ going to begin the meeting with the presentation by city staff And after

1:30 ↗ which there will be an opportunity for public comment then we will we will

1:36 ↗ yeah after which We will go into the second element of

1:42 ↗ tonight's meeting which I mentioned earlier and So we'll begin today with, now that we've

1:46 ↗ called it to order, with a request for changes or additions to the minutes of

1:51 ↗ the last meeting, if there are any. Having none, can we get a motion to

1:57 ↗ approve the minutes? Move approval of meeting minutes from our November 18, 2015

2:03 ↗ meeting. Second. All those in favor? We have a motion to approve and a second.

2:08 ↗ All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. The minutes are

2:12 ↗ approved.

2:21 ↗ Good evening, I'm Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager, and I'm going to be doing two

2:26 ↗ quick pieces. One is, you may remember

2:32 ↗ last year we had a training with the hearing examiner, and we're trying to have

2:38 ↗ some consistency between all the various commissions and boards that we serve. So I'm just

2:42 ↗ gonna do a brief presentation on quasi-judicial, This is a quasi-judicial matter,

2:48 ↗ so we're going to go through a little process around that. And then I'm going

2:52 ↗ to give you a brief update on some of the key amendments that were passed

2:56 ↗ in December to the Central Issaquah Standards, just so you're familiar with them. Some of

3:01 ↗ them are relevant to tonight, and some are ones that I think you were interested

3:05 ↗ in. So tonight you're reviewing a site development

3:10 ↗ permit in Central Issaquah. Any Buildings over a

3:16 ↗ certain size, depending on the zone, and sites more than three acres come to

3:23 ↗ the Development Commission. Also, sites over three acres outside of Central Issaquah also come to

3:28 ↗ the Development Commission. Buildings or sites under that size are reviewed administratively.

3:35 ↗ The commission will be the decision maker, not tonight. The decision will occur at the

3:39 ↗ next meeting, but you will be the decision maker, and this is a quasi-judicial type

3:45 ↗ of decision. You're conducting a review of

3:51 ↗ planning level type items for conformance with the Central Issaquah Standards, the

3:56 ↗ comprehensive plan, and where applicable city code.

4:03 ↗ Specifically speaking to the quasi-judicial nature of this, as the name indicates that

4:08 ↗ you're acting kind of like a court, and to meet the requirements you

4:14 ↗ have to not only be fair but appear fair. And there are two aspects of

4:19 ↗ that that we are tasked with. One is procedural due process and the other is

4:25 ↗ substantive due process. Procedural due process means that we follow a certain process. We

4:32 ↗ give notice, we have a public hearing. The part that's probably most important to you

4:37 ↗ and that we'll focus on tonight is you as the decision maker, your

4:42 ↗ relationship to opponents or proponents of the decision.

4:49 ↗ Substantive due process means that the basis on which you make your decision are adopted

4:55 ↗ regulations and codes. So I'd like to take a minute and ask you to read

5:00 ↗ through these six questions. I won't read them out loud, you'll read them to yourselves

5:05 ↗ faster than I will, and Essie gets off free because she got to do this

5:09 ↗ last night.

5:25 ↗ How many commissioners would answer no to all the questions? Okay,

5:31 ↗ great. And then the other piece of quasi-judicial process is ex parte

5:37 ↗ communication. Ex parte means that these communications have taken place outside of these

5:43 ↗ public settings. So one question is, has there been any ex parte

5:49 ↗ communication associated with this permit? No? and since there

5:55 ↗ haven't, we're done with that piece. Okay.

6:06 ↗ So the second piece we want to just talk about is what we called round

6:11 ↗ two amendments to the Central Issaquah Standards. There were eight amendments that

6:17 ↗ went through and were approved in December. I'm gonna speak to four of them. They're

6:22 ↗ the ones with the stars, having to do with building heights, through block passages, views

6:27 ↗ and vistas, and minimum density. In

6:32 ↗ terms of building height, what you see here, the text here at the top, oh

6:37 ↗ wow, that's hard to read, I'm sorry. The text here at the top, is essentially

6:43 ↗ the same language that is currently in the Issaquah Municipal Code. The one change

6:49 ↗ is up here, and what it says is it results, so I'm

6:55 ↗ gonna start here. Building or structure height shall be measured from the average grade of

6:58 ↗ the existing or finished grade, whichever results in the stronger relationship to the

7:04 ↗ designated circulation facility. And then stronger

7:09 ↗ relationship is defined down here. and it has to do with the

7:15 ↗ public realm, citing specific standards in Chapter 11,

7:22 ↗ standards in Chapter 14 relating to street walls, avoids extreme

7:28 ↗ character altering filling, provides a great relationship to the

7:34 ↗ street between buildings and the designated circulation facilities, and complies with the vision.

7:40 ↗ So there are two examples that we wanted to show you tonight. One was one

7:45 ↗ that we certainly spent a lot of time talking about with the Gateway Apartments. The

7:51 ↗ existing grade is the sort of orange line down here,

7:57 ↗ and the street grade is the green one up here.

8:04 ↗ Previously, we had a prescriptive standard which said whichever is lower, existing or finished grade,

8:10 ↗ is the grade that the building's measured from. The height didn't change. It was just

8:15 ↗ a question of what we were measuring from. Now we look at the

8:21 ↗ site and see is it the existing grade that will result in the best relationship

8:26 ↗ between the building and the street, or is it the finished grade? So in this

8:31 ↗ case, it was the finished grade. And then for tonight's building,

8:39 ↗ again, the orange line represents the existing grade, the green represents the

8:45 ↗ average grade, which also used the circulation facility.

8:51 ↗ So what the diagram below represents is that the height was measured from the average

8:57 ↗ grade and up to the maximum allowed, which is here. Now that's an average

9:03 ↗ because sloped roofs you're allowed to count to the average of the roof. That's a

9:08 ↗ lot of information. I wanna see if you have any questions.

9:15 ↗ You're welcome to think about it and come back to it too, but I just

9:18 ↗ wanna answer any questions if you have them now. Okay.

9:24 ↗ Go ahead, Mike. I'll try. I got it. So I'm just looking at the top

9:29 ↗ of the diagram. And so the orange line was, you said was the

9:35 ↗ existing grade except that moves from an existing grade to what is now the new

9:40 ↗ finished grade at the entrance. So it's kind of blending the two,

9:46 ↗ so I got lost between. Right. Could you try that again? Yes, absolutely.

9:52 ↗ And listening to you describe it made me realize I skipped a couple of steps,

9:56 ↗ so thank you. So the orange grade is the existing grade.

10:06 ↗ When we determine whether we're going to measure from the existing or the finished

10:12 ↗ grade as established by the new circulation facility, okay,

10:18 ↗ so this street out in front of the building is the new circulation facility.

10:24 ↗ So that set the grade on this side, and then the grade going down the

10:30 ↗ side of the building and the finished grade in the back. So the method for

10:36 ↗ measuring is the same, you calculate points around the building, and once they calculated

10:42 ↗ those, that resulted in an average grade. So I think that was

10:48 ↗ the step that I skipped, was that there was the circulation

10:53 ↗ facility and the average finished grade to arrive at that green

10:59 ↗ line. Does that make more sense? Thank you. Okay.

11:08 ↗ Another one that had come up with gateway apartments, there are through block

11:14 ↗ passages which are kind of like a trail. There's a primary through block passage and

11:18 ↗ a secondary through block passage. it was not very clear when you used which one

11:23 ↗ of them, and this project helped clear that up for us, and it was the

11:28 ↗ way we worked with the Wolf Group, which is that if you're going to have

11:33 ↗ an entrance that isn't facing a street, it has to be to a through block

11:37 ↗ passage. So just as we've shown here, these with the sort of dots are the

11:43 ↗ through block passages and the entrances to these three buildings, the front door essentially,

11:49 ↗ comes off of that three block passage.

11:55 ↗ Views and vistas, I'm not asking you to read through all of this, but this

12:01 ↗ came up when we went through the Costco development agreement. We had a hard time

12:06 ↗ taking the language that was there, the work that had been done

12:13 ↗ working through the central Issaquah standards and the curvilinear nature of the streets and how

12:18 ↗ did we bring all of that together to know which views were being preserved. In

12:24 ↗ the update of the comprehensive plan, the city had, the staff and the council had

12:30 ↗ written a new policy. So what we needed to do was take that language and

12:34 ↗ put it into code. And what we've really focused on is circulation facilities such

12:40 ↗ as streets and significant community spaces. Those are the two that are prioritized

12:46 ↗ and those are the ones in which we're really looking at what are the existing

12:51 ↗ views and how are we going to work with the circulation facilities and the buildings

12:56 ↗ to preserve those from these circulation facilities and community spaces.

13:03 ↗ And I can send you the final language so that you have an opportunity to

13:05 ↗ read through it. Lucy, I have a question. Sure. The first sentence under G,

13:12 ↗ is that, am I correct in observing that the difference there

13:18 ↗ is the word shall instead of should? Yes. That is one of the

13:24 ↗ differences. And that was an important piece. And the reason that we were comfortable doing

13:29 ↗ that is because it shall preserve within the context of these four elements.

13:35 ↗ as opposed to before, it was should and it was very broad and so should

13:40 ↗ doesn't mean you have to and then when are you doing it. We also wrote

13:47 ↗ one that specifically relates to curvilinear streets that where we have curvilinear streets because there

13:53 ↗ are some for instance in Pickering Place that are not part of the Costco development

13:57 ↗ agreement so at some point those properties may develop, redevelop. that

14:03 ↗ before we start we will do an AAS and agree on which views are important,

14:08 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards, that we will use that process to

14:14 ↗ identify and document which views are being preserved so that by the time we get

14:20 ↗ here we're all clear how we're proceeding and what views have been identified. Thank you.

14:30 ↗ And then the last one I want to mention, this one you may not be

14:34 ↗ as aware of. This was more a staff and council one that had come up.

14:40 ↗ You may be aware that there is a minimum FAR, floor area ratio, for properties

14:45 ↗ over a certain size. One of the challenges we found with that is

14:52 ↗ if a project does not meet the minimum FAR, One way they can meet it

14:57 ↗ is just to make the units larger. And we had seen that in a project.

15:03 ↗ But the goal of that was the minimum FAR wasn't just to get more square

15:07 ↗ footage, it was actually to get more dwelling units. And so we had quite a

15:13 ↗ bit of discussion with council. We decided to limit it to the urban core, which

15:17 ↗ is the area that we have committed to the Puget Sound Regional Council that

15:23 ↗ we will add a certain number of units. So to achieve that, we have

15:29 ↗ identified that we will have 36 dwelling units per acre. For instance,

15:35 ↗ Gateway Apartments was 31 dwelling units in acres. So it's not a significant increase, but

15:41 ↗ it is somewhat denser, but only in the urban core. proposed potentially

15:47 ↗ doing it throughout central Issaquah, and they felt it was more appropriate and achievable within

15:52 ↗ the urban core. And that's the last one I

15:58 ↗ was going to tell you about. Thank you.

16:15 ↗ Good evening. My name is Amy Tars and I'm senior planner with the Development Services

16:21 ↗ Department. And I am here to do two presentations both related to

16:27 ↗ the Gateway Senior Housing Project. The first one will be on the two administrative

16:33 ↗ adjustments of standards. And I will bring up the slide very shortly. I'm just going

16:38 ↗ to walk everyone through what's going to happen with my presentation and afterwards. So after

16:44 ↗ that I'm going to do the presentation for the site development permit review.

16:50 ↗ And after that we have Greg Van Patten from the Wolf

16:57 ↗ Company who is the applicant and would like to address the development

17:02 ↗ commission. And then after that we will have his consultants come up and do their

17:09 ↗ own presentation of the project.

17:16 ↗ So this will be a very brief presentation, basically just to introduce this

17:22 ↗ project. So we're doing this a little differently than the way we did the Gateway

17:26 ↗ Apartments. For this project, the applicant has opted

17:32 ↗ to basically apply for the Administrative Adjustment of Standards

17:37 ↗ independent of the SDP. And in the process of doing that, since we are reviewing

17:43 ↗ this concurrently with the SDP, We thought that we would like to provide this

17:49 ↗ forum as an opportunity to collect public comments for these two

17:55 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards. And just to clarify, as an AAS, this is a

18:01 ↗ level two review, and the review approved, I'm sorry, the

18:07 ↗ decision maker is the DSD director. And on the right is

18:13 ↗ basically a table copied from the Central Usoquad Development Standards. This is just meant to

18:18 ↗ show that the difference between a Level 2 and a Level 3 review. And when

18:23 ↗ you look at the dots, the only difference is the community conference, which is shown

18:29 ↗ as optional for a Level 3. and a black dot for a level three

18:34 ↗ review for a public hearing. So the purpose of

18:40 ↗ me showing this is to basically show that the public comment opportunities

18:46 ↗ and notice requirements are the same for both level 2 and level 3 review. So

18:52 ↗ it doesn't deprive the public of the opportunity to provide the same level

18:58 ↗ of engagement and comments for this review. Having said that,

19:06 ↗ I just wanted to briefly highlight what these two AASs are for. The first

19:12 ↗ one is for basically a request to

19:19 ↗ provide flexibility on their neighborhood street requirements and

19:25 ↗ particularly show, as this red area shows, they're not

19:31 ↗ providing a sidewalk on this side of the street. So normally as a neighborhood street,

19:36 ↗ you would have what is typically and what is shown on the other side of

19:41 ↗ the street, which is a planter strip for street trees and a six-foot sidewalk.

19:49 ↗ So on this other side of the street, the sidewalk is actually extended

19:55 ↗ close away from the roadway and closer to where the

20:01 ↗ entrances of the individual residential units are, where most of the people will be walking.

20:07 ↗ However, because of the steep slopes at this part of their project, it was hard

20:13 ↗ to accommodate the sidewalk on this end of their

20:19 ↗ neighborhood street. As you go further down, the other half of the neighborhood street

20:25 ↗ basically meets the standard. So having said that,

20:32 ↗ we have not made any decision on this AAS, and we thought that this

20:38 ↗ would be a good opportunity for us to to listen and

20:44 ↗ collect additional comments from the public. The other AAS has to do with

20:51 ↗ a requirement in the Central Issaquah Standards in the building design section that required that

20:57 ↗ buildings should be set back after the third floor. It was very specific,

21:03 ↗ and so this is the same AAS that we applied to the Gateway

21:09 ↗ Apartments for their five-story structures. And again,

21:15 ↗ in that particular project, and similar to that project, this project

21:21 ↗ also has a four-story building over a garage. And

21:29 ↗ if we were to apply that standard, it will create this awkward break in the

21:33 ↗ building. So again, even though we have made a determination from the previous SDP

21:41 ↗ and AAS for a similar structure that this is an

21:47 ↗ AAS that we would grant. We are here to listen to the public for any

21:51 ↗ comments. And tonight is not the only time that we will be receiving

21:57 ↗ comments. We have basically the two-week window for

22:03 ↗ receiving additional comments, and the public is welcome to write me and send us emails

22:08 ↗ or a letter. for additional comments after

22:14 ↗ tonight. So having said that, if the Commission

22:19 ↗ members have any comments, we would welcome that too. Are there

22:25 ↗ any questions or comments at this point on the AAS by any members of the

22:30 ↗ Commission? The AAS as it stands at this moment. Commissioner Brennan?

22:39 ↗ So, clarification on the process. So, the AAS is, the decision maker is the

22:44 ↗ Development Services Department Director. So, tonight is just a forum to solicit feedback prior

22:50 ↗ to the director's decision? Yes. Okay. Can you go back to the slide on the

22:56 ↗ driveway? So, did they look at the

23:02 ↗ option of moving everything, putting, I'm looking at that and you come in on the

23:07 ↗ sidewalk on the This side? Yeah, and then you've got to come

23:13 ↗ into the entry and cross the drive lane to get over to the sidewalk or

23:17 ↗ to get into the building. So everybody that's walking in has to cross the drive

23:21 ↗ lane. And if they're coming from the west along the port way, they've got to

23:26 ↗ cross the driveway in. If you move everything over and put the sidewalk on the

23:31 ↗ building side, but slide the whole driveway over, would that geometrically work? Because you said

23:36 ↗ one of their challenges is the slope, you have a steep drop that happens there.

23:43 ↗ I don't know if that was explored as an option to say, could you still

23:47 ↗ make the radius work for turning trucks, et cetera, that have to come down through

23:51 ↗ there and move the sidewalk to the other side? So basically shift the driveway

23:57 ↗ entrance a little bit and then have the sidewalk? The sidewalk, and from a pedestrian

24:02 ↗ standpoint, then you're reducing at least one drive lane crossing to get into the

24:07 ↗ building if you're coming from. And are you saying basically removing,

24:14 ↗ in other words, if we were to choose between which sidewalk to give up, it

24:18 ↗ would be the sidewalk on this side? You have that option. I don't know if

24:22 ↗ that physically could still work from an

24:27 ↗ engineering standpoint and meeting the turn radius standards, because it's going to modify that radius

24:32 ↗ a bit. That's definitely a good idea and we'll definitely explore

24:38 ↗ that. Actually, I think we can probably

24:45 ↗ address that question. Oh, okay. Is that all right? Yeah. So, everybody that wants to

24:48 ↗ make a public comment, applicant, and members of the public, please identify yourself by your

24:52 ↗ name and your address. My name is Jim Bedoya. I'm with VIA Architects and

24:58 ↗ we're in the tower building on 7th Avenue in Seattle, 98101.

25:05 ↗ The location of our driveway entrance was strategically chosen because of

25:11 ↗ offering the maximum site distance down Newport in both directions. And it's also

25:19 ↗ in one of the steeper portions of the site. The topography on the

25:24 ↗ north side of that drive drops off pretty severely.

25:30 ↗ So that was the reason we chose to put the walk on the south end

25:35 ↗ of that drive. There is intended to be a crosswalk that happens as part

25:41 ↗ of the arrival court that will offer a safe crossing

25:47 ↗ both at this location and coming down with the ADA ramp coming off of Newport

25:53 ↗ and crossing at the, I'm sorry, at this portion of the drive.

26:12 ↗ You've got a sidewalk on, I guess it's the east side of the entranceway.

26:20 ↗ The ADA ramp is all the way on the other side of the building. So

26:24 ↗ is this sidewalk as steep as the other side of the driveway? Or is it

26:29 ↗ potentially stepped? And if it's stepped on this side, couldn't it be stepped on the

26:35 ↗ other side to provide a full sidewalk? Well, we have a fire department turning

26:40 ↗ radius coming in there, so we can't really adjust where the driveway location comes in.

26:45 ↗ I'm not talking about adjusting the driveway, I'm talking about the sidewalk. Is that sidewalk

26:50 ↗ on the east side, not that one, that one right there, is that sloped? Is

26:56 ↗ it a very steep sidewalk, or is it stepped? Well, no, it comes in at

27:00 ↗ the same grade as the driveway, which is at 12%, I believe, in that location.

27:05 ↗ So it's about as steep as you'd want. So it's pretty steep, 12%.

27:10 ↗ Yeah. How much of a difference is it on the other side?

27:17 ↗ Is it about the same? It's more the physical limitation of having to build

27:23 ↗ that on ground that doesn't exist, because the grade does fall

27:29 ↗ off pretty severely on this side of the entryway, and we just felt that it

27:35 ↗ was a safer sidewalk coming in where you're up

27:41 ↗ against the bank and not on the edge of a grade difference. We have retaining

27:47 ↗ wall structures along this edge that are allowing that grade to transition. And just felt

27:53 ↗ that this was a better, safer solution to have it on that side.

28:00 ↗ You could put a retaining wall in. You could put in a step sidewalk. I

28:03 ↗ mean, a series of steps going down on both sides.

28:12 ↗ Theoretically. DAVID

28:14 ↗ BURRAGEERSON,

28:21 ↗ Well, what we have for available space is limited. I don't want to get into

28:25 ↗ this limit. It's something I think that could be done. DAVID BURRAGEERSON, We certainly looked

28:28 ↗ at doing it a bunch of ways, and that was part of the reason that

28:31 ↗ we asked for the adjustment, just because we felt that the circulation in that area

28:36 ↗ was better served by doing it the way we are proposing it.

28:44 ↗ I'd like to go on record by saying that I think that the way it's

28:47 ↗ designed here seems like the safest option.

28:50 ↗ Okay, is there anything

28:56 ↗ else? Amy? I guess I'd just input, I guess, if you want some input. I

29:01 ↗ would agree with both AASs that they seem like reasonable changes to be made,

29:08 ↗ adjustments to be made. Thank you. Members of the public.

29:27 ↗ Good evening, I'm Hart Sugarman. I live at 2550 Northwest Oak Crest Drive. I'm

29:33 ↗ resident of Issaquah for 20 years. Just regarding this diagram, most

29:39 ↗ people are gonna be walking on the sidewalk east to go to the transit center

29:43 ↗ or into town. I think when they're gonna return to the residence, they're gonna take

29:47 ↗ the ADA ramp as the shortest way rather than walking further down the road west

29:53 ↗ and then returning to the property. So I think more people will be traveling or

29:57 ↗ walking in that ADA portion.

30:04 ↗ Anyone else that wishes to address the AAS?

30:17 ↗ My name is Mary Lynch and I reside at 2690 Northwest Oak Crest Drive in

30:23 ↗ Issaquah. Also, just a comment on this view. I concur with heart,

30:30 ↗ but when you get down to the other side, if there is a sidewalk, one

30:34 ↗ of the things about this area is it is on the shadow side of Cougar

30:38 ↗ Mountain. And this area along the stretch of road is one of the areas that

30:42 ↗ has a lot of black ice and the sidewalks are slippery. So one of the

30:46 ↗ things that concerns me is even having a sidewalk, so I think a stair-stepped or

30:50 ↗ something approach might be good. My other concern is the turning radius, and I understand

30:55 ↗ why they don't want the sidewalks on the other side, because this is a minimum

30:59 ↗ turning radius for basically a small fire truck. From what I can

31:05 ↗ see, it does not allow for your larger ladder trucks to enter here, and if

31:09 ↗ you look further in the diagrams that they have, it actually has to get it

31:15 ↗ has to swing over the sidewalk. The vehicle, I mean the tires don't, but the

31:20 ↗ actual, to get in here. So you're gonna need to have a fairly low area

31:25 ↗ and you're really not gonna be swinging over a sidewalk when you're coming into an

31:29 ↗ area, especially the speeds that your fire trucks are gonna come in. But I do

31:34 ↗ have concern with the sidewalks being on the uphill side because

31:40 ↗ they're gonna get the least sun. that's a comment on that. On the other one,

31:45 ↗ the only thing I see is I was part of the central area plan and

31:48 ↗ one of the reasons we put the stair steps approach in there was also for

31:53 ↗ shadowing. And you're gonna have some of your main

31:59 ↗ outdoor community areas on the north side of the building. a little

32:05 ↗ bit of stair step will help get you a little bit more sunlight to those

32:08 ↗ community spaces. It also was to create a stair step view up to the

32:14 ↗ mountains. And I guess my concern, it seems like everything we've put in so far

32:19 ↗ with the Central Area Plan has deviated from the standard. And that was an

32:24 ↗ idea that came out of the citizens and also the staff. So it's just, I

32:30 ↗ think, very ironic that so far everything that we've seen passed has ask for that

32:35 ↗ not to happen. So I would go back and say why was it there?

32:41 ↗ And I think the shadowing and some of those considerations might be taking effect. And

32:45 ↗ I think it would also make the buildings seem less tall.

32:52 ↗ Thank you. Anyone else that wishes to speak on the subject of the adjustment of

32:57 ↗ standards? Okay, thank you everyone.

33:14 ↗ So now I'm going to make my presentation for the actual site development

33:20 ↗ permit. This is a level three review. And for tonight's

33:26 ↗ presentation, I would like to just for the public record

33:32 ↗ note that there were four additional comments that we received from the public. And

33:39 ↗ you have copies of them on your seats. and I will go ahead and start

33:45 ↗ my presentation. And for tonight's presentation, because this is the first part of two presentations,

33:51 ↗ we're going to provide, just like with the Gateway Apartments, a very broad overview of

33:58 ↗ how the project meets the central Issaquah standards and all the related development

34:04 ↗ standards. And so we, I'm sorry.

34:10 ↗ So we have, In our staff report, documented how

34:17 ↗ we looked at every chapter of the Central Sequest Standards, and I will not go

34:22 ↗ over every one of those chapters. What I'm gonna do tonight is highlight the broad

34:27 ↗ strokes, the most important elements of not only the standards, but how this

34:33 ↗ project meets those standards. So quick overview, this is a five

34:39 ↗ story building with 146 units. It will be a senior housing

34:44 ↗ project with 78 parking spaces. It meets basically the required parking

34:50 ↗ space requirement. And the developable area is 4.29 acres

34:57 ↗ out of six, a little bit of over six acres. The balance of

35:03 ↗ the site is actually the critical areas. Oh, so one of the things,

35:09 ↗ I'm sorry, let me go back. Just to clarify, this is phase two of

35:15 ↗ what we call the Gateway Project, and phase one was a project that you

35:21 ↗ recently reviewed in the fall. Oops. I keep clicking on the

35:27 ↗ wrong button. So for tonight's presentation, again, I will

35:32 ↗ organize my discussion and analysis on two broad themes.

35:39 ↗ One is the connectivity and the other one is placemaking. Under connectivity, I'm going to

35:43 ↗ start with the discussion and presentation of the circulation facilities. and then the

35:49 ↗ green necklace, which encompasses a lot of the open spaces, and then the views. And

35:55 ↗ then for place making, we'll talk a little bit about the Western Gateway concept, because

36:01 ↗ that was something that the Commission was very interested in and the public was also

36:05 ↗ interested in last time, and the pedestrian-friendly public realm.

36:12 ↗ So location, again, this is in central Issaquah in what is called

36:18 ↗ the Western Gateway District. And the vision for this area is to have an attractive

36:24 ↗ gateway that maintains significant open space views from I-90 and to

36:30 ↗ enhance Tibbets Creek and buffers as key link of the Green Necklace. So for this

36:35 ↗ particular project, Tibbets Creek is not part of the review. It's actually

36:42 ↗ aways from the project. So land use and zoning, again, very quickly,

36:48 ↗ the site is zoned VR, Village Residential, and the

36:54 ↗ land use designation is multifamily residential. And as you can see,

37:02 ↗ across Newport Way, And the properties are already developed, primarily with

37:08 ↗ either single family or multi-family residential developments. And

37:14 ↗ immediately east of the project is the Gateway Apartments, which will also be a multi-family

37:19 ↗ development. And south of it is what is now a former vet

37:25 ↗ clinic, and it's vacant. So some, just

37:31 ↗ walking you through some of the existing conditions through some of the views and site

37:37 ↗ photos. This is a view from I-90. So the top view is looking

37:42 ↗ from, you know, almost like the Gateway apartment site. So what you see here

37:49 ↗ is where Tibbetts Creek kind of lines up. And so the site is actually further

37:55 ↗ back there. And this is the Gateway apartment site. Excuse me, Amy. I think that's

38:01 ↗ That's not Tibbets Creek there. Oh, I'm sorry, Snyder Creek. Thank you for the

38:07 ↗ correction. So, and then the bottom photo shows again from I-90,

38:13 ↗ you get a sliver view of the site between these two trees,

38:19 ↗ or a grove of trees here on one side and a clump of trees on

38:24 ↗ the other side. So views from Newport Way, this is easier to

38:29 ↗ identify. So where the site is currently undeveloped, so you see

38:35 ↗ mostly trees. On the left is actually the city stormwater pond.

38:41 ↗ And this is kind of the improved sidewalk and streetscape.

38:50 ↗ on the opposite side of Newport Way from this project. So along Newport Way,

38:57 ↗ what you see is this almost nebulous area that's currently used as a

39:03 ↗ shared use route. It's 10 foot wide with extruded curbs, which separates the

39:09 ↗ travel lanes from the pedestrian and the bikes. The bottom photo shows

39:16 ↗ Again, Newport Way looking south. On the right is a multi-family housing development.

39:23 ↗ And again, on the left you see mostly trees and the terminus of your

39:29 ↗ view is Cougar Mountain. Another set of photos.

39:36 ↗ Looking from here where it says C, it's almost at the northern end of the

39:42 ↗ property. You see some new residential developments, three stories

39:48 ↗ along Newport Way across the street from the property. And

39:55 ↗ again, on the southern end of Newport Way street frontage, you also

40:03 ↗ see basically four, I'm sorry, a multifamily development about

40:09 ↗ four or five stories high and raised above Newport Way.

40:16 ↗ So existing conditions on the site, and the reason why I'm introducing this is so

40:22 ↗ you kind of get an understanding of later on how the building was cited and

40:28 ↗ what are the site constraints. And I'm just going to highlight some of them. So

40:33 ↗ the gray triangular areas that you see that's close to Newport Way, those are the

40:39 ↗ steepest slopes You do see existing trees again. You saw them in the photos,

40:45 ↗ but they are mostly along Newport Way and some trees here. Not a lot of

40:50 ↗ trees in the interior of the property. This orange line, orange dash

40:56 ↗ double line is an existing drainage easement that will eventually be vacated.

41:03 ↗ This dashed black line here, as it says 100 feet, is the required 100-foot

41:10 ↗ buffer for Schneider Creek. So in the future, you kind of see this

41:16 ↗ dark dashed line here. This is the future property line for this project.

41:25 ↗ So this is the proposed site plan with the landscape

41:31 ↗ conceptually illustrated. And the purpose of why I'm showing this

41:37 ↗ is just to kind of highlight again you know, the main entries. One entry is

41:42 ↗ for pedestrian and bikes, and this is the main entry, primarily, we

41:48 ↗ believe, is the ideal access to the site for pedestrians and bikes, because it has

41:54 ↗ a gentler slope, and it's also closer to the intersection with the crosswalk

42:00 ↗ on the south end of the property. And this is primarily for vehicles and

42:06 ↗ as an option for pedestrians. The building, it's basically a

42:13 ↗ one structure, again oriented north to south, and

42:19 ↗ with community spaces and a green area both

42:25 ↗ on the north end and on the east end. And I'm going to talk a

42:29 ↗ little bit more about those open spaces in a minute. So just very quickly,

42:35 ↗ we also reviewed this project's compliance to the zoning standards and it

42:41 ↗ complies. There are three types of circulation facilities

42:47 ↗ required for this project, and they're color coded, basically Newport Way is a parkway.

42:54 ↗ And in the interior of the property, a neighborhood street was required, as shown here

43:00 ↗ on this diagram. And then In addition to that,

43:06 ↗ to meet the block standards and pedestrian friendly standards of the Central Issaquah Plan,

43:12 ↗ through block passages were also required. So one is shown as a dashed line because

43:17 ↗ it's a through block passage through the building, and then the other one is at

43:22 ↗ the exterior of the building and connects further to the adjacent property.

43:30 ↗ So how does the circulation facilities connect to the regional network. In this

43:36 ↗ particular case, this is from the central Issaquah plan. It shows

43:42 ↗ this green line along Newport Way and a dashed purple line. So the green line

43:47 ↗ actually represents the existing mountain to sound greenway bike lane, which I showed

43:53 ↗ earlier as almost like a shoulder And then it also

43:58 ↗ requires an additional shared use route along Newport Way, which this project will be

44:04 ↗ providing. And now we're going to go closer to the site

44:10 ↗ and look at its connectivity to adjacent properties. So again, using this

44:16 ↗ diagram from the Central Issaquah Development Standards, Figure 6A, it shows that

44:23 ↗ There's supposed to be an internal street that eventually connects back out to Newport Way

44:29 ↗ through the adjacent property. So somehow that connection is shown

44:35 ↗ currently. Obviously, they don't have any control over the adjacent property, but it's

44:41 ↗ meant to connect to the adjacent property. And then the other connection is

44:47 ↗ from this property to the Gateway Apartments. Currently, they are proposing

44:53 ↗ to provide a 10-foot wide pedestrian and bike access,

44:59 ↗ a small 10-foot bridge over Snyder Creek. So in our staff

45:05 ↗ analysis, we actually have two conditions

45:12 ↗ for both circulation connectivity requirements. Condition three currently We

45:18 ↗ just put a placeholder. We are still working out the condition with the applicant,

45:24 ↗ basically, but it's meant to indicate how we are

45:31 ↗ going to implement the connection to the adjacent VET property.

45:37 ↗ And then there's condition 11, and again, I'm not gonna read this, but basically it

45:43 ↗ requires a 10 foot wide bridge to also be able to carry some

45:49 ↗ very low traffic, vehicular traffic,

45:56 ↗ for, excuse me, for vehicular connectivity to the adjacent gateway apartments.

46:04 ↗ So in addition to physical connectivity, we also look at visual connections. And in this

46:10 ↗ particular project, as this diagram shows, there are

46:16 ↗ incredible views of the mountains and lakes of Mamish. And they are

46:21 ↗ capitalizing on those views with balconies for the building and also with their open

46:27 ↗ spaces. So now I like to talk about how this project

46:33 ↗ contributes to the whole concept of the green necklace. This diagram shows

46:39 ↗ seven elements of the site plan that all contributes to that green

46:44 ↗ necklace. The first one is the shared use route, and I'm going to

46:50 ↗ talk through most of this in the next slides. Second one is the existing

46:56 ↗ Mountains of Sound Greenway bike lane. The third one, shown down here, is

47:02 ↗ the buffer, the Schneider Creek critical area buffer. Four is

47:08 ↗ the I-90 Green Edge. Five are the community

47:14 ↗ spaces that are provided for the residents but also relate to the

47:20 ↗ natural areas. Six is the neighborhood streets and its streetscape.

47:25 ↗ Seven is the Newport Way streetscape. So the Schneider Creek

47:32 ↗ and buffer area, again, I'm not going to talk through the details. This is just

47:37 ↗ to show that they will be enhancing the whole buffer area because they are

47:43 ↗ reducing the buffer width from 100 feet to 75 feet. And there's also

47:49 ↗ some areas here that are mitigation for the

47:55 ↗ impacts to the wetlands in the Gateway Apartment project.

48:01 ↗ So below is just a sectional diagram that shows, since we're speaking about

48:08 ↗ the green necklace, how this buffer area will be vegetated.

48:15 ↗ So for the I-90 green edge, basically what you see on top is the existing

48:19 ↗ views from I-90. So this side is a little setback from I-90.

48:25 ↗ And the bottom photo shows how the new structure will look from I-90 with vegetation

48:32 ↗ on, you know, in front of it. The community spaces were

48:38 ↗ basically shown and provided according to not

48:44 ↗ only the requirements, but they actually exceed the required open spaces

48:50 ↗ requirements. And they come in the form of either the terraces and balconies for the

48:55 ↗ individual units. This green area here, which is basically a pea

49:01 ↗ patch and an outdoor seating area. And what's not highlighted here are the dog run

49:07 ↗ and trail system that connects back to the Gateway Apartments,

49:13 ↗ as well as interior community spaces that are highlighted in these beige areas.

49:24 ↗ So the neighborhood street, again, this is just to give you a flavor of the

49:28 ↗ green how this contributes to the green necklace. It shows the type of vegetation,

49:35 ↗ starting with the street trees that are required for both the neighborhood street and the

49:40 ↗ Newport Way green streetscape. So in addition to that,

49:46 ↗ there are additional ornamental vegetation

49:52 ↗ for both these streets. So one of the things

49:58 ↗ that now I'm going to transition into the Western Gateway concept as we talk about

50:03 ↗ the Newport Way streetscape. So there's two ways that they express their sense of

50:09 ↗ arrival. One is with the streetscape treatment along Newport Way and the other is

50:15 ↗ with the architectural character of the building. So in our staff analysis, we have

50:21 ↗ provided or recommended conditions for how the vegetation on Newport

50:27 ↗ Way should be treated so that it allows for this building to engage better

50:33 ↗ with Newport Way, plus also to create something that

50:39 ↗ provides a sense of arrival and a sense that this is part of something special,

50:45 ↗ that it has a gateway character to it and not just

50:51 ↗ something that blends with everything else on Newport Way. So the other

50:57 ↗ condition that we provided had to do with the treatment of the building.

51:03 ↗ Again, we acknowledged and applaud the applicant for

51:10 ↗ actually proposing stone and timber type

51:16 ↗ elements on the bottom of the building. level of the building. However, the part of

51:21 ↗ the building that is most visible from Newport Way are the top two to three

51:25 ↗ floors. And so we, again, I'm not going to read the condition, but the purpose

51:31 ↗ of this slide is just to show what we mean when we say that we

51:36 ↗ want the buildings to consider having

51:42 ↗ more expressions of this western gateway. you know, architectural treatment, the

51:48 ↗ same type of discussion that we had last time with the Gateway Apartments.

51:54 ↗ So to conclude, and this just shows kind of a flavor

52:00 ↗ again of the modulation and articulation of the building. The

52:06 ↗ staff has also established that it does meet the standards. Basically, with the

52:12 ↗ modulation, we see how the shadows, you see how the buildings actually

52:18 ↗ recess in some bays and then protrude out in some areas and

52:24 ↗ how the roof forms have more of this modulation and

52:30 ↗ of a combination of shed roofs and gables. So,

52:38 ↗ Having said that, we think that

52:44 ↗ generally they do comply with the SDP, or I'm sorry, with the Central Issaquah Standards

52:50 ↗ with the conditions that we have recommended to the Development Commission. And for the next

52:56 ↗ steps, we are currently reviewing

53:02 ↗ this project for SEPA compliance and we are collecting public comments

53:08 ↗ for that and in fact one of the public comments that we submitted tonight, which

53:13 ↗ is attachment 15, was a SEPA comment, public comment. And

53:20 ↗ so we are scheduled to conclude the comment and appeal period on February 4th and

53:24 ↗ also have a

53:29 ↗ determination and a decision on the administrative adjustment of standards.

53:35 ↗ And then for the Development Commission decision, we have scheduled it tentatively

53:41 ↗ for March 16. So that concludes, oops, I still have the old,

53:48 ↗ sorry, still have the old gateway slide here, but that

53:53 ↗ concludes my presentation. And I'm here to answer any questions.

54:01 ↗ Any questions until later? I think, Amy, what we'll do is give the applicant an

54:05 ↗ opportunity and then the public to comment, and

54:11 ↗ we'll combine our questions and observations at the end, if that's all right. With

54:17 ↗ you? Yeah, that's great. Good. OK, does the applicant wish to make a

54:23 ↗ presentation? And if so, please recall that we'd ask you to identify yourself and your

54:28 ↗ business and your address.

54:40 ↗ My name is Greg Van Patten. I'm with the Wolf Company. Our address is 911

54:44 ↗ East Pike Street in Seattle. So I didn't get a chance to address the commission

54:51 ↗ when we went through the process with the multifamily site. Just thought I would introduce

54:56 ↗ myself. The Wolf Company, first a little bit about our company.

55:02 ↗ We're a third generation family company formed in Spokane in 1949. So we've been around

55:08 ↗ for a little while. We, as I mentioned, a third-generation

55:14 ↗ company, we have several development projects throughout the Puget Sound region that we've been working

55:18 ↗ on for the last few years. Been pleased to work with city staff on this

55:24 ↗ site for almost, it's coming up on two years now. and we're excited about our

55:30 ↗ proposal for senior housing on this portion. And I thought it might be helpful also

55:34 ↗ to clarify a little bit about the population we intend to serve. I think there's

55:39 ↗ perhaps a little bit of confusion and some ambiguity about senior housing because there's lots

55:44 ↗ of levels of care and what population they serve. So this will be independent

55:50 ↗ living senior apartments. So these will be for lease. This will not be skilled

55:56 ↗ nursing, it will not be assisted living, it will not be memory care. This is

56:01 ↗ for independent living. We say that it's for 55 plus, but the practical reality is

56:06 ↗ the average age of the residents in this type of property are

56:12 ↗ Upper 70s, so somewhere between 75 and 80 is really the average age of the

56:17 ↗ residents here. So all units will have full kitchens. It's a combination of one and

56:22 ↗ two bedroom units. All units will have full kitchens, but there is a dining

56:28 ↗ facility within there and the monthly rent includes a set number of meals per

56:33 ↗ month. There will be a large amount of community spaces and amenity spaces so that

56:39 ↗ the residents can stay active. There will be a full-time activities director that works seven

56:45 ↗ days a week, and their job is purely to have activities for the residents so

56:50 ↗ that they stay active and engaged. And there's a lot of really good relationships that

56:55 ↗ are formed within these communities. It's really a very rewarding thing to see.

57:01 ↗ We will have dedicated transportation as well. We will have a van or a small

57:05 ↗ bus that will be provided, complementing to the residents for going to doctor's

57:11 ↗ appointments, cultural events, shopping trips. things of that

57:17 ↗ nature as well. So that's a little bit about the product type. And again, this

57:22 ↗ is independent living, it's for seniors. There's actually an opportunity where you can

57:28 ↗ license a few units for assisted living, which, depending on the residents, it allows them

57:34 ↗ to stay in place a little bit longer. It's not like we would provide these

57:37 ↗ services, but in some of our properties, we can license individual units, take a few

57:42 ↗ of those, and then just contract with the third party that comes in and provides

57:46 ↗ some of those services. So it's not skilled nursing or memory care, but there is

57:50 ↗ that opportunity there. So I hope that kind of clears up any questions. Any questions

57:56 ↗ a little bit on the kind of population served or anything before I turn it

58:00 ↗ over? I think we'll probably hold the questions until the final period. But then if

58:05 ↗ we do, I have one for you. Great. Thank you.

58:33 ↗ Good evening. My name is Jim Bedoya. I'm with VIA Architects. And just would

58:39 ↗ like to thank the Commission and Amy for doing such a wonderful job of presenting

58:43 ↗ this project. Amy's done a wonderful job of going over the technical

58:50 ↗ details and compliance. And what I'd like to do is kind of keep this brief,

58:55 ↗ but really help you to understand the factors that helped us shape this project and

59:01 ↗ why we feel it's a good fit for this site and also a good fit

59:05 ↗ for the community and the people that will eventually call this their home. So

59:11 ↗ I'd like to just start by talking a little bit about the site and the

59:16 ↗ challenges and opportunities that the physical nature of the site presented for the project.

59:23 ↗ As you are aware, there's quite a bit of grade difference from Newport down to

59:29 ↗ the elevation of the creek. There's approximately 30 feet of grade change that happens. And

59:33 ↗ it happens rather abruptly once you leave Newport Way. So

59:40 ↗ as we recognize the concern for safety entering and leaving

59:46 ↗ this project, and that was evidence when we went through this process

59:52 ↗ on the apartment side of this project, Optimum location

59:58 ↗ for having the best visibility entering and leaving the site is where we're showing our

1:00:04 ↗ driveway entrance Along with that it gives us you know the longest

1:00:10 ↗ distance to negotiate that great change for vehicles for people coming in on foot

1:00:16 ↗ and Sort of perfectly sets up the the project to cite the the

1:00:22 ↗ project that the lowest part of the site, therefore having the least amount of impact

1:00:28 ↗ on the neighboring communities to the west and impacts on Newport Way.

1:00:35 ↗ We have a simple little diagram that I think illustrates the principles and

1:00:42 ↗ goals of what we are trying to achieve with this site planning. And with

1:00:48 ↗ our main vehicle entry, the way the the road system

1:00:54 ↗ gently winds its way down to the lowest part of the site and therefore giving

1:00:59 ↗ us access to a minimum amount of surface parking, access to the parking that we

1:01:03 ↗ have within our garage structure, and really highlighting the two main

1:01:09 ↗ arrival points for the project, the main front door for the project and then the

1:01:15 ↗ connection at the lower level back out to the community spaces that we created along.

1:01:23 ↗ side of Schneider Creek. Looking more

1:01:29 ↗ closely at our arrival point, by the time you get down

1:01:35 ↗ to the arrival, you're approximately 14 or 15 feet below Newport Way.

1:01:41 ↗ So it was important for us to make that feel natural in terms of its

1:01:46 ↗ connection back to Newport and what it felt like when you were at that arrival

1:01:50 ↗ point. And so we've terraced, we're doing quite a few

1:01:56 ↗ landscape terraces back up to the street. As Amy said, we're enhancing

1:02:03 ↗ the trail system along Newport. We've added the planting strip and the new

1:02:10 ↗ trees that are part of that streetscape, as well as the neighborhood

1:02:17 ↗ street landscape concept. We

1:02:24 ↗ have created a level arrival plaza that allows for

1:02:29 ↗ vehicle turnarounds so people can come in, circulate underneath the port co-chair, and either

1:02:35 ↗ pick up or drop off someone safely. For vans, they would go down to the

1:02:41 ↗ end and turn around and come back and pick up people on the passenger side

1:02:46 ↗ of their vehicle.

1:02:54 ↗ a view of some of the elements that we wanted to incorporate into the project.

1:02:59 ↗ We're using traditional materials with lap siding and steel handrails

1:03:05 ↗ and then introducing timber elements as part of the port cocher, as part of the

1:03:10 ↗ dining facility that we have on the Schneider Creek side. And traditional gable forms with

1:03:16 ↗ dormers using very traditional window details white trim,

1:03:23 ↗ so that it's a muted, more familiar palette of materials that I think would

1:03:30 ↗ feel comfortable in this neighborhood. As you move

1:03:36 ↗ down the community street that goes in front of the facility, there are a number

1:03:42 ↗ of units that are pretty close to being at that street grade. It gets progressively

1:03:50 ↗ further separated the further down that street as you go to the south. But we've

1:03:55 ↗ created front stoops, the same kind of street standard where we'd have parallel

1:04:00 ↗ parking, parking strip with trees, the sidewalk, and then a generous planning buffer

1:04:07 ↗ to the building. Also, as Amy had

1:04:13 ↗ pointed out, we've created a ADA accessible route coming off of Newport, again coming from

1:04:19 ↗ the most active direction

1:04:25 ↗ back to the town center. And that arrives at this arrival plaza,

1:04:31 ↗ and there'll be a clear, safe passage across that entry drive to get to the

1:04:36 ↗ front door. This is looking at the project from Newport. So as

1:04:42 ↗ you can see, the building is set down from the street elevation, but

1:04:48 ↗ it's a very nice landscape buffer between the project and

1:04:55 ↗ Newport Way. And then this is the top end of that ADA

1:05:01 ↗ path. So we'll have a small shelter, a place for people to pause, kind of

1:05:06 ↗ a rest area that's associated with the access down to our building entry.

1:05:16 ↗ Then on the east side of the project, we drop down a full

1:05:22 ↗ story. So essentially we're a four story building with a daylight basement.

1:05:28 ↗ I mean, technically it could be considered a five story building, but it's really four

1:05:32 ↗ stories from Newport and five stories out of the ground on the on the east

1:05:38 ↗ side of the project. So we wanted to really play down the vehicle

1:05:44 ↗ importance along that area and pave across that exit coming out of the main community

1:05:50 ↗ spaces that are in the center of the building that gives access to the community

1:05:54 ↗ spaces. So we'll have a covered shelter and some open picnic area and then

1:06:00 ↗ a series of raised planters for personal pea patch gardening or just

1:06:08 ↗ sitting out there and enjoying the connection to the open space that's

1:06:13 ↗ created as part of the creek buffer. And the creek buffer in itself,

1:06:20 ↗ I think, because we've reduced it, we've enhanced it, so it'll end up

1:06:25 ↗ eventually having about the same density and coverage that the WSDOT

1:06:34 ↗ conservation easement currently enjoys. So it'll be a continuation of that green space

1:06:41 ↗ all along the creek buffer on both sides.

1:06:47 ↗ This is just a section showing the relationship with Newport being the red line

1:06:54 ↗ and then the elevation at our building entry and then step down

1:06:59 ↗ and elevation at as we exit out on the east side. So you can see

1:07:04 ↗ that the building is siting itself to the lowest elevation of the site and coming

1:07:09 ↗ up from there and letting the roadway and the terraces define the open spaces on

1:07:14 ↗ either side of it. As Greg had mentioned, if

1:07:20 ↗ you think of this building as almost a lodge or a resort, it acts that

1:07:26 ↗ way in the sense that there's a really strong emphasis on the main entry

1:07:32 ↗ All the public community spaces are centered around that space. So there's

1:07:38 ↗ a large dining facility that's a double height space, as well as the entry and

1:07:45 ↗ main waiting area. We also have a private dining area that faces back out to

1:07:50 ↗ our arrival plaza and a series of other

1:07:56 ↗ rooms that are community-based rooms, both craft and wellness clinic and

1:08:02 ↗ and those sorts of activities. Again,

1:08:08 ↗ this is showing our front entry. Then, facilities that are on

1:08:14 ↗ the lower level would include a fitness area, yoga, a main arrival

1:08:20 ↗ point at that point, and then we have a small theater that's cut into the

1:08:23 ↗ hillside, so it's on the buried side of the building, and then our mail delivery.

1:08:29 ↗ shows the emphasis of connecting those spaces back to the community spaces. So it's really

1:08:35 ↗ important that the vehicle traffic is coming through at a very slow rate,

1:08:41 ↗ and then it provides access into our parking structure that's buried underneath the

1:08:47 ↗ north half of the building. This is a view looking

1:08:53 ↗ from that open space area that's on the east side adjacent to the Schneider Creek

1:09:00 ↗ buffer, looking back at the main dining facility and the main

1:09:06 ↗ living room that's behind these trees. And then on top of that dining facility, there's

1:09:11 ↗ a breakout space and a lounge that's on the third level that will also afford

1:09:17 ↗ views to the south and back up to the foothills.

1:09:28 ↗ Again, this is a view looking as you would be headed west on I-90

1:09:35 ↗ with the building set pretty well into the hillside. And eventually, there'll

1:09:41 ↗ be quite a grove of trees, both deciduous and evergreen, that'll be a foreground to

1:09:46 ↗ this building as a part of the creek buffer.

1:09:54 ↗ And as Amy had mentioned, We paid a lot of attention to the modulation of

1:09:59 ↗ the facade, both vertically and horizontally, and really wanted to put emphasis on the

1:10:05 ↗ center element of the building, as well as identifying the two elements that

1:10:11 ↗ formed the bookends on either end of the project. And the building itself has

1:10:16 ↗ two distinct wings that follow the contours of the

1:10:22 ↗ existing grade and take advantage of the views of that. So

1:10:28 ↗ from the Newport Way side, it really is four stories out of the ground,

1:10:35 ↗ and at some point close to where that main entry is, we're actually

1:10:41 ↗ just two stories out of the earth, I'm sorry, three stories, because we were holding

1:10:45 ↗ the grade up against the building in that location.

1:10:52 ↗ And then on the east elevation, On the south end, we have residential units down

1:10:57 ↗ at that lowest level. And on the north wing, that's

1:11:03 ↗ where we have our parking underneath the building. And at the end of that wing

1:11:10 ↗ is where we have an indoor pool with breakout facilities that face out to the

1:11:15 ↗ creek as well. Color palette is

1:11:22 ↗ sort of northwest generated with deeper tones and

1:11:27 ↗ more muted colors. We're not trying to call a lot of attention to the building.

1:11:33 ↗ We'd like it to feel like it belongs there. Again, we incorporated the use of

1:11:39 ↗ steeply pitched roofs with darker charcoal shingles on it to give a

1:11:45 ↗ better roof scape looking down from the neighborhoods that are above us to the west.

1:11:53 ↗ And then the use of stone as part of the base element of the dining

1:11:58 ↗ facility is a base element for some of the elements that are on the arrival

1:12:04 ↗ side as well. So

1:12:10 ↗ that concludes my presentation on the building, but we would like to take this opportunity

1:12:16 ↗ to talk briefly about the two conditions that Amy mentioned

1:12:23 ↗ relative to connectivity.

1:12:29 ↗ And primarily, the suggestion of

1:12:37 ↗ connecting through to the adjacent property to the south. And for a number of reasons,

1:12:43 ↗ we feel that this is probably not the best for this project

1:12:49 ↗ and the people that eventually call us their home. mainly because

1:12:55 ↗ we would not have any control over how that access gets used. We're

1:13:01 ↗ catering to a group of people who are in their later years and enjoy the

1:13:07 ↗ privacy and security and safety that this design affords them, and I

1:13:13 ↗ think opening up that connection takes away a lot of

1:13:19 ↗ that and I think would be looked upon as a negative, just because we have

1:13:23 ↗ no control over who or what type of development would happen on that

1:13:30 ↗ south property. Even if it were six town homes, depending on who chose to

1:13:35 ↗ rent there, their lifestyle might have them coming home late at night, making

1:13:41 ↗ noise, and it could be disruptive. We've gone to a lot of trouble to make

1:13:47 ↗ this a very walkable site with the trails and the way the streets are graded

1:13:51 ↗ and the connectivity to the open space. We just feel that a

1:13:57 ↗ lot of that would be compromised if we lost control over how the

1:14:03 ↗ site is used after hours. There's very little traffic generated by this project because

1:14:09 ↗ most of the people don't drive or drive very infrequently and certainly don't

1:14:15 ↗ go out after hours. And so we'd like the

1:14:22 ↗ commission to take that into consideration when they decide on that as whether it wants

1:14:27 ↗ to be a condition of approval for this project. The other is

1:14:33 ↗ the bridge crossing that we talked about earlier across Schneider Creek. And I

1:14:41 ↗ I'm totally supportive of that as a pedestrian connection.

1:14:48 ↗ I think there's an opportunity for both properties to share within that

1:14:54 ↗ common open space that we've created. I think if it's opened up to

1:15:00 ↗ vehicular traffic, it creates a whole other set of issues, especially with

1:15:07 ↗ Fish and Wildlife. I think their desire is to see that whole corridor be as

1:15:14 ↗ wildlife and fish friendly as possible. In fact, their suggestion was if we do a

1:15:19 ↗ bridge to have it as an open grate so that more light can come to

1:15:24 ↗ the surface of the water and allow vegetation to grow there and allow more sunlight

1:15:29 ↗ to come as that bridge crosses the creek. If it went to a

1:15:34 ↗ vehicle bridge, it would become much wider, you would have to close it off because

1:15:39 ↗ of the need to contain any oil spills that might come from any vehicle that

1:15:44 ↗ crosses it. It becomes a fairly large structure for

1:15:51 ↗ crossing a creek that's basically less than four feet wide on a good day.

1:15:58 ↗ So again, we totally support the connectivity from a

1:16:04 ↗ pedestrian level because I think both projects would benefit from the kinds of

1:16:10 ↗ open spaces that we're creating for the people that are living there and even the

1:16:14 ↗ public. I mean, the trail system is open to the public and I think it'd

1:16:18 ↗ be a nice experience to be able to easily and safely traverse both

1:16:24 ↗ projects. So, given that, again, we,

1:16:32 ↗ our concern about

1:16:38 ↗ developing that beyond what's logically reasonable. So

1:16:45 ↗ in conclusion, you know, we really appreciate working with the city staff and

1:16:51 ↗ how diligent everyone's been about making sure that we are doing a project that

1:16:57 ↗ complies with the Central Issaquah Plan goals, design goals, and planning

1:17:03 ↗ goals. And we look forward to being able to

1:17:09 ↗ create a project that will attract people in the community to want to continue

1:17:15 ↗ to live in this community and age on site instead of having

1:17:21 ↗ to leave their neighborhood. Thank you for your time, and we look forward to your

1:17:26 ↗ input. So

1:17:32 ↗ at this point, we will open the meeting to public comments.

1:17:38 ↗ Again, if you have not already and you wish to speak publicly, please sign the

1:17:43 ↗ white sheets there. And we have a number of people, and we're glad to see

1:17:48 ↗ this many members of the public here. We always are. But because we have the

1:17:52 ↗ number of people here that we do that may want to seek the opportunity to

1:17:57 ↗ make a public comment, we would ask you to try the best you can to

1:18:01 ↗ hold your comments to five minutes. OK? Thank you.

1:18:24 ↗ Good evening everyone. My name is Tina Conforti and I live on 1220 Oakwood Place,

1:18:30 ↗ northwest, Issaquan. I heard a lot about the

1:18:36 ↗ Sinner House and I like to say clarify a little bit

1:18:42 ↗ more what are the amenities. Could you speak into the mic please? Sure. I'd like

1:18:47 ↗ to clarify more what they are the amenities for the CNR 55 and plus. I

1:18:53 ↗ know that you have this swimming pool and garden and you said it's going to

1:18:58 ↗ be had a little bit extra more the daily routine

1:19:04 ↗ and I heard about it's going to be a health club. Is there going to

1:19:09 ↗ be a available for them. Also, what I didn't hear

1:19:15 ↗ about tonight, it is the public and the common use area for

1:19:21 ↗ people adjustable for person with a disability. What are the accessibility?

1:19:28 ↗ Because I didn't hear anything in your presentation about it. I did

1:19:34 ↗ send in to my comments to the city of Issaquah. Are all

1:19:40 ↗ units most of the have all of the accessible use for people with a disability?

1:19:46 ↗ So they do. So another comments that I

1:19:52 ↗ have is in regard to the noise of the I-90. The apartments

1:19:58 ↗ are having central hair or there is no central hair condition?

1:20:08 ↗ Ma'am, excuse me, this is more of an opportunity for you to make comments

1:20:13 ↗ and or ask questions, but they will be answered if you have specific questions. My

1:20:17 ↗ question is, is there provide central air condition for CNR 55 and plus?

1:20:23 ↗ And if it is not central air condition provide in the CNR

1:20:29 ↗ housing, it is my observation as a resident

1:20:36 ↗ from the area, I believe the high 90, it caused a lot of

1:20:41 ↗ noise, especially in the summertime, when we have our window open

1:20:48 ↗ and we can't sleep in the night because the noise from the freeway, the high

1:20:53 ↗ 90. So my concern is, if you think for 55 and plus,

1:20:59 ↗ the enjoyable time, it's sleeping at night in quiet and peace. So that's

1:21:05 ↗ why I'm asking how is going to be central here or do you have a

1:21:11 ↗ special restoration window there protecting from the noise? And

1:21:17 ↗ where the bedroom from the 55 and plus is going to fit to? Is going

1:21:23 ↗ to fit to the high 90? That they can't sleep in the night? So

1:21:29 ↗ those are my concern. I think people after they leave, 55

1:21:35 ↗ and plus, they should live in enjoyable place. They should have enough amenity for them

1:21:41 ↗ to keep them busy. It's the pleasure time. Also,

1:21:47 ↗ I believe they should provide the transportation and not only like a

1:21:53 ↗ van be accommodated to them. It should be a transportation also available on Newport Way.

1:22:01 ↗ they can move around. That's not just where that's a restraint thing to go. So

1:22:06 ↗ those are my concern. I appreciate it. Thank you. And

1:22:14 ↗ ma'am, I don't believe you signed. Oh, you did? There's another sheet there? All right,

1:22:18 ↗ all right, thank you. Tina Crawford? Is that you? Oh, I'm

1:22:24 ↗ sorry. All right, that's the only name that I have here. So if there's somebody

1:22:27 ↗ else that wishes to speak. Yes, ma'am.

1:22:40 ↗ My name is Geraldine Carey and my address is 955 17th Avenue, Northwest

1:22:45 ↗ Issaquah. My address is on SR 900, but I access my

1:22:51 ↗ home off of Newport Way, very close to the intersection of SR 900 and Newport

1:22:57 ↗ Way. My concern with this development and all the developments is

1:23:03 ↗ what are you going to do to provide for issues of traffic

1:23:10 ↗ jams as this road gets built out with all the developments. My understanding is there's

1:23:16 ↗ going to be something like 2,000 more vehicle traffic

1:23:22 ↗ uses of this road a day and I don't see any types of traffic

1:23:33 ↗ roundabouts or traffic signals that will help people access or control the flow

1:23:39 ↗ of the traffic on Newport Way. I'm wondering if when all these projects are built

1:23:45 ↗ out, you're going to have gridlock from Eastgate all the way to SR 900 on

1:23:51 ↗ Newport Way because people, traffic will not move. I mean, I don't, I've lived here

1:23:56 ↗ 37 years and traffic is building up more and more and

1:24:02 ↗ not require these developments to help mitigate all the flow of traffic

1:24:08 ↗ is going to be unbelievable. I can't believe that you wouldn't require more than just

1:24:14 ↗ making a boulevard look nice. And I would like to see, I can't quite

1:24:21 ↗ comprehend how this development fits in on Newport Way because everything they have presented, I

1:24:26 ↗ came a little bit late And I didn't see I see the buildings, but I

1:24:30 ↗ don't see how it impacts all the other developments that are on Newport Way Where

1:24:35 ↗ does this driveway that you access Newport Way meet the ones that are already built?

1:24:41 ↗ And I think that's very important for people to know where this accent I this

1:24:46 ↗ is a senior development and I can see people getting up to the

1:24:52 ↗ Access to Newport Way and kind of looking to the right looking to the left

1:24:55 ↗ trying to figure out when to enter the traffic getting halfway into Newport Way and

1:25:00 ↗ getting broadsided. I mean, to me, you're not providing any kind of

1:25:06 ↗ buffer for people entering and exiting off of Newport Way. And I think it's important

1:25:11 ↗ that you think about how traffic is going to flow to these developments on Newport

1:25:16 ↗ Way. Thank you. Thank you,

1:25:22 ↗ ma'am. Ma'am, if you haven't signed, would you please sign in? we can have a

1:25:26 ↗ record to connect with you. Thank you. My name is

1:25:32 ↗ Elizabeth Sanders and I live at 2700 Northwest Pinecone Drive, also referred to

1:25:38 ↗ as existing multi-family dwelling. And it's located right behind

1:25:44 ↗ there. And we were initially told that this was going to be a single story

1:25:49 ↗ structure. And obviously that is not the case. It appears to be a

1:25:56 ↗ three slash five story structure, depending on how you cut it.

1:26:02 ↗ And in addition to all the concerns that the other residents have voiced, I've already

1:26:06 ↗ noticed an increase in traffic. There are street sweepers out there seven days a week,

1:26:12 ↗ constantly going 10 miles an hour up and down Newport Way. We've been backed up

1:26:15 ↗ 10, 15 cars in a row. Even though they're only supposed to be doing

1:26:21 ↗ construction on weekdays, I've heard construction on weekends as well.

1:26:27 ↗ So that's only going to get worse as this goes on. Another concern I have

1:26:32 ↗ is I don't think they're meeting the view requirements that they say they are.

1:26:38 ↗ If you're looking at it from a very egocentric perspective from a resident living in

1:26:43 ↗ this community, sure, they have a great view. They've probably got a great view of

1:26:47 ↗ Lake Sammamish, the same view that residents in Bentley House used to have. The reason

1:26:52 ↗ why we moved there is gone. There is no need to have a five-story structure

1:26:57 ↗ there. Fours would be just fine and we could still maintain our view. The only

1:27:02 ↗ person this entire has even mentioned existing residents and the people around it and how

1:27:08 ↗ it's gonna impact us is that woman who just spoke a few minutes ago. I

1:27:12 ↗ would love to personally invite any one of these people to come to my home

1:27:16 ↗ and look out my living room window, have dinner with me and my family, and

1:27:20 ↗ see what we're going to have to put up with. I love the idea of

1:27:23 ↗ having senior housing near us. I absolutely love it, but I only question the need

1:27:28 ↗ to have a five slash three-story structure right across the street. I just don't think

1:27:34 ↗ it's necessary and I feel like we've been misled.

1:27:40 ↗ Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else?

1:27:49 ↗ Oh no, the ma'am, if you, I'll tell you what, if I'm gonna give you

1:27:52 ↗ this, if you'd sign this one here please. And there's another white one out there

1:27:57 ↗ somewhere, we wanna try to keep them separate. DAVID BURRAGE, Yeah, if you

1:28:02 ↗ would sign up on the white one too. That way we can keep track of

1:28:06 ↗ who is expressing concerns about which topic. Right, so go ahead.

1:28:14 ↗ That's for the administrative adjustment standards. And I believe you did speak on that. This

1:28:18 ↗ one is. DAVID BURRAGE, Well,

1:28:24 ↗ the comment period for the adjustment of standards has ended. This is for the.

1:28:31 ↗ site development permit. And you can speak now, sir, if you'd like to on that.

1:28:43 ↗ So just for clarification, if you still want to provide comments for the administrative adjustment

1:28:48 ↗ of standards, you can just email me. I should have

1:28:54 ↗ my contact information and the notice of application, and I believe you received one of

1:28:59 ↗ I've already submitted the comments to you, Amy. I just wanted to bring it forward

1:29:03 ↗ to the Commission here. And it was, my name is Hart Sugarman. I introduced myself

1:29:09 ↗ previously. 20 years living in the area. Administrative adjustment

1:29:14 ↗ AAS16-00002

1:29:20 ↗ is regarding vehicular traffic lane adjustment on Newport Way.

1:29:27 ↗ from 11 feet to 10 feet. That was not brought up earlier in the discussion

1:29:31 ↗ today, but it's one of the items associated with this senior living project.

1:29:38 ↗ And Newport Way is a very busy street. It's only getting busier now as more

1:29:42 ↗ construction takes place with the development of the Gateway Project, Reva Town Homes, the

1:29:48 ↗ Bergsma Project, and now this. The street is maxing out.

1:29:54 ↗ Narrowing the lane does not make sense. when you're dealing with a street that has

1:29:58 ↗ elevation, has curves, has limited sight lines, and now you're talking about

1:30:05 ↗ elderly people trying to get out of a driveway, negotiating right or left as this

1:30:09 ↗ lady previously mentioned. There's been accidents on the road, there's been deaths on

1:30:15 ↗ the road. We need to look at improving the road first before we build

1:30:21 ↗ all these developments. Because if you build all the developments and then go back redesign

1:30:26 ↗ the road, you're just gonna impact more residents, and I'm not sure how they're gonna

1:30:31 ↗ even travel east or west on the road while it's under construction. And the city

1:30:38 ↗ has not even decided if it's gonna be a parkway or a three-lane road with

1:30:41 ↗ a center turn lane. That's still to be determined. One other comment on the project

1:30:47 ↗ is this pedestrian bridge that'll be over Schneider Creek at 10 feet.

1:30:53 ↗ This definitely has to be limited to pedestrians and bicycles and not for vehicular traffic.

1:30:58 ↗ Here we have in downtown Issaquanel the Confluence Park where they designed a 12-foot bridge

1:31:03 ↗ that's strictly for pedestrians. I thank you for your consideration.

1:31:09 ↗ Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on the site development

1:31:14 ↗ permit?

1:31:26 ↗ Good evening, David Kepler, 255 Southeast Andrew Street, pretty much speaking as

1:31:32 ↗ Vice President for Advocacy for Issaquay Alps Trails Club. I've got, there's other

1:31:38 ↗ issues, but I'll stick to those that are more tied to the Trails Club issues.

1:31:45 ↗ First of all, we need a correction on the map. It showed Cougar Mountain State

1:31:48 ↗ Park and it's Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. Poor Harvey Manning would have I had

1:31:54 ↗ a heart attack if he was alive. Okay, the entrance road is real

1:32:00 ↗ steep. The sidewalk seems to want to parallel that and also

1:32:06 ↗ match it steep. To me, that sidewalk does not have to be parallel to the

1:32:10 ↗ entrance road. If it could be blended out so the grade could be less, that

1:32:16 ↗ would be better. It's not gonna meet ADA standards, but having it less steep would

1:32:20 ↗ sure be an advantage. And then

1:32:26 ↗ the other trail coming in has been called the ADA, American Disability Act

1:32:32 ↗ Trail, but I've heard it's for bikes as well. I don't know how wide it's

1:32:37 ↗ proposed to be and it's a Zorro kind of thing. It's got all these zigzags

1:32:42 ↗ on it. It's certainly not appropriate for bikes and I don't think you want to

1:32:47 ↗ have that as a good straight forward

1:32:53 ↗ A-D-A accessible trail with minimal grade and you don't want bikes on it.

1:33:00 ↗ The Mountain Sound Greenway Trail is on the north side of I-90 as it

1:33:06 ↗ crosses Mercer Island on the floating bridge, of course, and the north side on the

1:33:11 ↗ East Channel Bridge, and it's in the Mercer Slough, it's on the north side of

1:33:16 ↗ I-90, but somewhere between Mercer Slough and Factoria, it switches over to the south side.

1:33:23 ↗ of I-90 and Bellevue is spending millions of dollars trying to figure out how to

1:33:28 ↗ get that trail continuing on the south side of I-90 up past Victoria and Eastgate.

1:33:35 ↗ And they have people working on it and say it's real pricey.

1:33:41 ↗ Bikes that are coming on that trail And these road bike people, I mean,

1:33:47 ↗ coming across from Seattle doing this, then going around Lake Sammamish, coming back around the

1:33:52 ↗ north end of Lake Washington, back to Seattle is not out of range for the

1:33:58 ↗ serious road bikers at all. How are they coming on Newport Way, and how are

1:34:03 ↗ they gonna get over to Gilman? The crossing there is not

1:34:09 ↗ as clear. I think that needs to be worked out better, because we're talking people

1:34:12 ↗ that are gonna be riding bikes fast. We're not talking about just kids on bikes

1:34:17 ↗ or something, just kind of going slow. We're talking about a major bike corridor. They're

1:34:21 ↗ not going to want to go all the way up to 900 and then double

1:34:25 ↗ back. If they want to get back over to the state park side, they want

1:34:28 ↗ to get to Gilman or whatever, they need to be crossing through this greater area

1:34:32 ↗ beyond this project. But you've got to make sure if you're going to want bikes

1:34:38 ↗ through that project on this 10-foot bridge, is probably gonna need a 10-foot bridge,

1:34:45 ↗ and I don't believe there should be motor vehicles on that bridge for sure.

1:34:53 ↗ So I think that whole business needs to be clarified. The

1:34:59 ↗ trees, there's gonna be a battle, I mean, the trees along Snyder Creek

1:35:05 ↗ Are we going to see big cottonwood trees that start blocking the views of Lake

1:35:08 ↗ Sammamish and those kinds of things? Or are we going to see how that's managed

1:35:12 ↗ and what kinds of trees are there is going to be important? And I think

1:35:17 ↗ over time maybe looking at the trees and not I-90 would be an improvement anyway.

1:35:23 ↗ Parking. If the parking is maxed out, OK, let's go to the worst case. It's

1:35:29 ↗ Mother's Day. All these people are coming to visit their mother there. Where are those

1:35:34 ↗ people gonna park? There is absolutely, they're gonna be parking, going to have to go

1:35:37 ↗ to the existing single family neighborhoods or somewhere else to even park. I think the

1:35:42 ↗ parking, allowed parking, or the parking is just not sure

1:35:48 ↗ it's there. I don't, I just have real doubts about whether it's adequate parking.

1:35:55 ↗ And that, you start having people being mad about where they park and they park

1:35:59 ↗ on, places they shouldn't be parking, including blocking

1:36:05 ↗ sidewalks and things like that. The old vet property,

1:36:13 ↗ I'm not sure, I don't know who's gonna own that property, but if I were

1:36:18 ↗ the owner of that property, I'd be kind of concerned about forcing me to give

1:36:22 ↗ a road to this project. I'm not sure how they want, where their logical

1:36:28 ↗ site distance and interface with Newport is and that kind of thing, but mandating that

1:36:34 ↗ connection there could be a problem for that adjoining property owner.

1:36:41 ↗ Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that wishes to

1:36:47 ↗ speak regarding the site development permit?

1:36:57 ↗ My name is Peggy Foster. I live at 2254 Newport Way Northwest in Sammamish Point,

1:37:02 ↗ and I've been there about nine years. I've got a couple of concerns and a

1:37:06 ↗ couple of questions. So it looks like there's 146 units, and how many parking

1:37:12 ↗ spaces? 78. No. Yes, 110.

1:37:25 ↗ So it's 110 and how many of those are for employees? 32. Okay.

1:37:33 ↗ So that's less than one parking space per unit and that's not even including for

1:37:38 ↗ the employees. I personally have a number of friends that are over 80 that drive

1:37:44 ↗ every single day. So if your logic is that people over 70 don't drive, then

1:37:50 ↗ I can shoot holes in that theory. So parking is a big concern especially for

1:37:55 ↗ people in the communities surrounding that don't have gated entrance

1:38:02 ↗ So I agree with his comment about that It appears there's only one vehicle access

1:38:08 ↗ into the project. Is that right? Yes, okay, so that's a concern too

1:38:16 ↗ It just doesn't even make sense for this size of the project living

1:38:22 ↗ on Newport Way, I constantly, every single day, see what happens when we

1:38:28 ↗ have a lot of rain. And water saturation, runoff,

1:38:34 ↗ I can't see how building all of these projects along Newport Way, how that's gonna

1:38:40 ↗ help that situation at all. I can only see it getting worse. And at Sammamish

1:38:44 ↗ Point, we're concerned about the foundation that we currently have.

1:38:52 ↗ So I just want to mention that. And also would like to ask the commission

1:38:58 ↗ to consider the existing residents that live along Newport Way, putting all these

1:39:03 ↗ new projects out with these really high building heights, and consider how it affects the

1:39:09 ↗ people that live in the surrounding area, how it's changing their lives and their lifestyles.

1:39:16 ↗ So that's basically what I wanted to say. Thank you.

1:39:25 ↗ Is there anyone else?

1:39:37 ↗ Hi, I'm Martine Delmuele. I live at 2654 Northwest Pine Cone Place.

1:39:43 ↗ What I would say, no pine nor cone is to be found, and Amy found

1:39:47 ↗ that very funny, but I kind of found that a little bit tragic. Could I

1:39:50 ↗ ask you to speak a little louder, please? Yes, I'm trying. Like I said, I'm

1:39:55 ↗ new to this. I've never done this before, so please be generous when you're judging

1:40:00 ↗ my performance here. Maybe next time I'll be better. So I live

1:40:06 ↗ in the development above this one ptarmigan, which I

1:40:11 ↗ bought a house there two years ago. I guess you have approved that development also.

1:40:17 ↗ I feel the same like the people from Bentley House, that indeed we are kind

1:40:23 ↗ of like being because we bought the houses with views, we bought the houses and

1:40:29 ↗ paid for them and expecting a certain way of reasonability with the development of the

1:40:34 ↗ land underneath it, which actually struck me when I opened this application and I

1:40:40 ↗ thought five-story building, nobody can be serious about anything like that here. But I guess

1:40:45 ↗ we are very serious about it and it scares me. I put concerns to Amy,

1:40:50 ↗ and she said, I shouldn't be really that concerned because I will only have to

1:40:54 ↗ look at rooftops. Well, OK, now I look at an open valley. I don't look

1:40:59 ↗ at rooftops, and neither do people who are actually living lower than I do on

1:41:03 ↗ that. These are going to have to look at walls, I suppose, not even rooftops.

1:41:07 ↗ So I'm just wondering, You could say it's my problem when I

1:41:13 ↗ bought a house, I should have looked around and see what Issaquah was going to

1:41:17 ↗ do or what the height standards are going to be escalating all the time. I

1:41:21 ↗ guess lately you have to be able to afford a $1.5 million home in order

1:41:25 ↗ to be a little bit safe from development in Issaquah. I said I came from

1:41:31 ↗ Bellevue, I thought this was going to be really nice and a beautiful area, I'd

1:41:34 ↗ love to come here. Like I said, I'm in shock. That's

1:41:40 ↗ pretty much it for what's going to be done. There are

1:41:47 ↗ other areas also of concern, like the parking spaces that are not going to be

1:41:51 ↗ available for the people. I feel mostly like I know the Wolf Company

1:41:57 ↗ decided to get into the senior housing building business, and this was

1:42:03 ↗ When I looked at the video of the 5th of August, they said they only

1:42:07 ↗ made that decision about five months ago, before that time. So it was really a

1:42:11 ↗ quick decision. They probably wanted to find out, OK, we want to get into that

1:42:15 ↗ business. Where do we have land? So OK, we have land there in Issaquah. Let's

1:42:19 ↗ just use that for our purpose. I can understand it from their point of view,

1:42:23 ↗ but I feel like this unit is crammed all the way in between I-90 and

1:42:28 ↗ Newport Way. I also feel like the way

1:42:35 ↗ it's kind of like interacting with that first part of phase one, that I don't

1:42:39 ↗ understand why you would put a five-story tall building in front of a three-story development.

1:42:45 ↗ Why would these people have to look at that wall like we do have to

1:42:48 ↗ do? Why can't we just make it either a three-story with a pitched roof,

1:42:54 ↗ or we can make it then a four-story with a flat roof with plants on

1:42:58 ↗ it, but so at least of the people, it's like a win-win for everybody. It's

1:43:03 ↗ not just I come in here in the neighborhood, I just put my little big

1:43:06 ↗ block here and actually excuse my language, but to hell with all of you who've

1:43:11 ↗ already been here before. I feel like it's a little bit of a selfish point

1:43:16 ↗ of view to just whatever there regardless of anybody who was there before bentley house

1:43:21 ↗ also has many people who lived there and who had views before and who kind

1:43:25 ↗ of like like it just being put a wall in front of you when you

1:43:28 ↗ just got that development there and you're part of it i think it's a unfair,

1:43:34 ↗ and I'm sure there are other ways to deal with it. Like I said, we

1:43:37 ↗ could do a three-story with a sloped roof if you want that. We could also

1:43:42 ↗ break up the structure, which is a very long, tall structure in that area, which

1:43:47 ↗ could be cut up with different parts of buildings, three stories high. And you could

1:43:51 ↗ do a connection between the different parts of the building with glass corridors, where you

1:43:56 ↗ could see trees and flowers. And so it would give more open space, rather than

1:44:01 ↗ a tall, long, big wall for all of us to look over. So I think

1:44:05 ↗ there are some ways to work with it. I know it will make less money

1:44:09 ↗ that way if there's only a three story for the applicant. But I don't know

1:44:13 ↗ if this is really only thing we have to look for if that is the

1:44:18 ↗ case or would say yes okay then let's just go for it and obliterate everything

1:44:23 ↗ and everybody around in the way of what you want to do if that is

1:44:28 ↗ what it is then so be it i just wanted to tell you how we

1:44:32 ↗ feel about it over there i have also a petition here from the bentley

1:44:38 ↗ people there's 13 signatures on it in which we bring

1:44:44 ↗ like explain what we would like to see instead of what's being proposed. And that

1:44:49 ↗ is my talk. Like I said, next time I'll do better. I'm sorry. Thank you.

1:45:12 ↗ There aren't very many of you. Hi, my name's Connie Marsh. I have a store

1:45:18 ↗ at 1175 Northwest Gilman Boulevard, Suite B11. And I sent you

1:45:24 ↗ written comments that actually have recommendations for conditions. So I'm not going to get that

1:45:30 ↗ detailed, but I hope you read them, because the only way to get change is

1:45:33 ↗ by to have conditions, right? And so I'm going to do a quick review.

1:45:42 ↗ I think the entrance is un- for seniors and potentially even

1:45:48 ↗ non-seniors. I have an 86-year-old mother. I would never put her in a

1:45:54 ↗ place with a turn off of a road like Newport like that. It makes

1:46:00 ↗ much more sense to me to access this parcel through the Gateway apartment

1:46:06 ↗ parcel. My understanding is they're contemplating a roundabout there. And then making the bridge

1:46:12 ↗ over the creek an actual motorized bridge with room for

1:46:18 ↗ peds on either side. Even me, and you know how green I am, would prefer

1:46:23 ↗ to impact Schneider Creek than have one elderly person harmed going into

1:46:29 ↗ the entrance where it is. So I realize the standards may say it's okay, but

1:46:34 ↗ sometimes you just have to say to yourself, wow, do I want my mother to

1:46:39 ↗ have to do that every day?

1:46:46 ↗ I don't know that you all know and applicants know that with the Central

1:46:52 ↗ Issaquah plan, it became very clear that the

1:46:58 ↗ street side owners would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping. So I'm not sure how

1:47:03 ↗ clear that is with the shared use trail and its landscaping and who is responsible

1:47:09 ↗ for the care and feeding of the shared use and lighting and all of those

1:47:15 ↗ things. But I think it needs to be very clear because people have to program

1:47:19 ↗ that into what they're going to be doing with their properties.

1:47:25 ↗ So I don't know if you remember from Gateway Apartments, there is in theory a

1:47:30 ↗ pedestrian crossing over I-90 planned for Gateway Apartments.

1:47:37 ↗ And so when you're walking down Newport Way or coming up Over I-90,

1:47:43 ↗ you end up by Schneider Creek. And this does not feel like an intuitive

1:47:49 ↗ pedestrian conduit going through Gateway Senior to a

1:47:54 ↗ potential crossing. It doesn't feel welcoming to a pedestrian, especially if you

1:48:01 ↗ are coming east from the west. Do you want to go down

1:48:07 ↗ through their parcel to get to Schneider Creek? How do you do that? I look

1:48:12 ↗ at the corridor and I'm sort of guessing, well, you might go here and you

1:48:16 ↗ might go there. And it's unclear as to whether this property even wants

1:48:23 ↗ general public going through their parcel. I have no problem with the vet clinic land

1:48:28 ↗ having access because if these have their entrance on Newport and you have a, in

1:48:34 ↗ theory, roundabout at Gateway apartment, I don't know how you could create another

1:48:40 ↗ access that is safe from this little parcel wedge between the two on Newport Way.

1:48:45 ↗ So I think that is actually a reasonably brilliant mechanism for solving that problem

1:48:51 ↗ because it was going to be an issue. I sort of think the Woonerf Bridge

1:48:56 ↗ is ridiculously amusing and almost appealing because it is funky as all get out.

1:49:02 ↗ I don't think I'll get my way of getting you to expand the bridge, but

1:49:08 ↗ if you want an interesting focal point, that would be something that people would go

1:49:13 ↗ play on, I think. I don't know when the feedback is going to happen on

1:49:18 ↗ the SEPA comments, as SEPA is due tomorrow, and I haven't heard anything back from

1:49:22 ↗ those. And I believe the

1:49:28 ↗ rest is already written down, and hopefully you read it. Thank you very much.

1:49:42 ↗ I'm Mary Lynch and I recited 2690 Northwest Oak Crest Drive, Issaquah, Washington. I just

1:49:47 ↗ want to concur with what the other people said and especially I submitted comments

1:49:53 ↗ related to what Connie was just mentioning that has to do with the circulation and

1:50:00 ↗ With existing as proposed entrance, I feel it is unsafe. I also would remind

1:50:06 ↗ you of Providence Point. And every time I've gone to a meeting over the last,

1:50:11 ↗ I don't know how many years, Providence Point seniors are saying their approach should have

1:50:16 ↗ been built with a stoplight. They're on their road and they're still asking it during

1:50:21 ↗ the pedestrian crosswalk study this summer. We had a lot of people from there that

1:50:25 ↗ also said we need a stoplight. And so for us to put something in like

1:50:30 ↗ this on Newport Way, which is highly congested and is only going to get worse

1:50:33 ↗ without a stoplight, I think is very wrong. If we were to take it

1:50:39 ↗ across the bridge, and my comments, written comments, did build on what Connie said, is

1:50:44 ↗ use a across the creek to be the gateway statement that

1:50:50 ↗ would then also be able to handle the vet property, whatever that may be, and

1:50:55 ↗ minimize the entrances onto the parkway, whatever that shall be, which we have no idea

1:51:01 ↗ what it's going to be or where it's going to be really because there's no

1:51:04 ↗ study done for it yet. but a bridge would do that. We might be then

1:51:09 ↗ also to make it multimodal. The current proposed one I see in the project is

1:51:14 ↗ not a multimodal path that I can see. They're talking about gravel pathways up to

1:51:19 ↗ it. They also, I see nothing in this plan about wildlife. and

1:51:25 ↗ there was mention that this parcel is going to enhance the creek. I'd just like

1:51:29 ↗ to remind the commission that this parcel has been pretty much empty for 30 years,

1:51:35 ↗ so if you'll read the SEPA, which I did put those comments, we have a

1:51:39 ↗ lot of animals that are using this as grazing lands. We have birds, migratory birds,

1:51:43 ↗ that are using it to feed and land through it, so they will no longer

1:51:47 ↗ have access to that. So by reducing the buffer along the stream, that also reduces

1:51:54 ↗ the use for that, and any bridge should also provide for wildlife corridors through there.

1:52:04 ↗ The traffic study also in the circulation does refer to potentially

1:52:10 ↗ having the access from the vets. So from what I can tell, the traffic study

1:52:15 ↗ that was done for this does not meet concurrency because it really doesn't take into

1:52:20 ↗ that number of cars that are in there. And it also identifies that it meets

1:52:25 ↗ concurrency because it has a center turn lane. And I would remind that although the

1:52:31 ↗ project is listed in the tip, there is no funding provided or identified out for

1:52:36 ↗ 30 years. The only funding that's potential in the next six years is funding to

1:52:42 ↗ do a conceptual location study for Newport Way. The other

1:52:47 ↗ projects that are going to have been identified there are only providing for half streets,

1:52:52 ↗ not the full parkway. And as of yet, we don't know what that parkway is

1:52:56 ↗ really going to be or where it's going to be because the study hasn't been

1:53:00 ↗ done yet. So I would debate the fact that this project meets traffic concurrency.

1:53:11 ↗ I also am concerned if this goes forward with this entrance, as I stated earlier,

1:53:17 ↗ this is a small fire truck. As we grow in this city, we're gonna need

1:53:22 ↗ to purchase the larger ladder trucks for our taller buildings. We will get busy enough,

1:53:27 ↗ we may have to have Bellevue and other station services and we

1:53:33 ↗ shouldn't have to worry what truck goes into a facility, let alone if we can

1:53:37 ↗ get more than one. Most of the pictures, if you'll see, that have been shown

1:53:42 ↗ tonight do not show the parking, the parallel parking. What they do show is vehicles,

1:53:48 ↗ bus, which we've not heard anything about the applicant providing any sort of bus transportation

1:53:53 ↗ out here or encouraging any sort of working with Sound Metro or to have the

1:53:58 ↗ freebie out to this area to get but they show a bus parking in front

1:54:03 ↗ there that would be blocking a fire truck access. Also, if we have people moving

1:54:08 ↗ out, in and out, how are they gonna get in and out? Where are the

1:54:12 ↗ moving vehicles? And I know they have a delivery, but I don't really see, there's

1:54:16 ↗ no way a large vehicle can get in here. And that being the case, the

1:54:21 ↗ other thing that is part of the SEPA, and I really have not heard addressed

1:54:24 ↗ at all, is what happens during construction. I will remind you that there are no

1:54:29 ↗ trucks that have been allowed on Newport Way for the 30 years I've lived here.

1:54:34 ↗ All of a sudden now we have large vehicles that are going along Newport Way.

1:54:39 ↗ They have no place to stage before they turn into these, so they're blocking the

1:54:43 ↗ roadway with their engines running. So we do have emissions of the surrounding

1:54:48 ↗ citizens have to put up with a lot of diesel, a lot of heavy vibrations,

1:54:53 ↗ a lot of not knowing when the vehicle's gonna be there, if they're gonna be

1:54:56 ↗ late for work or not, and if you have a schedule, you can be delayed

1:54:59 ↗ 15 or 20 minutes. We also have already encountered working on holidays

1:55:05 ↗ without a permit. The other thing that it worried that was brought up is landscaping.

1:55:14 ↗ Unfortunately the new pinecone development was supposed to have landscaping. As Connie mentioned, who

1:55:20 ↗ is responsible for that? I have been battling the city for the past five years

1:55:25 ↗ to get that developer to finish out the parcel like they were supposed to. They

1:55:29 ↗ over clear cut that parcel and they have not replanted. Even the city of Issaquah

1:55:34 ↗ has just now replanted and are starting to maintain the trees around the

1:55:40 ↗ storm water vault, that if they had done that job properly, we might have that

1:55:46 ↗ somewhat hidden, but if you notice the view at the beginning, you've got right above

1:55:50 ↗ this development a big concrete barrier that is not protected from trees.

1:55:56 ↗ There is no treescapes on the uphill side of that because the city did not

1:56:00 ↗ follow through and hold the developer to what they were supposed to. So my concern

1:56:04 ↗ is even if we show these trees, who's going to be held accountable to make

1:56:09 ↗ sure that that really happens? Because I as a citizen have not been able to

1:56:13 ↗ hold the city to hold the developer to redo that area. And I'm very disappointed

1:56:18 ↗ at the treescapes on that one. So I hope that I can expect something different.

1:56:23 ↗ The other pet peeve that I have on this is this is zoned not just

1:56:28 ↗ for multifamily, but also mixed use. And I'd just like to remind the Commission of

1:56:33 ↗ that. I know the developer doesn't have to do that, but it is also was

1:56:38 ↗ mixed use, was an option that they had to go. That's all I have to

1:56:43 ↗ say right now. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. If there's no one else that

1:56:49 ↗ wishes to speak at this time,

1:56:58 ↗ Go ahead. I would ask you to keep your comments to five minutes or less,

1:57:03 ↗ please. And this time

1:57:09 ↗ I will talk in the microphone. Do you state your name again, please? My name

1:57:12 ↗ is Tina Conforti and I am on 1220 Oakwood Place, northwest Issaquah. I

1:57:18 ↗ appreciate your extra time. I forgot to imagine, when I move in Issaquah,

1:57:25 ↗ I lived in Bellevue before and I moved in Issaquah because the

1:57:31 ↗ territorial view, the beauty of the month, the beauty alone to

1:57:36 ↗ look out from my back deck and look at the mountains. In a shorter

1:57:42 ↗ time, we're going to put more than four or five projects on a new part

1:57:48 ↗ away. Consider the traffic that everybody is talking about

1:57:53 ↗ tonight. And ahead, 400 apartments of a gateway, 140

1:58:00 ↗ some of the senior apartment housing, plus the

1:58:05 ↗ Riva Tana House. Would you imagine Newport Way S-Colid? the way it

1:58:11 ↗ is, how it's gonna handle the traffic? You study traffic that you do, it's what

1:58:17 ↗ you have now, not multiply four or five times. Would you please

1:58:23 ↗ take that in consideration? We all wanna be safe. We don't wanna have no

1:58:29 ↗ more accidents on Newport Way. My next daughter, little boy, five years old, he lost

1:58:34 ↗ his life because he was crossing, crossing the crosswalk. If

1:58:40 ↗ we had the crosswalk with the lights that we have today, the accident, they probably

1:58:46 ↗ could be avoided. So think about it, multiply about four or five times about the

1:58:52 ↗ traffic we get now and see if at Newport Way can handle that many cars.

1:58:58 ↗ Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else?

1:59:04 ↗ If not, we will close the public comment. period of this public hearing.

1:59:10 ↗ And we will go to the commissioner's questions. And let's do it this

1:59:16 ↗ way. Let's see if we can identify a topic. Essie, why don't you

1:59:22 ↗ do that. And then if there are other questions on the same topic, we'll stick

1:59:28 ↗ with that going around. And then we'll go to the next

1:59:33 ↗ commissioner and the next question. MS. OK, so you want me to identify a topic.

1:59:38 ↗ Well, no, just whatever you were going to talk about, then we'll follow from there.

1:59:42 ↗ Oh, boy. Well, can we do, I'm saying let's do one topic at a time

1:59:47 ↗ and see if we can address it comprehensively. Okay. With each commissioner's view or not,

1:59:53 ↗ if they feel like they, if we want to say something, and then we'll go

1:59:56 ↗ to the next topic. Okay. Trying to

2:00:02 ↗ prioritize my topics here, because I have many. I think I'll start with parking.

2:00:10 ↗ And if I could, Mr. Chair, is it all right for me to ask the

2:00:14 ↗ applicant questions at this point? MR. No. MS. OK. Could I ask a question of

2:00:19 ↗ the applicant, please? There have been several comments

2:00:26 ↗ in our written comments to the commission and

2:00:31 ↗ public comment here today on the the reasonability

2:00:37 ↗ of the parking. You have

2:00:43 ↗ listed 0.5 parking spaces per

2:00:49 ↗ unit. And I was wondering if you could speak to that reasoning and address some

2:00:55 ↗ of the concerns that have been voiced here today about the parking that is accommodating

2:01:02 ↗ the development here. Senior housing is recognized as being a much

2:01:08 ↗ different parking need than a typical market rate apartment.

2:01:14 ↗ And Issaquah's prescribed parking ratio within their

2:01:20 ↗ code is not dissimilar to a lot of other jurisdictions, and

2:01:26 ↗ it's been proven to be effective and adequate for the use. We've also

2:01:32 ↗ provided beyond that additional 32 stalls for

2:01:38 ↗ employee parking, most of which will be only used part time.

2:01:44 ↗ And we've also provided, I think, over the requirement for both of those needs an

2:01:50 ↗ additional five stalls on site. So I

2:01:54 ↗ think our traffic consultant, I think, could reinforce

2:02:02 ↗ point of view that it's been proven to be adequate for their use because

2:02:09 ↗ the typical resident is in their late 70s and

2:02:15 ↗ the way that this facility will be set up, there will be regularly arranged tours

2:02:21 ↗ and bus access for people to go to various facilities for

2:02:27 ↗ So you have arranged for bus access and you have? Private bus.

2:02:33 ↗ So there will be a private bus that serves the facility and serves the members

2:02:38 ↗ who live there? And that will be all scheduled and arranged as part of the

2:02:44 ↗ scheduling for the activities within the community of residents that live there. Thank you.

2:02:50 ↗ That addresses another question. Could your traffic consultant speak to the parking? Is that okay?

2:02:54 ↗ Sure.

2:03:03 ↗ Good evening, my name is Jeff Schramm, traffic engineer with 10W, 11400

2:03:09 ↗ Southeast 8th Street, Suite 200, Bellevue 98004.

2:03:16 ↗ The city of Izzaqua is common to many jurisdictions to have parking

2:03:22 ↗ requirements that are consistent with industry standards for various uses,

2:03:27 ↗ retail, residential. The city's requirement for parking five stalls per unit

2:03:34 ↗ for senior housing is really, as Jim mentioned, excuse me, I'm battling a cold here,

2:03:40 ↗ is based on industry standards that are collected at other senior housing projects. So

2:03:47 ↗ the code requirement is met in this case and is appropriate for

2:03:53 ↗ senior housing, especially in this category. So it's based on an industry standard. And

2:03:59 ↗ I would also reiterate that having a shuttle and a van transportation is going to

2:04:05 ↗ be also very helpful to encourage residents that possibly even

2:04:12 ↗ attract residents that don't have vehicles knowing that they have the ability to get to

2:04:17 ↗ their services, pharmacy, community events, things like that. So it would meet the

2:04:23 ↗ standard is the bottom line. Okay, thank you.

2:04:29 ↗ Anybody else want to park it? Yeah, just a question, I guess, maybe for Mr.

2:04:32 ↗ Van Patten. Do you have other facilities, other independent living facilities that you operate?

2:04:41 ↗ Should I state my name again? Greg Van Patten with the Wolf Company. This is

2:04:46 ↗ a new product type for our company specifically, but we have a senior housing team

2:04:51 ↗ of three gentlemen that each have in excess of 20 years of experience in this

2:04:57 ↗ housing type. So that's in addition to what Jeff mentioned in terms of industry standards,

2:05:03 ↗ there's a lot of data out there, even kind of over and above

2:05:09 ↗ the experience of our senior housing team. I also wanted to clarify a little bit.

2:05:15 ↗ The employee count here will be somewhere between 15 and 20 people, none of which

2:05:20 ↗ will be working simultaneously. and many of them being part-time

2:05:26 ↗ positions. So it's not like we're going to have 15 to 20 stalls that are

2:05:30 ↗ all used by employees simultaneously. So in addition to the bus transportation

2:05:36 ↗ that we'll have for our residents, we have accounted for that overflow for employees as

2:05:41 ↗ well as visitors. Okay, and then a question. How do you operationally plan to, I

2:05:46 ↗ guess, with a resident? If I was gonna move in there, I said, gee, I

2:05:50 ↗ want to bring two cars, three cars, a car, no car. Do you charge for

2:05:54 ↗ parking? If you had too many people that wanted to come with cars, do you

2:05:58 ↗ charge more to discourage it? What's the plan? Yeah, so there will be no charge

2:06:03 ↗ for surface parking. So we do have some structured covered stalls at the

2:06:09 ↗ base of the building basically at half of the building. I'm not sure if that

2:06:13 ↗ was really clear in the presentation, but we do have basically a full tray of

2:06:18 ↗ covered parking at the base of the building at one end. So there will be

2:06:22 ↗ a charge for those stalls, but there will be no charge for the surface stalls

2:06:26 ↗ on the outside. And it's really, you know, to answer your question about, you know,

2:06:33 ↗ do you up the parking rate to perhaps discourage cars? That's a good question. I

2:06:39 ↗ mean, we've certainly done that on our multifamily projects, particularly in dense urban

2:06:44 ↗ neighborhoods in Seattle. Because certainly what you don't want is for

2:06:50 ↗ all of the parking to fill up during lease up, and you still have half

2:06:56 ↗ of the units to lease, for example. So it's really something that you kind of

2:06:59 ↗ control as you go along, because it's certainly not in our best interest as the

2:07:03 ↗ operator of the building to have all the covered stalls taken up in the first,

2:07:06 ↗ you know, or whatnot, just to use an example. Thank you.

2:07:15 ↗ Please don't leave.

2:07:22 ↗ I understand that it's in compliance with ISSAQA standards, so we're kind of limited to

2:07:27 ↗ that. But the practical aspect of parking, which Mr. Kapler

2:07:34 ↗ mentioned, is people come to visit this. at least

2:07:39 ↗ seniors, and I'm not sure it's always gonna be 75 to 80 and above, maybe

2:07:44 ↗ you're gonna get some 60-year-old, who are gonna have their grandkids come to visit.

2:07:51 ↗ And the grandkids' parents, where are they gonna

2:07:57 ↗ park? And that's what I had mentioned, where there is, we have accounted for

2:08:03 ↗ visitor parking as well as employee parking. Not visitors for 140

2:08:09 ↗ units. Maybe you've got visitor parking for those

2:08:14 ↗ five extra people over here. And again, this is based... I'm talking about the

2:08:20 ↗ neighborhood. There isn't any convenient place in that particular property

2:08:26 ↗ for them to be off-site. They can't park on Newport.

2:08:34 ↗ I guess you want them to go down to the park and ride and walk

2:08:37 ↗ the mile back? No, I don't think so. You know, and it's somewhat

2:08:42 ↗ facetious, but I mean, it's a concern for the people in the area. And I

2:08:47 ↗ understand that. And I echo that concern as well. Frankly, it's not in our best

2:08:52 ↗ interest as an operator of the building to be severely under-parked and to inconvenience visitors

2:08:58 ↗ of our residents and to inconvenience the neighborhood. And I will defer back to a

2:09:03 ↗ lot of industry standards. This product type has been around for a long time, and

2:09:08 ↗ there is a lot of data that supports this type of parking ratio. So

2:09:15 ↗ to think that all 140 residents on Mother's Day are all going to have a

2:09:19 ↗ visitor in their own car is simply unrealistic. And we

2:09:24 ↗ think that the parking count is appropriate relative to the typical car usage this

2:09:30 ↗ population, the typical employee count at any given time, as well as the typical

2:09:36 ↗ visitor count, coupled with the bus transportation that we'll be providing.

2:09:45 ↗ Okay. Lucy, I actually have a question for you on this. What is the parking

2:09:51 ↗ ratio at Timber Ridge? So, great question. I don't know that off

2:09:57 ↗ the top of my head. One thing, some of the parking

2:10:03 ↗ ratios that are used for Central Issaquah are lower than the rest of the city,

2:10:09 ↗ but for senior housing, this is the same standard that's been used for Egeus, for

2:10:14 ↗ University House. My guess is it would be the same thing that's used for Talus.

2:10:19 ↗ So I think that this has been a very effective parking ratio. I think

2:10:25 ↗ one thing to keep in mind is that those ratios, while they're calculated on a

2:10:29 ↗ per unit basis, they take visitors into account. It's just bundled

2:10:35 ↗ into a per unit calculator. I think the important thing to say is we

2:10:41 ↗ hear your concern and I think we need to put some materials together to include

2:10:45 ↗ in the briefing response memo to help you understand that better. And I would just

2:10:50 ↗ suggest too that the main thing that I was asking is whether or not there

2:10:54 ↗ has been a change in this ratio from Aegis or Timber Ridge.

2:11:02 ↗ If this one, the parking ratio that is used is different from what

2:11:08 ↗ has been used in the past for other senior housing. My understanding is it is

2:11:11 ↗ the same. And, you know, Timber Ridge is currently constructing their final

2:11:17 ↗ phase. And what they have found is consistent with this, that

2:11:24 ↗ people don't bring cars, they don't, if they do bring cars, they often aren't as

2:11:29 ↗ used. That one of the things that we heard when Silverado was coming was

2:11:36 ↗ Not all employees choose to drive because of the cost. So,

2:11:42 ↗ you know, we've been talking about ways to make it easier for employees together. So

2:11:47 ↗ I think there's a whole package of things we can talk about when we respond.

2:11:51 ↗ All right. Are there any other questions on parking issues,

2:11:57 ↗ concerns? Okay. Let's see, did you have something else you want to start it off

2:12:01 ↗ with? Another topic? Do you wanna pick the next one? I can. Why

2:12:07 ↗ don't you do it then, Mike? I can do it. Commissioner Brennan? I have several

2:12:12 ↗ questions around site circulation related to the trail, the mixed use trail or the shared

2:12:18 ↗ use trail. Maybe Amy, you can help me to start with and then some applicants

2:12:23 ↗ ask questions toward the applicant. So the shared use trail is something that would generally

2:12:29 ↗ be provided for use by residents here, what is the expectation

2:12:35 ↗ for use by the general public in the code? So the shared use trail for

2:12:40 ↗ this particular project is along Newport Way. And as I showed earlier,

2:12:46 ↗ a regional map, it basically is meant not just for the residents of this project,

2:12:52 ↗ but for the public. Right. About the trails that are on the property and interconnecting

2:12:57 ↗ between the Gateway Senior Housing and the Gateway Project. Is

2:13:03 ↗ that for the property owners and residents or is that also accessible by the public?

2:13:09 ↗ So that's a little different. Basically the standards, the central sequestral standards

2:13:15 ↗ doesn't require a shared use or basically a multi-use trail to go through their

2:13:20 ↗ property. So it is basically an amenity for the

2:13:26 ↗ residents of this project and to the extent that it,

2:13:32 ↗ improves the connectivity between adjacent properties. And that part

2:13:39 ↗ of the project is related to the connectivity standards. Okay. And then

2:13:45 ↗ related to the bridge across Snyder Creek, I've heard several people

2:13:51 ↗ suggest that nobody said we shouldn't put a bridge across Snyder Creek, but most of

2:13:56 ↗ the commenters have suggested that it should be for pedestrians and bikes only. not for

2:14:02 ↗ vehicles, and in the staff report, you're talking about providing essentially a mixed-use

2:14:08 ↗ bridge for vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes. I'm trying to understand what we're trying to accomplish

2:14:14 ↗ with that level of connectivity versus just the bikes and pedestrians. What's the benefit of

2:14:19 ↗ the vehicle connectivity here? So in that particular situation,

2:14:27 ↗ We looked at the standards and in the standards it basically requires connectivity in all

2:14:32 ↗ modes of transportation. So as staff, again, we try to find

2:14:40 ↗ or determine whether a project complies or doesn't comply to the standards. So we start

2:14:45 ↗ from that. And then listening to what the public had

2:14:50 ↗ commented regarding that bridge and also with the

2:14:56 ↗ environmental issues. We certainly could revisit that to see if whether or

2:15:02 ↗ not a bridge for vehicles is required. And we have received comments

2:15:08 ↗ that, you know, with the conviction that that should be a

2:15:14 ↗ vehicular connection. And you probably haven't read it because I just submitted

2:15:21 ↗ that comment from a resident actually who said that

2:15:27 ↗ he thinks that this should be something even bigger, that it should have a separate

2:15:33 ↗ walkway for pedestrians versus the travel lane. I saw that and I think part of

2:15:38 ↗ the argument was to try to pull in access to this site from that direction

2:15:43 ↗ instead of coming down off of Newport Way. But I guess just my thoughts on

2:15:48 ↗ the configuration that they're providing here. It seems, I think I understand what the intent

2:15:54 ↗ is in the Issaquah, Central Issaquah Plan about connectivity across properties with depending upon

2:16:00 ↗ what the mode of transportation is. But, and that makes a lot of sense in

2:16:06 ↗ kind of the central part of, in the more dense part of the Central Issaquah

2:16:11 ↗ Plan in the downtown area. Out here, I'm struggling a little bit with, you know,

2:16:16 ↗ connecting properties with this type of vehicular access where, I don't see

2:16:23 ↗ where it provides a significant benefit other than just the ability to cut through. So

2:16:28 ↗ my bent is pedestrian and bike is probably going to serve this adequately.

2:16:34 ↗ OK, those are my questions on the circulation for trail. Can I jump in on

2:16:38 ↗ that then? The question I have on that is on the gateway apartments, and this

2:16:43 ↗ is, I think, shown on the SEPA checklist, Exhibit 5. The gateway

2:16:49 ↗ apartments connection to there is shown as a pedestrian trail and was

2:16:55 ↗ approved as a pedestrian trail. So if this is supposed to become a vehicular

2:17:01 ↗ access from senior housing, where does it go to? Do you have to go back

2:17:07 ↗ to the apartments and then say we need to revise your site permit to create

2:17:13 ↗ a vehicular access in your parking lot? Because that wasn't something we approved when we

2:17:18 ↗ approved the apartment. Yes, basically it will be something that we would handle

2:17:24 ↗ at the construction review. But

2:17:31 ↗ pragmatically, yes, we would then have to go back to the applicant and request or

2:17:37 ↗ require them to provide the connection. You require them to do that at this point

2:17:42 ↗ after they've been issued a permit? So one thing I would add

2:17:48 ↗ is that this is within the footprint. what's already shown so it the

2:17:54 ↗ material it was shown as hardscape on the apartment side.

2:18:00 ↗ It was shown as a paved trail not as a road. Right, but

2:18:06 ↗ we're it's a curb cut at one end. I mean it's

2:18:12 ↗ it's not a it's not like we're asking them to switch it to a

2:18:19 ↗ 20 foot way wide. And so then as I

2:18:25 ↗ understand it, it would be a 10 foot wide from the parking lot of the

2:18:30 ↗ apartments, a distance of maybe 150

2:18:36 ↗ feet or something to the parking lot of the senior housing? I don't think it's

2:18:41 ↗ that far. Is it 100 feet? We did a measure.

2:18:48 ↗ I'm just guessing like from here, if I enter this street here and I start

2:18:54 ↗ driving down it, it's a one lane road. Not just on the bridge, but the

2:18:58 ↗ whole way. If I get halfway down and somebody enters the other halfway down, do

2:19:03 ↗ we? You got a backup? So there are a lot of queuing

2:19:09 ↗ streets that exist in Talos and Isquah Highlands.

2:19:16 ↗ The important thing is that it isn't too long and that you can see both

2:19:21 ↗ ends so that people entering it can make decisions before they enter.

2:19:27 ↗ And we haven't had big problems with those kinds of conflicts.

2:19:38 ↗ So I understand that it's designed to be a queuing operation.

2:19:47 ↗ And the reason for designating it as that at this stage in the game, recognizing

2:19:52 ↗ where we are, is to accomplish exactly what? So we either have, as I

2:19:58 ↗ understand it, we either have a pedestrian bridge and a bicycle bridge, or we have

2:20:04 ↗ a bridge that can accommodate internal combustion engines in a car or vehicle,

2:20:10 ↗ right? Is that correct?

2:20:16 ↗ I guess what I don't quite understand is the design objective of if you're going

2:20:22 ↗ to have a car bridge that or a bridge that will accommodate

2:20:27 ↗ cars and bikes and pedestrians, some of whom will be

2:20:33 ↗ senior by design, why you would not have, if you're going to do that, why

2:20:38 ↗ you would not have a two-lane bridge? I don't quite understand the

2:20:44 ↗ benefit of a queue. Q approach? So it's partly to maintain

2:20:50 ↗ a minimal footprint between, in terms of the impacts to the creek.

2:20:58 ↗ It's considered a very secondary connection.

2:21:04 ↗ In working through the Central Issaquah Standards, as Amy described,

2:21:10 ↗ connectivity and up for all modes is identified.

2:21:16 ↗ And so rather than have more impacts to the creek

2:21:22 ↗ for a sort of,

2:21:28 ↗ and in Talis they call them secret roads. They're just sort of secondary connections that

2:21:33 ↗ provide convenience between communities or neighborhoods.

2:21:39 ↗ And they're not meant to serve like a full road. And so The idea

2:21:45 ↗ was to minimize the footprint while providing the connectivity.

2:21:52 ↗ Is there any possibility? Do you rec... I understand we're talking about theoreticals

2:21:58 ↗ here, but with traffic being what it is at this point in the game and

2:22:02 ↗ what it's projected to be at build out of both of these projects, it

2:22:08 ↗ seems to me, because as we've noted, almost every development

2:22:14 ↗ commission meeting where anything is being discussed, whether it's single family or whatever, that traffic

2:22:18 ↗ is like water. It seeks the path of least resistance. And if you're backing up

2:22:23 ↗ five or six cars to get onto Newport from either one of these projects, probably

2:22:28 ↗ the apartment complex more than the senior complex, people are going to say, oh, you

2:22:33 ↗ know what? I bet I can beat it by going here and over the one,

2:22:39 ↗ the queuing bridge, because it's it's a secret road. But it's not

2:22:45 ↗ a secret for people that are looking for alternatives to long waits get on the

2:22:49 ↗ arterial. So I understand the concept. But I just question whether or not

2:22:56 ↗ people are going to use it the way designers intend it to be used.

2:23:01 ↗ All right. Commissioner Morgan, Commissioner

2:23:07 ↗ Brennan, Commissioner Hicks? COMMISSIONER MORGAN HICKS, Well, I agree with you completely.

2:23:13 ↗ I believe I remember the applicant making the same type of point, that

2:23:19 ↗ since we have limited parking, we are not

2:23:25 ↗ expecting, because of the studies that have been done, we're not expecting the people who

2:23:30 ↗ live in this development to do a whole lot of driving, that you're actually just

2:23:36 ↗ making a thoroughfare or you are creating access to the property that they

2:23:42 ↗ may not desire. So I support, and based on public comment as well,

2:23:49 ↗ a wide pedestrian friendly bridge for pedestrians and bikes only.

2:23:55 ↗ And I support VUNERFs, I think they are, and the queuing bridges, I think they're

2:24:01 ↗ good in other developments, but for this particular project, don't think that that

2:24:07 ↗ bridge is a great idea here. CHRIS JERRAMS. The bridge, a bridge or

2:24:13 ↗ a vehicle? A vehicle. CHRIS JERRAMS. Now, as I understand it also, the applicant,

2:24:19 ↗ your preferred position would be no bridge at all. Is that correct? CHRIS JERRAMS. That's

2:24:24 ↗ incorrect. Pedestrian and bicycle bridge. CHRIS JERRAMS. OK. So that was the

2:24:30 ↗ concern that you were talking about, the safety and security of the senior residents, was

2:24:34 ↗ if it is a vehicle. It goes the other road. Or the other

2:24:41 ↗ road. Right. Could we hear from? Thank you. So just would you clarify for me

2:24:47 ↗ the two routes that we're talking about here, the over Schneider Creek and the other

2:24:53 ↗ one, and restate your position on that? Yeah, so again, Greg Van Patten, the Wolf

2:24:58 ↗ Company. And

2:25:03 ↗ Specific to these two conditions, yes, it was our desire to not

2:25:09 ↗ have vehicular connection over the Schneider Creek Bridge. Our strong

2:25:15 ↗ preference is to echo Commissioner Hicks, and that is to have it restricted only to

2:25:21 ↗ pedestrians and bicycles. For a lot of the reasons, I won't rehash a lot of

2:25:27 ↗ what's already been talked about. The other concern was really, and Can we get up

2:25:32 ↗ the graphic that shows the site plan, if we could? Yeah.

2:25:39 ↗ Okay. So our concern was with the

2:25:45 ↗ other condition where it calls for at the upper left-hand corner, leaving

2:25:51 ↗ that open as a vehicular connection to the adjacent parcel, which is where the vet

2:25:57 ↗ clinic formerly was. Personally, I have major concerns about

2:26:03 ↗ that, and it really has to do with the unpredictability of the use that could

2:26:08 ↗ go into that parcel. And for senior residents, safety

2:26:14 ↗ and security is paramount. It really is. And you can think of about any use

2:26:20 ↗ you can think of for that former vet clinic parcel. Think of the least intensive

2:26:25 ↗ use you can think of, you know, four townhouses, six townhouses. can all argue about

2:26:30 ↗ what least intensive uses are all the way up to most intensive uses. But from

2:26:35 ↗ our perspective, no matter what ends up there, there would be traffic

2:26:41 ↗ generated that would go right past what our seniors would view as their private drive.

2:26:46 ↗ And we've gone to pretty strong lengths to make this as pedestrian friendly as we

2:26:51 ↗ possibly can. We're encouraging active lifestyles for our seniors. And for cars to be

2:26:57 ↗ zooming through there at What speeds, we don't know. We can certainly control

2:27:03 ↗ speeds through the usual measures, right? It's narrow streets, we have changes in pavement, there's

2:27:09 ↗ different things that you can do to kind of subtly encourage slower rates of travel.

2:27:14 ↗ But the fact is, is there residents, or I'm sorry, the users of that site

2:27:19 ↗ would be coming through here at speeds that might be unsafe for the residents, as

2:27:23 ↗ well as noise issues. To take a worst case scenario,

2:27:29 ↗ picture a guy in a Camaro where he's got a bad muffler and he gets

2:27:33 ↗ a real kick out of just, hey, I'm just gonna zoom this gas here and

2:27:38 ↗ I'm gonna enjoy messing with these people. And not even a nighttime thing, even a

2:27:42 ↗ daytime thing. There's noise issues and things like that. So that's really at the heart

2:27:47 ↗ of our concern is the unpredictability of that use by an adjacent user and really

2:27:53 ↗ the safety and security of the residents. Could the staff add something?

2:28:00 ↗ So we're frankly very shocked by the comments that we're receiving from the applicant.

2:28:06 ↗ These two conditions that Amy presented were shown to them, discussed with them, agreed to

2:28:11 ↗ by them. We had anticipated that the connection to the vet clinic needed

2:28:17 ↗ additional discussion. That's why we put a placeholder in. We agreed that we would finalize

2:28:22 ↗ that language and present it to you in the briefing response memo. The diagrams in

2:28:28 ↗ central Issaquah are extremely clear that these properties would be connected. They've shown them as

2:28:33 ↗ being connected in the drawings. The concerns that they have

2:28:39 ↗ about connectivity and bad driving are the same kinds of concerns that

2:28:45 ↗ you get in any kind of interconnected community. We are not designing communities with

2:28:51 ↗ cul-de-sacs. A road was shown connecting these properties. So while

2:28:59 ↗ I think staff is a little blindsided right now, we had understood that we had

2:29:03 ↗ reached a good position and that the kinds of things that we had put forward

2:29:08 ↗ were jointly agreed to. So we clearly have a conversation to have around these

2:29:14 ↗ two. We're not asking for you to resolve them tonight. You're of course welcome to

2:29:18 ↗ ask as many questions as you'd like to to get further clarity for yourselves, for

2:29:23 ↗ the public, and for the community. We're just had not prepared a response at the

2:29:29 ↗ level to which we are being asked to respond by the applicant. CHRIS JERRAMS. Lucy,

2:29:33 ↗ let me ask you a question. What is the zoning of the vet property as

2:29:35 ↗ it stands now? CHRIS JERRAMS. Village residential. CHRIS JERRAMS. Yes, they're all village residential.

2:29:42 ↗ CHRIS

2:29:45 ↗ JERRAMS. One of the questions I had with regards to your

2:29:52 ↗ with a little red circle on page 11 of 41, which was this

2:29:58 ↗ street which was the basis of the placeholder. And it says it's required

2:30:05 ↗ to connect from Newport Way. And when I was looking at this whole

2:30:11 ↗ project, one of the first questions that came to my mind was, and the applicant

2:30:16 ↗ maybe can address this, is I don't understand why the There's not an entrance right

2:30:22 ↗ opposite Pine Cone Way. Why isn't there

2:30:28 ↗ just a loop through?

2:30:36 ↗ You've got a fire truck turnaround on, I guess it's

2:30:44 ↗ the southwest corner, right opposite Pine Cone Way.

2:30:51 ↗ And it seems to me that would be a perfect spot to have another entrance.

2:30:55 ↗ And I'm not sure why there isn't one there. And then I don't really understand

2:31:00 ↗ the logic by saying if you're going to put this new street in, you're going

2:31:03 ↗ to have people racing through there. They're not going to drive through this development

2:31:10 ↗ to bypass Newport. They're just going to be coming and going from their own development.

2:31:14 ↗ So I'm not really sure I understand what the issue is. bigger question is why

2:31:19 ↗ isn't there an access right opposite Pinecone Drive?

2:31:26 ↗ Well, Pinecone Drive is actually coming out to Newport south of our property.

2:31:32 ↗ So it's really opposite the VET property. It's a little bit of an angle. Looking

2:31:38 ↗ at the drawing, it's just a little bit of an angle. Even if it's not

2:31:41 ↗ right opposite, why isn't there an access to your parking right there instead of having

2:31:46 ↗ that fire truck why don't you just make another entrance to Newport Way? Well, as

2:31:51 ↗ I was trying to explain earlier about the unique challenges that this site has to

2:31:56 ↗ offer is the amount of grade change that we have from Newport down to

2:32:03 ↗ the lower level of the site where the creek is. So the only way we

2:32:07 ↗ can negotiate that distance safely is to let our frontage road and access drive

2:32:15 ↗ negotiate down the slope. So by the time we get to that location

2:32:21 ↗ on our property, we're probably 15 feet below Newport. OK. Well, that answers that question.

2:32:27 ↗ OK. Thank you. Mr. Morgan, is there any other

2:32:33 ↗ discussion, question, clarification sought on that issue? All right. Commissioner Morgan, do you want to

2:32:39 ↗ bring up one? I guess maybe a question for the Simple one,

2:32:45 ↗ maybe a question for the applicant. The question brought up by David about the

2:32:51 ↗ pedestrian bike ADA ramp that jogs around.

2:32:57 ↗ And why isn't that just a straight ramp through instead of having those jogs? And

2:33:03 ↗ partly, I would know from riding bicycles, going around those kind of turns is not

2:33:08 ↗ easy. And then if somebody's coming up in a wheelchair, you can't see as if

2:33:13 ↗ it were a queuing. It's even more difficult. I understand

2:33:19 ↗ your comment. The intent was not for riding bikes down that trail, but

2:33:25 ↗ walking them down. And 88 requires a landing

2:33:32 ↗ every 30 inches of ramp, then you have to have a landing that's five feet

2:33:36 ↗ by five feet. And it was purely an architectural and a landscape decision to

2:33:44 ↗ that path jog so that it doesn't look like a straight run. Sometimes when you

2:33:48 ↗ have a straight run that's negotiating that much grade, it's a little daunting, you know,

2:33:53 ↗ because you think, well, what if I fall or, you know. So the idea was

2:33:59 ↗ to just make it a more interesting meander down there, which also allowed us to

2:34:05 ↗ do something interesting with the landscape and the variety of experience going down there.

2:34:11 ↗ It's purely functional and it's kind of an architectural

2:34:17 ↗ desire to do it this way. But the intent was not to have people riding

2:34:21 ↗ their bikes. You could sign it to dismount from your bike. Yeah, and just walk

2:34:25 ↗ it down. Walk it down. Okay, thank you. Amy, I have a question for you

2:34:30 ↗ on this. On the trail thing too, would you use the cursor there to show

2:34:36 ↗ us where the 90 pedestrian bridge is proposed

2:34:42 ↗ to be proposed. Oh, using this? It will be along here. That's it right there?

2:34:47 ↗ Yes. So let me see here. And again, this is

2:34:53 ↗ conceptual, right? Right, yeah. This is the Newport improvements.

2:35:01 ↗ OK, all right. Any other questions

2:35:08 ↗ on that issue? CHRIS JERRAMS. COMMISSIONER HICKS. COMMISSIONER HICKS. Do you want me to come

2:35:12 ↗ up with another topic? CHRIS JERRAMS. Well, I think it's only fair that we spread

2:35:16 ↗ these around. So Commissioner Sweetberg, do you have a? COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO YOU HAVE A?

2:35:21 ↗ COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO YOU HAVE A? COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO YOU HAVE A? COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO

2:35:24 ↗ YOU HAVE A? COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO YOU HAVE A? COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO YOU HAVE A?

2:35:28 ↗ COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO YOU HAVE A? COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO YOU HAVE A?

2:35:33 ↗ COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO YOU HAVE A? COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO YOU HAVE A? COMMISSIONER SWEETBERG, DO

2:35:37 ↗ YOU HAVE A? COMMISSIONER SWEET So we were given some,

2:35:44 ↗ oh gosh, I just placed it and then I lost it. Some viewscapes.

2:35:51 ↗ I'm looking at page 33 of 41, existing

2:35:57 ↗ view from Pinecone Drive and existing view from Pinecone

2:36:03 ↗ Place and then the proposed building views. And

2:36:10 ↗ I would like to talk about also their

2:36:15 ↗ driveways and the impacts, the traffic impacts for that. Maybe we could have

2:36:21 ↗ the traffic, or it looks like Amy might be interested in talking about that as

2:36:27 ↗ well, about the proposed building

2:36:33 ↗ views and maybe address some of the concerns that the public has about

2:36:42 ↗ this, about the view impacts. Okay, so I'm gonna use this backup

2:36:48 ↗ slide. This was provided in your packet,

2:36:53 ↗ actually page two of the plan set. So there's really two aspects

2:37:00 ↗ that I'd like to talk about. First is what is allowed by the zoning for

2:37:05 ↗ this property And it kind of covers also the comment that

2:37:11 ↗ they were lied to, that there was that somebody had told them that

2:37:17 ↗ only a one-story building is planned or projected for this property. So

2:37:24 ↗ in fact, I did look back and did the research on what the previous zoning

2:37:29 ↗ for this property is. It was in the old land use code, it is the

2:37:35 ↗ professional office zoning. Amy, you need to talk into the mic. Oh, sorry.

2:37:44 ↗ So in the professional office zoning, which was

2:37:50 ↗ basically adopted in the early 1990s, it allowed

2:37:56 ↗ for building heights of 40 feet to 65 feet. this property.

2:38:03 ↗ So this current standards allows for a height of 48 to 65

2:38:09 ↗ feet. So the maximum height has not changed and the minimum height

2:38:15 ↗ has basically increased by 8 feet. So this

2:38:22 ↗ property has always been zoned for a taller building. So given that

2:38:29 ↗ background. We also looked at what they are proposing. So these are two

2:38:35 ↗ before and after views. On the left, it shows you a view

2:38:41 ↗ kind of behind the Bentley House, the rooftop of the Bentley House. And then

2:38:48 ↗ the right view, top right view, shows how this building will look from one of

2:38:53 ↗ the streets above, in one of the neighborhoods above. So the lower two

2:38:59 ↗ photo shows the existing view, again, on one of the

2:39:05 ↗ public streets in the neighborhood. And on the right would be a view of the

2:39:11 ↗ buildings. And again, the view on the right, the simulated view, doesn't show you

2:39:18 ↗ the future street trees on Newport Way. So eventually the trees will grow,

2:39:25 ↗ and currently what the way it's depicted, the existing

2:39:31 ↗ trees will be removed and there's gonna be a better view access of the

2:39:37 ↗ mountains in the background. What about the views from Bentley House? Is this

2:39:43 ↗ building impeding their views from Bentley House? Is this a concern that the

2:39:49 ↗ public's brought up? So one of the, so I don't know if this helps, it's

2:39:54 ↗ not, I mean, unless Obviously we have a photo of

2:40:00 ↗ someone inside Bentley House, but one of the photos that I showed is, this is

2:40:06 ↗ Bentley House. They are above, the ground

2:40:12 ↗ floor units are further up above Newport Way.

2:40:18 ↗ So earlier the applicant has described how their

2:40:23 ↗ property is actually 15 feet. below Newport Way. So

2:40:30 ↗ maybe the first two floors of Bentley House, the units may, the

2:40:36 ↗ first two floor units of the Bentley House may have obstructed views, but,

2:40:42 ↗ and so I'm just guessing, right? Just based on the existing conditions out there. And

2:40:48 ↗ if you're driving out there, the Bentley House is further back and it's kind of

2:40:53 ↗ sitting up above the slope of the hill.

2:41:00 ↗ I have a question on that, you mentioned 40 to 65 or 45 to 66,

2:41:04 ↗ but on page nine of 41 in the package on the standards, it says 48

2:41:10 ↗ feet up to 54 feet, and there are a couple asterisks there, but I didn't

2:41:15 ↗ find what those reference to, and I don't remember 54 as being a number in

2:41:19 ↗ our code. Okay, so the 54 feet is an incentive for

2:41:25 ↗ projects to actually provide in a garage or what we

2:41:31 ↗ call under the building. So in this particular case, they are doing that, so that's

2:41:37 ↗ why they were allowed to go up to 54 feet. Okay, and I thought you

2:41:41 ↗ just mentioned your comments 65 feet. You said in the current zone. So in

2:41:47 ↗ fact, you could go up to 65 feet with bonus density. The

2:41:53 ↗ applicant opted not to do that. Gotcha, thank you. opted not to go up to

2:41:58 ↗ 65 feet. Right. OK.

2:42:05 ↗ Anyone else on views? OK. I'm going to

2:42:12 ↗ ask on the subject of traffic. Let's go to that.

2:42:17 ↗ And just for the record, Amy, again, for clarification, would you

2:42:23 ↗ identify the plan in terms of Whether or not it's conceptual,

2:42:29 ↗ whether it is what is intended for Newport Drive that is fronting this property

2:42:36 ↗ to, I suppose, 900 is the distance. Whether or not, what the stages

2:42:43 ↗ of the planning for improvements to Newport are at this point. So we'll talk

2:42:49 ↗ about capacity, whether it's a turn lane, what is planned.

2:42:55 ↗ And then the question was brought up by a member of the public that there

2:42:59 ↗ isn't any funding for it and it's conceptual and the study isn't even done. So

2:43:04 ↗ if you could clarify that from the city's point of view. So I can provide

2:43:10 ↗ the policy background that's similar to basically our response to the same

2:43:16 ↗ concerns for the gate. Because it is a system, it is the same road. And

2:43:21 ↗ these are the same issues that came up with Gatley. Exactly, yes. And then I

2:43:25 ↗ will invite the applicant's engineer to address more of the specific issues.

2:43:32 ↗ So first we start off with the system-wide analysis that the city have

2:43:38 ↗ done two years ago, concurrency study, which then identified the level of service for the

2:43:43 ↗ road. And they did account for the future

2:43:49 ↗ zoning capacity for Newport Way based on the village residential zoning.

2:43:55 ↗ So we start with that. And then we look at the site itself and we

2:44:00 ↗ look at the type of project and we also looked at the number of trips

2:44:06 ↗ that have been projected for this project. And so based on that, basically we

2:44:12 ↗ identify mitigation measures. And in addition to that, so part of the

2:44:18 ↗ mitigation measures has to do with how do you mitigate for the

2:44:24 ↗ additional trips. And again, like the other side of Newport Way where the

2:44:30 ↗ Gateway Apartments is, currently there's only one way, two lane road

2:44:36 ↗ for Newport Way, which is the reason why it causes a lot of congestion because

2:44:42 ↗ you do have all these driveways funneling into the streets and there's not

2:44:47 ↗ enough, there's no relief valve. So the relief valve for both the Gateway

2:44:53 ↗ Apartments and this is that they are required to provide a center turn lane. So

2:44:59 ↗ a lot of the cars that currently are slowing down traffic because they're trying to

2:45:04 ↗ turn in or out of their properties or the driveways into Newport Way

2:45:10 ↗ has that relief valve, which allows for more through traffic.

2:45:16 ↗ The other mitigation, which is related more to the Gateway Apartments, is the construction

2:45:23 ↗ of a roundabout. So that roundabout will eventually allow for more free flow traffic.

2:45:30 ↗ And so, and again, the water analogy is very good because It's not only gonna

2:45:35 ↗ benefit the intersection of Newport Way

2:45:41 ↗ and, what is that street again? I can't remember. Elm?

2:45:50 ↗ Pacific Elm. Yes, thank you. Pacific Elm, but it will obviously benefit the

2:45:56 ↗ traffic along Newport Way. So having said that, they are also going to

2:46:02 ↗ be required pay their, I'm sorry, their traffic

2:46:08 ↗ impact fees, which then benefits more of the system-wide improvements.

2:46:14 ↗ So I'm gonna let their traffic engineer talk a little bit more about the specifics.

2:46:19 ↗ Okay. Thanks, Amy. Jeff Schramm again.

2:46:27 ↗ I would say that a lot of the The staff did a really good job

2:46:32 ↗ in the traffic summary in the MD&S. So I would just, for the record, point

2:46:36 ↗ to that. It's a summary of the traffic analysis that was done for the project.

2:46:41 ↗ What I'd like to do is just highlight a couple additional items that were from

2:46:46 ↗ that summary. And as Amy mentioned, this project meets the zoning.

2:46:52 ↗ And it does meet the city's concurrency requirements. The city did plan for growth at

2:46:58 ↗ this level of density and development.

2:47:04 ↗ The project is building out, as Amy mentioned, the parkway improvements for Newport. So

2:47:12 ↗ those include not only a center turn lane, but maintaining bike lanes on both sides.

2:47:17 ↗ I know there's conversation about bikes through the area. The shared use path is separate

2:47:22 ↗ from that. They will still maintain bike lanes on both sides of Newport Way when

2:47:26 ↗ this is built out. The left turn lane, not only provides access for

2:47:33 ↗ trips into and out of the project site, but it also will build

2:47:38 ↗ out that section along the entire frontage. And those improvements will also tie in

2:47:45 ↗ as far as the property line goes to the old vet site.

2:47:52 ↗ There will be a transitional section in there that will maintain traffic

2:47:59 ↗ with the center turn lane as well. So that between the gateway apartments and the

2:48:03 ↗ senior site, there will be a continuous three lane section throughout that

2:48:09 ↗ corridor. And that is consistent with the city's plan for a parkway. I know that

2:48:15 ↗ there is some conversation about a future plan for Newport. The plan is for development

2:48:21 ↗ to build out the road to the standard. And that's what both of these projects

2:48:25 ↗ are doing. The site location, I would note,

2:48:32 ↗ is located near a curve, a horizontal curve along Newport Way. The site

2:48:38 ↗ location really, when we started looking at this, was located at a place where it

2:48:44 ↗ would meet site distance standards. If you move that access point further to the south

2:48:50 ↗ or to the west toward the old Vette property, it wouldn't meet site distance for

2:48:53 ↗ cars coming around that corner. So it's important to note that safety was considered

2:49:00 ↗ as a high priority to make sure that that access point was located so that

2:49:04 ↗ it would meet site-design standards. The traffic

2:49:10 ↗ analysis also considered build-out of the other Riva Apartments,

2:49:16 ↗ TALIS, Gateway Apartments project. Newport Wake is

2:49:22 ↗ anticipated to handle traffic from all four of these developments plus more. It is still

2:49:28 ↗ an arterial corridor identified as a parkway and it does have adequate capacity to

2:49:34 ↗ handle these projects. One of the administrative standards that

2:49:40 ↗ we are pursuing to be consistent with the parkway plan is to have the lanes

2:49:46 ↗ of traffic, the travel lanes to be 10 feet wide. Today the lanes out there,

2:49:52 ↗ vary between about 10 and 10 and a half feet. So what we're gonna see

2:49:56 ↗ in the ultimate parkway section is what you would experience today. In

2:50:02 ↗ addition to the center turn lane that will be added in the sidewalk improvements. And

2:50:07 ↗ then finally, as Amy mentioned, mitigation for this project is not only the frontage improvements,

2:50:12 ↗ but impact fees are intended to help the city pay for their

2:50:17 ↗ transportation system. Improvements that are planned that are necessary to accommodate growth.

2:50:23 ↗ And that's why we can identify the concurrency as met for the project. So that

2:50:29 ↗ would be a summary of some of the high points of the traffic analysis. DAVID

2:50:34 ↗ BURRAGE, Thank you. Does anybody else have a question for the traffic analyst? All right.

2:50:39 ↗ Thank you, sir. Are there any other questions? Is there any issues,

2:50:45 ↗ concerns? Yeah, I do. I'd like to

2:50:51 ↗ actually have a few more. So I've got some concerns about this

2:50:58 ↗ on page five of 22 SEPA review.

2:51:04 ↗ Building on silt and peat.

2:51:11 ↗ I have some concerns about that and I'd like to know

2:51:17 ↗ from the developer or the applicant if there has been

2:51:23 ↗ any thoughts on or discussion on what you're going to be using to

2:51:29 ↗ fill and build on and what kinds of

2:51:36 ↗ accommodations you've made or safety conditions for earthquake.

2:51:45 ↗ can talk about that a little bit.

2:51:58 ↗ Actually, the soils on this site are much better than they are on

2:52:04 ↗ the apartment site. But we fully anticipate

2:52:10 ↗ doing an adequate foundation that will be either the Spread Footing

2:52:16 ↗ Foundation. We're still in the analysis phase of deciding what's going to be the best

2:52:22 ↗ system for this building. Any field that's brought in will be

2:52:29 ↗ structural field. It'll be ground rock, basically,

2:52:35 ↗ and will be compacted so that it

2:52:42 ↗ has the same bearing capacity as native soil. And we do have a series of

2:52:48 ↗ engineered walls that'll be the retaining walls that hold back the site up to

2:52:54 ↗ Newport. And we actually have a structural shoring wall in one location where

2:53:00 ↗ we're close enough to Newport that it requires a structural solution. The other walls

2:53:06 ↗ will be engineered block walls that'll

2:53:13 ↗ allow the soil to be retained in six-foot lifts as we come down. So

2:53:20 ↗ we're just in the early stages of final analysis on the foundation for the actual

2:53:25 ↗ building, but the soils here are much better than they are on the apartment site.

2:53:31 ↗ Thank you. You're welcome. Anyone want to follow up with that? Okay.

2:53:38 ↗ I was reading on page six of 22, that there will be a greater amount

2:53:43 ↗ of fill than excavation. So considering that we're going to be having

2:53:49 ↗ a greater amount of fill, I was wondering how long you anticipate trucks

2:53:55 ↗ hauling that fill. I don't know if that would be a question for staff, Mr.

2:54:00 ↗ Chair, or the applicant. I'm going to go with the applicant, if you have any

2:54:06 ↗ idea. I understand that at this point we're talking

2:54:12 ↗ the plans are not complete. So if you don't have a number to answer

2:54:18 ↗ the commissioner's question, it's OK. But I think, well,

2:54:24 ↗ I believe the reason you're asking that question is that there has been concern voiced

2:54:27 ↗ by the public about construction vehicles and potential additional traffic issues on

2:54:34 ↗ Newport because of the construction vehicles, heavy construction vehicles. CHRISTIE WOODWARD- That is the reason

2:54:39 ↗ for my question, Mr. Chair. I don't have an accurate answer to that question at

2:54:43 ↗ this point, but we'd be happy to talk with our contractor and get a more

2:54:47 ↗ accurate estimate and submit it back to the council. That would be wonderful. That'd be

2:54:51 ↗ great. Thank you. Okay.

2:54:57 ↗ Commissioner Bryant? Just a couple quick

2:55:03 ↗ questions. We haven't talked about the building kind of architecture and their on-page

2:55:10 ↗ 43 of 202 or 31 of 41, depending on which one you're looking at. Amy,

2:55:15 ↗ you've added a condition here talking about,

2:55:22 ↗ in the staff report you're talking about, they've done some nice, provided some nice touches

2:55:26 ↗ to the kind of lower pedestrian level or at grade level, but you're asking for

2:55:31 ↗ something a little more interesting at the upper levels of the building. And we had,

2:55:36 ↗ I remember, a fairly with you back and forth on this topic on the gateway

2:55:40 ↗ apartments, particularly on this building that's facing I-90. And I just want to call that

2:55:46 ↗ out and say I agree with the comment and condition that you're making here that

2:55:50 ↗ I think something a little bit more interesting at the upper level of the building,

2:55:53 ↗ at least, at the roof line or in the upper story deck, would be

2:56:00 ↗ beneficial, I think, overall to the project. I think they made some changes to the

2:56:04 ↗ first project that I think helped, and hopefully they can do something here that

2:56:10 ↗ maybe adds a little bit more interest up at least up at the roof line.

2:56:14 ↗ And then I have a question for you, Amy, related to the through block connection

2:56:20 ↗ and how that is the underlying intent of

2:56:26 ↗ that in the code and how we're trying to apply that here. The through

2:56:32 ↗ block connection is, I'm guessing primarily for breaking down blocks for pedestrian access so people

2:56:37 ↗ don't have to walk so far to get to where they're going. Have to walk

2:56:42 ↗ around to get where they're going. But is there also partly the intent

2:56:48 ↗ to create some separation so you have long, big, long, massive buildings too, which

2:56:54 ↗ is kind of what we're getting here. They've done a lot to provide some variations

2:56:57 ↗ to make it less massive and more

2:57:03 ↗ interesting, and I think they've done well on that. We've had a lot of conversations,

2:57:08 ↗ we had some conversations about through block connections on the Costco

2:57:13 ↗ project. So I'm still confused about what we're trying to accomplish with that outside of

2:57:18 ↗ just shortening the pedestrian travel distance. So Commissioner Brennan,

2:57:25 ↗ your observations are all correct, and we did think about all of those. In this

2:57:31 ↗ particular building type, we also had to think about how it would function

2:57:36 ↗ internally for the residents. And as the architect showed earlier

2:57:43 ↗ in their floor plan, the common spaces are all in the center, which is also

2:57:48 ↗ kind of where the dashed line C is. So we took into consideration

2:57:54 ↗ could you possibly break this building into two and then create that external through block

2:58:00 ↗ passage? And so we

2:58:06 ↗ concluded that yes, but what does that really accomplish? And could it be accomplished

2:58:12 ↗ through an internal passage? And we arrived to the conclusion that you could accomplish

2:58:18 ↗ that with the internal passage because the type of people who will be using

2:58:24 ↗ this through block passage are primarily their residents and their visitors and their employees. So

2:58:30 ↗ having, in fact, that internal connection is kind of a nice thing, so you do

2:58:35 ↗ have like a covered through block passage. So with all of that into

2:58:40 ↗ consideration, we accepted and in fact did an interpretation that this is an

2:58:46 ↗ acceptable through block passage. Thank you. I have a question on that, Amy.

2:58:53 ↗ It says on page 15, it says it's accessible to almost everyone. And I'm just

2:58:58 ↗ curious about the, and I don't remember on the standards for through block

2:59:04 ↗ passages, and I think again the same question with Costco, is it required to be

2:59:09 ↗ accessible to the public or is it just a pedestrian access that doesn't have to

2:59:15 ↗ be accessible to the public? It can be private only. I can't remember.

2:59:23 ↗ Lucy may have a lot more history with the Costco and she may want to

2:59:27 ↗ chime in. So when I read the code, I don't think that it's meant

2:59:33 ↗ to be public, as in publicly accessible. It definitely is meant for,

2:59:40 ↗ you know, to break up super blocks. And so when you think about super blocks,

2:59:45 ↗ and even think about the gateway apartments, even though they were all outdoors and sure

2:59:51 ↗ anybody can walk, through them, but in all reality, if you don't live there, if

2:59:56 ↗ you don't have anything to do with that development, you're not gonna be walking through

3:00:00 ↗ those, you know, through block passages. So we don't restrict,

3:00:07 ↗ you know, the code was not very prescriptive about them being publicly accessible,

3:00:13 ↗ meaning the real public versus public as in different types of users.

3:00:19 ↗ The thing I would add to that is similar to Costco with a

3:00:25 ↗ creek there, just the level of connect, you know, if it was a street on

3:00:30 ↗ the other side, then having those connections and fully public

3:00:35 ↗ connections makes a lot more sense. But with a creek, there's just a limited number

3:00:40 ↗ of crossing points that can happen. And

3:00:46 ↗ We're seeing less demand because other than people who are living in that building and

3:00:52 ↗ using the building, normally we would, I think, want that to be

3:00:57 ↗ public, but because of the creek, it's a somewhat different situation. And the lack of

3:01:03 ↗ other public using this site other than the people going to this facility.

3:01:12 ↗ Well, speaking of that, I guess one thing, in looking through the plans they provided,

3:01:15 ↗ it's interesting that a lot of them are shown the south wing and the north

3:01:18 ↗ wing because they're so big it's hard to fit on one page, which to me

3:01:23 ↗ is kind of indication that it is a really big building. And I guess I

3:01:27 ↗ wonder, when you do see the overall west

3:01:33 ↗ elevation in their plans, there's something

3:01:39 ↗ more that can be done to that center portion architecturally to create a better

3:01:44 ↗ breakup, at least visually. I know there's something there. Maybe just in black and white

3:01:50 ↗ it's hard to tell. But it

3:01:56 ↗ doesn't seem like much of a breakup, I guess.

3:02:02 ↗ That's, I guess, more of a suggestion than a question.

3:02:09 ↗ So one of the, regarding the condition 17 that talks

3:02:15 ↗ about adding more details on the top

3:02:21 ↗ floor, I think that that will also address your concern because if you look at

3:02:26 ↗ the, they're already going in that direction with the gabled roof, you know, that's

3:02:32 ↗ facing Newport Way versus all the other roofs that's more like a shed roof.

3:02:40 ↗ So by expressing that even in a stronger way, maybe with those additional

3:02:46 ↗ architectural elements, that may provide a clear break. Great. Thank you. We'll

3:02:51 ↗ just keep pushing a little harder. Yeah, and speaking of pushing, I'd like to, and

3:02:56 ↗ on this subject, frankly, when I looked through this, I was

3:03:02 ↗ favorably impressed by the, color palettes and the materials that you are

3:03:08 ↗ suggesting you're going to use. And I would, because I

3:03:14 ↗ would ask you when this goes, when you are making these decisions,

3:03:22 ↗ to stick as closely as possible with the final product to what

3:03:27 ↗ you're showing us here when it comes to color and palette and things like that.

3:03:33 ↗ and I don't presume to speak for the other commissioners, but

3:03:36 ↗ I've been

3:03:42 ↗ surprised by some finished products that I didn't remember. The

3:03:47 ↗ palette that we saw and looked at and said, good to go, ended up that

3:03:52 ↗ way. And this, as far as I'm concerned, the

3:03:58 ↗ Northwest identity you've put into these initial drawings is, to me,

3:04:04 ↗ is desirable. And I'd like to see you continue with that, including the conditions

3:04:10 ↗ that the city has put forth with the upper parts of the building. So

3:04:17 ↗ I hope that when all is said and done that I don't drive by and

3:04:21 ↗ go, whoa, I don't remember that color. So Mr.

3:04:27 ↗ Chair, can I jump in on that too, if you don't mind? Just as a

3:04:31 ↗ question slash suggestion. When I look at some of the plans, and

3:04:37 ↗ I agree that the palette colors we have seen, I thought were fairly attractive. But

3:04:42 ↗ seeing the white stone or whatever the material is on the base and the dark

3:04:47 ↗ roofs, it seemed to me that the light colored stone at the base tended to

3:04:51 ↗ separate the building make it even stand out more and look even taller

3:04:58 ↗ from the views primarily would be from the east. I wondered about switching it

3:05:04 ↗ around and doing a darker base to help blend it into the building with a

3:05:08 ↗ lighter colored roof. JIM BEDOIA, JR.: Well, this is Jim

3:05:14 ↗ Bedoya again. And we did bring an actual color palette that we will

3:05:20 ↗ give to Amy at the end of this. us to the colors

3:05:26 ↗ we've suggested on this project. The stone that we're proposing is a

3:05:32 ↗ fairly dark stone. That's the base, like at the...

3:05:39 ↗ It's at the base of the Port Couchier and it's at the base of the

3:05:42 ↗ dining facility. Okay, I was thinking the base of the... Oops, sorry

3:05:48 ↗ about that. I was thinking the base of the... side of the building, like the

3:05:52 ↗ parking garage walls. Right. And it's from there that you get the tallest view of

3:05:57 ↗ the building. Well, where we have the parking structure, that's actually a

3:06:03 ↗ concrete structure. And so we were going to use an architectural concrete with scoring on

3:06:09 ↗ that portion of the elevation. And we have a pretty extensive

3:06:14 ↗ planting strip in front of that, where our landscape designers created a wonderful

3:06:21 ↗ foreground of landscape there. So, you know, the intent was to

3:06:27 ↗ just kind of keep an honest expression of base in that location and then foreground

3:06:33 ↗ it with the various ornamental shrubs and trees that we'll have in front of it.

3:06:38 ↗ Just my question then, can you do it in a dark concrete? I know you

3:06:42 ↗ can add color. Well, yeah, we could certainly look at adding color or a stain

3:06:46 ↗ if we agree that a better solution, we'll present it as an option

3:06:52 ↗ perhaps the next time we come in front of you. MR. Yeah. Again, that's just

3:06:55 ↗ my opinion of thought. MR. Would Commissioner Morgan's

3:07:01 ↗ suggestion of the darker color being used, would that ultimately, and this is not a

3:07:06 ↗ concern of the Development Commission, but with the kind of precipitation that we get here

3:07:11 ↗ and long term, would that be easier to maintain in pristine condition

3:07:17 ↗ with regard to the appearance of it if it were a darker color? I'm talking

3:07:22 ↗ about moss and mold and green. I think normal maintenance would

3:07:28 ↗ pressure wash those and we'll put a sealer on it. So I wouldn't worry about

3:07:32 ↗ the finish of architectural concrete degrading over time. It'll pretty much, with proper

3:07:38 ↗ maintenance, stay exactly the way it looked as new. Thank you for your comments. Thank

3:07:43 ↗ you, sir. Anybody have any other topics?

3:07:54 ↗ I just had one teeny tiny little thing and that was on page 26 of

3:07:58 ↗ 41 the conditions for the pea patch which I think is just

3:08:04 ↗ wonderful. I love that whole design. I just think it's beautiful and my tiny little

3:08:10 ↗ suggestion is to add a greenhouse and the only reason why I say that is

3:08:15 ↗ because I'm a gardener and in springtime you get very excited

3:08:21 ↗ and you wanna start some plants and I think it would be wonderful for the

3:08:26 ↗ seniors to have a little, just a small little greenhouse, nothing ostentatious or horribly

3:08:32 ↗ expensive to have them have a place to start their seeds and that's just a

3:08:38 ↗ suggestion. On the same page, Amy,

3:08:44 ↗ and the conditions 13 and 14, what would the, do you know what the city

3:08:49 ↗ codes are with regard to dogs being on lead or off lead in this property?

3:08:59 ↗ I'm not sure. I don't know on private property that there are any

3:09:05 ↗ restrictions. I think if they are on public property, it would be different.

3:09:13 ↗ I have a couple questions for Amy. Amy, on the conditions, I have a couple

3:09:17 ↗ questions on language. Instead of suggesting these, I thought I'd ask you your thoughts on

3:09:22 ↗ them before that. Condition number

3:09:26 ↗ seven, I think the

3:09:32 ↗ second sentence is, at the same time, this area should be well lit with natural

3:09:37 ↗ and artificial light. I wonder if you want that to say shall? and getting to

3:09:42 ↗ that question of should versus, you know, you should do it versus you have to

3:09:46 ↗ do it. So it's meant to be guidance, but

3:09:52 ↗ we also have lighting standards that will definitely address and make sure that this will

3:09:58 ↗ be well lit. So I'm not sure, so I think if

3:10:04 ↗ we didn't have any lighting standards, I probably would have used the word shall, but

3:10:08 ↗ it's almost like trying to say that Sure, you take into consideration the lighting standards,

3:10:14 ↗ but we want to, you know, this is meant to be more of kind of

3:10:20 ↗ a, to provide some additional information of what our expectation is. Okay,

3:10:25 ↗ great. And then on the, yeah. Can I follow up on that? Because I have

3:10:29 ↗ a question, just a line right before that. And it said that the

3:10:35 ↗ sidewalk or the pedestrian circulation be designed so it said visitors and

3:10:41 ↗ non-visitors know the sidewalk is not a primary connection to other community spaces?

3:10:48 ↗ I'm not sure, but how do you design something so that people know that it's

3:10:53 ↗ not something? It has big letters. Head in street. So we did have some

3:10:58 ↗ conversation about that and the applicants, designers are on board. So basically,

3:11:05 ↗ part of it is it's almost like, you know, and sign? Well, hopefully not, but

3:11:11 ↗ we talked about having some, the way that the terminus, the visual terminus of that

3:11:16 ↗ sidewalk, the way they plant and design the walkway

3:11:23 ↗ edges, that it would signify that it's really more like a private walkway for the

3:11:29 ↗ residents and that there's really nothing to walk to around the corner. You can't get

3:11:34 ↗ around, it's close to the end and then you have to turn around. Yeah, yeah.

3:11:38 ↗ I have a question on lighting. Okay. Amy, the light, I'm sorry. No, no.

3:11:44 ↗ If the pedestrian, if the bridge over Schneider Creek, if that's ultimately turns

3:11:50 ↗ out to be a vehicular capable bridge, does that have to be illuminated?

3:11:57 ↗ And if so, how would that address an environmentally sensitive area,

3:12:03 ↗ which I think is... So similar to Tibbetts Creek, you know

3:12:09 ↗ how we are, we have required them to provide the shared use route, which is

3:12:14 ↗ a 10-foot bridge over Tibbetts. They're going to basically

3:12:20 ↗ this is from conversation with our environmental planner, that you could have just low

3:12:26 ↗ lighting and primarily just to make sure that it's safe enough for people to walk

3:12:32 ↗ on at night. But it doesn't have that same light impact or

3:12:38 ↗ spillover. Okay, so the point is that one way or another, it won't necessitate a

3:12:42 ↗ conflict that has to be resolved, a conflict with existing code. Exactly, yes. Condition number

3:12:45 ↗ 10, It says,

3:12:51 ↗ consider using the city street standard T37. That's something where they

3:12:58 ↗ have to use it or they don't have to use it, we're just suggesting, or

3:13:01 ↗ should it say shall? So again, this

3:13:07 ↗ is reflecting what we did for the Gateway Apartments.

3:13:15 ↗ The commission had some reaction when we made a general condition that

3:13:21 ↗ all the crosswalks have to be these paved T37. And so we came to

3:13:27 ↗ the conclusion that there are specific crosswalks

3:13:34 ↗ like the one earlier that the architect mentioned that they're gonna provide at the entry.

3:13:41 ↗ That will be the typical stripe crosswalk, just to make sure that people understand and

3:13:46 ↗ drivers understand. But where you get down to the more natural areas

3:13:53 ↗ by the trail and the open spaces where a more decorative

3:13:58 ↗ crosswalk will be more appealing, we are basically saying those are the

3:14:04 ↗ opportunities to use something more than just your typical stripe crosswalks. But they don't have

3:14:09 ↗ to. saying? Yeah. Okay. I guess I always think of

3:14:15 ↗ conditions of things you have to do, and I'm so used to that, I guess.

3:14:19 ↗ It's hard to... Well, yeah, so we have, and maybe because

3:14:25 ↗ we're not reviewing the construction drawings for the other project, and in so

3:14:31 ↗ doing, I mean, they pretty much work with us on which crosswalks will be the

3:14:36 ↗ special paving and which ones are the striped ones and we haven't had any issues

3:14:41 ↗ with getting both in the appropriate locations. Okay, and then

3:14:47 ↗ one more, number 17, which says the top floor of the building, which is the

3:14:53 ↗ part most visible for Newport Way should be further refined. That's when I guess it

3:14:58 ↗ seems to me like we would say shall be. So I'll be happy to change

3:15:03 ↗ that. Yeah, okay, thank you.

3:15:09 ↗ Another question, the signage. So this is a major thoroughfare. They're going to have

3:15:15 ↗ presumably some kind of monument signage, but it sounds like we don't get to look

3:15:20 ↗ at it. It just comes at a permitting stage. Do we ever get to look

3:15:23 ↗ at signs again? Will it not reach the

3:15:30 ↗ level that it would come in front of the commission? I'll simplify that.

3:15:37 ↗ There are some new signs for new developments or things that have come before that

3:15:45 ↗ seem to be unsafe to me because they block vision.

3:15:51 ↗ They're too close to intersections and access roads. And I don't, again,

3:15:58 ↗ I don't believe in the particular case that I'm thinking of, which is very high

3:16:01 ↗ traffic, that we got a chance to, I mean, that we looked at it and

3:16:06 ↗ said, yeah, that's good. So I second Commissioner Morgan's concern about signs.

3:16:12 ↗ And I can't remember what the level is that it gets to us right now.

3:16:16 ↗ So are you concerned more about the safety because of where they're located or the

3:16:21 ↗ aesthetics? In the case that I'm citing both, because it's a reader sign.

3:16:27 ↗ And I don't understand, at that place,

3:16:33 ↗ reader signs anywhere, because they distract you and people are talking on cell phones and

3:16:37 ↗ texting and eating and also reading reader signs.

3:16:45 ↗ And I just don't remember us going, oh yeah, good, reader sign there that size

3:16:49 ↗ there would be a good idea. I think that's kind of what you're talking about.

3:16:55 ↗ Yeah, to me it's probably, I guess, maybe more aesthetics, but... So,

3:17:01 ↗ I'm now going to show the lack of depth of history. But I will say

3:17:05 ↗ that every kind of monument sign or reader sign should be reviewed by city

3:17:11 ↗ staff in a technical engineering site distance review. So

3:17:17 ↗ we wouldn't look to the commission for that. Not that you don't sometimes bring something

3:17:22 ↗ to our attention because that is that kind of technical review.

3:17:28 ↗ I have heard, I of course told Christopher Wright he didn't need to come tonight.

3:17:34 ↗ And this is where his depth would be useful. I

3:17:40 ↗ understand that signs used to come to DC, that they hadn't been coming

3:17:46 ↗ to DC, that they hadn't really expected them to come back to DC. I

3:17:52 ↗ don't know what the code says about purview. It's a great

3:17:58 ↗ question, and I'll take it up with him, and we'll come back to you. Okay,

3:18:02 ↗ great, thank you. I think I'm done. Are there any other

3:18:08 ↗ issues, concerns, questions that the commission wishes to address?

3:18:15 ↗ In that case. Any time for comments? Comments and suggestions?

3:18:21 ↗ Absolutely. That's what we're going to go to now. I

3:18:27 ↗ would just like to compliment the applicant on the attention that they've given to wildlife.

3:18:34 ↗ and the flyway and addressing the big-eared bats and

3:18:40 ↗ the landscaping I think is great and the setbacks from the streams and the consideration

3:18:46 ↗ that you've given to salmon which is very important to all Issaquah residents and so

3:18:51 ↗ I just wanted to compliment you on that and of course the pea patch and

3:18:55 ↗ the garden spaces. I also want to

3:19:03 ↗ I think the submittal package was well done and as always, Amy, your

3:19:09 ↗ work was very thorough. Appreciate the good read over the weekend. Thank you very much.

3:19:15 ↗ No football game either. Fortunately, there was no football. Just a couple of comments.

3:19:21 ↗ We heard a lot from the public this evening, a lot of concerns. Some of

3:19:25 ↗ them were out of the purview of the development commission related to the design of

3:19:30 ↗ Newport Way and and obviously staff is very attentive to that. And I know you

3:19:36 ↗ understand that the city council is also being very attentive to what's happening along Newport

3:19:41 ↗ Way and doing work to improve its safety and effectiveness as far

3:19:47 ↗ as its ability to move traffic. That driveway access coming off Newport Way, I understand

3:19:52 ↗ the challenge that the site topography offers. That is a difficult driveway access point coming

3:19:58 ↗ into and out of, particularly in inclement weather, I think. So lighting and ensuring

3:20:04 ↗ sight lines are maintained and not planting things that are going to grow and get

3:20:08 ↗ in the way and all of that are things that are going to be really

3:20:11 ↗ necessary. I did sense, maybe I'm wrong, but maybe there's a little

3:20:17 ↗ tension between the applicant and the city on the road connection to the vet clinic

3:20:21 ↗ that seems to need some attention. I'll just chalk that up to maybe there was

3:20:25 ↗ a miscommunication in there somewhere, but I expect that that will be resolved before it

3:20:29 ↗ comes back here. Architecturally, the building, the design is

3:20:36 ↗ interesting. There's lots of variation. There are some things that I like about it. I

3:20:42 ↗ like what you did on the back side in that central piece with the, over

3:20:46 ↗ the dining area and the deck above, the roof deck above, and the kind of

3:20:51 ↗ interesting kind of architecture you added to that with some heavy timbers. but that was

3:20:55 ↗ interesting. I agree with Commissioner Morgan's point about in the center of the building where

3:21:00 ↗ that through block connection is if you can do something more to break up the

3:21:03 ↗ length of the building, because this is a very long building because it's on a

3:21:06 ↗ very large piece of property. And I think that is one of the underlying intents

3:21:10 ↗ of the code is to have both vertical and kind of horizontal relief going

3:21:17 ↗ on. The landscaping and the terraces that you described, particularly coming into the entry, I

3:21:21 ↗ think will be really interesting, nice gateway into the building. What happens up on the

3:21:26 ↗ street is kind of a gateway feature as you're coming down Newport Way and heading

3:21:31 ↗ into downtown Issaquah. It's hard to get from the plans exactly how that's going

3:21:37 ↗ to look, but being attentive to the visual as you're coming in and then seeing

3:21:42 ↗ this building in your purview, in your peripheral, I guess, as you're coming down the

3:21:48 ↗ street, I think will be something to pay attention to as well. And then, I

3:21:53 ↗ think just overall the trail system and the connectivity between the

3:21:59 ↗ properties I think is going to be nice, particularly for the residents of both the

3:22:02 ↗ apartments and the seniors. And who knows, you might have the kids living in the

3:22:06 ↗ apartments and the parents living in the senior apartments and that would be great.

3:22:12 ↗ I do think a pedestrian and bike bridge is really going to adequately serve the

3:22:18 ↗ need here. I don't really see a benefit for that out or providing

3:22:25 ↗ vehicle traffic back through that portion of the site. I just don't see that there's

3:22:29 ↗ a benefit to either project to having vehicular connectivity between the two other than people

3:22:34 ↗ that might want to just cut through, as you heard the chair talk about a

3:22:38 ↗ what if that could very much be a reality, I think. So I would just

3:22:42 ↗ encourage seeing what we can do to make that a pedestrian access. I don't know

3:22:47 ↗ where the standards are going to take us on that, but that would seem to

3:22:50 ↗ be adequate in my mind. Again, thanks again for the public and staying with us

3:22:54 ↗ until 1030 tonight. This has been a long one, but your input has been very

3:22:59 ↗ much appreciated. MIKE

3:23:04 ↗ PATTERSON, Yeah, again, thank you very much to the public for coming in and all

3:23:07 ↗ the comments that were sent in to staff that we were able to review and

3:23:11 ↗ look at. Thank you to the applicant for all the detailed work you've done and

3:23:15 ↗ information you've provided. It's been very helpful. And to Amy, as always, again, this is

3:23:19 ↗ Mr. Brennan. very thorough package to read through. A few

3:23:25 ↗ things, number one, parking, the question about the adequacy, and I feel the parking is

3:23:30 ↗ adequate, our goal should be to have less parking in the city, not

3:23:36 ↗ more parking. Less parking means less traffic, it means less impervious

3:23:42 ↗ surface. Those are all good things, and a big intent of the Central Area Plan

3:23:47 ↗ was to reduce usage in the city and we don't encourage that by providing more

3:23:52 ↗ parking stalls. I don't think we need to design the parking stalls for

3:24:00 ↗ a few days a year, like Mother's Day or something, which you can shuttle people

3:24:04 ↗ to the park and ride with a shuttle bus or something like that. I think

3:24:07 ↗ it's in the developer owner's interest to have enough parking as it is. I think

3:24:12 ↗ we're fine on parking. The bridge over Schneider Creek, I strongly feel that should be

3:24:18 ↗ just a pedestrian bike only bridge. I don't see a big benefit to the community

3:24:23 ↗ of making that into a vehicular bridge. And as it was pointed out, it could

3:24:29 ↗ just become a cut through to Newport Way westbound that puts a lot of

3:24:35 ↗ traffic through this property's driveway that really shouldn't be there. I'd strongly urge that we,

3:24:42 ↗ eliminate that condition about making that addition. The building colors we talked about, about

3:24:48 ↗ the darker bays would be nice. The administrative adjustment of standards that Mr. Sugarman brought

3:24:54 ↗ up about reducing the lane width from 11 feet to 10 feet, which sounds like

3:24:59 ↗ closer to what we have already, I would agree with. We weren't asked about that

3:25:03 ↗ earlier, but I would agree with that because I think that will help calm traffic.

3:25:07 ↗ I'd rather have narrower lanes if we want to keep people under 30 miles an

3:25:10 ↗ hour. with your standard adjustment there.

3:25:16 ↗ I would like in the package you come to us at the next meeting, if

3:25:20 ↗ you can show some interior views along what would be the neighborhood

3:25:26 ↗ street, the driveway in front of the building, showing the retaining walls with pedestrians there.

3:25:31 ↗ It's hard for me to understand how big those walls look like for somebody within

3:25:36 ↗ that frontage area. And I think it's going to be attractive, but I'm just concerned

3:25:40 ↗ about to see gigantic walls that we didn't expect.

3:25:47 ↗ Let's see, and I would consider one thought would be for the

3:25:53 ↗ Vet Road connection or the connection through the Vet Clinic property,

3:25:59 ↗ is there a possibility to make that from the southeast corner of this property?

3:26:05 ↗ Because if that goes through, I imagine the benefit is for people from

3:26:11 ↗ the east on Newport Way to go through that road and they're typically going to

3:26:16 ↗ want to go into your parking and parking garage down below and having that come

3:26:22 ↗ in down there. So south, so this is

3:26:28 ↗ north, this is south. So right there, so at that southeast corner having, you've identified

3:26:34 ↗ that the connection should be up above at the southwest corner there.

3:26:40 ↗ it be, could it come in down there a little further away from Newport Way

3:26:45 ↗ and so forth. So just to be clear, you are

3:26:51 ↗ supportive of the connection, but to look at a southern

3:26:58 ↗ or more eastern connection instead of where they showed their stub.

3:27:04 ↗ Yes, I think long term it would be helpful because I think I originally thought

3:27:09 ↗ it would be nice to have a ride in only from Newport Way to the

3:27:12 ↗ south west corner, but when you mentioned that grade difference of 15 feet, that kind

3:27:18 ↗ of makes that impossible to do. I do get concerned about so many cars making

3:27:22 ↗ that right turn hairpin around. And then coming down. Coming from the east. If they

3:27:26 ↗ could come through the VET property from Newport Way through the VET property and then

3:27:31 ↗ access your parking lot and garage, I think that would be very helpful. keep

3:27:37 ↗ people away from your main entrance, port co-chair and so forth.

3:27:45 ↗ Let's see. And then finally, I definitely think that we should

3:27:51 ↗ bring the signage to the Development Commission. You talked about changing the landscaping in front

3:27:56 ↗ because this is an important gateway property to the city. It's a main arterial and

3:28:01 ↗ it's a gateway. city its gateway signage if anything should come to the

3:28:07 ↗ commission i would think that would be one that we would like to see so

3:28:12 ↗ and again thank you very much for your hard work mr swedberg

3:28:18 ↗ i am getting near the end so we start echoing what everybody has already said

3:28:24 ↗ i'll thank the applicant for their package and for putting up with us sometimes ask

3:28:33 ↗ from your perspective, crazy questions, but from ours, ones that we just don't understand, so

3:28:37 ↗ thank you for your patience. Amy, as always, thank you. I'm particularly impressed with the

3:28:43 ↗ pictures where you have superimposed

3:28:49 ↗ what it will potentially look like from what it looks like now. One of the

3:28:55 ↗ hardest things with these projects is to visualize what it's gonna look like.

3:29:01 ↗ I think that potentially the neighbors would have a better understanding if they could see

3:29:06 ↗ these things even bigger so they would have a better feel for this is what

3:29:10 ↗ it's gonna look like. I know when they did that project that's just up the

3:29:14 ↗ hill from that, we had some more pictures years ago in regards to what it's

3:29:20 ↗ gonna look like and that's what it turned out like. It wasn't quite as imposing

3:29:23 ↗ as it appeared.

3:29:31 ↗ to my fellow Commissioner Morgan. I think parking

3:29:37 ↗ is an issue. I don't particularly think that

3:29:41 ↗ the desire to have everybody in Issaquah walking everywhere and riding

3:29:47 ↗ bikes is gonna happen. So I think that's something that needs

3:29:53 ↗ to be looked at, particularly in an area like this which is removed from everything

3:29:58 ↗ else. There's just no other alternative. I don't know what the answer might be, but

3:30:02 ↗ it's something to, I mean, you're in compliance with the rules, so I guess we're

3:30:06 ↗ gonna have to see what happens. I have a good friend that lives at

3:30:12 ↗ a retirement community in Seattle, and when I visit him, I usually spend about 15

3:30:18 ↗ minutes driving around because there are no parking spots. And this is a

3:30:24 ↗ residential neighborhood, so there's streets. I'm going up and down side streets trying to find

3:30:30 ↗ something within a block or two so I can visit. And I would think the

3:30:34 ↗ same thing might be happening here. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's

3:30:39 ↗ a concern I have and I'm sure that the neighbors have as well that live

3:30:43 ↗ in the area. Again, thank you for your presentation. Thank you.

3:30:50 ↗ Everything they said. But the additional one, seriously, it's a

3:30:56 ↗ very good package. Very well done, staff. I appreciate it. And I also appreciate the

3:31:01 ↗ members of the public that have taken the time to show up and comment. A

3:31:06 ↗ couple of things that I want to, I do agree strongly that it should be

3:31:11 ↗ a pedestrian and bike bridge.

3:31:18 ↗ We make the decision. as we did at the beginning

3:31:26 ↗ of this meeting, as we did at the beginning of this meeting, we do make

3:31:31 ↗ routine adjustments. I mean, the observation was made, wait a minute, you guys are, everything

3:31:35 ↗ that comes up gets adjusted, the standards get adjusted. So it's something that we do,

3:31:41 ↗ that the city does, that the city asks, tells us, here's the case for an

3:31:46 ↗ adjustment of the standard. So connectivity is great. It's absolutely great. But in

3:31:52 ↗ this case, I don't think that connectivity is negatively impacted by having that be

3:31:58 ↗ a pedestrian and bike bridge. I believe that the

3:32:04 ↗ impact of having vehicles using that, whether it's queued or two lanes, are negative.

3:32:11 ↗ So I would really strongly agree with my fellow commissioners urge that the

3:32:17 ↗ city and the applicant come together on a suitable design for it

3:32:23 ↗ that is accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists.

3:32:30 ↗ The one thing that hasn't come up, and this came up, I was not able

3:32:34 ↗ to attend the final meeting on the gateway project, but in the community conference on

3:32:39 ↗ that, there was significant discussion of the interface with I-90

3:32:46 ↗ for the parcels. And at this stage, we have the landscaping plan that's still in

3:32:51 ↗ development. And it seems to me that

3:32:57 ↗ an audible and visual screen from 90

3:33:01 ↗ for new plantings of permanent trees, a mix of deciduous and conifer,

3:33:08 ↗ would be beneficial. I don't know, I couldn't tell from the landscaping plans that I

3:33:13 ↗ looked at here what additional work, if any, is gonna be done down there, but

3:33:18 ↗ I really think that it wouldn't impact the

3:33:23 ↗ desirability of the project from the residents' point of view. If anything, it might increase

3:33:28 ↗ it if they don't have to look at 90, especially the

3:33:34 ↗ lower floors. I don't know what you can do about the upper floors for the

3:33:35 ↗ next if you put in trees that are gonna grow. But I believe that there

3:33:41 ↗ would be a significant benefit to the property to have a

3:33:47 ↗ good screen of trees on the 90.

3:33:53 ↗ When it comes to the view, I also thought that the inclusion, Amy, of the

3:33:58 ↗ pictures that Carl referred to, Commissioner Swedberg referred to, were very beneficial because that is

3:34:03 ↗ an enormous, if this may be second to traffic when it comes to projects like

3:34:09 ↗ this. People are very concerned that they're not going to be able to see the

3:34:14 ↗ mountains. And I would just say that I shared that concern as an individual, not

3:34:18 ↗ as a Development Commission member, as a long-time resident of Issaquah. And what I've discovered

3:34:23 ↗ is that, in fact, the new projects that have come in lately, when you're on

3:34:29 ↗ the street looking at them, you can see, you can still see the mountains.

3:34:36 ↗ and so the views have been preserved in accordance with the plan.

3:34:42 ↗ So there are going to be some areas where the views are blocked, obviously by

3:34:46 ↗ a building like that. But overall, in terms of the intention of the Central Area

3:34:51 ↗ Plan, I believe there's evidence that it's working. And lastly,

3:34:58 ↗ I would just like to observe that the The question that comes before us

3:35:03 ↗ frequently is one of the suitability in terms of the impact on neighbors.

3:35:09 ↗ And obviously there is an impact on neighbors, but this is an issue that's obviously

3:35:15 ↗ very important to residents whose homes are already

3:35:21 ↗ in that area. But it's one that I believe the city has done a considerably

3:35:25 ↗ long complicated

3:35:31 ↗ positive process that has involved countless hours of public meetings and public input

3:35:38 ↗ and discussions and recommendations that has resulted in what we call today the central area,

3:35:42 ↗ the central Issaquah plan. And the deal is

3:35:48 ↗ people want to come here and live and work and we've got to accommodate them

3:35:52 ↗ to the best of our abilities. So we're doing this through this process. And the

3:35:58 ↗ opportunity for people to make comments For those comments to be taken into consideration and

3:36:03 ↗ in many cases acted upon, I think is a critical part of this whole thing.

3:36:10 ↗ So, are there any other comments?

3:36:16 ↗ Again, thank you on behalf of the members of the commission. Thank you very much

3:36:19 ↗ for coming here. This has been a good meeting, a good exchange of ideas and

3:36:24 ↗ I hope it will lead to an outcome that everybody finds if not indeed

3:36:31 ↗ happy. With that, we will declare the meeting over. CHRISTIE WOODWARD- Thank you.

3:36:36 ↗ CHRISTIE WOODWARD- Thank you.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF