Development Commission · Wednesday, March 9, 2016 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

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

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Meeting Minutes from March 2, 2016 These will be sent out later. Not available to post

3. AGENDA ITEMS

PUBLIC HEARING: Riva Townhomes Site Development Permit

Amy Tarce, Senior Planner · packet pp.5–153

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

AGENDA ITEMS a) Riva Townhomes, PRJ14-00023, SDP15-00004 DC Staff Report: March 3, 2016

1634 segments .txt ↗

0:45 ↗ TODD BANDUCCI: For those of you who are looking at your watch, there we are.

0:50 ↗ We're on the air. All right. That's what we're waiting for. Good evening, and welcome

0:55 ↗ to the March 9th meeting of the Issaquah Development Commission. Tonight's meeting will look at

1:00 ↗ a couple of different things. We have one primary subject, which is the Riva Town

1:05 ↗ Home project. And we do not have minutes to approve tonight, so we will go

1:10 ↗ straight to the city staff presentation beginning with an explanation of the quasi-judicial

1:16 ↗ process that will be done by Lucy Sloan. Good evening, Commissioners. We're starting

1:22 ↗ to do this with each of the presentations because I did the longer

1:27 ↗ version last time. I'm going to do an abbreviated version this time.

1:35 ↗ So this site development permit is a quasi-judicial review by

1:41 ↗ you, which means that you are acting like a court

1:46 ↗ and therefore your proceedings have to be fair and appear

1:52 ↗ fair. And that comes down to both procedural due process,

1:57 ↗ that our process follows certain specific rules, And mainly tonight

2:03 ↗ we're focused on your relationship as decision makers with

2:09 ↗ the applicant. And then also substantive due process that

2:14 ↗ you follow certain regulations in making your decision. I

2:20 ↗ guess I can make this even bigger. So again,

2:25 ↗ I would like you just to take a moment

2:31 ↗ and read through the questions that are up on

2:36 ↗ the screen. How many of you would answer no?

2:42 ↗ Okay. And then the second piece is about

2:48 ↗ ex parte contacts, which happens to be having communications

2:54 ↗ with people outside the hearing. And so if you

3:00 ↗ could again read the questions regarding whether contacts have

3:06 ↗ occurred. No? No. OK. Great. Thank you very much.

3:14 ↗ All right. We will go from

3:19 ↗ that to presentation by the city

3:24 ↗ staff. Amy Tarrs. Good evening members

3:29 ↗ of the commission. My name is

3:34 ↗ Amy Tarrs and I'm a senior

3:39 ↗ planner for the city of Issaquah.

3:45 ↗ So tonight I will be presenting

3:50 ↗ the first of two presentations on

3:55 ↗ the Riva townhomes, SDP 15-00004. Tonight, my presentation

4:01 ↗ will focus primarily on the big elements of this project and how

4:07 ↗ it complies with the Central Issaquah Development Standards. and I will highlight

4:13 ↗ some of the recommended conditions for your consideration. However, I encourage all

4:19 ↗ the commissioners to please review the complete set of conditions for our

4:25 ↗ next meeting, which will be when you will be asked to take

4:30 ↗ action on the project. I do have three additional attachments that

4:36 ↗ I would like to submit and you have copies of them. And just

4:42 ↗ for the record, the attachment 15 is a memo from Gary Schultz, who

4:48 ↗ is the wetland specialist consultant for the applicant. We've asked the applicant to

4:54 ↗ update their wetland and stream determination primarily after we've identified the location of

5:00 ↗ the shared use route on their property. And because it's, and I'm gonna talk

5:05 ↗ more about it in detail, I just wanted to make sure that you understand

5:11 ↗ what the purpose of that update. Attachment 16 are comments from the

5:17 ↗ Washington Department of Ecology. And attachment 17 is a CEPA

5:23 ↗ comment from the Washington Department of Ecology again. So these

5:29 ↗ two are related to, again, the environmental elements of the

5:35 ↗ project, primarily state review of wetlands and in our

5:40 ↗ process of identifying mitigation required for any encroachment

5:46 ↗ on the wetland buffers. One of the things that

5:52 ↗ we are, I didn't include here is a slide that talks about,

5:58 ↗ I know I usually identify concurrent reviews. So we have two concurrent

6:03 ↗ reviews for this project. One is the SEPA review, which is ongoing.

6:09 ↗ And then the also ongoing is two administrative adjustment of standards for

6:14 ↗ their circulation. Facilities one is on the section of Newport

6:20 ↗ Way, particularly reducing the width of Newport Way from 11,

6:26 ↗ I'm sorry, the travel width the traveling width of Newport

6:31 ↗ Way from 11 feet to 10 feet, which is the same AAS

6:37 ↗ that we've considered for both two other projects that you recently reviewed,

6:43 ↗ the Gateway Apartments and the Gateway Senior Apartments or the Gateway Senior

6:48 ↗ Housing Apartments. The other AAS is again identical to

6:54 ↗ an AAS that we have reviewed and approved for Gateway

6:59 ↗ Apartments, which involves a modification or adjustment of the standards

7:05 ↗ for a primary through block passage. So those are still

7:11 ↗ open for public comment and We decided not to do what

7:17 ↗ we did last time for the Gateway Senior Report, where we had

7:23 ↗ a separate opportunity for the public to comment on it, only because

7:28 ↗ part of the purpose of that was to also get the commission's

7:34 ↗ comments. We've actually already reviewed and approved the same type of AASs

7:40 ↗ for the Gateway Apartments. However, you're more than welcome to send me

7:45 ↗ your comments if you'd like to for us to consider any other, you

7:51 ↗ know, for whatever reason that applies to this project. So having

7:57 ↗ said that, I'll go ahead and talk about the purpose of

8:03 ↗ the meeting tonight, which is staff to present our analysis of

8:09 ↗ the Riva Town Homes project for SDP approval or site development

8:15 ↗ permit approval. So first, just talking about the

8:20 ↗ proposal, the scope of the proposal includes 36

8:26 ↗ townhomes with four stories, 86 parking spaces, and

8:32 ↗ with a lot size of 6.2 acres, but

8:37 ↗ only 2.19 acres are developable. So just

8:43 ↗ like how I approached the other two projects on Newport Way, I'm going

8:49 ↗ to present this project in terms of two major themes that the Central

8:55 ↗ Sequoia Development and Design Standards emphasizes a lot. One is connectivity and the

9:00 ↗ other is place making. A lot of the chapters in this in the

9:06 ↗ standards fit quite nicely within these two themes. And again, I'm

9:12 ↗ just gonna highlight the ones that have conditions that are also

9:18 ↗ larger issues for the project. Amy, could I, I'm sorry, I neglected this

9:23 ↗ procedural thing. Members of the public, I've neglected to tell you that if you'd like

9:28 ↗ to speak, we'd like you to sign in here and put your name and your

9:33 ↗ address and you will be given an opportunity after the applicant makes the presentation, there

9:38 ↗ will be an opportunity for public comment. I apologize. So

9:44 ↗ under connectivity, I'm going to start off with highlighting circulation

9:50 ↗ facilities, followed with the green necklace elements, and then discussion

9:55 ↗ and views. For placemaking, we'll talk again about the sense

10:01 ↗ of place and arrival and some architectural details for for

10:07 ↗ the project that falls under both the Western Gateway vision for the

10:13 ↗ site and also pedestrian friendly public realm. So the location

10:19 ↗ um is in the western gateway as I mentioned of central is a

10:24 ↗ qua and the vision for this area is an attractive gateway that maintains

10:30 ↗ significant open space views from I 90. Um and one of the um

10:35 ↗ other key um element of the vision is the enhancement of Tibbets Creek

10:41 ↗ and its buffers as part of the green necklace. So Here's a

10:47 ↗ map showing, this is more like a vicinity map that shows the existing

10:52 ↗ land uses around the property. The project site is shown in the center

10:58 ↗ of the map. And right east of it, the green area that you

11:04 ↗ see is the Tibbets Creek Corridor. So it abuts, a major part of

11:09 ↗ it abuts the Tibbets Creek critical area. On the south,

11:15 ↗ it's right across the Cougar Mountain Regional

11:21 ↗ Wildlife, am I mixing this up again?

11:26 ↗ Regional Wildland Park. And And surrounding it

11:32 ↗ is primarily multifamily residential on the north side along

11:37 ↗ the eastern side of Newport Way and single family

11:43 ↗ on the western side of Newport Way. Oh,

11:49 ↗ I'm sorry. So the other, um, the other significant area, um, that's

11:54 ↗ close to this property is, um, a conglomeration of retail light, industrial

12:00 ↗ and commercial uses. That's more commonly referred to as the rally properties.

12:07 ↗ The red line shows the Central Issaquah boundary, which distinguishes how development

12:13 ↗ on this side of Newport Way are in some ways different than

12:19 ↗ the ones on the south side, primarily because this area is governed

12:25 ↗ by the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards, and on the west

12:31 ↗ side of Newport Way is under the Land Use Code.

12:37 ↗ So just a quick view of the Newport Way streetscape. Pretty

12:43 ↗ much what you see is a very consistent, very green corridor

12:49 ↗ on this part of Newport Way with the Riva property shown

12:55 ↗ on the right and on the left is the Cougar Mountain

13:01 ↗ Regional Wildland Park. Existing street conditions include a 10-foot multi-use

13:06 ↗ bike pedestrian area on the Riva side of Newport Way, a

13:12 ↗ five foot bike lane, primarily a commuter bike facility, two lanes

13:18 ↗ of traffic, and then on the left is a shoulder that

13:24 ↗ varies in width. In some parts of Newport Way, still

13:29 ↗ across the Riva property, it's about a three foot shoulder. And then

13:35 ↗ in some areas, it's wide enough where, in fact, some people end

13:41 ↗ up parking there because it looks more like a very convenient parking

13:47 ↗ space. Site plan again, just in general, I'm just going to call out

13:52 ↗ the main elements of this plan. What's most dominant when you look at the

13:58 ↗ site plan is that the as I mentioned earlier, the developable areas limited to

14:04 ↗ about two point what 16 acres and this is shown by this area

14:10 ↗ here. Um everything else that you see on the property will be protected wetlands

14:16 ↗ and um there's also some streams Um in the in the property.

14:22 ↗ Um again, the townhouses are primarily lined up along Newport Way, creating a

14:28 ↗ strong street wall. And then there's also some units in the internal of

14:34 ↗ the property that's abutting and closer um and relates more to the wetlands

14:40 ↗ and the natural areas. The other element here is uh a shared

14:46 ↗ use route that is running along the north side of the property.

14:51 ↗ The main access to the interior units are through this driveway or

14:57 ↗ alley. And later on I'm going to talk about the other elements

15:03 ↗ of the circulation facilities. And this is Newport Way. This site plan

15:08 ↗ obviously shows more of the future alignment and future improvements.

15:14 ↗ So one of the things I've mentioned in the staff report

15:20 ↗ is how there's a current public, I'm sorry, city project

15:25 ↗ that will be on this property. It's the anti-aircraft creek

15:31 ↗ culvert project meant to mitigate a current flooding issue on

15:36 ↗ Newport Way. So on the left you see the site

15:42 ↗ plan that shows how this culvert currently runs along the

15:48 ↗ west side of Newport Way and crosses Oak Crest, the intersection at

15:53 ↗ Oak Crest and then runs along more on the north side of

15:59 ↗ this property. In the future, the new culvert, which will be

16:05 ↗ uh which will replace the existing culvert um will will be

16:10 ↗ moved further south and will cross newport way at this location

16:16 ↗ and um cross through the and and run through the property

16:21 ↗ and then um dispersed into the the um the wetland so

16:27 ↗ because of this um city project um the way they have

16:32 ↗ um designed their their their site plan has to take into consideration

16:38 ↗ the location of this um public culvert um or publicly owned culvert and

16:44 ↗ um and they and um and they will be granting a 20 foot

16:50 ↗ easement to the city for the purpose of this project. Staff

16:56 ↗ has conducted the review of how this development complies with our zoning

17:02 ↗ standards. And I'm not going to go through all of these, but

17:07 ↗ I'm just going to say, just to demonstrate that they met the

17:13 ↗ basic standards. For circulation facilities, first I'd like to again

17:19 ↗ bring up this regional map just to show how this property and the

17:25 ↗ circulation facilities in this property fits into the regional system. So what you

17:31 ↗ see here is Newport Way shown as a green line primarily because I'm

17:36 ↗ using the non-motorized routes and parks map. But basically Newport Way is

17:42 ↗ a multimodal transportation network or street. And so what you see

17:48 ↗ here is an existing shared use route. And in addition to

17:54 ↗ that, Newport Way is part of the Mountain to Sound Greenway.

17:59 ↗ So the property having access on Newport Way is part of

18:05 ↗ this whole Greenway corridor. The site is also served by,

18:11 ↗ I'm sorry, so the one thing that's identified in the

18:17 ↗ Central Issaquah Development Standards is how this site has this

18:23 ↗ red, I'm sorry, this green dot and a dashed line

18:29 ↗ representing basically a requirement for a significant community space. The

18:35 ↗ code allows the director of the development services department to select

18:41 ↗ the most appropriate community space required for a property. And in this particular

18:47 ↗ case, especially because the site is constrained by a lot of the critical

18:53 ↗ areas and the developable, the remaining developable areas, only two acres.

18:58 ↗ It was determined that a shared use route was the option for this project.

19:04 ↗ And that's because in the code it also says that a neighborhood park shall

19:10 ↗ be two acres. So it's not reasonable to ask them to provide a neighborhood

19:16 ↗ park in a project that has a developable area of two acres.

19:22 ↗ The circulation facilities includes a parkway. Newport Way was classified

19:28 ↗ as a parkway. And what you see here is a

19:34 ↗ diagram that shows the proposed new section. Again, it will

19:40 ↗ entail adding a center turn lane with two 10-foot travel lanes

19:45 ↗ and retaining the five-foot bike lanes that are that's already out there.

19:51 ↗ On the side of the Riva property, they will also be providing

19:57 ↗ a five-foot tree planter area and then a 10-foot multi-use bike lane

20:02 ↗ and pedestrian lane or what we call a shared use route. So

20:08 ↗ what you see here, this arrow points to the width of Newport

20:14 ↗ Way that will be part of their frontage improvements. And the reason,

20:19 ↗ while normally we require only half street improvements, in this particular case,

20:25 ↗ the applicant is required to provide provide the full width because the whole

20:31 ↗ center line of Newport Way has to shift in order to accommodate the

20:36 ↗ new development. And in addition to that, they will be required to provide

20:42 ↗ one and a half feet for right-way dedication.

20:48 ↗ So other circulation facilities include the true block passages. So this graphic

20:54 ↗ actually combines two sections of the code or standards and one has

20:59 ↗ to do with the block length because these two items work hand

21:05 ↗ in hand. So I'm just going to talk about them together. One

21:11 ↗ of the standard in the site site section of the standard

21:16 ↗ requires that blocks that that blocks are no more than 250 feet

21:22 ↗ long and so um or that breaks are provided for blocks that

21:28 ↗ are more than 300 feet that's the the That's really the correct

21:34 ↗ way of saying it. So since they have a very

21:39 ↗ long facade, they've actually broken it down into multiple breaks.

21:45 ↗ And what I'm showing here are three through-block passages. The

21:50 ↗ orange ones are primary through-block passages. meant to also serve as

21:56 ↗ the main circulation facility for the internal units that do not

22:02 ↗ access or does not have any access to Newport Way or

22:08 ↗ any other circulation facility. The Central Issaquah Standards require that every

22:14 ↗ every front door or primary entrance to a building has to

22:20 ↗ be fronting or has to front a circulation facility. So

22:25 ↗ the smaller through block passage is a secondary through block passage.

22:31 ↗ And this is also, so this site plan has not been

22:37 ↗ updated, but this would have been the location for the culvert

22:42 ↗ easement. So they have used this as an opportunity given that that

22:48 ↗ this has to remain as an open space to convert that into

22:54 ↗ another pedestrian break for the property. So as a secondary through block

23:00 ↗ passage, they're only required to provide a five foot wide sidewalk. And

23:06 ↗ it's shown as a meandering sidewalk to work with the grades on

23:12 ↗ this part of their property. So I'd like to talk a

23:17 ↗ little bit about one of the through block passages because we have three conditions

23:23 ↗ related to it. And so in this In this slide,

23:29 ↗ what you're seeing are several conditions for different parts of the code,

23:35 ↗ but all related to the same area. In our staff report, we

23:41 ↗ have noted that the through block passage as currently proposed is disconnected

23:47 ↗ both visually and physically because of the driveway and the parking lot.

23:53 ↗ So while you have a great community space, and a public,

23:59 ↗ not public, but a community amenity that serves not only

24:05 ↗ these three units at the end of the property, but

24:10 ↗ also the rest of the community. It's currently blocked off

24:17 ↗ physically and visually by the parking lot. In addition to that, the

24:22 ↗ through block passage is disconnected because of this. So we, I'm not

24:28 ↗ gonna go and read through every condition, but basically these three conditions

24:34 ↗ require a 10 foot walkway as prescribed by the Central

24:40 ↗ Issaquah standards for a primary through block passage. It also requires that

24:45 ↗ the parking lot and this driveway area be designed more as a

24:51 ↗ pedestrian plaza like or like a vulnerability. And so that

24:57 ↗ also accomplishes several standards in the code that talks

25:03 ↗ about using parking areas for multifunctional purposes, as well

25:08 ↗ as for visual connection. And also for, let's see,

25:14 ↗ for this parking space at the very end and

25:20 ↗ the south end of the row of housing

25:26 ↗ along Newport Way to be removed in order to

25:31 ↗ accommodate a more a more generous walkway and and

25:37 ↗ and create a stronger physical and visual connection for

25:43 ↗ the interior of the property. So views and vistas

25:48 ↗ These two photos basically are meant to show

25:54 ↗ how this property has views of natural areas

26:00 ↗ throughout the perimeter of the site. So on the top right,

26:06 ↗ what you see is a conceptual perspective view from Newport Way.

26:12 ↗ But what you see is the primary through block corridor and

26:18 ↗ it terminates into a view of the the wetland area at

26:24 ↗ the interior of the property. So it creates a visual green connection,

26:29 ↗ visual and physical green connection from Newport Way to the interior of

26:35 ↗ the property and to the natural areas in the interior. And right

26:40 ↗ across This particular space is also the Cougar Mountain hillside.

26:46 ↗ So the property and all the units in the property

26:52 ↗ has views of green and natural areas either towards the

26:58 ↗ interior of the property or exterior facing towards Newport Way

27:03 ↗ and the Cougar Mountain hillside. So while

27:09 ↗ we're talking about the green spaces, I'm also gonna

27:14 ↗ bring up two other conditions because they're related to

27:20 ↗ how users can have a better interaction with the

27:25 ↗ green spaces on site. So the first one, condition

27:31 ↗ 17, talks about requiring a continued, I'm sorry, some sort of

27:37 ↗ pedestrian connection for all these green spaces in the interior of

27:42 ↗ the property along the perimeter, which also allows for view areas

27:48 ↗ and greater opportunity for people to interact with the edges of

27:53 ↗ the buffer. The other condition talks about again

27:59 ↗ under the multifunctional standard using these end stubs

28:05 ↗ of the parking drive or the driveways as

28:11 ↗ viewing points wherever the opportunity is, wherever these

28:16 ↗ stubs are provided. So now I want to

28:22 ↗ talk about some of the bigger elements again that falls very neatly

28:28 ↗ into this whole idea of the green necklace which is one of

28:34 ↗ the main features of the Central Issaquah plan. These include the Tibbets

28:39 ↗ Creek wetlands, streams and buffers, the shared use route, the mountains of

28:45 ↗ sound Greenway or bike trail and the Newport Way streetscape, which is both

28:51 ↗ along Newport Way, the through block passages and the community spaces. So I'm not

28:57 ↗ going to talk about Tibbets Creek primarily because we didn't really have any conditions

29:03 ↗ A lot of the mitigation required for reducing the buffer, so maybe

29:09 ↗ that's something worthy to mention that they are reducing the buffer from

29:15 ↗ 100 feet to 75 feet and providing full enhancement of the wetland

29:21 ↗ buffers in exchange for doing that. The other The other items,

29:26 ↗ the through block passages I've already talked about. So I'm gonna

29:32 ↗ just quickly talk about the other items. So the shared use

29:38 ↗ route, the bottom thumbnail sketch here or image here shows a

29:43 ↗ snip of the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards Figure 7B. In

29:49 ↗ that, it shows basically that requirement for a neighborhood park or the

29:55 ↗ shared use route, which is shown as this dotted green line. So

30:00 ↗ this is the Riva property, and on that map, it shows that

30:06 ↗ the shared use route is meant to connect to another shared use

30:11 ↗ route in the adjacent property. and it runs along the full length of

30:17 ↗ the north property line or boundary line of this project. So currently

30:23 ↗ what they have proposed is the shared use route running along partially

30:29 ↗ the north end of their property. Our condition basically requires that the

30:35 ↗ shared use route is extended to go all the way to the

30:40 ↗ northeast corner of their property. Um the condition also acknowledges that

30:46 ↗ if in the future in the near future the city um

30:52 ↗ ends up owning the um the Tibbetts Creek wetland that is

30:58 ↗ currently owned by the Gateway Apartments uh property owner that

31:04 ↗ that this shared use route will will shift further north

31:09 ↗ and connect to the proposed pedestrian bridge that is currently

31:15 ↗ being built by the Gateway Apartments. So this this alternative

31:21 ↗ B has a lot more potential for completing the shared

31:27 ↗ use route. given that there's already an existing route also being

31:32 ↗ built on the north end. So required community

31:38 ↗ spaces include both community spaces for each unit at 48 square feet.

31:44 ↗ And the project meets that. They are providing balconies for every unit

31:50 ↗ with a minimum size of 48 square feet. And in some cases,

31:56 ↗ I think it's a little bigger than that. So the

32:01 ↗ other requirement is for an on-site amenity.

32:07 ↗ And in the current proposal, they have identified three open spaces,

32:13 ↗ A, B, and C. However, they have not defined what type

32:19 ↗ of onsite amenity they are proposing. So we have provided two

32:24 ↗ conditions to account for reviewing and ensuring compliance to the code

32:30 ↗ during construction. Now I'd like to talk a little

32:36 ↗ bit about the sense of place. Again, being in the Western Gateway, we've talked about

32:42 ↗ this whole idea of the character of the Western Gateway from two other projects along

32:47 ↗ the corridor. So using the same line of thought, we reviewed this project. With

32:53 ↗ with the consideration that this is not and this is not immediately

32:59 ↗ at the Gateway or or the Northern end of Newport Way so

33:05 ↗ what you see here is again an interpretation of how the streetscape

33:10 ↗ will a Newport Way will look with the exist with the commuter

33:16 ↗ bike lane the 10-foot multi multi use shared use route, the

33:22 ↗ street trees and the townhouses. It shows the modulation of

33:27 ↗ the roof forms, the massing, the color as proposed, the

33:33 ↗ entry, the entry that's defined by a canopy and a porch.

33:39 ↗ And in this case, they're showing one of the things that I mentioned, the staff

33:44 ↗ report as far as color is that it's predominantly different shades of gray with accent

33:50 ↗ colors on the doors. One is red and one is a little like a beige

33:56 ↗ color. And I don't know if you can see the material board, but I can

34:01 ↗ bring it up later. So in determining whether or not they they meet

34:07 ↗ the Western Gateway vision, we took a little bit more of an

34:13 ↗ interpretation of this project versus, you know, for instance, the Gateway Apartments

34:18 ↗ or the Senior, the Gateway Senior Project in that we looked at

34:24 ↗ how well it fit with the natural environment. We believe that in

34:30 ↗ this In this case, the strength of this project has to do

34:36 ↗ more with the different ways that they've really celebrated the natural areas

34:42 ↗ on site and also taking advantage of the Cougar Mountain hillside across

34:48 ↗ the street and using those true block passages as a way to

34:54 ↗ connect both the Cougar Mountain hillside green space the the

35:00 ↗ um and the mountains sound greenway and and the um

35:05 ↗ interior of the property so having said that uh we

35:11 ↗ uh we are recommending a um condition primarily to address

35:17 ↗ more of the just the character of the architecture and

35:22 ↗ to to look for the applicant to look at adding

35:28 ↗ more natural materials or materials that evoke more of that

35:34 ↗ natural character that evokes the Western Gateway or

35:40 ↗ the Northwest architecture that we've discussed in the

35:45 ↗ past. So that That concludes my presentation. We will

35:51 ↗ be coming back to the Development Commission for the final action.

35:57 ↗ And as I mentioned earlier, we are currently in the review

36:03 ↗ phase for the SEPA and the administrative adjustment of standards for

36:09 ↗ the circulation facilities. So those two will be completed and final

36:14 ↗ and approve prior to our going back to the development commission for the approval

36:20 ↗ of this project. So that concludes my presentation and I will, unless the commission

36:26 ↗ has questions for me, I'd like to invite the applicant to come up and

36:32 ↗ see if they want to address the commission. - I think what we'll do

36:38 ↗ is, what we normally do is have the applicant, excuse me, have the applicant

36:44 ↗ presentation. and

36:48 ↗ then

36:52 ↗ opportunity

36:55 ↗ for

36:58 ↗ public

37:01 ↗ comment

37:05 ↗ and

37:08 ↗ then

37:11 ↗ we'll

37:14 ↗ go

37:18 ↗ around

37:21 ↗ the

37:24 ↗ commission

37:27 ↗ for

37:31 ↗ questions

37:34 ↗ and

37:37 ↗ clarifications.

37:40 ↗ This

37:44 ↗ is

37:47 ↗ a

37:50 ↗ PDF.

37:54 ↗ Thank

37:57 ↗ you,

38:00 ↗ Amy. Thank you. Members of the Commission, thank

38:06 ↗ you very much for hearing us tonight. My name is Aaron Golden and I work

38:11 ↗ for Connor Homes. I'm here to just tell you a bit about us, a bit

38:15 ↗ about the project and how exciting it is for us to be building in Issaquah.

38:20 ↗ Again, it's been a number of years. We're a second generation locally owned home builder.

38:25 ↗ We started building homes in 1959 with Bill Connor. Charlie Connor owns the business. Charlie

38:30 ↗ raised his family in Issaquah. And this opportunity arose. We love this site because

38:35 ↗ it's a transition between, as Amy described, the single family homes nearby, the downtown

38:41 ↗ area. And it's an opportunity for us to build sort of a medium density

38:47 ↗ project, something we've done successfully in recent years. We finished three others on the

38:53 ↗ city of Newcastle. city of Renton and the Renton Highlands and now underway

38:59 ↗ in Mercer Island. This is a product we're familiar with. We've been really

39:04 ↗ successful attracting either active seniors, very young families, or single

39:10 ↗ adults. They love living like this. The access to the

39:15 ↗ transit center, the trail system, as Amy described, with the

39:21 ↗ multimodal trail in front that we'll add as part of

39:26 ↗ the project, the elevated boardwalk makes this just a, we

39:32 ↗ feel, a very exciting project for us and for the

39:37 ↗ city. Tonight we brought our whole team. We have traffic engineer, we

39:43 ↗ have our civil engineer, our landscape architect, and our traffic engineer. So any questions you

39:48 ↗ have, this group of folks should be able to address them. And I want to

39:54 ↗ thank the staff. I know they've spent a ton of time on this project, a

39:59 ↗ ton of time working with us. And Amy's report is incredibly detailed and reflects a

40:04 ↗ lot of hard work. Thank you. All

40:10 ↗ right, if that's the termination of the applicants presentation, but I'm sorry,

40:16 ↗ we have a few more things. Okay, good. I was thinking that

40:22 ↗ was it. I'm Christie Park. I'm representing the design team. I work

40:28 ↗ with the landscape architecture team. So Amy did such a thorough job

40:34 ↗ of walking through our site that I'll be pretty brief. We just want to

40:39 ↗ touch again on circulation. As you can see here, we are providing a 10-foot multimodal

40:45 ↗ trail along Newport Way and then the shared use trail, which will also be 10

40:51 ↗ feet in width up towards the gateway property or heading east per the

40:56 ↗ central isaac plan we also have three significant for the size of the

41:02 ↗ project green open spaces space b here will be more of a transition

41:07 ↗ space from newport way into the development providing views back into the main

41:13 ↗ corridor between the buildings which will provide that view corridor back into the

41:19 ↗ wetlands and then a smaller space which at this time we think will have a

41:25 ↗ nature-based play element. You could see with the blue dashed line we have the pedestrian

41:30 ↗ access to all the sites and I think Amy covered the rest of it. So

41:36 ↗ talking a little more about the landscape scheme for this, we worked with the architecture

41:42 ↗ team to come up with an idea that brings more of a formalized modern

41:48 ↗ landscape to the fronting along Newport Way. The site's more constrained here. It'll also be

41:54 ↗ a little tougher environment with the traffic and foot traffic that will be along there.

41:59 ↗ So it'll be a more structured but it'll also have seasonal diversity, a diversity

42:05 ↗ in texture. So it'll be interesting to look at, but it'll be a little more,

42:10 ↗ I guess, orderly. As you move through the site, the palette will start to loosen

42:15 ↗ and become more natural, which towards the end, it's going to be predominantly natives to

42:21 ↗ complement, which would then be the buffer. And the buffer will have a whole

42:26 ↗ mitigation plan of native plantings as well. So we'll transition the site from

42:32 ↗ a more urban front porch feel out to the wetlands and enhancing that

42:38 ↗ area. So some of the things we're thinking about on site, and all

42:44 ↗ these elements may or may not even end up on site, but if they were,

42:49 ↗ we are looking at wall treatments, if retaining walls are needed, hardscape treatments, adding visual

42:54 ↗ variety and texture to the ground plane. And then site furnishings, kind of blending a

43:00 ↗ more modern take on natural resourced furniture. And again, a little bit more of

43:06 ↗ a modern fencing, but again, mixing with the wood products. And pops of color

43:12 ↗ here and there, we've seen by this winter, you need them every once in

43:17 ↗ a while. And then also pedestrian scale lighting elements throughout the site.

43:24 ↗ And just to touch on the project, just one quick point

43:29 ↗ of clarification. The site is actually 8.39 acres versus the 6.2.

43:35 ↗ And we're developing 2.19. As you can see by this light

43:41 ↗ green here, The majority of this area will be buffer

43:46 ↗ enhancement. So this will have a robust native planting plan in accordance

43:52 ↗ with City of Issaquah code and our wetland biologist recommendations. And the

43:58 ↗ architectural features, I'll just touch on them lightly and then we have

44:03 ↗ our architecture team here to discuss them. We aim to create a

44:09 ↗ front porch quality to the Newport Way consistent with the Central as a Quad design

44:15 ↗ plan and the marketing features that we found successful in the past.

44:21 ↗ The architecture responds to the grades with the front being a more two-story height character.

44:27 ↗ And with the grade stepping down, you can see in the back here, you've got

44:33 ↗ more to the three to four story character with the garages tucked under. So the

44:39 ↗ advantage to this product is you've got basically a front porch characteristic with no garages

44:45 ↗ along Newport Way. The livable unit, there will be livable units taking advantage,

44:51 ↗ as Amy pointed out, of the views of Cougar Mountain and the wetlands, bringing

44:56 ↗ nature into the townhome developments, incorporating all the advantages we have with the site

45:02 ↗ being immersed in these natural elements. All the units will have an open plan

45:07 ↗ with a great room. They'll have elevated balcony extending width of the unit and

45:13 ↗ a habitable attic space. The exterior architecture aims to meet the Central

45:19 ↗ Izaquah design plan goals and mix architectural flavor and Northwest modern

45:25 ↗ feel to Newport Way. And with that, I will thank you

45:30 ↗ for your time on behalf of our design team, and we

45:36 ↗ appreciate it. And thank you to staff for all your hard

45:41 ↗ work. And I believe we'll transition into questions. OK, thank you.

45:47 ↗ Is there going to be anybody else from the applicant to speak?

45:53 ↗ OK. Before we go into the public comment, I just want one point of

45:58 ↗ clarification for myself. Could you show where the shared use trail that goes through

46:04 ↗ the property, where it ends? It's not clear. It looks like it goes up

46:10 ↗ to the Raleigh property now. But is there a connector on the Raleigh property

46:16 ↗ for that? Or is it just dead end there? CHRISTIE WOOD: Over here?

46:22 ↗ As Amy touched on,

46:28 ↗ do you want --

46:33 ↗ So basically because their

46:39 ↗ property ends here, I

46:44 ↗ can show you on

46:50 ↗ my PowerPoint -- wrong

46:56 ↗ one, sorry. I forgot

47:01 ↗ to save it ahead

47:07 ↗ of time. Okay. So

47:12 ↗ I don't know if

47:18 ↗ I can zoom in,

47:24 ↗ but May not. I can

47:29 ↗ just use this hopefully. So what we're showing is that we're

47:35 ↗ basically limited to requiring them to provide as far as they

47:41 ↗ can go legally. And so because the adjacent property is a

47:47 ↗ different property owner, it will take having to then work with them

47:52 ↗ to see if they would be willing to do that, to make

47:58 ↗ that connection. Our initial conversations with the representative from the Rowley property

48:04 ↗ is they're more interested in having the connection further down here. So

48:09 ↗ this is really more of a placeholder to say that, Given

48:15 ↗ that we are likely to end up owning the Tibbets Creek

48:20 ↗ wetland property, we would like to be very clear to the

48:26 ↗ applicant that the length of the shared use route and what

48:32 ↗ you can see here is it's relatively of the same length

48:37 ↗ so that they understand that we're really looking for a completed

48:43 ↗ route. as far as what, and to be

48:49 ↗ consistent with what the code requires. And

48:54 ↗ knowing that we do have some constraints,

48:59 ↗ given that their property doesn't necessarily connect

49:05 ↗ to anywhere else, to an existing route,

49:10 ↗ east, or I shouldn't say east, but

49:16 ↗ yes, so east of their property line.

49:22 ↗ But we'll deviate a little bit. Does anybody else have any questions at this point,

49:27 ↗ verifications? Well, that was one of the things that I wanted to ask about too,

49:32 ↗ Chairman. I forget when we were looking at the gateway, did we ever establish that

49:37 ↗ there are trail that cuts across there connects to anything or is it the bridge

49:43 ↗ to nowhere? So in the case of Gateway, they were able to work with the

49:49 ↗ Rowley properties to allow them to connect all the way to basically, what's that, 17?

49:55 ↗ 19. 19, thank you. Okay, okay, that's what I thought we had talked about. Yes.

50:00 ↗ So maybe option B up there. So option B is definitely our preferred option because

50:06 ↗ we know that it's going to connect to somewhere. Right. Thank you.

50:12 ↗ I don't have any further questions for anyone at

50:18 ↗ this point. Obviously we'll come back to it later

50:23 ↗ in the commission section. So if there is no

50:29 ↗ further presentation from the applicant, we'll open the meeting

50:35 ↗ now to public comment. And if there's anybody from

50:40 ↗ the public that would like to speak, if you've

50:46 ↗ signed in already, and I think you know the

50:51 ↗ drill. OK. it's that we ask that when

50:57 ↗ you do come up to the microphone if you

51:03 ↗ give your name and your address please i'm going

51:08 ↗ to use your presentation your site plan looks better

51:14 ↗ my name is john fisher i'm the homeowner at

51:20 ↗ 2122 newport way northwest it's my primary residence that's

51:26 ↗ in sammamish point to put it succinctly i live

51:32 ↗ at the triple point between sammamish point this property

51:37 ↗ and this property up here that whether it's the Gateway's property or the city's

51:43 ↗ property, it sounds like that's being discussed. So as far as the property itself,

51:49 ↗ to me it seems a better fit than the Gateway Apartments was. It seems

51:54 ↗ similar to what was at Sammamish Point. I'd probably buy here if I

52:00 ↗ hadn't bought at Sammamish Point several years ago. What I'm here for mostly

52:06 ↗ are the trails. So I commute by bus and I walk down Newport

52:11 ↗ Way to the Transit Center, take a bus. It takes a pretty spry

52:17 ↗ person to manage that every day, so I'm really interested in What these

52:23 ↗ trail connections look like how can pedestrians get to? the commercial areas because None

52:29 ↗ of the none of the developments have have commerce on them And we have

52:35 ↗ to get across Tippetts Creek to to get to any kind of commerce or

52:40 ↗ to any kind of transit access for that matter so

52:47 ↗ I can understand why a lot of value is placed on a connection down here

52:52 ↗ because that would probably benefit me more than anything. But as far as the connection

52:57 ↗ that's planned up here, I suppose I do have a bit of concern that it's

53:03 ↗ certainly right in my backyard. This looks like it's kissing distance to Sammamish Point. At

53:08 ↗ this portion of Sammamish Point, there is no fencing. There is no barrier of any

53:14 ↗ kind. There are no hedges. It might be interesting

53:19 ↗ to have a conversation about whether that is or is

53:25 ↗ not appropriate. Let's see. That probably wraps it up for

53:30 ↗ me. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, if there

53:36 ↗ is one. Good evening, Commission. My name is Hart Sugarman.

53:41 ↗ I live at 2550 Northwest Oakcrest Drive. I'm a resident

53:47 ↗ of Issaquah for 20 years. And Oakcrest, of course, is

53:52 ↗ directly across the road from this project. So I just wanted

53:58 ↗ to first of all question the decision to put the driveway into Riva Townhomes at

54:04 ↗ that intersection versus further to the east. So I guess by putting it at the

54:10 ↗ intersection, it lends itself to making some traffic modifications or improvements for that intersection. My

54:16 ↗ concern is the visibility. When we have to exit or egress from our neighborhood looking

54:22 ↗ right or left, There's curves in the road, there's limited sight lines, the visibility

54:28 ↗ is poor, there's no street lighting per se, so at nighttime and during rainy conditions

54:34 ↗ it's very difficult. But putting a tree-lined boulevard here as shown in the picture, it

54:39 ↗ obstructs the visibility of a car coming out of Oak Crest to turn left.

54:45 ↗ because we have to be able to have enough sight lines to see the oncoming

54:50 ↗ traffic. So now this will be the same situation for people living in Riva townhomes

54:55 ↗ when they want to get out, they're going to have to look right or left

55:00 ↗ as well. So the tree line boulevard is really creating a barrier which we rely

55:05 ↗ on for our sight lines. Now, Amy also showed a cross section of the Boulevard

55:11 ↗ and the current configuration. Today, we have two travel lanes, 11 feet wide, that's 22

55:17 ↗ feet, one 10-foot, what we call multi-use, shared use, and then the five-foot bike lane

55:22 ↗ and three-foot bike lane on the other side. So when you add that up, it's

55:28 ↗ 40 feet. If we look at the cross section of the proposed diagram that showed

55:33 ↗ the left turn at that intersection and you add up the dimensions that were shown

55:38 ↗ on the map with the two 10 foot travel lanes the center left turn lane

55:43 ↗ being 12 feet the two five foot bike lanes and then the tree buffers of

55:47 ↗ five feet each and then five foot shoulder on the one side of the road

55:52 ↗ and the 10 foot multi-use on the other side when you add that all up

55:57 ↗ it's 67 feet So we're going to go from 40 feet to 67 feet. Where

56:02 ↗ do we find 27 feet there today? I've taken my tape measure out and I

56:08 ↗ don't see it. And my other concern is with the driveway, the sharp entrance driveway

56:13 ↗ and turning in. With these buildings being four stories tall, this will require a ladder

56:19 ↗ truck from the fire department in the event of a fire. So can a ladder

56:25 ↗ truck negotiate that turn to get in? And what if that entry was blocked due

56:31 ↗ to congestion of traffic or other emergency vehicles tying up? Where's the alternate route for

56:36 ↗ people to evacuate or for emergency vehicles to enter that site to provide the emergency

56:42 ↗ response as necessary? So that is another concern. And I guess the thing is

56:48 ↗ with all this development happening along Newport Way, I go back to that age-old question,

56:53 ↗ what comes first, the chicken or the egg? So here, what comes first, the development

56:58 ↗ or the road improvements? Are we going to put in these road improvements first before

57:02 ↗ the development, or are you going to wait until all the development is done and

57:06 ↗ then tear up the roads, inconvenience all the people that are living there who won't

57:10 ↗ be able to get through the detours or whatever construction zone is going to occur

57:15 ↗ here? So I think we have to really look at how do we balance this

57:20 ↗ out that we get the development going but also getting the

57:26 ↗ road improvements to enable this increase in population. Today considering the

57:31 ↗ local area there we have Summerhill with 55 homes, we have

57:37 ↗ Spyglass with 60, we have Sammamish Point with 135, we have

57:43 ↗ Bentley properties with 47, we have up in Pinecone area homes. The

57:49 ↗ whole area there today adds up to 387 properties. If we add up the

57:54 ↗ Senior, the Gateway, the Riva, the Bergsma, and now this Vet Clinic property that's

58:00 ↗ up for sales, proposing at 25 townhomes or 40 apartments, we're

58:06 ↗ now at 660 units. So we have 387 current, adding 660

58:12 ↗ new units is a huge increase in traffic. And that traffic

58:17 ↗ is going to flow through that intersection. So my proposal is

58:23 ↗ to modify the intersection as a roundabout, A roundabout might not be possible,

58:29 ↗ I understand that. So then we need to put in a four-way stop or an

58:33 ↗ all-way stop sign so that vehicles can come to a halt, so pedestrians can cross

58:38 ↗ safely, cars can get in and out of their neighborhoods on both sides of that

58:43 ↗ intersection safely. And yeah, there's a lot going on now and I just want to

58:48 ↗ make sure that the city is aware of all these things and that the planning

58:52 ↗ department and the traffic improvements are taking place together. And my only other concern is

58:58 ↗ who would really want to live with their dwelling facing on Newport Way and to

59:03 ↗ live six feet off the roadway. All the other homes today, it's facing outwards away

59:08 ↗ from Newport Way. But I really don't know if people want to live smack dab

59:13 ↗ in the middle of a street that's so busy and only going to get busier.

59:18 ↗ So I thank you for your considerations. Thank you, sir.

59:31 ↗ Thank you, Commission. My name is Tina Conforti, and I live on

59:37 ↗ 1220 Oakwood Place, Northwest Issaquah. I am a neighbor of Hart, the

59:43 ↗ gentleman that you just spoke. And in everything that he said, I

59:49 ↗ supported that very much. Because be a resident of Summerhill, the area,

59:55 ↗ It's very hard now getting in and out from our area. That area with the

1:00:01 ↗ S curve and Newport Way, it's very critical. Yes, if you're going to intend to

1:00:07 ↗ put a holiday seat development down on Newport Way and how did the impact of

1:00:13 ↗ traffic is going to affect us getting in and out. Yes, we have to consider

1:00:18 ↗ to have a stop sign. On that corner, the Newport, Ococrest Drive,

1:00:24 ↗ it's very now hard to get in and out from that

1:00:30 ↗ area. Imagine when you have three block in you, you view

1:00:36 ↗ right and left, the people getting out and the people getting

1:00:41 ↗ in. It's not, we're talking about a safety. We had

1:00:47 ↗ too many accident already on the crossroad, on the road. I

1:00:53 ↗ also request a traffic study for the whole entire New Parkway

1:00:58 ↗ corridor from 900 to Lake Monday area. With all of the

1:01:04 ↗ increase of this development project, I don't think we have a

1:01:10 ↗ full study on the traffic impact. I would like to have

1:01:16 ↗ a copy. I know the last study analysis, traffic analysis, it was

1:01:21 ↗ done on September 2015. We don't have any late on a traffic

1:01:27 ↗ impact. So we need to take in consideration what are the safety

1:01:33 ↗ first? People coming first or development coming first? So I leave that

1:01:38 ↗ in your hands. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

1:01:54 ↗ Good evening. David Kapler, 255 Southeast Andrew Street. I'm not disagreeing with the previous speakers,

1:01:59 ↗ but I'm here tonight as Vice President for Advocacy of the Issaquah Ops Trails Club,

1:02:05 ↗ so mostly dealing with trails and access to parkland. I think there's been some new

1:02:11 ↗ information here tonight, so I'm hoping that this hearing will not be closed tonight and

1:02:17 ↗ the public hearing will continue on to your next meeting. Now, part of it

1:02:22 ↗ 20 hours ago or something like that. I was in New Zealand and I stepped

1:02:28 ↗ off the 554 bus here a little over an hour ago. So I'm not quite

1:02:33 ↗ in the stream of things, but I think there's been some news new things tonight

1:02:39 ↗ that deal with trails and some concerns that are legitimate. The trailhead here

1:02:45 ↗ for Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park is extremely important. That park started at 40 acres

1:02:50 ↗ and that was the anti-aircraft site up there where they had the radar and then

1:02:56 ↗ the missile site which was closer to Newcastle. We now have 3,400 acres. To

1:03:02 ↗ try and get trailheads where people coming by vehicle to that park is very

1:03:08 ↗ difficult. There's a potential of expanding the trailhead just south of Talus and that's

1:03:14 ↗ constrained by two creeks very close together and a terrible place to get in

1:03:20 ↗ and out of off of 900 at that location. This is a very important

1:03:26 ↗ trailhead that exists Just a few weeks ago, it must

1:03:31 ↗ have been close to a month now, I met with King County, which is

1:03:37 ↗ working on design for that trailhead. Now if you were to go to this

1:03:43 ↗ proposal, if you were coming from westbound on Newport in that area, you would

1:03:49 ↗ have to go and somehow make a turnaround to get to that trailhead that

1:03:55 ↗ will be constructed there because of this median that's proposed in making it

1:04:00 ↗ a write-in only trailhead i think that's a huge mistake the um the bergsma property

1:04:06 ↗ is not subject here tonight but it's tied in with that in terms of there's

1:04:12 ↗ potential of a lot more additional property being added to that park and making it

1:04:17 ↗ even more an attractive place to to go and the chance of the big trees

1:04:23 ↗ are mostly gone on big tree ridge which is this part of the park But

1:04:29 ↗ fortunately, it looks like the proposal for the Bergsma so far tentatively includes

1:04:35 ↗ 12 and a half acres of open space of really nice big old

1:04:41 ↗ trees. And that's going to be real easy walking distance from Newport. Down

1:04:46 ↗ further, there's public property on the Newport side of Tibbetts Creek owned by

1:04:52 ↗ the city in alignment with Maple. Years ago at the Isquab Trails

1:04:58 ↗ Club we sponsored an event wilderness by the Metro 210. The 210 was the

1:05:04 ↗ only bus that came east of Bellevue at that time. That's always been an

1:05:10 ↗ interest of ours is connecting the wilderness to the park and ride, now the

1:05:15 ↗ transit center, so people coming can get to Cougar Mountain Park and enjoy it.

1:05:22 ↗ So that is a potential crossing at that point in that

1:05:28 ↗ area. The Maple did not work for roads because it's too

1:05:33 ↗ steep on the Newport side of the creek. But it's an

1:05:39 ↗ easy crossing for the creek at that point. Now, the problem

1:05:44 ↗ is also there should be a crosswalk. In here now

1:05:50 ↗ the only proposed crosswalk I believe is west of the intersection over

1:05:56 ↗ there People are going to want to come across Newport to this

1:06:01 ↗ trailhead It won't be especially, you know pedestrians Up on the top

1:06:07 ↗ up here. You see the warehouse buildings. I We did not

1:06:13 ↗ appeal, the Issaquah Environmental Council, Issaquah Ops Trails Club did

1:06:18 ↗ not appeal the Rowley Agreement because Rowley agreed to keep

1:06:24 ↗ the 100-foot setback from the creek. In order to do

1:06:30 ↗ that, the creek restoration project, which is really great and

1:06:35 ↗ really effective in here, needs to continue further downstream.

1:06:41 ↗ That's part of the agreement and I think Lucy can can vouch for that that

1:06:46 ↗ it's a hundred foot agreement That they have to be a hundred feet back from

1:06:52 ↗ Tibbets Creek and the idea there was to relocate Tibbets Creek further to the the

1:06:57 ↗ West and do it right making a nice braided channel and restoration of the creek

1:07:02 ↗ whereas now the creek is in a ditch roadside ditch real close to those buildings

1:07:07 ↗ existing buildings and The concept of this trail going across that

1:07:13 ↗ corner over there, Rowley's not going to build a bridge or nobody's going

1:07:19 ↗ to build a bridge after the restoration and we have a nice wide

1:07:25 ↗ swath for the creek to go through and a braided channel hopefully and

1:07:31 ↗ some good restoration like occurred upstream from that point. The two crossings

1:07:36 ↗ of the creek are going to be at Maple and the one proposed for

1:07:42 ↗ Gateway. And to try and suggest that it's going to, dead ending the trail

1:07:48 ↗ at the top, very top there, it's not going to, There's not going to

1:07:54 ↗ be a bridge there. I don't know who's going to build it if it were

1:07:59 ↗ to be there. So let's be realistic about how we're going to be crossing the

1:08:05 ↗ creek. It has been frustrating that all of the, during the Central Issaquah Plan, we

1:08:10 ↗ talked so much about all these connections and having all these cross streets and getting

1:08:16 ↗ shorter blocks, but once we got west of 900, that philosophy kind of fell apart.

1:08:22 ↗ Now the Gateway Trail is proposed to be multi-use and it's going to

1:08:27 ↗ be right next to the Sammamish Point Homes, 10-foot wide trail. Does that

1:08:33 ↗ need to be a bike and pedestrian trail or would it be better

1:08:39 ↗ off as less impacts, narrower trail, and more of a natural type trail

1:08:45 ↗ and being a pedestrian only? There was mention tonight of a trail

1:08:52 ↗ here which I assume would be pedestrian only. I think that would

1:08:58 ↗ be really important there because it just would not make sense to

1:09:04 ↗ have kids or something making their loops through there right up against

1:09:09 ↗ the wetland buffer there. i think you know

1:09:15 ↗ i think let's figure out this trail thing and come up with

1:09:21 ↗ a proposal even if there some bonding or something goes on for

1:09:27 ↗ future construction of the trail rather than building a trail in a

1:09:32 ↗ place that maybe isn't the best place or the place where it

1:09:38 ↗ should be thank you thank you uh let's let uh yes you

1:09:44 ↗ may but let's uh Give this lady a chance to do it

1:09:49 ↗ and then you can. I've got to set my slides up. All right. Go

1:09:55 ↗ ahead, Mr. Sugarman. Thank you. Just following up what Mr. Kapler mentioned. Reidentify yourself,

1:10:00 ↗ please. Hart Sugarman, resident of 2550 Northwest Oak Crest Drive, living right at the

1:10:06 ↗ intersection of Oak Crest and Newport Way. We have the trailhead that Mr. Kapler

1:10:12 ↗ mentioned, and today people park along the shoulder of the road. We can have up

1:10:17 ↗ to 10, 15, even 20 cars, depending how they angle or parallel park. With

1:10:23 ↗ the new road design, the parking on the shoulder will disappear as we'll have no

1:10:28 ↗ parking available. So where do we plan on having these people park? Are they gonna

1:10:33 ↗ come into our Summerhill community and park? Or are they gonna park in Riva's guest

1:10:38 ↗ parking? This has to be addressed as part of the cohesive plan. Thank you. -

1:10:43 ↗ All right, thank you.

1:10:54 ↗ Yeah, part of my comments-- Would you identify yourself, please? OK, yeah. My name is

1:10:59 ↗ Mary Lynch. I reside at 2690 Northwest Oakcrest Drive, Issaquah, Washington. And I'm going to

1:11:04 ↗ take some of my comments a little bit of order since we've got this one

1:11:09 ↗ up here. But I also concur with some of what Dave Kapler was saying. This

1:11:15 ↗ originally they were talking when we first saw this something about a driveway entryway here,

1:11:20 ↗ but all of a sudden now with the anti-aircraft creek being relocated, they're talking down

1:11:26 ↗ here. One of the things during the pedestrian crosswalk study, I don't know if any

1:11:32 ↗ of you went to that open house and the discussions that they had as a

1:11:36 ↗ follow-up, we were asking the consultants, what about this? And they actually said if a

1:11:41 ↗ stoplight or four-way stop was not going to be put in an intersection like this

1:11:46 ↗ on a curve, that is really not advisable to put a street across the side

1:11:51 ↗ because of the congestion and the possibility of accidents. They said it really should be

1:11:56 ↗ alternating street entries. along a street like this to protect safety so i would say

1:12:01 ↗ i would request why aren't we looking at an entrance way down here that they

1:12:06 ↗ would have an opening so you can make your turns into the trailhead you could

1:12:11 ↗ also have the multiple modal trail connect here um So that's one of my requests

1:12:16 ↗ is to look at a different entrance way into this project and then to make

1:12:22 ↗ sure that you do have a turning lanes and entrance into the trailhead here. I

1:12:27 ↗ would also like to say versus putting the multimodal trail here, why not because the

1:12:33 ↗ developer is getting credit for this, why not look at transferring those development credits to

1:12:39 ↗ someplace else toward Towards this side to maple like Dave was saying because even though

1:12:43 ↗ we have the agreement with Raleigh I had want to point out one of the

1:12:48 ↗ things during the Gateway Apartments that doesn't have to happen for 30 years So it

1:12:52 ↗ is right now a trail to nowhere He does not have to build his connection

1:12:57 ↗ on the other side for 30 years That was part of the agreement and there

1:13:02 ↗ is no commitment that I've seen in writing from the city that says otherwise that

1:13:06 ↗ he's going to do it any sooner than that and I may

1:13:12 ↗ be wrong, but I haven't seen

1:13:18 ↗ it in writing. Let me open

1:13:23 ↗ up my presentations real quick then.

1:13:29 ↗ I'm just looking for the view

1:13:35 ↗ slides. Isn't it view? Okay. So

1:13:41 ↗ to start out with, I still

1:13:47 ↗ have the – I gave you

1:13:53 ↗ a handout. I still haven't gotten

1:13:58 ↗ questions to the anti-aircraft SEPA, which

1:14:04 ↗ has been revised, and I would

1:14:10 ↗ like – you know, questions answered there as far as who is

1:14:16 ↗ responsible for the anti-aircraft relocation since it's going to be on private property and also

1:14:21 ↗ who's responsible for making sure that the wetlands, the discharge from this relocation is going

1:14:26 ↗ to empty into their wetlands and who's going to be responsible to making sure that

1:14:32 ↗ the discharge, which we right now from our creek at the end where they're talking

1:14:37 ↗ about relocating, we have 68-inch rocks that the city routinely goes and digs out and

1:14:42 ↗ cleans out the current culvert there. So who's going to be in charge of making

1:14:47 ↗ sure that the system works and then is going to manage and make sure it

1:14:53 ↗ doesn't build up on the wetlands that's going to be emptied there? The other thing

1:14:58 ↗ that's in both the drawings and the CEPA comments for Antiaircraft Creek is there's

1:15:04 ↗ currently an 18-inch culvert that provides drainage off of Newport Way. and that's going

1:15:10 ↗ to be vacated. I don't see anything that's going to enhance the western edge before

1:15:15 ↗ our curve. If you see here on the slide, before that crosswalk sign, I don't

1:15:19 ↗ see anything that's mentioning that any drainage is going to be approved. So what I

1:15:24 ↗ see is going to happen potentially is water from Newport Way is going to run

1:15:29 ↗ down and across our intersection, making it very dangerous if there's ice or something like

1:15:33 ↗ that. Also in the drawings it shows that it's going to cut off basically our

1:15:38 ↗ sign, the crosswalk sign, and the light's going to have to be relocated to make

1:15:43 ↗ the entrance as it's proposed now. That's just going to make it harder for us

1:15:48 ↗ because if you can see the front tire of this car at this intersection, I

1:15:52 ↗ would say two-thirds of the cars when they come around that corner, they're already into

1:15:57 ↗ the bike lane. It makes it really hard because we have to pull down past

1:16:02 ↗ our stop sign, and basically commit ourselves to be able to look at the traffic

1:16:07 ↗ coming there. And so, and the same thing, you know, so traffic pulling, we have

1:16:12 ↗ to commit ourselves to be able to turn left. So I have a number of

1:16:16 ↗ other views I'd like to show, or I could easily show, I won't tonight. But

1:16:21 ↗ I would like to also point up the 49 miles an hour. That was pretty

1:16:25 ↗ consistent this summer. We have dropped the speed limit to 30, but it's still not

1:16:31 ↗ consistently 30. So in doing any design analysis, you can't really plan on traffic coming

1:16:37 ↗ around that curve at 30 miles an hour. You've got to plan 40 or above.

1:16:43 ↗ So not having a stop sign or a... stoplight and having other traffic then

1:16:49 ↗ across the street from us trying to get out of there is just going to

1:16:54 ↗ create havoc. And we've had, I said, we think more than a third of our

1:16:59 ↗ residents have been rear-ended trying to turn into that street. And yes, the left-hand turn

1:17:05 ↗ is going to help some, but it's still going to be very congested. So that's

1:17:10 ↗ some of them. Let me go to the next one. Well, let me go back

1:17:15 ↗ one. This is also where that car is, is our school bus stop zone. We

1:17:21 ↗ need to have with the culvert being replaced, the ditch is gone. If a car

1:17:27 ↗ comes around this corner fast, it's no longer going to have the stop sign or

1:17:32 ↗ the crosswalk sign, the street light or the ditch in which the car can go

1:17:37 ↗ in. before it hits our students standing there. We need to have, if anything happens

1:17:43 ↗ to this intersection, we need to have something done to improve our school bus stops.

1:17:49 ↗ And what I'm proposing is, given the danger zone, we need to have guardrails which

1:17:55 ↗ they can stand. We need a better light. They talk about moving the light. Well,

1:17:59 ↗ hopefully not to the other side because the light right now at least highlights that

1:18:03 ↗ kids are standing down there in the morning. And with current bus pickup, it can

1:18:07 ↗ be as early as 7 o'clock. And in the wintertime, you're talking almost four to

1:18:11 ↗ five months in the dark. And with your elementary in the winter that don't get

1:18:15 ↗ dropped off until 4:30, they're getting let off in the dark. So something needs to

1:18:20 ↗ happen on our side and I would say you need to at least look in

1:18:25 ↗ advance on what's going to happen on the other side. And we heard with the

1:18:29 ↗ presentation made by city council about two weeks ago that there is an astronomical large

1:18:34 ↗ number of kids and children that are moving into the apartments more than what they've

1:18:39 ↗ ever seen before. So to assume that there aren't going to be any children in

1:18:44 ↗ this complex I don't think is you know, is justified. So you need to

1:18:50 ↗ look at school stop zones and go on with that. The

1:18:56 ↗ other thing when you fill the culvert in, as Hart was alluding to, there's been

1:19:00 ↗ mentioned that you'll just turn this into a gravel path, so maybe it could be

1:19:05 ↗ parking. Right now, last weekend, we had this cars parked along here because they were

1:19:10 ↗ trailhead parking. We couldn't see getting out of our development. And then since they're also

1:19:15 ↗ parked in what is the gravel, which we normally do walk down and use the

1:19:20 ↗ trail, there was no place for us to walk safely along this path. Yes, the

1:19:25 ↗ culvert is going to be filled in, but if you're talking about moving the road

1:19:30 ↗ over, all I see addressing is putting a five-foot graded shoulder. Nothing is said about

1:19:35 ↗ a walking path along there, nothing said about a berm. And whatever happens to this

1:19:41 ↗ road, we need raised sidewalks on that side of the road to be consistent with

1:19:46 ↗ the new portway design. And yes, it's shown on the front there that we are

1:19:52 ↗ to get sidewalks, but I would like to just remind the commission again, our concurrency,

1:19:57 ↗ this project can be concurrent. And as long as the project is on the project

1:20:02 ↗ list, We're concurrent. It doesn't have to be funded. And so far that

1:20:08 ↗ sidewalk project has not been funded for 30 years and it's not shown to be

1:20:14 ↗ funded for the next 30 years. So yes, we're concurrent. Are we safe and doing

1:20:20 ↗ what's right for the neighbors? You can answer that question. So I would ask whatever

1:20:26 ↗ happens here, we get safe sidewalks on this side of the sidewalk. Going back to

1:20:32 ↗ the other... The entrance, again, the tough right hand curve in, it's the

1:20:38 ↗ same thing that we saw because it's going to have to go downgrade at

1:20:44 ↗ the senior apartments. asking people to make a hard right hand turn or an emergency

1:20:49 ↗ truck, a dump truck or any garbage truck along there is stupidity when we can

1:20:54 ↗ have other options of how we enter a property. And to enter it at a

1:20:59 ↗ complex curve like this I think is crazy, just like the senior housing.

1:21:07 ↗ And I guess that ends most of my comments. Since we still have time, I'll

1:21:12 ↗ have more additional ones. This was a large package and we've got a lot of

1:21:18 ↗ other developments going on in our neighborhood and it's hard to keep up. Thank you.

1:21:23 ↗ Is there any other member of the public that wishes to speak tonight? If not,

1:21:29 ↗ we will close the public comment period and go to the Commission. And at

1:21:35 ↗ this point, we will seek any clarifications or ask questions of the applicant

1:21:40 ↗ and/or the city staff. Actually, there's an opportunity if we want to as

1:21:46 ↗ well, as you know, we can also ask for clarification from members of

1:21:52 ↗ the public if we-- anybody that's spoken. So as we've been doing,

1:21:57 ↗ let's see if we can bring up a single subject at a time

1:22:03 ↗ for clarification. So if Commissioner Long, for example, has a question about a

1:22:09 ↗ specific thing or a request for clarification, We'll do that. Anybody who has a follow-up

1:22:15 ↗ on that can do it then. We'll hold our comments until we go around for

1:22:21 ↗ the last round. So this will just be questions and clarifications at this point. Okay?

1:22:27 ↗ Okay. Commissioner Lal? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question for the staff. For

1:22:32 ↗ garbage pickup, what's the plan there? Is that individual units, the

1:22:38 ↗ garbage trucks are going to come through or is there a

1:22:44 ↗ dumpster? It's individual units. Individual units? Okay, good. For school buses,

1:22:50 ↗ where is the school bus stop going to be? So

1:22:56 ↗ um the school district basically determines where they want the bus stops or the school

1:23:02 ↗ bus to stop. So um I don't think I'm not I'm not sure if there's

1:23:07 ↗ one here and so I will chat in front of their property. I'm not sure

1:23:12 ↗ if there's one. One thing I can add is that um I think later this

1:23:18 ↗ month we have an uh this development services department has an annual meeting with the

1:23:23 ↗ school district and that meeting is coming up later this month, which is very timely

1:23:29 ↗ given all the projects that are happening. The school district is exactly as Amy said,

1:23:34 ↗ determines where the school bus stops are and those may change from year to year.

1:23:40 ↗ But we do have these annual meetings to make sure that they're aware of what's

1:23:45 ↗ coming online so that they can plan ahead. And just for those of you

1:23:51 ↗ who weren't here last week, last development commission meeting we talked about the new

1:23:57 ↗ Clark Elementary. And the gentleman from the school district noted that the growth that

1:24:03 ↗ they are already experiencing, the numbers on the book are unprecedented for the number

1:24:08 ↗ of new children moving into the Issaquah School District. So this is a real

1:24:14 ↗ critical time. And just for further clarification, as I recall when we were talking about

1:24:20 ↗ the Gateway Project, Amy, it was pointed out then that the school district does

1:24:26 ↗ not want their buses going into a project. So the bus stop has to

1:24:32 ↗ be basically somewhere along the main arterial, in this case Newport, as I recall.

1:24:38 ↗ Yes, that's correct. Yeah. OK. So chances are, it sounds

1:24:43 ↗ like we're looking at a school bus stop somewhere along

1:24:49 ↗ Newport Way. On some of the drawings, I'm trying to

1:24:54 ↗ figure out the sidewalk. You got the street, and then

1:25:00 ↗ you have a sidewalk, and then right next to it

1:25:05 ↗ you have the patio. Am I looking at it correctly?

1:25:11 ↗ Whereas on the rendering, we're seeing, it

1:25:16 ↗ looks so nice. You have

1:25:22 ↗ the street, you have a

1:25:27 ↗ planting strip, and then you

1:25:33 ↗ have a bike lane, and

1:25:38 ↗ then you have planting strip

1:25:44 ↗ before you had, you have

1:25:49 ↗ the patio. So can you

1:25:54 ↗ clarify on that Amy? So

1:26:00 ↗ Amy, could you pull up

1:26:05 ↗ that perspective that both you

1:26:11 ↗ and Christy used? Yeah, that

1:26:16 ↗ looks really nice. Is that the reality?

1:26:22 ↗ It is. It's actually consistent with the site plan. So basically

1:26:28 ↗ you have your porch, right? In some cases because the grade

1:26:33 ↗ changes, the porch is raised and then so you do have

1:26:39 ↗ the pavement. If you look on sheet, yeah, you could do

1:26:45 ↗ that. And I'm looking at one that's a more detailed plan

1:26:50 ↗ so it's easier to read. Heat L2.05 since

1:26:56 ↗ this is typical. So what you'll

1:27:01 ↗ see is that the porch abuts

1:27:06 ↗ the 10 foot multi-use trail and

1:27:11 ↗ then where you have the rest

1:27:17 ↗ of the face of the building,

1:27:22 ↗ there's actually a little planter area.

1:27:27 ↗ Okay. And I think also the applicants sort

1:27:33 ↗ of suggested imagery showed that as well. Do you

1:27:39 ↗ know which one I'm talking about, Amy? The sort

1:27:44 ↗ of egg planting example? Oh, okay. Oh, go back.

1:27:50 ↗ Yeah, that one. This one. Right. So it's not

1:27:55 ↗ meant to be a suburban backyard, obviously. It definitely

1:28:01 ↗ provides that, and as you said, Commissioner Leong, so

1:28:06 ↗ in most of the spaces or with, I'm sorry, on most of

1:28:12 ↗ the stretch of Newport Way, what you'll see is green on both

1:28:17 ↗ sides of the multi-use trail or the shared use route. And it's

1:28:23 ↗ only punctuated with paving wherever you have the porches. Okay, so in

1:28:28 ↗ other words, then the property line is at the edge of the

1:28:34 ↗ patio then. Yes. So this is, yes. Okay.

1:28:40 ↗ Okay, thank you. You know, we talk

1:28:45 ↗ a lot about parking. So for the

1:28:50 ↗ parking for the trailhead, who's responsible to

1:28:56 ↗ provide parking for the hikers using the

1:29:01 ↗ trailhead? So King County is responsible for

1:29:06 ↗ doing that. And we have already started conversations

1:29:12 ↗ with them about looking at providing off-street parking

1:29:17 ↗ for the trailhead. I'm thinking along the line,

1:29:23 ↗ you know, there's the requirement for parking for

1:29:28 ↗ hikers, but who is responsible to provide that?

1:29:36 ↗ And I understand that there's an issue about the turning, as Mr. Kaplan has mentioned

1:29:42 ↗ about it. If you're coming from the parking ride, you're going west, and then you

1:29:48 ↗ see the trailhead, you've got to make a U-turn to come around. But who's going

1:29:54 ↗ to provide the parking? I don't see why the applicant would have to provide for

1:30:00 ↗ that. CHRIS JERRAM: That's county jurisdiction. Okay. That's all that

1:30:06 ↗ I have right now. Thank you very much. Okay. Mr. Sala? There seems to be

1:30:11 ↗ a lot of concern over the traffic that's going to be generated or may be

1:30:16 ↗ generated or even anticipated. And I noticed on page 59 and 153 it talked a

1:30:22 ↗ little bit about the traffic impact analysis being done and it says that the EIA

1:30:27 ↗ included approved development projects that apply to background traffic growth rate. I'm wondering which projects

1:30:33 ↗ have been approved, because we've been looking at, I think, three more projects that

1:30:38 ↗ are going to be developed along that road, and I don't think they're approved

1:30:44 ↗ yet. Is that correct? They're proposed, but they're not approved. So my concern is

1:30:50 ↗ in the traffic impact analysis, when they define level of service, if we're seeing

1:30:55 ↗ unprecedented growth in school kids, the reality is we'll probably see unprecedented growth in

1:31:01 ↗ traffic generation. And I'm wondering how that gets accounted for.

1:31:07 ↗ So the good news is all three projects that

1:31:12 ↗ I've presented to you so far has the same

1:31:18 ↗ traffic consultant. And Jeff Schramm is here tonight. And

1:31:23 ↗ I don't know if you'd like to address that.

1:31:29 ↗ Good evening. My name is Jeff Schramm. I'm with

1:31:34 ↗ Transportation Engineering Northwest, NW, address 11400. Southeast 8th Street, Suite

1:31:40 ↗ 200 in Bellevue, 98004. It's good to see you commissioners again. I've been in

1:31:46 ↗ front of you for both the other Gateway projects. I was here last week

1:31:52 ↗ for the Clark Elementary as well. I know that there are significant concerns, traffic

1:31:57 ↗ not just on Newport but throughout the city. I too have heard a

1:32:03 ↗ lot of public concerns about traffic, anticipated growth, how is that accounted for

1:32:09 ↗ on Newport Way. Let me answer it two ways. Number one, when the

1:32:15 ↗ city does their comprehensive planning in their central Issaquah plan, that plan needs

1:32:21 ↗ to, is required to account for growth, the anticipated growth, and the build

1:32:26 ↗ out of the zoning that's allowed within the central isaac plan so

1:32:32 ↗ from a long-term perspective the city has included in their transportation models and

1:32:38 ↗ their concurrency consideration build out of this area which includes all these projects

1:32:44 ↗ along newport the city has determined that newport way over the long term

1:32:50 ↗ will accommodate all of the growth that is anticipated in the build out of the

1:32:56 ↗ central is a plan with the understanding that Newport will be approved to a three

1:33:02 ↗ lane road like we've talked about and that will be funded and that will be

1:33:08 ↗ improved Newport way as these developments occur along their frontages. So again, First question,

1:33:13 ↗ big picture is the growth from these projects has been accounted for in a long-term

1:33:19 ↗ perspective. And more of a short-term analysis, that's what our traffic studies are required to

1:33:24 ↗ do. We look at how each of the access points operate. In this case, the

1:33:29 ↗ intersection of Oak Crest Drive where our driveway comes in. We have, I was author

1:33:34 ↗ of the traffic report and it did say, and it does say, that all of

1:33:40 ↗ the development projects that have been approved along this corridor have been accounted

1:33:45 ↗ for. I'll just clarify, while those projects may not be ultimately

1:33:51 ↗ approved. All of the projects, Gateway Apartments, Gateway Senior, and in addition to

1:33:57 ↗ that, we've included a 2% background growth rate for a couple years to

1:34:02 ↗ account for other development that's in the area. So those projects, the traffic

1:34:08 ↗ that's generated by those, the improvements along Newport Way further up the road

1:34:13 ↗ have all been accounted for in our analysis. So

1:34:19 ↗ if I could continue on that just a little bit. I thought the comment of

1:34:25 ↗ the trees in the median was a really valuable one, and I didn't see any

1:34:31 ↗ plan of the road construction. So I don't know if there's been any alignment, horizontal

1:34:37 ↗ or vertical adjustments being made to increase site distance or the speed studies that might

1:34:43 ↗ have been identified to give proper site distance for people coming at

1:34:49 ↗ 30 miles an hour, but reality 40 miles an hour. Right. Can

1:34:54 ↗ we go to a view that has-- I think one of the

1:35:00 ↗ site plans showed the center turn lane improvements. Yeah, that will work.

1:35:06 ↗ That'll work. Safety is very important. Obviously, you know that.

1:35:12 ↗ The public knows that. As a professional traffic engineer, it's one of the most important

1:35:18 ↗ things that we will look at when we determine the impacts of a project. What

1:35:23 ↗ the widening of Newport will do is it will not only widen the road

1:35:29 ↗ to accommodate a center turn lane, but that widening will also enhance the sight

1:35:35 ↗ lines and the visibility from both sides of this intersection. If you notice here,

1:35:41 ↗ the turn lanes-- let me see if a mouse will do it. This section

1:35:47 ↗ of center median right here will be a turn lane for people turning left to

1:35:52 ↗ Oakcrest Drive. This section of Newport will be a turn lane to turn into Riva

1:35:58 ↗ Townhomes. Not only will that center turn lane allow for getting left turns out of

1:36:04 ↗ the through traffic, but it will open up the sight lines so that these

1:36:09 ↗ landscape median and street trees will not inhibit those sight lines looking to the

1:36:15 ↗ left or to the right. And so the widening also even along this section

1:36:21 ↗ will include some enhancements because of this center turn lane widening here, this looking

1:36:27 ↗ left will also be improved. So the sight lines will, whenever these

1:36:33 ↗ projects are constructed, we make sure that there's adequate sight distance that meets

1:36:39 ↗ the city and federal requirements for that level of posted speed that exists

1:36:44 ↗ on Newport. - Just a comment, why wouldn't you move the center median

1:36:50 ↗ further east because if you are traveling westbound and you wanted to go

1:36:56 ↗ to that King County Trail, which is getting increasingly more

1:37:02 ↗ popular, why wouldn't you-- allow for people to turn

1:37:08 ↗ left into that if they're going westbound on Newport? So I don't think Jeff

1:37:14 ↗ can answer that question. It's a separate project. And that is why Amy identified

1:37:20 ↗ that we are talking to King County. Where the trailhead is now may not

1:37:26 ↗ be where the trailhead is when they construct it. We are trying

1:37:31 ↗ to understand that location to figure out do you put another break

1:37:37 ↗ in the median? Do you rely on the roundabout at Gateway? Do

1:37:43 ↗ you -- so we just met with them a week or two

1:37:49 ↗ ago, so we don't have those answers yet. Okay. We're not trying

1:37:55 ↗ to ignore it. It just is a separate piece that we're going to have to

1:38:00 ↗ fold into it as we get those answers from King County. CHRIS JERRAM: Yeah, because

1:38:06 ↗ right now, as it increases in popularity-- and it really seems to be growing in

1:38:11 ↗ popularity-- living here in Issaquah as I do and using that road, it's a haphazard

1:38:17 ↗ ad hoc Wild Wild West parking situation on the weekends down there. And I

1:38:23 ↗ think King County recognizes that. They're going for a grant to build, I

1:38:29 ↗ don't want to say a number because I don't know if I'm remembering

1:38:35 ↗ it correctly, but it's a lot more than is there right now. So

1:38:41 ↗ I think they-- and they feel that this has a good chance

1:38:47 ↗ in whatever way they evaluate that, of getting approved for a grant because of the

1:38:52 ↗ kinds of things that Mr. Kapler brought up, that you can ride a bus and

1:38:58 ↗ walk to this, that it is significant use, that there aren't that many other trailheads

1:39:03 ↗ with parking that access Cougar Mountain. I mean, we heard a lot of the things

1:39:09 ↗ that I think we all recognize are true about that. And I completely understand why

1:39:14 ↗ it's coming up with this project. The challenge is-- they aren't responsible for the trailhead.

1:39:20 ↗ We'll try and bring some information back to you when we bring the project back,

1:39:26 ↗ just because we can see there's a high interest, even though it is an unrelated--

1:39:31 ↗ it's unrelated to this permit, but it's clearly in proximity to this permit. CHRIS JERRAM:

1:39:37 ↗ OK. I'm glad to hear somebody's at least thinking about it. And may I add

1:39:43 ↗ one interesting point when we talked to them was that they became even more interested

1:39:48 ↗ in really looking at this particular trailhead when they heard that we are, we have

1:39:54 ↗ all these new developments on the pipeline because it makes this trail even, it makes

1:39:59 ↗ for them a more compelling reason to be able to get a grant when they

1:40:05 ↗ know that there will be, this will be a very popular and heavily used trailhead.

1:40:10 ↗ - So I think it's, what I'd hate to see happen is have the developer

1:40:15 ↗ go in and build the median that we see there with all the trees and

1:40:20 ↗ do all that work, and then have the county come in a week later and

1:40:25 ↗ say, we need to tear all that out to put a turn lane in. Is

1:40:29 ↗ there a way to, I guess, sort of provisionally approve that median work so if

1:40:34 ↗ the road is expanded, you don't install all the median stuff until you know where

1:40:39 ↗ A turn lane might need to go. You're taking all of our fun

1:40:45 ↗ away. No. We had exactly the same reaction. And this is at a

1:40:51 ↗ land use concept level of road design. And we had exactly the same

1:40:57 ↗ thought that we need to figure out What is the form of access? Is

1:41:03 ↗ it right here through the median? And if it is, then we need to identify

1:41:08 ↗ that so that when we're doing the construction permits that's identified and built into this

1:41:13 ↗ We just don't have that level of specificity and certainly not in

1:41:18 ↗ time for the preparation of the drawings for this presentation. Okay, thank

1:41:24 ↗ you. But absolutely. Are there any other questions on the turn lane

1:41:30 ↗ there? - Maybe a question for Mr. Schramm, just

1:41:36 ↗ related to the transportation to the design. The question

1:41:41 ↗ about access location offset versus across from another road

1:41:47 ↗ or driveway access and the benefits or detractors from

1:41:53 ↗ that design solution. - It's a very good question.

1:42:00 ↗ As traffic engineers, we kind of debate this all the time. What

1:42:05 ↗ I can do is kind of give you the merits of both

1:42:11 ↗ sides of it. So there's obviously advantages of, like what was mentioned,

1:42:17 ↗ of having offset intersections. It disperses traffic to multiple locations instead of

1:42:23 ↗ one. The advantage of having an intersection that is aligned in this

1:42:28 ↗ case is that all of your pedestrian crossing activity, your vehicle activity is

1:42:34 ↗ all identified in a single place so that the pedestrian experience will have

1:42:40 ↗ kind of one point of conflict interaction, a point where the city has

1:42:45 ↗ studied very hard. They've hired consultants to look at what is the proper

1:42:52 ↗ safety improvement that is necessary here. And in this case, in early communication and

1:42:58 ↗ coordination with the city, we determined that the best location would be to be

1:43:03 ↗ aligned with that intersection as opposed to putting it in an offset location where

1:43:09 ↗ there will be kind of two different conflict points for pedestrians and vehicles. So

1:43:14 ↗ what I can say from a traffic engineering perspective is One is not more

1:43:20 ↗ right than the other. I think it's based on the environmental conditions that exist

1:43:26 ↗ there and also meeting safety requirements, offset driveway standards and as such. So that

1:43:32 ↗ is the best I can do with that difficult question. - One more real

1:43:37 ↗ quick, just related to the question about a bus stop location that apparently currently exists

1:43:43 ↗ there now. And was any thought given to, you know, is there a more accommodating

1:43:49 ↗ and safer location after this reconfiguration happens? or kid pick up and drop off or

1:43:54 ↗ bus stops just because when you're redoing the road, it creates an opportunity to address

1:43:59 ↗ that? - We have not gone to that level of detail yet with staff or

1:44:05 ↗ with the school district to identify the type of enhancement that's necessary here. What I

1:44:10 ↗ can tell you is that I also work with the Issaquah School District and they're

1:44:15 ↗ very careful to make sure that the stop locations that they have and if there's

1:44:20 ↗ an opportunity for enhancement that they will do their best to accommodate that here. But

1:44:25 ↗ it's not something that we've studied in a lot of detail that I can share

1:44:30 ↗ at this point. - Thank you. I'm going to go

1:44:36 ↗ back to the trailhead alignment. So my understanding is

1:44:42 ↗ that the county has put a higher priority on

1:44:47 ↗ the issue of accommodating increased interest on the Cougar

1:44:52 ↗ Mountain Island Park trailhead. So now they're looking at

1:44:58 ↗ funding for-- enlargement perhaps moving the trailhead. Did I understand that?

1:45:04 ↗ I don't think that they're moving. Because I don't know how you move

1:45:10 ↗ a trailhead. Right. I don't think they're moving. So in the swath of

1:45:15 ↗ King of... Sorry, let me see if I can get my brain and my mouth

1:45:21 ↗ synced up. - While you're doing that, Lucy, let me clarify because there is a

1:45:26 ↗ question. If the trailhead stays in the general area where it is and the parking

1:45:31 ↗ lot is generally there, it appears to me just on the basis of this drawing

1:45:36 ↗ that if the median strip, the planted median strip were moved to the east, 100

1:45:42 ↗ feet, just 100 feet shorter of where it is, regardless of where the trailhead

1:45:47 ↗ is not going, the parking is not going to actually move. It's either gonna

1:45:53 ↗ be, it's in the same area, but it's gonna be expanded. So if the

1:45:59 ↗ median strip were just moved back or truncated somewhat, it would provide

1:46:05 ↗ that access. And the turn lane was extended where the

1:46:10 ↗ median strip is now. Wouldn't that accommodate the turns into

1:46:16 ↗ the parking and also increase the sight line? So the

1:46:22 ↗ sight line may not need to be increased. I think

1:46:27 ↗ that if-- I think we're trying to accommodate the trailhead

1:46:33 ↗ if it is built at this time. Our follow-up

1:46:38 ↗ discussion was that we wanted to return to King County and see if

1:46:44 ↗ we could settle down a location. Now, because they are increasing the size

1:46:49 ↗ of the parking lot, they are having to see where they can get

1:46:55 ↗ the grades in, which might change where the access is. It's still in

1:47:01 ↗ that frontage of Cougar Mountain. I mean, it's not like it's moving

1:47:06 ↗ to a different part of the park. I don't think we were able

1:47:12 ↗ to pin down exactly where it was going. The point of this conversation

1:47:18 ↗ was for them to get enough information to actually go away and study

1:47:24 ↗ it more closely. So as we're proceeding with this application, If it was

1:47:29 ↗ approved, then we would go before they got too far with construction permits, that

1:47:35 ↗ would be something we would want to integrate together because we completely concur with

1:47:41 ↗ Commissioner Morgan's comments that we are not interested in building something to have it

1:47:46 ↗ taken out in the next couple of years. That's not a good choice for

1:47:52 ↗ anyone. - Anybody else? I have one more thing on the Newport alignment.

1:47:58 ↗ Anybody else have anything on Newport? I think all of my

1:48:03 ↗ questions are being answered right now. Well, I guess one thing

1:48:09 ↗ about the Newport alignment is that the far left hand-- this

1:48:15 ↗ is a comment. And since we're into this inter-jurisdictional gray area,

1:48:20 ↗ the far left hand of the chart, Newport has a very

1:48:26 ↗ subtle bend there that is no fault of anybody it was

1:48:32 ↗ probably just a country road at one point in time or but it's very dangerous

1:48:37 ↗ i think all of our awareness was raised last summer with safety problems and that

1:48:43 ↗ subtle bend there does create a lot of sight line issues and it's bad enough

1:48:49 ↗ for the people that are trying to use the crosswalk and the people coming out

1:48:54 ↗ of oak crest but now it's going to be compounded by people coming and going

1:49:00 ↗ with the trail and the new development. So I just, again, hope that

1:49:06 ↗ the city can take another look at that from a traffic safety standpoint, because

1:49:12 ↗ that will just add to the complication factor. And I just don't know if

1:49:17 ↗ it's been addressed yet. CHRIS JERRAM: OK. CHRISTIE WOOD: I think we hear that

1:49:23 ↗ we have a piece to spend some time answering. I

1:49:29 ↗ have one point of clarification. Mr. Sugarman raised the question of

1:49:35 ↗ what I think is maybe a math issue more than anything

1:49:41 ↗ else. When he questioned where is the total of 67 feet

1:49:46 ↗ coming from, he did the addition there. Is there correction, addition,

1:49:52 ↗ deletion to that? question that Mr. Sugarman had. I think his

1:49:58 ↗ point was, as I understood it, when you look at what's there

1:50:04 ↗ now and you look at the plan for the sidewalks and so

1:50:09 ↗ on, he believed that the total for the new plan was 67

1:50:15 ↗ feet, which differs from the width that is indicated. So I

1:50:21 ↗ think one of the things-- could you pull up that drawing that

1:50:26 ↗ you had that showed the right-of-way? Yeah, that's-- So the improvements that

1:50:32 ↗ are built out there today don't fill the existing right-of-way. My memory

1:50:38 ↗ is that the existing right-of-way is-- it shifts in there. So I

1:50:44 ↗ think it's at least 60 feet. So you may remember-- either aim, Stacia,

1:50:49 ↗ do you want to go back to the site? Because this is kind of confusing.

1:50:55 ↗ Could you identify yourself, please? My name is Stacia Bloom. I work with Core Design

1:51:00 ↗ and I'm on the applicant's design team. And we spent a huge amount of time

1:51:05 ↗ working through like very fine-grained studies of trying to balance how much right-of-way we needed

1:51:10 ↗ versus how much right-of-way there was there. So it is something we've thought about. And

1:51:16 ↗ I just want to be clear that there was a member of the public who

1:51:21 ↗ raised the question of the numbers. And I'm number impaired, but when I did a

1:51:26 ↗ real quick check, I thought it was a legitimate question. It is a legitimate question.

1:51:31 ↗ There's actually two different sections that we have along Newport Way. We have this that's

1:51:36 ↗ to the east of Newport Way, and it's going to be a 63-foot wide section.

1:51:41 ↗ The difference being where this median is, it's an eight foot wide median and then

1:51:46 ↗ where the median tapers off, it then introduces a left turn pocket for this Oak

1:51:51 ↗ Crest community. That left turn pocket is 12 feet wide. So we transitioned from eight

1:51:56 ↗ feet wide to 12 feet wide in the middle of the Newport Way. So this

1:52:01 ↗ is where the 67 feet is. You can see here that the city actually owns

1:52:06 ↗ this portion. of right-of-way, where it bows out and it sucks back in towards Newport

1:52:12 ↗ Way. So across here, 63 feet wide, our project itself is doing a 1 and

1:52:18 ↗ 1/2 foot dedication along the whole frontage. For the section to be completed, this 63

1:52:24 ↗ foot wide section along the median, Cougar Mountain will have to dedicate another foot and

1:52:29 ↗ 1/2 on their side. So that will complete the 63 feet. The city already has

1:52:35 ↗ enough width in the right of way to complete the 67 feet. so if he's

1:52:40 ↗ pulling a tape measure along here um it would be hard to come up with

1:52:44 ↗ the 67 feet but we by our contribution of foot and a half and cougar

1:52:48 ↗ mountain's contribution by a foot and a half we can achieve the 63 feet okay

1:52:52 ↗ and and cougar mountain by cougar mountain you mean king county i mean king county

1:52:56 ↗ yes how it does that happen as a matter of course in these kinds of

1:53:00 ↗ things how many do you expect that to be a normal process to get that

1:53:05 ↗ extra I guess the thing I would say is we

1:53:10 ↗ discussed frontage improvements with King County as a-- I don't know

1:53:16 ↗ whether this is the right term-- a superior agency. It is

1:53:22 ↗ a request, not something we can require. That's why. Right. On

1:53:28 ↗ the other hand-- As I mentioned, they are very interested

1:53:34 ↗ in this being a facility that can be walked to from the transit

1:53:40 ↗ agency. So that requires having the land to build the facility. So it

1:53:46 ↗ was a very friendly conversation, and we'll see how it evolves. Just

1:53:52 ↗ to-- I hope the last question on this. The pedestrian access to the trailhead

1:53:57 ↗ from the transit center is on the north side of Newport? In other words,

1:54:03 ↗ is this plan now that they walk along the north side and then cross

1:54:09 ↗ Newport? Or is there a south side of Newport? So the section for Newport

1:54:16 ↗ has walkways on both sides. Yeah. We are in-- The section does.

1:54:21 ↗ The section does. It is being incrementally developed with development. And I

1:54:27 ↗ think one of the questions we'll go back and confirm with Public

1:54:32 ↗ Works Engineering is the timing of the missing teeth. However--

1:54:39 ↗ Bergsma is also doing a development agreement. They're required to do a development agreement

1:54:45 ↗ because of the type of development that they're doing. And so the improvements in

1:54:50 ↗ that section, including the sidewalk on the trail head side, is under discussion. So

1:54:56 ↗ it is both wonderful and challenging, the number of projects that are happening simultaneously

1:55:02 ↗ along this stretch of Newport. All right. Is there another subject that somebody

1:55:08 ↗ wants to clarify, bring up? Are we going to talk about buildings? Yeah. That's-- Go

1:55:14 ↗ ahead. Well, look, I guess the trailer thing. I feel a little frustrated because all

1:55:19 ↗ these projects we've looked at, we've looked at some internal circulation within each project and

1:55:25 ↗ then where it maybe goes off the project itself. But we don't have anything that

1:55:31 ↗ shows all of this together and both. And the circulation, like the green necklace

1:55:37 ↗ graph we have here just goes to the edge of the property. And I'm still

1:55:43 ↗ somewhat confused as to where all the trails come in for all these properties, Maple

1:55:48 ↗ Street, the connection for the Gateway Apartments. I know we don't have it now, but

1:55:54 ↗ that would be something that would be very helpful to see what's been approved, what

1:56:00 ↗ is going in for sure, and then what might go in. Because I'm sure Mr.

1:56:05 ↗ Kapler is concerned very much that We spend a lot of time and effort building

1:56:11 ↗ a trail that goes nowhere. It doesn't really help us at all. So I want

1:56:16 ↗ to make sure we don't build the trail to the north end of the site

1:56:22 ↗ that then just stops. And if it's not the best trail for the whole system,

1:56:27 ↗ I'd rather not do that either if the better trail is down at Maple. So

1:56:32 ↗ again, I don't feel qualified enough to know where all these connections should go, given

1:56:37 ↗ the information we have. Just for the record, I share that. I

1:56:43 ↗ don't have a comprehensive picture of the trail system proposed. CHRISTIE WOOD:

1:56:49 ↗ Yes, I agree. If we're going to make decisions or make recommendations

1:56:55 ↗ about-- about trails and where they should be and what's best for the public and

1:57:01 ↗ walkability. We need to have a bigger picture of how they connect, and that would

1:57:06 ↗ be very helpful. - And on that trail that ends up there, it was mentioned

1:57:12 ↗ by a member of the public that there's, the property owner has up to 30

1:57:17 ↗ years to comply. Is that, do you want to comment on that? - So the,

1:57:22 ↗ oh, go ahead. No, you go first. So we recognize

1:57:28 ↗ those same concerns and this is where timing is probably

1:57:34 ↗ everything because at the end of the day, we would

1:57:40 ↗ really rather see that trail going further north and connecting

1:57:46 ↗ to the proposed shared use and boardwalk of the Gateway

1:57:51 ↗ Apartments. But in terms of the 30 years, the Rowley

1:57:57 ↗ development agreement is 30 years, but the Gateway project, we understand,

1:58:03 ↗ has reached an agreement with Rowley to actually connect all the

1:58:09 ↗ way to 19th. So the piece that has potentially 30 years

1:58:15 ↗ to be achieved is, for instance, what Mr. Kapler was

1:58:20 ↗ mentioning, the relocation of Tibbets Creek out of a ditch and kind

1:58:26 ↗ of completing the restoration that they did in the central portion. Yes,

1:58:32 ↗ they have 30 years to do that. Gateway does not have 30

1:58:38 ↗ years to complete the project. So the I'm not sure if I'm

1:58:44 ↗ right about this. We've had some of the same challenges understanding where some pieces are

1:58:50 ↗ relative to each other, such as the rally, the connections in the rally development agreement

1:58:55 ↗ relative to things on this side. So I think that the southern one may be

1:59:01 ↗ the one that people are calling Maple. That is the one that the rallies are

1:59:07 ↗ currently identifying. There are three different options that were shown in their development agreement.

1:59:13 ↗ They are required to build one. So they have indicated that now that southern

1:59:19 ↗ one is the one that they prefer. They don't have to make that commitment

1:59:25 ↗ or build that now. That is within their 30-year time frame. And so we're

1:59:30 ↗ trying to... complete the pieces within the framework

1:59:36 ↗ of authority that we have established through Central Issaquah, we cannot

1:59:42 ↗ require someone to build on someone else's property, which is why

1:59:47 ↗ the condition is written in not the most satisfying way.

1:59:54 ↗ But we are hoping that over the course of both the Gateway and

2:00:00 ↗ Riva projects construction that we're able to bring those two pieces together. I

2:00:05 ↗ think that if for some reason that wasn't possible, I think the fee

2:00:11 ↗ in lieu could be something to discuss. But there is a reason that

2:00:17 ↗ that connection was identified and desirable at this time because it

2:00:23 ↗ would provide more, if we're able to connect north to the

2:00:28 ↗ Gateway connection, then we are getting much more activity in that

2:00:34 ↗ area and providing both Gateway and Riva better connections to various

2:00:40 ↗ areas of this district. - Mr. Chair, just a couple

2:00:46 ↗ on similar thinking. So I think agree it would be very useful to have kind

2:00:51 ↗ of a, essentially a trail master plan or as much of one that

2:00:57 ↗ you've created so far, understanding that we've got a kind of unique alignment of all

2:01:02 ↗ of these projects happening very close together. So we're getting this kind of piecemeal. But

2:01:07 ↗ it is an opportunity that we don't want to miss too, as far as creating

2:01:12 ↗ an appropriate alignment. A couple other pieces of information I think would be helpful too

2:01:17 ↗ is for me, some of these are or public access some of these trails and

2:01:23 ↗ some of them are private property access only and I remember asking a question about

2:01:27 ↗ this on the Gateway project and we were talking about the trail on that site.

2:01:32 ↗ The answer was well that's for the residents of the Gateway and it wouldn't be

2:01:37 ↗ accessible to other people and so maybe I'm just remembering that but it that's a

2:01:42 ↗ little confusing for me too. Where does the public gain access the trail system and

2:01:47 ↗ where are those trails that are integrated into some of these larger projects or the

2:01:53 ↗ private property owners or leases. So that clarification I think would be really useful as

2:01:59 ↗ we're thinking about this on a more global standpoint and trying to plug these projects

2:02:05 ↗ in and what would be a really appropriate kind of interconnection between the two.

2:02:10 ↗ these trails. One more clarification would be there's also been discussion

2:02:16 ↗ about whether it's pedestrian only or would be a pedestrian and bike trail and

2:02:22 ↗ there was even a conversation about whether or not we should be taking cars across

2:02:27 ↗ the bridge on the Gateway project and I guess in thinking about that kind of

2:02:32 ↗ master trail plan what are they for what for what purpose and the thinking may

2:02:37 ↗ not be that far down the road yet but I think that kind of master

2:02:43 ↗ planning work around the trail network would be really beneficial for these projects across the

2:02:48 ↗ whole central Issaquah plan as they develop. - I'll pass that along to the long

2:02:54 ↗ rangers. I'm teasing. Just so you know, the shared use routes are required to be

2:03:00 ↗ publicly owned. So the Gateway project, you know, the one that starts at

2:03:06 ↗ their Newport entry and goes through the wetland, and then this piece that

2:03:11 ↗ goes hopefully north, are required to be public, publicly owned. And the time

2:03:17 ↗ frame, so obviously there's going to be a construction, an extended time frame.

2:03:23 ↗ What is the target completion date for Riva now, as it stands now?

2:03:32 ↗ Well, I tell you, yeah, go ahead if you would because then

2:03:38 ↗ there's a follow-up. Sure. The tentative schedule -- I'm sorry. Eric Golden

2:03:43 ↗ with Conner Homes. The tentative schedule is for land development to commence

2:03:49 ↗ either this summer or the summer of 2017 followed by home building

2:03:54 ↗ which would begin in the fall of either '16 or '17. and

2:04:00 ↗ delivery of homes, say, five months after that, so about spring

2:04:06 ↗ of either '16 or '17. CHRIS JERRAM: Thank you. So by

2:04:12 ↗ that time, the applicant would know where that trail is supposed

2:04:17 ↗ to go, right? I see Amy shaking her head there. AMY

2:04:23 ↗ MCCORMACK: We think so. And I guess I may be speaking

2:04:29 ↗ too soon, but-- Let me backtrack. I don't think at

2:04:34 ↗ this point we have the crystal ball to say exactly how all the

2:04:40 ↗ pieces will fall into place. And so I mean, I think the idea

2:04:46 ↗ of having that quote unquote master plan might be helpful. And then to

2:04:52 ↗ understand how we want to look at this. In so many ways, we

2:04:58 ↗ are... Like what Lucy said, it's not the perfect condition, but

2:05:04 ↗ it was a condition that tried to capture what we think

2:05:10 ↗ is most beneficial to the community, given the certain constraints such

2:05:15 ↗ as we have shown a regional trail system that requires private

2:05:21 ↗ property owners to basically be willing to have the system on

2:05:27 ↗ their properties. It takes a lot of coordination and

2:05:32 ↗ goodwill, I guess, to be able to get the

2:05:38 ↗ vision for our trail system to be implemented. Okay,

2:05:44 ↗ thank you. Next topic? Still topic on school buses.

2:05:49 ↗ Amy, can you tell us where the existing school

2:05:55 ↗ bus, where does it stop right now? Does anybody

2:06:00 ↗ know? Oh, at the stop sign on Oak Crest. Thank you. We don't let you

2:06:06 ↗ except in the east early direction there. They're not allowed to cross the street. So

2:06:11 ↗ where do they stop? I'm sorry. Just for the record, we have to have people

2:06:15 ↗ identify themselves when they're speaking. So we're going to open this just for one person

2:06:20 ↗ from the public to address that question. And then if the city disagrees with the

2:06:25 ↗ information given, it needs to be clarified at this point. OK. Mary Lynch, 2690 Northwest

2:06:29 ↗ Oak Crest.

2:06:33 ↗ Have

2:06:36 ↗ to

2:06:40 ↗ have

2:06:43 ↗ a

2:06:47 ↗ bus

2:06:50 ↗ stop If they wanted another one,

2:06:56 ↗ if they didn't want them to walk down to where the current one is, they

2:07:01 ↗ would have to walk down here. And they'll have to be a new one for

2:07:07 ↗ Gateway because of the number of people. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there

2:07:12 ↗ another topic that -- sods, construction material, so on. Yes,

2:07:17 ↗ thank you, Mr. Chairman. On building setback, we're right there

2:07:23 ↗ on the patio and the property line. What happened to

2:07:29 ↗ building setback? So the required setback for this zone is

2:07:35 ↗ actually 0 to 10 feet. So they have opted to

2:07:40 ↗ basically put the building about four feet to six feet from the

2:07:46 ↗ property line. That being the patio, is that? So building setback is

2:07:52 ↗ based on basically where the exterior wall of the building is, right?

2:07:58 ↗ So where you have the planter area, in some cases it's four

2:08:03 ↗ feet, in other case, and then where you have the patios, you

2:08:09 ↗ have six feet. Okay. Got you. Thank

2:08:15 ↗ you. Thank you. Other questions? I thought a good comment was

2:08:20 ↗ made on thinking of the bed load of the aircraft creek,

2:08:26 ↗ the new culvert and what constraint was going to be put

2:08:32 ↗ on somebody to be able to manage the sediment load dropping

2:08:37 ↗ out into that wetland and how that was going to be

2:08:43 ↗ taken care of. We'll try and get some of that information.

2:08:48 ↗ It is a separate project from this, so it's not part of this

2:08:54 ↗ permit. It's happening, again, concurrently. It's not a project that our department is

2:09:00 ↗ running. It's through Public Works Engineering. We have some familiarity with it because,

2:09:06 ↗ obviously, of its interrelations, so we'll try and get some answers on that.

2:09:12 ↗ Thank you. I have a building question. All

2:09:18 ↗ right. Shoot. Let's just go for it. Amy, a question in your

2:09:23 ↗ -- this is on site design. It's your page 23 of 33

2:09:29 ↗ under 11.2 item C. In the last paragraph you mentioned consistent with

2:09:35 ↗ its contemporary style, the building exterior does not use any natural materials.

2:09:41 ↗ But then you have a condition saying the building elevation shall be further refined to

2:09:46 ↗ incorporate natural materials. And so it seemed like a conflict there that you were saying

2:09:51 ↗ that the design is a contemporary design that doesn't include them, but it needs to

2:09:57 ↗ include them. And so I wasn't sure, is that a requirement? Is it just something

2:10:02 ↗ staff would like to see? CHRIS RODGERS: Shall, the magic word. DAVID BURRAGE: Yeah, yeah,

2:10:07 ↗ the magic word. So basically what I was trying to say is that,

2:10:13 ↗ again, going back to the vision for the Western Gateway, it has the word

2:10:19 ↗ that says, like using natural materials such as wood and

2:10:25 ↗ stone. And so that's where I took that guideline to

2:10:30 ↗ say currently they are not using natural materials and in

2:10:36 ↗ order to meet the vision, you know, they're pretty close.

2:10:42 ↗ I mean, we think that like what I established earlier,

2:10:47 ↗ there's more ways that you can achieve that Western Gateway character. However,

2:10:53 ↗ because it was very specific in the vision that it mentions natural

2:10:59 ↗ materials, and we as staff wanted to make sure that that's being

2:11:05 ↗ addressed and conditioned. Great, thank you. I would, along on the

2:11:10 ↗ same topic of the materials and the color palette, I also appreciated

2:11:16 ↗ the fact that you talked about that in the condition that Commissioner

2:11:22 ↗ Morgan referred to, because I think we already have evidence of the

2:11:28 ↗ benefit of a color palette that emphasizes blending in with the environment

2:11:33 ↗ as opposed to creating contrast that attract the eye. And

2:11:39 ↗ so one of the things that I was interested in seeing

2:11:45 ↗ in the presentations is the fact that we have stark white

2:11:50 ↗ and the other colors that are on there. And there are

2:11:56 ↗ some other examples that we've already seen in projects that are

2:12:02 ↗ underway of pretty significant color, bright color, a use of bright

2:12:08 ↗ color palette that doesn't blend into the environment. So the question

2:12:13 ↗ is, are we talking about the brown and the red and

2:12:19 ↗ the brown are for the doors?

2:12:25 ↗ So there's two color palettes. And yes, the

2:12:31 ↗ quote unquote brighter colors are just accent colors

2:12:37 ↗ for the doors. So this shows, these illustrations

2:12:42 ↗ in the package show the white there. Is

2:12:48 ↗ that? That looks great. Yeah. It looks gray

2:12:53 ↗ and white. Is there going to be? So

2:12:59 ↗ what you're seeing is why this basically a very light shade of gray,

2:13:05 ↗ okay, that's different from okay That's that's been as you know, that's been

2:13:11 ↗ a concern of the Commission about what we see in the presentation what

2:13:17 ↗ ends up being built That's great Okay It was also mentioned by a

2:13:22 ↗ member of the public that there was a concern that the fire trucks

2:13:28 ↗ might not be able to access through that point, get to the four story structures,

2:13:34 ↗ but I noticed in the packet that the fire department has already given its full

2:13:39 ↗ approval to access and the ability to get to buildings, to all of the buildings

2:13:44 ↗ on site with all of the equipment of the fire department. So that is the

2:13:49 ↗ fire marshal's decision. Already on the record is that good there and there's a condition.

2:13:55 ↗ Yeah, yeah And there is a condition to ask about the condition because it looks

2:14:00 ↗ like there will need to be some building modifications to allow for firetruck turnarounds There's

2:14:05 ↗ some clearance problems Can you describe that a little bit more how significant that is

2:14:10 ↗ and whether that's going to move buildings? Are we just talking about minor modifications to

2:14:15 ↗ accomplish that so hopefully this is good enough to show. So when

2:14:21 ↗ you look at the, I don't know if you have

2:14:27 ↗ your sheet. I think it was an attack.

2:14:35 ↗ attachment seven yeah oh yeah it's it's on i think it's like

2:14:40 ↗ talking about 15 to 33 page 15 to 33 uh uh fire

2:14:46 ↗ turnaround yes so this is attachment um so basically um it will

2:14:52 ↗ it will require them moving some shifting some of the buildings by

2:14:57 ↗ two two feet to the south. So what may end up happening

2:15:03 ↗ is where you see these two two pairs of buildings, excuse me, with an

2:15:09 ↗ open space. One of these buildings will shift two feet to the south. So

2:15:15 ↗ you still have enough room here. This is like 40 feet of open space

2:15:21 ↗ here. And then same thing for this alley or driveway. It will shift one

2:15:27 ↗ of the buildings two feet. So given how they've set it up

2:15:33 ↗ where you do have some open spaces, then it's basically more of

2:15:39 ↗ a construction detail. And one thing I would add is that the

2:15:45 ↗ current plan accommodated the fire truck turning movements exactly. And I think

2:15:51 ↗ we all know that that is-- It's a computer generated.

2:15:56 ↗ And I think the fire marshal wanted a couple of feet

2:16:02 ↗ of safety. And so not running into balconies seemed like a

2:16:08 ↗ good thing for both the applicant and the fire marshal. So

2:16:14 ↗ it wasn't that they weren't meeting. They met the auto turn,

2:16:20 ↗ but there was no room for error. - Amy,

2:16:26 ↗ I have a question on your, I guess it's page 25 of one,

2:16:32 ↗ or 21 of 33, your condition 18, the driveway aisles within the building

2:16:38 ↗ setback line that are used for vehicle turnaround shall be designed as viewing

2:16:44 ↗ areas. I was just curious what a viewing area would entail. So

2:16:50 ↗ again, because those spaces are, I mean, it's not like you have a parked car

2:16:55 ↗ there. It could be as simple as special paving so that it feels, I mean,

2:17:01 ↗ obviously you can't put seating there. But again, it's a level of detail that we'd

2:17:06 ↗ like to work out with the applicant. Unless, I mean, if the commission has some

2:17:12 ↗ suggestions, that's fine too. Okay, great. Thank you. I have a couple of

2:17:18 ↗ questions for the applicant, if that's OK, Mr. Chair. Sure. I guess

2:17:23 ↗ first question is, Amy has lots of suggested conditions in the report.

2:17:29 ↗ Is there anything in there that I guess you vehemently disagree with

2:17:35 ↗ or have any opinions about? We were given an advance copy. Aaron

2:17:41 ↗ Golden with Conner Homes, pardon me. We were given an advance copy

2:17:47 ↗ of the staff report in draft form, reviewed it, we met

2:17:53 ↗ with staff. There was some iterative process and at this point

2:17:58 ↗ we're generally satisfied with the conditions as written. We understand that

2:18:04 ↗ this is also a process and that the finished product may look

2:18:10 ↗ a bit different and I suspect that iterative process will continue. - Okay, one other

2:18:14 ↗ question. This isn't really that germane, I guess, but in looking at the floor plan,

2:18:19 ↗ I noticed that the master bedrooms face onto Newport Way and that the second bedrooms

2:18:23 ↗ face out towards the Greenbelt and I guess just intuitively I was thinking it seemed

2:18:28 ↗ like if I had one of these, I'd want my master bedroom looking out to

2:18:33 ↗ the Greenbelt instead of the Main Street and I was just curious how that design

2:18:38 ↗ decision was made i don't know you know our architect

2:18:44 ↗ probably better answer that question for the design programming rick

2:18:50 ↗ tallisow milbrandt architects that's a very good question by the

2:18:55 ↗ way i i would point out that at this point

2:19:01 ↗ these are both conceptual floor plans and conceptual elevations and

2:19:07 ↗ i would agree with your comment and i I would think

2:19:13 ↗ as we massage these plans and they further evolve, we'll get a chance to-- I

2:19:18 ↗ think there's opportunity to actually flip those. On those interior units that are 16 foot

2:19:23 ↗ wide units, I mean, the two bathrooms are back to back in the center. And

2:19:29 ↗ one bedroom is on one side. And the stair presents a little bit of challenge

2:19:34 ↗ than when the landing. And those stairs are fit in pretty tightly. But we've done

2:19:40 ↗ it before. so that we get the master bedroom getting the better views. So we'll

2:19:45 ↗ take that into consideration. CHRIS JERRAM: OK. And again, I don't think it's part of

2:19:51 ↗ our approval. I just was more curious than anything. So thank you. CHRIS JERRAM: Thank

2:19:56 ↗ you, Mr. Chair. CLARE DUDA: Mr. Chairman, can I return to our favorite subject for

2:20:01 ↗ a minute? Newport Way. CHRIS JERRAM: OK. CLARE DUDA: Just something I caught in the

2:20:06 ↗ drawing here of the cross-section view of the plan for the parkway. It mentions

2:20:12 ↗ power poles in conflict relocate in Parkway. Does that mean

2:20:18 ↗ buried utilities? So, yeah. We've got trees in the Parkway.

2:20:24 ↗ I'm just wondering what that comment meant. So city

2:20:29 ↗ policy is that whenever you do frontage improvements that the

2:20:35 ↗ applicant is required to underground the power pole or the

2:20:41 ↗ power line. Right, thanks. And I'm not sure

2:20:47 ↗ whether this is for you or the applicant, but I did

2:20:53 ↗ have a question on 10.8.D says, quote, no exterior mechanical equipment

2:20:58 ↗ will be there. And then 16.2.C in the packet says, when

2:21:04 ↗ location of ground-mounted mechanical and utilities are identified. So is there

2:21:10 ↗ going to be mechanical equipment on site? because it would seem that there

2:21:16 ↗ is there's a flat statement that there isn't and then later it says when they're

2:21:20 ↗ identified we'll determine where they're going to go So probably I should have clarified that

2:21:26 ↗ it means all kinds of utility equipment instead of just mechanical. So at

2:21:31 ↗ this point, the applicant has told us that there won't be any ground

2:21:37 ↗ mounted mechanical equipment. But as we have experienced in most cases, you still

2:21:43 ↗ end up with all kinds of utility, including power boxes. Those are usually

2:21:48 ↗ just standard. And I don't think in this case they would need those

2:21:54 ↗ big transformer boxes. So I've developed a habit of making sure that we

2:22:00 ↗ have some sort of a catch-all statement that requires them to do that

2:22:06 ↗ in the future. And Amy, do you know what kind-- I know

2:22:12 ↗ the subject of signs are who's on first and who's got it. But I

2:22:17 ↗ assume there's going to be a sign that identifies this as Riva Townhomes. Do

2:22:23 ↗ you have a proposed location for that? Because we're talking about sight lines and

2:22:29 ↗ visibility and everything like that. And there are some instances around where we've seen

2:22:35 ↗ signs identifying the site going up where they clearly block traffic sideline. So

2:22:40 ↗ staff is basically aware of those kinds of safety issues and

2:22:46 ↗ the sign standards actually has clear guidelines on where the location

2:22:52 ↗ should be so that the site distance triangle is not obstructed.

2:22:58 ↗ You know, there is a limit to the size of the

2:23:03 ↗ monument sign if they choose to do that. All right.

2:23:09 ↗ I have a question about the building. And I was wondering

2:23:15 ↗ if you could bring up, Amy, the landscaping that's sort of--

2:23:21 ↗ yes, thank you. But go back. AMY MCCORMICK: Oh, this one?

2:23:26 ↗ Yes, that one. And I realize the applicant has the option

2:23:32 ↗ to have zero feet to the road or to the sidewalk,

2:23:37 ↗ but I think front porches might have a little bit more character

2:23:43 ↗ because as I look at this picture I get sort of a retail

2:23:49 ↗ feel. The buildings are absolutely beautiful. I think all of the landscaping is

2:23:55 ↗ gorgeous and it seems that you know maybe the front porches could have

2:24:00 ↗ a bit more character or modulation or something like that and I do

2:24:06 ↗ have a concern about or units one, two, and

2:24:12 ↗ three on this turn, this slight turn. And

2:24:17 ↗ the reason why is because of car accidents.

2:24:23 ↗ And if a car were to lose control on that turn, I'm

2:24:29 ↗ concerned about the front porches and the buildings there as there's not

2:24:35 ↗ a whole lot of landscaping or trees or barrier. on those

2:24:41 ↗ particular ones. I would be less concerned about the units further down

2:24:46 ↗ the road. But I do have a little bit of a concern

2:24:52 ↗ there, especially in the wintertime when this road gets a bit icy.

2:24:58 ↗ So maybe consider some two-man, three-man stones in your landscaping. That might

2:25:04 ↗ be a little useful to protect and also give a little

2:25:10 ↗ bit of a breakup between the sidewalk, the street to sidewalk

2:25:16 ↗ to porch feel. I do want to compliment you on the

2:25:22 ↗ gorgeous landscaping plans and tree plans. I usually have a lot

2:25:28 ↗ more to say about stuff like that, and I just think

2:25:33 ↗ it's absolutely wonderful. So Commissioner Hicks, are you talking about where the

2:25:39 ↗ person-- Yeah, the guy-- see the guy in the green? Yeah, right there. You're talking

2:25:45 ↗ about something that-- Yes, I'm-- exactly. --like a wall or two-man, three-man rock wall or

2:25:51 ↗ something like that? Maybe. Yeah, yeah. That's what I'm thinking is that maybe just some

2:25:56 ↗ simple two-man or three-man stones in that landscaping plan there may protect those units.

2:26:02 ↗ from a car that might have lose control on

2:26:07 ↗ this bend. Are there any other topics, questions, clarifications?

2:26:13 ↗ Just one more question or maybe clarification. Now I

2:26:19 ↗ turn my page. There is, I'll just wing it here, there's discussion

2:26:25 ↗ in the staff report about an active play area, particularly for kids, and it talks

2:26:30 ↗ about a nature-based play area. I don't know, is that climate tree or, it would

2:26:36 ↗ be useful to know on the site plan kind of where that is and what's

2:26:42 ↗ intended. Because as you heard earlier and we're seeing in the demographics in the city,

2:26:47 ↗ we're seeing a lot of kids coming and expect there will probably be kids at

2:26:52 ↗ some point living in these units. And it's hard for me to see on the

2:26:57 ↗ site plan where the kids will have an active space to go to outside. I

2:27:02 ↗ think when they get a little older and they can cross the street, their parents

2:27:07 ↗ will just send them up Cougar Mountain. the younger kids. Or to the new neighborhood

2:27:12 ↗ park at the Gateway. That could be a good spot. Or they'll just think

2:27:18 ↗ this whole thing is their backyard. I would. Tell them to go climb a

2:27:24 ↗ tree. On a more serious note, young kids that need to be supervised, where

2:27:30 ↗ would they play? I'm Christy Park with Core Design again. In our

2:27:36 ↗ STP submittal, this area here was planned to be a

2:27:41 ↗ nature-based play element. And we had looked at defining that further,

2:27:47 ↗ but through two key elements, the shifting of the buildings due to the fire,

2:27:53 ↗ adding some additional fire allowance around the buildings, and then the 10-foot requirement for

2:27:59 ↗ the sidewalk right here, it's shown as five feet in our STP. This space

2:28:05 ↗ is shrinking. So what our plan was after discussions with Lucy and Amy is we

2:28:11 ↗ would be looking at some of these shifts between now and the next meeting and

2:28:16 ↗ then coming up with some ideas for feedback. There is a potential we could potentially

2:28:21 ↗ utilize some of this area as well. It might be more appropriate at this point

2:28:27 ↗ to maintain appropriate fall zones from anything that's over. 2.5 feet. But we can

2:28:32 ↗ come back with more specific ideas for the next meeting. Thank you. And one

2:28:38 ↗ of the things I would add just for you to either reflect on tonight

2:28:44 ↗ or noodle on for the next meeting is that the applicant had proposed the

2:28:50 ↗ nature-based play, but I think staff's reaction was that given the limited

2:28:56 ↗ amount of open space that nature-based play uses, you know, rocks and mounds and

2:29:02 ↗ other elements that aren't like a big toy that is just limited to children.

2:29:08 ↗ So if you don't have children or adults want to use the area, it's

2:29:14 ↗ versatile for many ages. And so given the tight site, that seemed like

2:29:20 ↗ a good approach. And we had some of the same questions and are

2:29:26 ↗ looking forward to seeing some more detail. Chair Greg Musil: Well, in that

2:29:32 ↗ case, if there is nothing more, we will conclude the meeting by

2:29:38 ↗ on behalf of the development commission the work that went into preparing the package and

2:29:44 ↗ the presentation on the part of the staff and on the part of the applicant

2:29:49 ↗ as well. We always appreciate as much detail as we can get from the applicant.

2:29:55 ↗ And also the members of the public who have come and not only spoken

2:30:01 ↗ but stayed. This is, as we say in all these meetings, this is really, really

2:30:06 ↗ critical part of the deal is to get the public input into the concerns and

2:30:12 ↗ the recommendations. I think they, I would presume to speak on behalf of the Commission

2:30:18 ↗ that there are some really good ideas that came up here tonight from everybody, also

2:30:24 ↗ some clarifications and also some expectations for the staff that I

2:30:29 ↗ think would go specifically the map of the trail

2:30:35 ↗ system as it is and it is as it is proposed to be and I

2:30:41 ↗ would suggest even further to connect it to King County's system what you know what's

2:30:46 ↗ already there and different color coatings or whatever what what the county's planning on because

2:30:52 ↗ you know we advertise ourselves as the trailhead city I mean that's that's in the

2:30:57 ↗ official issaquah documents so so the more we can do to show that not only

2:31:02 ↗ to people that live here that are looking for recreational opportunities but people that are

2:31:06 ↗ living in seattle that you know want to come out here so i think that's

2:31:11 ↗ a real good idea and we'd like to see that coming from the staff for

2:31:16 ↗ application everywhere and we're looking forward to the next meeting where we get to see

2:31:22 ↗ what the results of this one were, as well as all the work from folks

2:31:26 ↗ coming forward. So two things. We'll do our best to knit things together. I think

2:31:31 ↗ part of the reason why you haven't seen it is we don't have all the

2:31:35 ↗ resources in one place. So we'll do the best we can. I don't think we're

2:31:40 ↗ talking about the next meeting. I assume we're talking about something that's going to take

2:31:44 ↗ a while to produce. So I -- Right. And we are -- I mean, some

2:31:49 ↗ of this is being updated over the course of the year with the amendments to

2:31:53 ↗ the central squad plan. because we've also learned things from working with you

2:31:59 ↗ guys for the last couple of years. Second, I just wanted

2:32:05 ↗ to put on your radar that the tentative date that Amy

2:32:10 ↗ showed you is a two-header, a double-header meeting because of various

2:32:16 ↗ commitments, both Sunrise, Senior housing, I'm not sure that's the right term,

2:32:22 ↗ senior living. And the second meeting on this are coming on April 6th.

2:32:27 ↗ - So that's two. April 6th was on it, I mean this was

2:32:33 ↗ on it, but the sunrise is gonna be there as well. And next

2:32:39 ↗ week, next Wednesday is-- - Gateway. - Gateway. Senior again and

2:32:45 ↗ then I think you get a week off for good

2:32:50 ↗ behavior. Go spend our pay. All right, with that the

2:32:56 ↗ meeting is concluded. Thank you. Thank you.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.