Development Commission · Wednesday, March 16, 2016 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Feb 3, 2016

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 Deferred

Meeting Minutes from March 9, 2016 Deferred

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Continued Discussion Gateway Senior Housing

Amy Tarce, Senior Planner · packet pp.5–95

Topics: Housing

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Feb 3, 2016

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

ATTACHMENT 1 Original SDP Recommended Conditions, SDP15-00005 Submitted To Development Commission On February 3, 2016

247 segments .txt ↗

14:45 ↗ to maintain parking and provide.

14:55 ↗ Use of that bridge, there is a sidewalk where there is a designated

15:01 ↗ pedestrian. So at the narrowest point, if there are pedestrians

15:20 ↗ Could you call upstairs and ask them to turn the video back on?

15:27 ↗ Mr. Chair, do you want us to use this time to be asking questions or

15:34 ↗ have to do the presentation in the public and then our questions? That's what she

15:38 ↗ said at the beginning, that if we had questions now, we can ask them. If

15:44 ↗ you want to hold off and do it all at once, we can do that.

15:47 ↗ I'm happy to provide clarifications now if that would be useful to the commission. That

15:52 ↗ would help me if it's alright. You say the truck traffic is going to be

15:56 ↗ limited, but my question would be how is it? Is the bridge going to be

16:00 ↗ raided or are there going to be signs or what's the mechanism? There would be

16:02 ↗ signs and the bridge, the example that we've looked

16:08 ↗ at is, he's not answering, okay.

16:16 ↗ The bridge that we've looked at was a five-ton bridge which would take

16:22 ↗ some of the truck traffic if it accidentally ended up on there, but it would

16:27 ↗ be carefully signed because it would not, we're not designing it with the intent that

16:32 ↗ a fire truck, for instance, would go across it. So the

16:34 ↗ pedestrian

16:41 ↗ question is there? Yes. This bridge is a shared surface, so that means that there

16:46 ↗ is not a separate sidewalk, so that the driving surface is the walking

16:51 ↗ surface is the bike surface. I

16:57 ↗ think I asked this question last time, but on the apartment side, it was not

17:02 ↗ permitted or approved with a connection to the road. Can you go back then and

17:08 ↗ require that they now make that a vehicular connection? I think because the

17:14 ↗ applicant is, you're right, if it was a different property owner, we would be in

17:18 ↗ a different circumstance. But at this point, because the applicant is

17:24 ↗ willing to do this, and as you could see

17:29 ↗ previously, imagine if you will, it was a very fairly minor

17:37 ↗ alteration to the parking that was necessary to accommodate this on the senior site, and

17:43 ↗ we anticipate the same ability to, with a minor alteration, adapt

17:49 ↗ it. So I believe that there was, are we still not, have you not been

17:54 ↗ able to reach them?

18:17 ↗ on the way back. So,

18:25 ↗ I believe it was a parallel parking stall that would have been around at that

18:29 ↗ point. So I think it's, yay. So you can see it's a fairly

18:36 ↗ minor adjustment to the parking lot that was needed and we would anticipate maybe one

18:42 ↗ parallel parking stall would need to be removed on the other side. That project

18:47 ↗ was well over in their provision of parking, so the loss of one parking stall

18:54 ↗ would not jeopardize their plan or their ability to meet code requirements. And they're willing

18:59 ↗ to agree to do it?

19:07 ↗ Any further clarifications on this?

19:13 ↗ Number three had to do with ped bike access to the site. I think the

19:17 ↗ piece that we want to focus on here is that in response to public comment

19:23 ↗ and commission comment on the AASs, the applicant and staff

19:29 ↗ put the sidewalk back where the orange line is shown, so there would be sidewalks

19:34 ↗ on both sides of that entry street.

19:40 ↗ Number four was an environmental change to the permits. I'm not sure whether the

19:45 ↗ commissioners commented, but we did receive some public comment suggesting that maybe it was not

19:51 ↗ necessary to reduce the buffer to the creeks and wetlands the full amount that was

19:57 ↗ allowed. Mr. Chair, can I, real quick since we're doing questions on the move and

19:59 ↗ we jump, can we, Lucy, go back one slide? Absolutely. So when you added the

20:03 ↗ sidewalk, it doesn't look like you moved the building, so

20:09 ↗ what moved to accommodate sidewalk on that side of the road. I believe

20:15 ↗ that this retaining wall was shifted slightly, but you can see that there was a

20:20 ↗ fair amount of land available, or

20:26 ↗ horizontal separation between the edge of the building and the edge of the road. So

20:32 ↗ while there was some adjustment to the grading, there was not a need to move

20:37 ↗ the buildings.

20:48 ↗ Thank you for stopping me. So public

20:54 ↗ comment had suggested that it might not have been necessary to reduce the buffer

21:01 ↗ to the fullest extent available and suggested that maybe a less

21:06 ↗ reduction would be possible. The full reduction had been done

21:12 ↗ early in the project when we thought that was necessary to accommodate everything on site.

21:18 ↗ in going back and re-reviewing this, there was a realization that the

21:26 ↗ buffer could be reduced from 100 to 90 feet and still accommodate the improvements shown

21:31 ↗ on site. And so the applicant agreed to do that. The green band that

21:37 ↗ you see at the top was their original proposal. This green band represents the building

21:42 ↗ setback line, so this edge here is the edge of the buffer And in this

21:48 ↗ case, the building setback line you can see is somewhat closer, but no

21:54 ↗ buildings are in it, and we've gotten at least a 90-foot buffer

22:00 ↗ along the creek. Building setback line, as the name suggests, doesn't

22:06 ↗ allow buildings, but other non-structures such as parkings,

22:11 ↗ drives, walks, and such are allowed in the building setback.

22:23 ↗ Land use, I'm not sure, again, that the commissioners had questions about this, but we

22:27 ↗ received quite a few public comments, and so we thought that it might be worth

22:31 ↗ touching on this. Again, there was a strong

22:36 ↗ reaction to the size of the building, the density of the

22:42 ↗ building, the fact that there was a building there, and so one of the things

22:47 ↗ that we wanted to discuss with the commission and the public was that in 2011,

22:54 ↗ before Central Issaquah was implemented, the zoning was professional office. The height that was

23:00 ↗ allowed was between 40 and 65, depending on various features of the site. And there

23:06 ↗ was no maximum residential density as long as a project met the

23:12 ↗ development standards such as height, impervious, et cetera, as many units as builder

23:19 ↗ could or would want to put on site were allowed. Under the Central Issaquah Village

23:25 ↗ Residential Zoning, the height is quite similar. Density is evaluated on

23:31 ↗ an FAR basis, but you can see that it is

23:37 ↗ well under the maximum that's allowed as the base FAR. Lucy, I

23:43 ↗ would ask that in the in these presentations, just for the benefit of the public,

23:48 ↗ when there is an acronym, if you would just explain. Thank you. I appreciate that.

23:53 ↗ We don't hand out decoder rings at the beginning of the meeting. FAR stands for

23:58 ↗ floor area ratio, which is a way of measuring building bulk on a site.

24:04 ↗ I won't go into the exact way you do it, but it has to do

24:08 ↗ with how much of the site you can cover and how high you

24:17 ↗ Another significant topic was views, particularly

24:23 ↗ from Bentley House, which is sort of across the street. I

24:29 ↗ took the cartoon that Amy had done and provided in the memo and

24:35 ↗ for the big picture blew it up a little bit, provided a little bit more

24:38 ↗ detail. Newport is at about 90 feet above sea level.

24:46 ↗ Bentley House, which is, this is the plan of Bentley House across the street, and

24:51 ↗ you can see that there are several rockeries that lift it up quite a bit

24:56 ↗ above the street level. And this line right here is grade line 110,

25:03 ↗ which would be at about this location. As you can see, maybe see, this is

25:09 ↗ kind of a small picture, but the ground floor of Bentley House is a level

25:11 ↗ of, parking, under building parking.

25:17 ↗ So the first floor is up a level. I estimated that it would be about

25:23 ↗ eight feet. The architect, Jim Bedoya, who's here for

25:29 ↗ Gateway Senior, said it was probably more like 10 feet, but we'll stick with eight

25:33 ↗ feet for this particular exercise. So assuming that the drive is at 110

25:40 ↗ feet above sea level and then you have this level of parking, the first floor

25:45 ↗ would be at 118 or 120 feet above sea level. These are all estimates.

25:52 ↗ And assuming that an eyeball is about five feet above the floor level, the

25:58 ↗ view from the first floor of Bentley House would be at about 123 feet above

26:03 ↗ sea level. The highest peak of the roof is at 130. So

26:09 ↗ this would indicate that some of the views on the ground floor would be changed.

26:16 ↗ I think if you look at the way Bentley House is sited, for many of

26:21 ↗ the units, they're going to kind of look past

26:27 ↗ Gateway Senior more towards the northeast than directly across the

26:33 ↗ street just due to the orientation of the building. And

26:39 ↗ as far as we're aware, we know that residents really value their views

26:45 ↗ and it is disappointing to many

26:51 ↗ residents when their views are changed with development. However, there weren't any

26:56 ↗ restrictions on the development of this property that would preclude any

27:02 ↗ changes to their views.

27:08 ↗ Just a general question. Are there regulations for view preservation in other communities in

27:14 ↗ the city, just as a point of reference? So as a point of reference, some

27:19 ↗ of the urban villages, the master developer has chosen to put view

27:25 ↗ covenants in place. It is something that the city has been very clear that they

27:30 ↗ don't want to be a party to. that can be something that a developer

27:36 ↗ can place upon themselves, but the city has not participated in those

27:41 ↗ determinations.

27:43 ↗ Thank you. Just one question

27:49 ↗ too, the roof line, the top of the roof is the same through the whole

27:53 ↗ building.

28:00 ↗ There is some, a couple of feet variation, maybe two or three feet, but they're

28:05 ↗ not like big gaps. Okay. Because I think as you move further

28:12 ↗ west on Newport, it gets up to what, maybe 98 feet or something in terms

28:17 ↗ of elevation as Newport rises. So the 90 we're seeing here would

28:25 ↗ Right. Newport changes, but the basic pad of this building would not change.

28:30 ↗ And as far as I can tell, using the city's GIS, so this is

28:36 ↗ an estimate, it looks like the pad that Bentley House is built on is relatively

28:42 ↗ level or rising. By that, I mean that This area is at about 110

28:49 ↗ feet above sea level, but this white area appears to be a driveway that

28:55 ↗ rises up to another entry for the sort of, this

29:01 ↗ back portion of the building. So I think that both buildings are relatively constant or

29:07 ↗ Bentley House is getting higher. Right, and I was thinking the houses to the, you

29:11 ↗ go further west on Newport, those houses there are,

29:17 ↗ relatively this building height relative to Newport will get shorter, right?

29:22 ↗ Yes, and there were some photos in your packet which I included here which,

29:29 ↗ this is from Pinecone Place which is I think maybe that area you're thinking of.

29:34 ↗ And so you get a sense they've added in how their

29:40 ↗ building might appear from up there, and again this is looking at street level. I

29:45 ↗ think one thing I would point out is they are going to be providing street

29:49 ↗ trees and other elements that will tend to soften that appearance over time as they

29:55 ↗ grow in. Thank you. Any questions? So

30:01 ↗ the last item, and again, any items that the commission would like us to speak

30:06 ↗ about, we'd be glad to do so. But the last item that we're choosing to

30:09 ↗ speak about is architecture. You can see condition, this is the same

30:16 ↗ language that was provided in your memo. We have not done any other further edits.

30:21 ↗ But this does show the proposed edits to the recommended condition number 17

30:28 ↗ based on the commission's comment and public comment last time

30:33 ↗ and now the applicant will talk a little bit about the refinements to the

30:39 ↗ architecture that they've made since our last meeting.

31:08 ↗ For the record, I'm Jim Bedoya with VIA Architects and our address is the

31:13 ↗ tower building on 7th Avenue in downtown Seattle, 98101,

31:19 ↗ zip code. I would like to start by

31:25 ↗ thanking the commission and the public at the last hearing for their input and suggestions

31:31 ↗ and would like to walk through the way we've responded to all of those

31:36 ↗ suggestions and comments and I believe have made some significant

31:42 ↗ improvements to the project. We'll start with the site plan again, even though Lucy has

31:48 ↗ done a

32:12 ↗ Oh, did it disappear? Let's just close it and...

32:23 ↗ Oh, this one. Oh, no, we pulled it

32:28 ↗ out. Oh, I see. Oh, it's

32:33 ↗ answering. Okay. It's not responding.

32:39 ↗ You build those in. Census stress.

32:49 ↗ Don't turn your back on it. Just trying to close things out.

33:06 ↗ Sorry for the interruption, but I would like to start just by walking through the

33:13 ↗ site plan once again and highlighting the elements of the site that have

33:19 ↗ been changed in response to the comments that came from both the public and the

33:25 ↗ Commission and also the staff at the last hearing. So as Lucy pointed out,

33:31 ↗ for pedestrian-bike connectivity into the project,

33:37 ↗ We've added the second sidewalk on both sides of the entry drive coming down to

33:42 ↗ our arrival court. And you may notice that we've changed the

33:48 ↗ orientation of the arrival court to be orthogonal to the southern portion of the building.

33:54 ↗ What that did was allow us to have a larger arrival court and I think

33:59 ↗ an easier one to negotiate in terms of arrival, just a little blow up of

34:04 ↗ that area. We've also added bollards on both sides so that the

34:11 ↗ vehicle traffic is contained within those bollards. The pedestrian traffic comes down either

34:17 ↗ from the north on this sidewalk, and we're working with the city in terms of

34:24 ↗ the type of crossing that we'll implement on either side of the

34:30 ↗ arrival court. So we'll have a safe crossing marking that happens on the north

34:36 ↗ side and on the south side of that arrival plaza, along with the

34:42 ↗ bollards that will separate vehicles from pedestrian.

34:52 ↗ The specialty paving will also act as a traffic calming. It'll slow traffic

34:58 ↗ down at that arrival point. As Lucy also mentioned, we'll have the ability for larger

35:05 ↗ tour buses and vans to turn around further into the site and then come back

35:12 ↗ and pick people up under the port cocher. On the

35:18 ↗ east side of the project, at this second entrance,

35:24 ↗ we have a story of difference between these two arrival points. This is

35:31 ↗ a really important connection to the wetland and to our open spaces that exist

35:37 ↗ adjacent to the wetland buffer. And we've expanded upon those elements

35:44 ↗ by adding a greenhouse and a work shed so that the people that are serious

35:49 ↗ about their gardening can get a jump start on the season. We like that idea.

35:55 ↗ And then we've expanded the paving at that entry point to be a

36:01 ↗ tabletop so that that will be flush with that entry and it'll

36:07 ↗ cross the roadway so the cars kind of come up and over. You've probably experienced

36:11 ↗ these in other locations. And it's a nice way of slowing down the traffic and

36:16 ↗ making a very safe crossing. for the residents and their guests to

36:22 ↗ enjoy the amenities that we've created. There were comments

36:27 ↗ about the architecture. I think generally, I think people were pretty much in favor of

36:32 ↗ the direction we were headed. I think we talked about the way we've modulated the

36:38 ↗ building to break it into pieces that are more recognizable in scale, using the

36:44 ↗ steep pitched roofs with the dormers on each of them to again replicate. kind of

36:48 ↗ the residential qualities in the neighborhood. We've spent some additional time

36:54 ↗ looking at the, you know, we have these sort of three important areas, the main

36:59 ↗ arrival point that's happening on the west side of the project, which is the main

37:04 ↗ front door for most people arriving. We've expanded the roof

37:10 ↗ vocabulary to be more sort of emulate some of the more traditional craftsmen

37:16 ↗ kind of elements by having an exaggerated roof overhang with the knee

37:21 ↗ braces similar to what we're employing on the east side of the project. We've also

37:27 ↗ added kind of a decorative bay window over the port cochere arrival point to help

37:33 ↗ again signal that this is our front door. I think it becomes fairly obvious. We

37:38 ↗ are constricted with how much depth we can build into that area just because of

37:42 ↗ how the internal street and the arrival court has to work. But

37:48 ↗ I think with the addition of some additional seating and landscaping adjacent to the energy

37:54 ↗ gives the people a safe place. We don't show the bollards in here, but they

37:58 ↗ will also help define that separation of car and pedestrians. So

38:04 ↗ I think there's the ability for people to safely wait out for someone to pick

38:09 ↗ them up if they have a ride coming. This is looking from the

38:15 ↗ south, excuse me, back at the building. A few things have

38:20 ↗ changed in this area. As Lucy pointed out, we no longer have a

38:26 ↗ hammerhead that we had in this corner of the site, and as a result of

38:30 ↗ that, we had about a 12 or 13-foot high retaining wall to hold

38:36 ↗ that grade back, but now we've done a series of terraced walls and landscaping, so

38:42 ↗ none of those wall sections are more than eight feet tall in terms of how

38:46 ↗ far they come out of the ground.

38:52 ↗ As we mentioned, there are street trees along Newport that will be added, so it'll

38:57 ↗ replicate kind of the existing tree edge that's

39:03 ↗ on the property currently that will have to be transformed as part of the road

39:09 ↗ improvement and the widening of Newport in that area. But it gives

39:15 ↗ a safe passage for the pedestrians and bikes and a barrier in terms of safety

39:22 ↗ at the edge of our property. We've also expanded that roof vocabulary to the end

39:27 ↗ elements where the gables are coming at 90 degrees to the axis of the building,

39:33 ↗ so there's a similar vocabulary on those elements, and we're also using the darkest

39:39 ↗ colors in our palette to, again, help book in the ends of the building, as

39:43 ↗ well as giving importance to that center section. As you can see in this,

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.