Development Commission · Wednesday, July 20, 2016 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Christopher Wright, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Project Oversight Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board to Email the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2018 - Vacant The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2018 - Raymond Leong Development Commission members and City 2018 - Richard Sowa Council members from discussing the merit of 2019 - Michael Brennan specific land use development applications outside 2019 - Randolph Harrison of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2020 - Melvin Morgan however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2020 - Kevin Price Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2017 - TJ Ginthner Membership 2017 - Vacant The…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 6, 2016

packet pp.5–13

▶ Watch from 1:15 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES April 6, 2016

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Clark Elementary School & Gibson Ek High School Renovations - Site Development Permit SDP-00003

Amy Tarce, Senior Planner · packet pp.15–55

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 0:31 Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Silverado Public Hearing - Development Agreement- DA16-00002

Christopher Wright, Project Oversight Manager · packet pp.231–239

▶ Watch from 0:53 Open packet at p.231 ↗

Staff report:

OWNER: Stefani Land Company 7603 Renton- Rd. SE Issaquah, WA 98027

2308 segments .txt ↗

0:20 ↗ Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call to order our public meeting and

0:25 ↗ public hearing tonight. Wednesday, July 20th, we're going to

0:31 ↗ discuss two items, two agenda items, Clark Elementary School and Gibson Eck High School renovations,

0:37 ↗ site development permit, SDP-00003, and Silverado

0:43 ↗ public hearing development agreement, DA-16-00002.

0:49 ↗ We have some administrative things we need to do. We're going to approve some minutes,

0:52 ↗ but then we'll have some presentations and give people of the public the opportunity to

0:57 ↗ have some discussion. So the first order of business is to take a look at

1:01 ↗ the minutes of April 6, 2016. And I'd ask you if

1:07 ↗ anybody has any comments or issues with them. If not, could I get a motion?

1:15 ↗ Mr. Chair, I move we approve the minutes of the April 6, 2016 Development Commission

1:19 ↗ meeting. Second. Second. Any discussion?

1:25 ↗ All those in favor, would they signify by saying aye? Aye. Opposed? Okay,

1:31 ↗ looks like they're approved. So we'll move on to the agenda item of Clark Elementary

1:37 ↗ School. Right, and I was just going to suggest if there's any public that cares

1:41 ↗ to speak during the public comment period, there's sign up sheets. So just feel free

1:46 ↗ to come fill out your name at some point during the presentation this evening.

1:52 ↗ Yes ma'am.

2:11 ↗ Good evening, Mrs. Ahn. I'm Amy Tarr, Senior

2:16 ↗ Planner for the City of Issaquah. So tonight, before we start with

2:22 ↗ a presentation for the Clark Elementary School Site Development Permit, we wanna

2:29 ↗ do the same review with the Development Commission regarding the

2:34 ↗ quasi-judicial process. So we've done this in the past, so hopefully

2:41 ↗ we're all comfortable with this routine now. But just for the sake of the

2:46 ↗ public, we'd like to make sure that we're clear on what this process

2:52 ↗ entails. So tonight we are reviewing this project for

2:58 ↗ site development permit for the Clark Elementary and Gibson Eck High School. There are different

3:05 ↗ types of land use permits that trigger a development commission review.

3:12 ↗ So on the board or on the screen you have three general types for Central

3:18 ↗ Issaquah Development and Design Standards. The Issaquah Municipal Code which is

3:24 ↗ what we're using tonight. It involves any sites that are

3:30 ↗ three acres or more. In this particular case Clark has more than 10

3:36 ↗ acres but less than 15 acres. And anything that's less than three acres is

3:42 ↗ administrative or level two, which does not require a development commission review.

3:48 ↗ So the type of decision is a quasi judicial. And just a

3:54 ↗ general description of quasi judicial, you are serving or the development commission is serving

4:00 ↗ like a court. We have a very specific elements to this review.

4:09 ↗ which includes a public hearing, the presentation of evidence, and the

4:15 ↗ ability for the public to comment on the project. So the focus is to

4:20 ↗ provide fair

4:26 ↗ proceedings and also to make sure that we appear to be fair.

4:32 ↗ There's two types of due process that's involved. One is the procedural

4:38 ↗ due process and the other one is a substantive due process. And we have to

4:43 ↗ meet both standards. So for procedural due process, we're required that the process

4:49 ↗ is followed and that involves a lot of the

4:55 ↗ preliminary steps that the staff has already done in terms of providing public notice for

5:01 ↗ the project. And the focus is on the decision makers relationship with the

5:07 ↗ persons who benefit from the decision. The substantive due process involves

5:13 ↗ adopting regulations as a basis for decision. So our staff report and what

5:19 ↗ will eventually be the findings of fact are necessary to meet this

5:24 ↗ standard. And then the conditions are reasoned, have to be We have to establish that

5:30 ↗ the conditions are reasonable and are related to alleviating a problem created by the

5:35 ↗ project. What we often call our mitigation measures.

5:41 ↗ So for tonight, we have several questions to

5:47 ↗ ask the Development Commission and as a way of self-checking whether

5:54 ↗ you meet any of these requirements bullet points and so I'm just gonna

6:00 ↗ let you read through this briefly and then we'll take a little survey

6:06 ↗ or vote call.

6:22 ↗ Amy I have a question. What is the definition of near? and near the

6:28 ↗ property in question? Near the property in question. So

6:34 ↗ basically I'm not really sure that there's a distance.

6:40 ↗ I think it's again, going back to the standard of we have to appear fair.

6:47 ↗ Again, I think it's just providing full disclosure and meeting.

6:53 ↗ I could just add that Amy's absolutely right that Jim Haney, one of

6:59 ↗ our city attorneys said that there is no specific test. He said typically though that

7:05 ↗ if you're within 300 feet and receive a notice, that would be one way to

7:11 ↗ establish that you were close enough that it was necessary, but you can always For

7:16 ↗ instance, on the Urban Village Development Commission, the commissioners often who live in the

7:22 ↗ urban village that's under review just identify that they live there so that if anyone

7:28 ↗ cared to challenge it, they could. Thank

7:30 ↗ you.

7:36 ↗ So the general question is, is anyone in the Development Commission

7:43 ↗ or does any of these questions, would you say yes to

7:49 ↗ any of these questions? No. No. No. No. Okay, great.

7:56 ↗ So there's three things that we'd also like to make sure that

8:02 ↗ we cover tonight as far as this quasi-judicial process. So

8:09 ↗ one is have you, has any of you have an ex parte contact with

8:15 ↗ the applicant or anyone who has an interest in this project?

8:21 ↗ If you do have, or if you did have contact, have they been

8:26 ↗ revealed at the public hearing? So I guess tonight is an opportunity to

8:32 ↗ let us know. And has any opportunity been given to

8:39 ↗ object to the decision makers participation because of ex parte contact. So again, this is

8:45 ↗ something that we'll do tonight. So the first question is, did any of you have

8:51 ↗ any ex parte communication or contacts? No. Okay, great. So we don't have to do

8:58 ↗ the two other bullets. So that's, that's the

9:04 ↗ end of it. And I can now proceed with the

9:09 ↗ presentation for the Clark Elementary School.

9:27 ↗ So before I start my presentation, I'd like to let the

9:33 ↗ public know that we did receive one additional public

9:39 ↗ comment and staff has responded to that public comment and the

9:44 ↗ applicant also provided additional clarification. So the commission

9:50 ↗ members have been provided a copy of that and we're

9:56 ↗ submitting it tonight as exhibit one for the record.

10:03 ↗ So tonight as we said this is

10:09 ↗ This public hearing is for the decision on the site development permit 16-00003,

10:19 ↗ Clark Elementary School and Gibson Eck High School. The development commission

10:27 ↗ had reviewed a preliminary site plan and conceptual

10:33 ↗ plans for this project back at, as a community conference back in

10:39 ↗ April. So tonight we're following up on some of your questions as well

10:45 ↗ as some of the concerns from the public. I'm not gonna go through step by

10:51 ↗ step all the different criteria for our evaluation and recommendation.

10:57 ↗ What I'm going to focus on tonight is an update on the traffic impact

11:03 ↗ analysis, which we didn't have last time, and also some of the

11:08 ↗ revisions to the conditions of approval that we are proposing tonight as we

11:14 ↗ have gathered and determined new impacts or in some

11:20 ↗ cases reduced impacts. Therefore, we may no longer need some of

11:26 ↗ the conditions. So just to review,

11:32 ↗ this project is actually part of a larger Issaquah School District

11:39 ↗ project for multiple schools. It involves both the

11:44 ↗ Issaquah Middle School and also what used to be the Tiger

11:50 ↗ Mountain High School. And so for

11:53 ↗ tonight's, I'm sorry, so As we have presented

11:59 ↗ before, this is a three year phase project. So in September 2016,

12:06 ↗ which is this coming school year, the school district will open the

12:12 ↗ new Issaquah Middle School, which is on the, I guess my arrow,

12:18 ↗ I don't, yes. Which is just north of the Issaquah High School, and also a

12:24 ↗ new Gibson Act High School on the Clark Elementary School site. So the

12:30 ↗ Gibson High School is currently under construction. In September 2017,

12:37 ↗ they will be opening the new Clark Middle School, which is what we're

12:43 ↗ considering tonight. And in September 2018, they will demolish the

12:49 ↗ old Clark Elementary School to construct and install the new

12:55 ↗ play fields for the Issaquah Middle School. A little bit of context as

13:01 ↗ far as the neighborhood. So Clark Elementary, the new Clark Elementary School is in Old

13:07 ↗ Town and the right graphic shows you the various land uses

13:12 ↗ immediately adjacent to the school. To the north we have the Issaquah Community

13:18 ↗ Center and Pool and then further north is our downtown area.

13:26 ↗ To the left or west of the school campus is our single family

13:32 ↗ residences as well as to the east. And then on the south you find

13:38 ↗ the multi-family residential development. Along the eastern edge of

13:45 ↗ the campus is the Rainier Trail, which also serves as a

13:50 ↗ pedestrian linkage for the Clark Elementary School and the middle school and the

13:56 ↗ high school. So the lot size is 11.35

14:02 ↗ acres and therefore this is a level three site development permit review.

14:09 ↗ So this is just a general site plan that gives you an idea of what's

14:14 ↗ on site and later on I'm gonna show some more

14:20 ↗ detailed elements of the site. So the proposal for the Clark

14:26 ↗ Elementary School is 31 classrooms with eight classrooms in four portables, 664

14:33 ↗ students and 74 staff plus an expansion for 160 students and eight

14:38 ↗ staff is planned for to be accommodated in this school.

14:45 ↗ The main building will be a three story classroom building and

14:51 ↗ as part of the supports elements, the existing

14:58 ↗ building on the right of this image will be remodeled for a gym building, for

15:04 ↗ additional classroom space. What you see here in the middle is a courtyard

15:10 ↗ that will be used for the students

15:16 ↗ as part of their school program. For the Gibson Eka High School, which

15:23 ↗ The building itself will not be reviewed tonight, but as being part of the whole

15:28 ↗ site, we are reviewing its site improvements. It includes 10

15:34 ↗ classrooms for 250 students and 20 staff, and it

15:40 ↗ involves remodeling a two-story building and expansion for a new commons.

15:47 ↗ So existing conditions, so here's the same graphic earlier. We have nine

15:53 ↗ permanent buildings with three portables, a wetland on the southeast corner

16:00 ↗ and the Rainier Trail, as I mentioned earlier, and steep slopes along the east and

16:05 ↗ the west boundaries. So these are not regulated steep slopes. So the

16:10 ↗ proposal is to retain four buildings and one portable. The orange building

16:16 ↗ is the Gibson Act building and the blues are all part of the Clark Elementary

16:21 ↗ School. To retain the north parking lot for Clark and

16:27 ↗ also the other parking lot for the Gibson Act building. It also

16:34 ↗ involves wetland buffer averaging. and the

16:39 ↗ expansion of the existing Clark Elementary School, which also involves demolishing

16:45 ↗ some of the existing sections of the school to build the

16:51 ↗ three-story classroom wing. This project also

16:56 ↗ proposes relocating the Clark bus drop-off.

17:02 ↗ Currently on the site, the middle school's bus drop-off is here

17:08 ↗ and it will be basically the main bus drop off will be

17:13 ↗ relocated further south and in the interior of the property while

17:19 ↗ the bus loop will continue to be used for the Gibson Act buses.

17:26 ↗ It also include the addition of 11 new portables so that's shown here both the

17:32 ↗ brown and the blue. So the brown portables are They're not painting it brown,

17:37 ↗ but just for my presentation, they're shown brown

17:43 ↗ because they're actually meant as administrative offices and staff training

17:49 ↗ facilities. There's also going to be a new play field and a covered play area.

17:56 ↗ Oops, sorry about that. And everything else that's white

18:02 ↗ are new parking lots. So these are just photos to

18:09 ↗ show parts of the existing Clark Elementary School that will be retained.

18:15 ↗ So the top two photos are the main Clark School. The bottom left is

18:20 ↗ Gibson Act and the bottom right are the existing portables that will remain on site.

18:27 ↗ Elements to be demolished include again, parts of Clark Elementary School. So these three photos

18:33 ↗ and the track and field which will be replaced with a new play field.

18:41 ↗ So as far as the new building, which is the classroom wing, this is where

18:46 ↗ the majority of the new design or construction will be

18:52 ↗ happening. This is just an image of one of the elevations looking at the

18:58 ↗ building from the courtyard. So it shows you how they are modulating the

19:03 ↗ building and also providing additional articulation through the use

19:09 ↗ of colors and changes in materials. So the building modulation

19:15 ↗ for the west facade was originally what's shown in the top photo. We have a

19:21 ↗ significantly long wing and one of the things that staff required

19:27 ↗ is for additional modulation which is shown on the image below. So the applicant has

19:32 ↗ since revised their elevations to, so the character of this bottom elevation

19:38 ↗ matches the character of the elevation at the courtyard side.

19:44 ↗ So as far as colors of materials, we do have the color material board here.

20:04 ↗ So the major materials are brick

20:11 ↗ with the corrugated metal panels and also the

20:17 ↗ fiber cement boards. And you also, I mean, I guess you can

20:23 ↗ tell that they do have windows. So the windows are actually glass and fiberglass.

20:32 ↗ Oh, I'm sorry. So one other thing that you will notice is that the colors

20:37 ↗ that they are proposing are all earth tones, nothing bright and

20:43 ↗ drastic. The blue is basically used as accent color for the

20:48 ↗ building to provide some interest. And the brick will be a

20:54 ↗ natural red brick color. So the zoning for this project

21:00 ↗ property is community facilities slash facilities or CFF.

21:07 ↗ And as a CFF zone, we

21:12 ↗ are, I'm sorry, we evaluated this based on the land

21:18 ↗ use code requirement that any CFF zone will

21:24 ↗ require applying the most restrictive adjacent zoning. So this diagram

21:30 ↗ shows 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the different

21:36 ↗ properties and zoning in the area. So the Issaquah Community Center

21:42 ↗ and the pool are both CFF facilities also.

21:49 ↗ To the left where you have the single family residential, we actually have two types

21:54 ↗ of zoning. One is single family small lot and single family duplex. And then on

21:59 ↗ the south is the multi-family high density. So the most restrictive zoning is

22:06 ↗ this SF-SL, I'm sorry. So

22:11 ↗ based on the SF-SL zoning, which you see here in the middle column,

22:19 ↗ we compared what is being proposed for the Clark Elementary School. So they

22:25 ↗ basically showed that in most of the standards they do comply.

22:31 ↗ Where I've noted red text for the impervious area and

22:37 ↗ the height, the project actually exceeds the limit. However, in the CFF

22:42 ↗ zone there is a a provision that allows for the expansion of a

22:48 ↗ non-conforming condition. In this particular case, the existing

22:54 ↗ middle school campus already exceeds the maximum height and

23:00 ↗ also the maximum impervious area for an SF-SL. So they are

23:05 ↗ allowed to expand both the height non-conformity and the impervious area non-conformity.

23:14 ↗ So I'm not gonna go through this in great detail. This is simply to show

23:20 ↗ areas where we, so one of the things that we heard from the

23:26 ↗ community and the public is the excessive, what was

23:32 ↗ perceived as an excessive amount of impervious area. So we have

23:38 ↗ basically provided a, or recommended a condition to the, to the site

23:43 ↗ development permit for the Issaquah School District to reduce the amount of impervious

23:50 ↗ areas where they are reasonable. So some of the areas that we found

23:56 ↗ where that could happen is where they have the portables and

24:02 ↗ currently they're proposing river rock in most of those

24:07 ↗ areas and we are requiring that they provide some

24:13 ↗ pervious surface instead. The other area that, although this is just,

24:19 ↗ this is another opportunity for more green space is between the Clark

24:25 ↗ Portables and the future courtyard play

24:30 ↗ area. So that's all shown on the staff report.

24:36 ↗ So as far as the maximum building height, this is just to show how we,

24:42 ↗ evaluated their proposal and how we agreed with the

24:48 ↗ applicants establishing that their existing building is

24:54 ↗ actually already a non-conforming building. So I wanna talk

25:00 ↗ now more about site access. I know this was something that was brought up a

25:05 ↗ lot and also several public or residents have

25:11 ↗ provided their concerns and comments about this. So this diagram, this color coded

25:17 ↗ diagram shows the different modes of transportation, both to get

25:23 ↗ to the site and then in the internal areas of the site. So the light

25:27 ↗ blue is where the parent drop off and the bus drop off for the Gibson

25:33 ↗ Act High School. The Clark bus, as I mentioned earlier, and the

25:39 ↗ is along the western boundary of the site. The pedestrian

25:45 ↗ routes are all in yellow, so they're shown to be everywhere. Wherever

25:51 ↗ you have vehicular access, you also have pedestrian access. The

25:57 ↗ school staff and fire truck route, again, continues further in the property.

26:03 ↗ And this is primarily, the red is primarily used for Gibson Act and also for

26:07 ↗ the office portables. And then the existing pedestrian

26:13 ↗ facilities offsite are shown as the solid blue arrows. So there

26:19 ↗ are actually sidewalks on, this is Clark, this is First Avenue

26:25 ↗ Southeast, and then this is the Rainier Trail.

26:32 ↗ And as far as bicycle access, anything that's blue, red, and green

26:38 ↗ are all accessible for bikes, although we don't have designated bike lanes.

26:45 ↗ So here's some representative photos of the

26:50 ↗ existing roadways. These are the two primary access points to the site. So

26:56 ↗ as I mentioned earlier, Clark Clark is the

27:02 ↗ entrance, I'm sorry, not that I mentioned earlier. So Clark is the primary entrance for

27:08 ↗ the elementary school buses and also for

27:14 ↗ staff that serve the Clark Elementary School and also for deliveries.

27:21 ↗ And 1st Avenue Southeast is basically for the Gibson X school buses and

27:27 ↗ a parent visitor drop off, as I mentioned earlier. So here's other photos.

27:33 ↗ This shows just a character of what the street improvements. So there's a

27:39 ↗ sidewalk already on one side and actually on both

27:45 ↗ sides of the street. of the drop off and you have road

27:50 ↗ curves, no street parking and no street trees.

27:57 ↗ So in our staff report, we actually included and recommended conditions for parking

28:03 ↗ lot trees and additional pedestrian facilities and screening of the parking lot.

28:11 ↗ So these will be all new information which are included in

28:17 ↗ the staff, the additional staff memo sent to the development commission.

28:24 ↗ And I'm just going to provide a broad overview of where we're,

28:30 ↗ where we landed with the traffic impact analysis after working

28:36 ↗ with the school district on all the potential traffic

28:42 ↗ impacts for the school. So there are seven different intersections

28:48 ↗ that were analyzed for their level of service as well as access. I'm

28:54 ↗ not gonna go through each of them, but just kind of give you an idea

28:57 ↗ spatially where they are in relation to the school. So

29:04 ↗ we also provided in our staff memo an attachment of a

29:10 ↗ table that shows all those all those intersections and the analysis

29:16 ↗ provided as well as the impact, the mitigation for the impacts. So I

29:22 ↗ will only highlight the three major ones.

29:30 ↗ For vehicular access, the applicant will be required to

29:36 ↗ provide center turn lanes on Bush. This will be between First

29:42 ↗ Avenue and Front Street, and also from Rainier Avenue to Second Avenue

29:47 ↗ Southeast. For pedestrian safety, we are requiring new

29:53 ↗ race sidewalks with street trees, curbs and gutters along First Avenue

29:59 ↗ Southeast, and also crossing guards and or

30:05 ↗ rapid flashing beacons for Rainier and Bush and

30:11 ↗ Rainier and First Avenue and Clark.

30:16 ↗ And in addition to that, we are also recommending the elimination of the proposed

30:23 ↗ stairs to the Rainier Trail that was shown originally in their

30:28 ↗ proposal. This was after determining that we do have an

30:34 ↗ adequate connection on the side of the community center, which is actually a

30:40 ↗ safer and much more comfortable access to the Rainier Trail.

30:47 ↗ So given that we are recommending a new condition, which we're deeming

30:53 ↗ condition 32, that the four foot wide concrete stair connecting the sidewalk of Gibson Act

30:59 ↗ to the Rainier Trail shall be eliminated. So potential impacts to the community for

31:07 ↗ due to the mitigation measures.

31:12 ↗ While most of the mitigation measures are all

31:18 ↗ accounted for, we did want to notify the

31:24 ↗ community and we actually sent out additional notice for property

31:30 ↗ owners within 300 feet of Bush Street regarding this potential impact to

31:36 ↗ the on-street parking on Bush. So based on what we showed earlier

31:43 ↗ regarding the center turn lane on Bush Street, it is

31:49 ↗ possible and it's likely that the on-street parking on one side

31:55 ↗ of Bush Street will be removed in order to accommodate the center turn lane.

32:02 ↗ So while this is not part of the Clark Elementary School traffic mitigation,

32:08 ↗ one of the mitigation measures for the middle school,

32:14 ↗ which is the provision for a new traffic signal at Second

32:20 ↗ Avenue Southeast and Southeast Sunset Way also benefits the pedestrian

32:26 ↗ access and vehicular access for this site. So

32:32 ↗ with that, we are recommending additional revisions

32:38 ↗ on the conditions as originally presented now that we had more concrete mitigation

32:44 ↗ measures for the traffic. So staff is recommending that we revise and

32:50 ↗ replace condition five with the following. Road improvements to First Avenue

32:55 ↗ Southeast shall be constructed to provide safe pedestrian access. In addition,

33:01 ↗ pedestrian safety measures at the intersection of Southeast Bush and the Rainier Trail shall be

33:07 ↗ provided as determined by the approved TIA. Another

33:12 ↗ recommendation is to combine condition 21

33:19 ↗ and condition 29. This is more of a, a,

33:25 ↗ the intent here is to really just clean up two very similar conditions.

33:31 ↗ And so in doing so, we are recommending a new condition

33:38 ↗ that the parking lot at Clark Street and First Avenue South E shall be screened

33:43 ↗ from the public streets with a solid fence or type 1 landscape screen while

33:48 ↗ maintaining safe sight lines into and out of the parking lot with the design and

33:53 ↗ materials to be approved at construction permit review. So now I'm

33:59 ↗ going to talk about the interior circulation. So this is a view, the first, the

34:04 ↗ top left photo is a view of what will be the future bus lane

34:10 ↗ and also the fire truck lane going into the interior of the site. So this

34:16 ↗ is looking south. To the left is the existing service

34:21 ↗ dock and this is all, and loading dock, and this is going to remain and

34:27 ↗ also expanded. The two bottom photos basically show the area that will now be

34:33 ↗ part of the staff parking lot on the southwest corner of the property

34:39 ↗ and also the bus drop off.

34:45 ↗ One of the things that we heard from the community is that there are some

34:51 ↗ concerns about noise due to this parking lot.

34:56 ↗ and additional screening is required.

35:04 ↗ And let me backtrack. It's not only noise, but there's concerns about visual impacts as

35:10 ↗ well as environmental or dust and dirt.

35:16 ↗ So, and exhaust from the buses. So staff addressed

35:23 ↗ Several of these issues, again, they can be found in the staff report. And basically

35:29 ↗ we required parking lot landscaping to minimize the amount of pavement

35:35 ↗ and the heat island effect and also screening of the parking lot and

35:41 ↗ play field for noise, light and vehicle fumes. And I'm just going to elaborate on

35:45 ↗ that because that was part of the public comment that we submitted today.

35:53 ↗ Basically, the school district will be required to provide

35:59 ↗ a solid masonry wall 10 feet from their property line. This will be a wall

36:06 ↗ that will also be softened with a row of hedge, evergreen

36:12 ↗ hedge, between the property line and the wall. And what you see here is

36:21 ↗ The area, this green area is actually the wetland buffer and so there's a limit

36:26 ↗ to how far they can build this wall. So

36:33 ↗ we are requiring basically, I'm sorry,

36:39 ↗ so we are recommending that we revise condition two to clarify that the

36:44 ↗ masonry wall will have sound absorbing properties that it will be no greater

36:50 ↗ than 10 feet tall and set back 10 feet from the property line, that it

36:55 ↗ shall be provided to mitigate, I'm sorry, and it shall be provided to

37:01 ↗ mitigate the noise, light and visual impacts of the bus loop and parking lot at

37:06 ↗ the Southwest corner of the site. A row of evergreen head shall be planted between

37:11 ↗ the wall and the property line to provide a green transition between the residences and

37:15 ↗ the wall. and the wall shall extend along the south property line up to the

37:21 ↗ building setback line for the wetland buffer.

37:28 ↗ So the remaining area of the site that I'm just going to touch on briefly

37:34 ↗ includes Gibson X East Drive or what would be the East driveway.

37:42 ↗ The Rainier Trail, and so you see a little bit of the character of the

37:46 ↗ trail below. This is offsite. And the parking lot of

37:51 ↗ Gibson Act. So for these areas, we provided conditions

37:57 ↗ for the loading area of Gibson Act and condition to address the

38:03 ↗ sidewalk in front of the shop doors of Gibson Act and condition for the wetland

38:09 ↗ buffer. I just wanted to highlight the condition for the wetland buffer because what

38:15 ↗ we're trying to do here is to acknowledge that while the land use code allows

38:21 ↗ for buffer reduction,

38:28 ↗ we have the authority and the criteria that allows, that

38:33 ↗ requires us to ensure that we minimize the encroachment into the

38:40 ↗ critical areas and the buffers. So what we're saying for this condition, and I'm not

38:45 ↗ gonna read the whole thing, is that we're requiring the school district to evaluate

38:51 ↗ the sizes and the location of these parking spaces and the

38:57 ↗ amount of what I consider like yards for the

39:03 ↗ portables and where there's an opportunity to further compress

39:09 ↗ and move them out of the buffer, that they will do so.

39:15 ↗ So as far as the buildings themselves, we don't

39:21 ↗ really have We are satisfied with the way they treated their

39:27 ↗ main structures. We do have some concerns about the blank walls, primarily

39:33 ↗ in the areas where the students will be congregating. So again, I'm not gonna read

39:39 ↗ condition 11. There's no revision to this condition. It's in the staff report. But basically

39:44 ↗ there's two areas where we are requiring blank wall mitigation. One is between

39:51 ↗ the new Clark classroom wing and Building 300. So

39:57 ↗ the new Clark classroom wing currently has a

40:03 ↗ door and also they are proposing to have planters

40:09 ↗ in this area. So this will be a major thoroughfare for the

40:15 ↗ students coming in from the main drop off on First Avenue.

40:22 ↗ And the other area that we're recommending for mitigation for blank wall mitigation is that

40:28 ↗ the corner of, again, this is an existing building. And this is the courtyard where

40:34 ↗ many of the students will be congregating in the morning before class starts

40:40 ↗ because they will be dropped off by the buses on this side of

40:46 ↗ the building. So,

40:53 ↗ Having said that, one of the things that we want, before I read off the

41:00 ↗ formal recommendations, we also wanted to clarify that in this particular

41:06 ↗ project, staff has received an extensive and more detailed

41:12 ↗ level of drawings and materials from the

41:17 ↗ applicant. Basically, it's a very important things that, or I'm sorry,

41:23 ↗ plans that are usually what we see during the construction review. So

41:29 ↗ we would, we have informed the applicant that we are reviewing this project

41:35 ↗ at the land use level. So as such, we are, we would like to also

41:41 ↗ inform the public and the development commission that our review and our

41:46 ↗ recommendations are based primarily on the level of review for at the land

41:52 ↗ use level and that any additional information that they provided that's

41:58 ↗ more appropriate for construction review, we have not reviewed those and we

42:04 ↗ are not implying approval of any type of information that

42:10 ↗ are usually reviewed at construction permits. So based on these

42:17 ↗ and the submittal of the application and plans, The administration recommends that the

42:23 ↗ Development Commission move to approve the site development permit for Clark

42:28 ↗ Elementary and Gibson High School, SDP 16-00003,

42:35 ↗ with plans, architectural drawings, and technical studies submitted between April 15 to April 30, 2016.

42:43 ↗ The staff report dated June 8, 2016, with attachments one through 10,

42:49 ↗ Exhibit 1 submitted tonight and the recommended conditions of approval

42:55 ↗ with revisions proposed tonight for conditions number 2, 5 and 21,

43:01 ↗ deletion of conditions 19 and 29, and addition of condition number 32.

43:08 ↗ and direct the Development Services Department to prepare the findings of fact which affirmed the

43:14 ↗ Development Commission's decision to approve the site development permit for Clark Elementary and Gibson Eck

43:20 ↗ High School, SDP 16-00003 based on plans,

43:26 ↗ architectural drawings, and technical studies submitted between April 15 to April 30

43:35 ↗ 2016, the staff report dated June 8, 2016 with attachments 1 through 10, staff

43:41 ↗ memo dated July 13, 2016, and edits to the conditions number 2, 19, 21,

43:50 ↗ and 29. The staff analysis and conclusions in the staff report and

43:56 ↗ staff memo as well as the staff presentation tonight shall serve as the findings of

44:00 ↗ fact. I think I may have missed.

44:07 ↗ I think that should be correct. The second to the last sentence should include

44:13 ↗ all the conditions that I cited earlier. So it should be conditions number two, 521,

44:18 ↗ 19, 29, and 32.

44:25 ↗ Sorry about that. That concludes my presentation.

44:35 ↗ Commissioner, do you have any comments at this point? I

44:37 ↗ don't know if the school

44:43 ↗ district has anything that they want to add before we ask questions. I'm sorry? Does

44:49 ↗ the school district have anything that they want to? I was going to ask if

44:51 ↗ you had questions for Ms. Tars and then we can ask the school. Do you

44:56 ↗ want to go? All right, how about the school? Does the school like to make

45:01 ↗ a presentation as well? Thank you. Would you please state your name?

45:11 ↗ Excuse me, I'm Steve Crawford, Director of Capital Projects for the Squall School District. And

45:16 ↗ I wasn't sure how thorough Amy was gonna be in her presentation, but she did

45:20 ↗ a very thorough job of introducing the project, so I think I'll probably kind of

45:23 ↗ skip through a lot of what we've got here. I would say that we tried

45:27 ↗ to listen to what we heard at the community conference and react and respond to

45:32 ↗ those things that seemed to be of a significant nature. That led us to

45:38 ↗ revised the whole access circulation pattern to the site and within the site.

45:44 ↗ Historically, Esquad Middle School, which has occupied the site for many, many, many years, all

45:50 ↗ the vehicular traffic staff, parents, etc., comes in off of Front Street at the Clark-Newport

45:55 ↗ intersection, and buses have used First Avenue as the bus drop-off pickup.

46:02 ↗ So there you're looking at 24, 26 buses on First Avenue and all the vehicle

46:07 ↗ traffic coming in off of Clark. And we listened to the community, we listened to

46:11 ↗ the neighbors and revised that whole circulation pattern to be what Amy illustrated

46:17 ↗ earlier, that staff and the six to eight buses for

46:23 ↗ Clark will access from Front Street at the Clark-Newport intersection and that the

46:29 ↗ parent traffic, which is much more numerous, will come in on First Avenue, have

46:35 ↗ access to the parking lot at the north side of the building for visitors, and

46:39 ↗ then drop off along First. So I think those were two, well, that was

46:45 ↗ two major changes. It eliminated a lot of the traffic that was headed to the

46:50 ↗ south end of the site along the west property line, and then looped around and

46:54 ↗ came back up to drop off. So I think that was something that helped quite

46:58 ↗ a bit.

47:07 ↗ This was just sort of the concept initially of recirculation pattern. We've talked about that.

47:13 ↗ We won't go there. That led to a reanalysis of the traffic impact

47:18 ↗ analysis, redo that to relook at new intersections. We just talked about that and the

47:24 ↗ impacts. One of the things that we went to address

47:30 ↗ here was safe walk paths and walk routes and the blue area here indicates the

47:36 ↗ walking area that's assigned to Clark Elementary. So there are no students that attend Clark

47:42 ↗ that come from west of First. I'm sorry west of Front Street

47:48 ↗ except for the section down here towards the Sycamore in the south end. This being

47:51 ↗ Front Street. That's the westernmost boundary for the Clark attendance area. It extends to the

47:56 ↗ south and up to the lower section of the Highlands.

48:02 ↗ We looked at staff with regards to safe walk routes and how we got kids

48:06 ↗ into the building from those areas where they would be walking. Amy's

48:12 ↗ talked very much about the site. We are retaining some of the existing buildings, trying

48:16 ↗ to be sustainable and reuse those things where it makes the most sense. Existing classroom

48:21 ↗ buildings are single story, very energy inefficient, have

48:27 ↗ significant safety security concerns. Those classrooms are coming down to be rebuilt in

48:33 ↗ a new three story classroom wing. Again, that helps to

48:39 ↗ minimize our footprint. minimize those impacts, reduces the exterior building

48:45 ↗ surface envelope and helps reduce energy consumption. Amy talked about the

48:50 ↗ fact the masonry wall coming back around the south end.

48:57 ↗ Talked a little bit about the hard surface play area. There's two covered play areas

49:00 ↗ that are associated with the hard surface play, one of which has basketball hoops in

49:05 ↗ it, one of which is a covered area for the big toy type equipment for

49:08 ↗ the younger kids. We have a sand playfield, that's a district standard at the elementary

49:14 ↗ level. We spent a lot of time looking at various different options for playground surfacing.

49:21 ↗ In essence, a sand playfield is healthier, offers a lot more playability time,

49:28 ↗ reduces our operational and maintenance costs, and is more sustainable. You don't have herbicides,

49:34 ↗ pesticides, costs 40, 50 thousand dollars a year to irrigate the field. You got mowing

49:38 ↗ and to do with all of the composting, et

49:42 ↗ cetera. Detailed site plan, we've kind of been

49:48 ↗ through that. This was just an aerial of the condominium developments on the south side

49:54 ↗ where we're talking about the wall that comes across here and down, across and back

49:59 ↗ up over here. You can see the one building here. This is a carport area,

50:03 ↗ another building, and then there's another building that's tucked right up into this corner. so

50:08 ↗ that this extension of the wall that goes out to the buffer line actually extends

50:14 ↗ eastward beyond the end of that building. Just as a little bit of a

50:19 ↗ reference in terms of the sound wall and trying to provide buffers and screening for

50:25 ↗ the properties to the south, this is a view at the south end of the

50:30 ↗ southernmost section along the carports. There's a six foot fence that runs right along this

50:36 ↗ line here. And you can see that an eight foot high masonry wall is pretty

50:40 ↗ much going to block any view, and particularly since they're looking at an elevation that's

50:45 ↗ about four feet lower, it's effectively about a 12 foot tall visual

50:51 ↗ barrier. This is the section further to the east where the angled wall would be.

50:58 ↗ The existing fence is pretty covered and intergrown with existing dense vegetation.

51:04 ↗ And again, that would be the fence and the line where the angled wall would

51:08 ↗ go. Floor plans.

51:16 ↗ I don't know that you really need to look at it, but these are the

51:19 ↗ areas of the existing building that are being retained. And from basically this

51:25 ↗ line over, there's a new gym, music, two music rooms, services.

51:32 ↗ The existing loading dock is in this area here, which served the kitchen and the

51:35 ↗ whole campus before. Portions of that are going to remain for the direct food service

51:40 ↗ delivery to the kitchen, but the larger area of service yard is in a new

51:45 ↗ screened-in walled-in service yard located on the south end of

51:51 ↗ the existing commons. And then the three-story classroom wing that gets added onto

51:58 ↗ the building to provide that. And you saw perspective elevations in Amy's presentation, so I

52:04 ↗ don't need to duplicate that. So any questions, I'd be happy to

52:10 ↗ answer or we can wait till later on. Commissioners? Any

52:16 ↗ questions? Yeah, I have a question, Mr. Chairman, on the site.

52:22 ↗ You've done a great job in revising some of those, but it seems like there

52:25 ↗ was a concern about the long driveway on the west side of the property line.

52:30 ↗ where instead of parents now we have buses that runs all the way on the

52:35 ↗ west side of the property. It runs all the way to the south end of

52:39 ↗ the property. Yeah, what we were doing in the original concept is all the parents

52:42 ↗ came in on the west side, came down to the south end, looped around and

52:48 ↗ dropped off, and then exited. We're looking at six to eight

52:53 ↗ buses for the elementary school. I

52:59 ↗ think that's quite an improvement instead of individual parents' vehicles.

53:06 ↗ Now you have buses, school bus. But I believe the issue was

53:11 ↗ vandalism that's going to happen way at the end of that driveway.

53:18 ↗ What have we done to minimize that? Well, we will have a

53:24 ↗ gate that's located at this point here. close off the backside of the

53:30 ↗ campus for after hours and there's another gate up here to

53:36 ↗ control access in and out of the parking lot as well as there is an

53:40 ↗ existing gate at this point here.

53:46 ↗ Okay, okay. Yeah, that's the other issue that I guess I want to bring up

53:50 ↗ is that is there any reason why we couldn't shorten that drive? instead of going

53:56 ↗ all the way to the south end of the property line, that's the longest driveway

54:01 ↗ that I've ever seen with schools. It seems like you can maybe run all the

54:06 ↗ way from on the west end where you come down, and then

54:12 ↗ when you hit about this point, you have a turnaround here somewhere. So you could

54:16 ↗ just turn around the bus and then go back out and then reserve this spot

54:20 ↗ for, I mean, in previous area, I forget what

54:26 ↗ your percentage is right now. And plus you have a lot of portables. That was

54:31 ↗ an issue last time also is that why couldn't we take all the portables and

54:35 ↗ add it onto the classroom itself? Is there a height limit on there? I seem

54:40 ↗ to recall it was a financial issue. But being so tight with space right now,

54:46 ↗ you got, I counted about 12 portables. And you got portables here, you got portables

54:52 ↗ here, you got a few up here. So all those portables seems like, seems to

54:56 ↗ me if you include that into the building itself, you got all this open space

55:00 ↗ that you can develop into some kind of a play field or impervious area. Well,

55:06 ↗ one of the things we do in all of our school projects, regardless of the

55:09 ↗ location, is provide for the potential expansion And we typically provide for

55:15 ↗ four double portables or eight classrooms. And that's to help mitigate the continued

55:21 ↗ growth or should growth continue beyond. We have

55:27 ↗ limited resources. We do have a big bond and we have a lot to do

55:30 ↗ with it, but it was predicated on the 31, 32 classroom permanent structure.

55:37 ↗ We wouldn't have the money to do that. expect to have the full-time need to

55:42 ↗ have additional eight permanent classrooms at this site. We do have two

55:48 ↗ other additional new elementary schools on the bond and when those are completed and opened

55:53 ↗ it's going to help reduce the population on our Valley Core Area schools.

56:00 ↗ And to add an additional eight permanent classrooms wouldn't be practical. We

56:06 ↗ do want to reserve the space and as Amy mentioned, this would go in as

56:11 ↗ an impervious surface and

56:17 ↗ it would go in as a pervious surface, I'm sorry, and be there as a

56:22 ↗ future reserve. We wouldn't want to put, and this is the radius that it takes

56:28 ↗ for a bus to circulate. You could shorten that a little bit, that distance across

56:33 ↗ there is what you need so you'd be looking at a circle that would pretty

56:38 ↗ well occupy that and we would not want to put future portables across the other

56:42 ↗ side of the bus loop want to put them as close to the building as

56:45 ↗ we can and in the future there'd be a security fence that links this cluster

56:50 ↗ back into the building so that it becomes an extension There is an

56:56 ↗ existing portable right here and these two other portables, the cluster of three will be

57:01 ↗ used for the ACT program, which is a district program for special needs students from

57:07 ↗ high school graduation to age 21 to help them assimilate the skills they need

57:13 ↗ to be productive community members. The area on the south here

57:19 ↗ is a re-utilization of some of the portables that are coming off of the existing

57:23 ↗ Tiger Mountain Campus. And that's for teaching and learning services. That's another function that we

57:28 ↗ need for staff development, training,

57:34 ↗ mentoring, and curriculum development. So those are spaces that are short now and need to

57:39 ↗ be provided for. So that's why we have a number of

57:45 ↗ portables. There are actually three different functions. with these four here being

57:51 ↗ additional capacity for Clark,

57:58 ↗ totally dependent on how much growth continues and how fast it comes.

58:08 ↗ That's all, Mr. Chair. Comments? Thank you.

58:14 ↗ Right at this point. I'm sorry, I do have a couple questions. I'm sorry. Just

58:19 ↗ a question, Amy, I've got a couple questions for you too. The first

58:25 ↗ one is the wall. So it says that you

58:31 ↗ change the condition, I think, to say a wall with sound absorbing

58:37 ↗ material. And I understand it to be a masonry wall.

58:43 ↗ doesn't sound like it's sound absorbing to me. I'm not sure really what kind of

58:48 ↗ material would be a sound absorbing material.

58:55 ↗ So actually there are the acoustic walls that

59:03 ↗ I wish I took a, like shown an example. So we're

59:08 ↗ talking about those kinds of walls that are engineered so that they actually have these

59:13 ↗ the holes where the sound gets absorbed by. Into the masonry? Yes. Okay.

59:19 ↗ Is it? Is it outdoors? No. Is it, I guess I'm thinking the sound we

59:24 ↗ want it to reflect that well, we don't want it to go to the other

59:27 ↗ side. We don't want to go to the neighborhood. Right. So the extent that it

59:30 ↗ gets reflected backwards, back to the school, is that a problem? I'm wondering, is it

59:35 ↗ much more expensive to have a sound absorbing masonry wall versus a regular or?

59:42 ↗ It's a change of material, not a significant difference in cost, but

59:48 ↗ we have one other elementary where we have a sound wall that's outside of

59:55 ↗ the play area, and it's actually adjacent to the play field on the school district

1:00:00 ↗ side, and it gets used for kids for bouncing walls and things like that.

1:00:06 ↗ But you can have sound observant masonry walls, you can have sound attenuating timber walls,

1:00:12 ↗ Masonry is permanent and durable. That's why we looked at that as a solution. It

1:00:16 ↗ reduces our long-term maintenance costs. Okay, and it's okay with the district then to do

1:00:20 ↗ the sound absorbing? And I think that the intent was really to provide for

1:00:25 ↗ attenuation of noise transfer from the site to the neighborhood. Yeah, and

1:00:31 ↗ so I guess my question is the condition okay then with the district? The condition

1:00:38 ↗ is one we'd rather not have. But? In terms of material type.

1:00:42 ↗ Yeah, okay. The other question on the condition, Amy, is

1:00:49 ↗ it says the, it's a masonry wall with sound-absorbed materials no

1:00:55 ↗ greater than 10 feet tall. Well, to me that sounds like it could be one

1:01:01 ↗ foot tall. It would still not be no greater than 10 feet tall.

1:01:09 ↗ So it sounds like the plan is for an eight foot wall. So it maybe

1:01:14 ↗ the condition should be no less than eight feet and no more than 10 feet

1:01:18 ↗ or? Definitely we're open to the commission proposing a revision to that. And would no

1:01:24 ↗ less than eight work for the school district then? Given that's your plan? We've been

1:01:28 ↗ communicating with the community to the south and we've indicated to them an eight foot

1:01:32 ↗ wall and largely and that's based on looking at the height of the

1:01:38 ↗ existing six foot chain link fences. If you add a couple of feet to that,

1:01:42 ↗ we're up into the bottom of the existing trees. They're not gonna see anything from

1:01:47 ↗ their side. We're just gonna be looking at the tops of trees from our side.

1:01:51 ↗ Great, okay. Thank you. Amy, I also had a question on the parking.

1:01:58 ↗ In the staff analysis section 11,

1:02:03 ↗ the required parking stalls I went through the math and I came up with 212

1:02:10 ↗ and it shows 215 in the chart. And then there's a comment

1:02:18 ↗ in the responses to the community meeting that said that the 226

1:02:25 ↗ bases are required to house all the different activities. I think that was in the

1:02:30 ↗ school district's comment. So I

1:02:35 ↗ thought that I had the table here where I corrected that from 215 to 212.

1:02:40 ↗ So it's just a typo and

1:02:46 ↗ just can't find it. I saw it earlier.

1:02:53 ↗ So I appreciate the scrutiny and basically it's just a number.

1:02:59 ↗ Okay. And so and and to tell you the truth I was not as concerned

1:03:04 ↗ about meeting that requirement because it's really a minimum and they are

1:03:09 ↗ proposing more than that and then you know

1:03:15 ↗ you know we we basically let the school district decide you know how you know

1:03:21 ↗ what many parking spaces they needed. The land use code doesn't have a

1:03:26 ↗ maximum, so we can't really control how much. Right, right. They need it either way.

1:03:30 ↗ Okay. I guess my question was, it sort of related to the impervious surface because

1:03:37 ↗ I guess when I looked at it, the impervious surface, the river rock between the

1:03:42 ↗ portables and the condition says that would be replaced with an essence

1:03:48 ↗ vegetation of a pervious surface. And then I look at

1:03:54 ↗ the parking stalls, I think eight or 10 of them at the very south end

1:03:58 ↗ of the site. It's my preference would be to eliminate those stalls

1:04:04 ↗ at the very south end of the site and add pervious surface there and let

1:04:09 ↗ them put river rock around the portables that would be I presume far lower

1:04:15 ↗ maintenance than trying to do take care of vegetation around the portables and

1:04:21 ↗ just want to get your input too, Steve. So our thoughts is we've been working

1:04:26 ↗ with a number of parking spaces. We have some different and distinct uses that have

1:04:30 ↗ different time schedules and such. We're going to be looking towards meeting the

1:04:36 ↗ minimum. There may be a few more than that, but that there's also suggestion that

1:04:40 ↗ we look at reducing some of the areas in here

1:04:46 ↗ to pull the buildings back, reduce some of the parking along this section here to

1:04:51 ↗ reduce some of the buffer averaging. And so as we move into the construction documents

1:04:57 ↗ phase of things, we would be looking at maintaining at least the minimum number of

1:05:01 ↗ parking spaces and working towards reducing the buffer averaging that we're currently showing.

1:05:08 ↗ I think another point is that there were about 83 spaces that were shown in

1:05:13 ↗ light as overflow parking spaces that would be available

1:05:19 ↗ for those unique activities, kindergarten roundup day, special Christmas programs and

1:05:25 ↗ things like that in the evening times where you can park on the hard surface

1:05:29 ↗ play areas to accommodate traffic. And so we would look to minimize the amount

1:05:35 ↗ of impervious and meet the minimum number of spaces for each of the

1:05:40 ↗ different user groups. Okay, and then I guess the question, you're fine then with changing

1:05:46 ↗ that river rock to a pervious surface? And I guess I even had a question

1:05:50 ↗ for staff, why river rock would not be a pervious surface? It seems like it

1:05:55 ↗ eventually, like a river, sort of flows down through the rocks into the ground, but.

1:06:02 ↗ Yeah, I have that question too, but. So traditionally we actually not only

1:06:08 ↗ look at the surface but the compaction and that determines whether something is considered pervious

1:06:14 ↗ or impervious. And in this case, the subgrade would probably still be

1:06:20 ↗ impervious. So we don't treat anything with stone technically,

1:06:26 ↗ we don't treat that as impervious. Our

1:06:31 ↗ primary consideration would be that for future uses and the future needs of those portable

1:06:37 ↗ spaces that it's accounted for as impervious surface now So that when we come back

1:06:43 ↗ to apply for a building permit for a portable We don't have to go back

1:06:46 ↗ through a whole site development permit review because the impervious surface areas changed

1:06:52 ↗ But it can be a pervious surface until We need to

1:06:58 ↗ have portables. We have some other school sites where the kids use some of that

1:07:02 ↗ area for gardens and things like that until there's a need to put a portable

1:07:07 ↗ there. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:07:14 ↗ Any comments? Another question, just real quick since they're both at the microphone.

1:07:20 ↗ So there's information in the staff report regarding pedestrian access off of First Street. I'm

1:07:26 ↗ trying to get clarification in some of the documentation here. So there's a condition that

1:07:32 ↗ essentially says, you know, meet the transportation study requirements

1:07:38 ↗ for access. But there's also a spreadsheet, and I've got to put my fingers back

1:07:43 ↗ on it, or a table, I think it was exhibit 11, that says that

1:07:56 ↗ Sidewalks, raised sidewalks were recommended on both sides of First Street, providing access. And

1:08:02 ↗ then Mr. Crawford provided a response and an email. Thank you. It is, yeah, attachment

1:08:07 ↗ 11. an email talking about the conflict between parking requirements for

1:08:13 ↗ the city's facility versus access. So I guess my question is, what's the solution?

1:08:20 ↗ Because it's not from the doctor. At that time, we just wanted to point that

1:08:22 ↗ out. The city does have some shops at the intersection of Bush and First, and

1:08:27 ↗ that the requirement will be that on the east side, we will

1:08:33 ↗ add to the existing five foot sidewalk another five foot sidewalk with a six inch

1:08:39 ↗ height curb. Currently that's a tapered asphalt that comes up flush with the surface of

1:08:44 ↗ the concrete walk. And then there'll be street trees that go into that along

1:08:51 ↗ the length of that. On the west side there would be a new curb line

1:08:57 ↗ and a five-foot landscape strip with street trees and then a new sidewalk behind that.

1:09:02 ↗ And that in part accommodates the fact that there's a fire hydrant and a telephone

1:09:06 ↗ pole that are sort of in the street right now. It cleans up the street,

1:09:12 ↗ provides a good five-foot pedestrian walkway on either side, and the city's come back and

1:09:17 ↗ said that the solution at the shop area would be for parallel parking and that

1:09:22 ↗ the sidewalk would jog back behind the parallel parking and then tie into the intersection

1:09:27 ↗ at Bush and first. Because I recall in the last discussion about this, that was

1:09:32 ↗ a big concern about pedestrian, you know, school kid access and safe and the road

1:09:37 ↗ and the sidewalk were essentially at the same elevation. So it sounds like we've made

1:09:41 ↗ some significant improvement there. Yeah. Great. Thanks.

1:09:44 ↗ Commissioner,

1:09:50 ↗ any other comments? All right. At this point, I'd like to open a comment

1:09:56 ↗ opportunity for the public. If you choose to speak, we'd like you to sign up.

1:10:00 ↗ We've got some sign up sheets on the tables here. When you get to the

1:10:04 ↗ microphone, we'd like you to state your name and address and make your comments. So

1:10:10 ↗ if you choose to do that, this is the time.

1:10:27 ↗ Good evening, my name is Chris Craven and I'm a resident of Issaquah Crown

1:10:33 ↗ at the 580 Front Street South on the southern edge of the property. And I

1:10:39 ↗ just wanted to take opportunity first of all to thank the staff and Amy and

1:10:44 ↗ the commissioners for really digging into the details, listening to the the neighbors

1:10:50 ↗ listening to the community of our concerns because I think you've done an excellent job

1:10:55 ↗ in addressing a lot of those and I really appreciate the time and effort spent

1:10:59 ↗ on that. I just

1:11:05 ↗ want to reiterate Commissioner Long's

1:11:10 ↗ comment and would like to see it be part of the conditions that the gate

1:11:18 ↗ called out and included and that it is part of the conditions that the property

1:11:23 ↗ be closed off when the ISD staff are

1:11:29 ↗ officially not on the site primarily nights and weekends I'm assuming I do

1:11:35 ↗ still have concerns about the long driveway and the safety of the buses

1:11:41 ↗ coming in that very narrow slot and between the existing building and the

1:11:46 ↗ property line. I've walked it just as a physical person and it feels tight, so

1:11:52 ↗ I can't imagine with traffic going in and out, buses that may be

1:11:58 ↗ coming and going at the same time, having to slow down

1:12:03 ↗ significantly, children becoming bored in that long

1:12:09 ↗ driveway back to the drop off, I do appreciate the effort of moving the

1:12:15 ↗ parent drop off to First Street. I think that's pretty significant and improving the pedestrian

1:12:21 ↗ access for all the children and parents and hopefully staff

1:12:27 ↗ coming to the site. But I hope that the northernmost

1:12:34 ↗ parking lot is left flexible in the future so, I

1:12:40 ↗ still see there being opportunities for incorporating a bus drop off at that north

1:12:46 ↗ parking lot and eliminating the need for the buses to take the long drive back

1:12:51 ↗ to the southern edge. So just a couple of

1:12:56 ↗ observations that have come to my attention with this project in my mind is,

1:13:05 ↗ My husband actually observed from the play field currently, I luckily had

1:13:11 ↗ drove my car to work that day, but a baseball or softball coming over our

1:13:16 ↗ existing fence and hitting right in the middle of my parking place, which probably would

1:13:21 ↗ have been a windshield. So I do hope if there's a

1:13:26 ↗ distinguishing line coming from the ball field over

1:13:32 ↗ that fence, you know, looking at higher being better there.

1:13:39 ↗ It somehow made it over the current one. That was one. And

1:13:45 ↗ I guess at this point, with the exception of still the buses coming down that

1:13:50 ↗ long narrow driveway, my biggest concerns are during the construction phase.

1:13:56 ↗ I know they started on the work at the Gibson Eck

1:14:02 ↗ Walked by at one evening, I asked Amy, what are the work hours permitted?

1:14:08 ↗ And it's from, correct me if I'm wrong, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. I walked

1:14:14 ↗ by at 6.30. The boom truck was still running. There was still work going on.

1:14:21 ↗ A nice summer evening, our bedroom faces to the north across the fence. We

1:14:27 ↗ had our windows open. Nice breeze coming, the prevailing breeze was coming from the north.

1:14:33 ↗ Somebody was smoking on site and we had to shut our windows down. So

1:14:39 ↗ I don't know if we have any abilities to request that

1:14:45 ↗ there be some sort of monitoring or contact with the school

1:14:52 ↗ during off hours. Their contractors aren't playing by the rules or, know

1:14:58 ↗ abiding by what is said as regulations so that's

1:15:04 ↗ that's my biggest concern we have started now the demolition I'm sure it's going to

1:15:11 ↗ closely quickly get closer and closer to our properties during

1:15:17 ↗ summer times and I assume throughout the winter so is there

1:15:24 ↗ Any advice or any part of this process that we could address the actual construction

1:15:29 ↗ process as well Thank you

1:15:36 ↗ Other comments from the public

1:16:01 ↗ My name is Jimmy Lee. We are the owner of the spot sheet in 80

1:16:06 ↗ South East Bush Street. Can I ask you to speak up just a little bit?

1:16:10 ↗ Sorry. Thank you. My name is Jimmy Lee. We're the owner of spot sheet in

1:16:15 ↗ 80 South East Bush Street. So I understand there's going to be changes along the

1:16:20 ↗ Bush Street where the parking is going to be eliminated on one side of the

1:16:26 ↗ street. I'm not so sure what side of the street is going to be eliminated.

1:16:31 ↗ But it would be great if the elimination would be on the opposite street where

1:16:37 ↗ the pool is located, pool side. So that's my concern

1:16:43 ↗ because since we own the business, it would be great the parking is on our

1:16:48 ↗ side of the street and not just on the opposite. And there could be some

1:16:52 ↗ safety concern with people crossing the street, things like that.

1:16:58 ↗ So that's it. Thank you. Thank you.

1:17:12 ↗ My name is Mary Lynch and I reside at 2690 Northwest Oak Crest Drive, Issaquah,

1:17:16 ↗ Washington. I just want to thank the school and Amy for

1:17:22 ↗ going and hearing some of the comments and working on it. I am still concerned,

1:17:27 ↗ especially when I hear now though on Bush Street that you're looking at a turn

1:17:31 ↗ lane along there, because those sidewalks along that section of Bush Street are street level.

1:17:37 ↗ There's nothing keeping them separate from the roadway. and would like to know what's

1:17:43 ↗ gonna happen with those sidewalks. Are they gonna be raised or is there gonna be

1:17:46 ↗ some sort of buffer? So these areas need to be looked at from the walk

1:17:51 ↗ and roll plan also. You also need to not only consider the elementary

1:17:57 ↗ walking pathways, but also the high school and the middle school that have a lot

1:18:03 ↗ of people and riding their bikes and walking along those areas. One of the things

1:18:08 ↗ that exists right now and is very highly congested and hasn't been resolved is the

1:18:14 ↗ food bank. And on any given day when the food bank is open, you have

1:18:19 ↗ people parking where they're not supposed to park and up to the corners. And

1:18:25 ↗ so again, taking the parking away from that is going to be bad. and it's

1:18:28 ↗ already bad right now and the city really needs to look at the food bank

1:18:33 ↗ and parking and coming up with some better ways of handling parking for the food

1:18:38 ↗ bank. Also that needs to be looked at is there is talk about

1:18:44 ↗ changing school hours. So when those happen you need to look at walking pathways when

1:18:50 ↗ school hours change because if they change middle school or elementary could go you know

1:18:56 ↗ just prior to the middle school and the high school which my concern there is

1:19:01 ↗ those streets are highly congested when the middle school and high school are

1:19:07 ↗ coming. And if you have then put in the mix, middle or elementary is

1:19:13 ↗ walking along those routes, there needs to be look and consideration on

1:19:19 ↗ improving all the crossings. And as we've heard from the crosswalk study last year,

1:19:25 ↗ Adding the turn lane makes the likelihood of someone getting struck in the crosswalk that

1:19:30 ↗ much higher percentage. So in these areas where you have a lot of pedestrians, adding

1:19:36 ↗ the turn lane, when we know people don't, even though they're supposed to stop on

1:19:39 ↗ red, they don't, is gonna be accidents waiting to happen. And then

1:19:45 ↗ where are the bicycles? Amy mentioned there are no bicycle routes along here. Where are

1:19:51 ↗ they going to happen? And I think we need to look from a biking, because

1:19:54 ↗ there are a lot of, middle schools there's who ride their bicycles and some high

1:20:00 ↗ schoolers or at least they skateboard which is a little bit different because they'll try

1:20:04 ↗ and use the bicycle pathways for that Chris brought up the

1:20:10 ↗ constructions and actually they're proposing seven to seven on construction hours is what they're proposing

1:20:16 ↗ right now is before the City Council Monday through Friday still, they haven't opened up

1:20:21 ↗ Saturday yet. But that is by the time could be in effect. But I really

1:20:27 ↗ recommend that when this gets to construction phase, you need to very clearly identify what

1:20:33 ↗ is the construction route into the site and make sure that it's well marked. Because

1:20:38 ↗ you're gonna be having, again, large trucks that are not familiar with this area trying

1:20:44 ↗ to turn into some very narrow streets that are heavy populated with

1:20:49 ↗ school children and also food bank people. And if you remember, a lot of the

1:20:55 ↗ food bank are elderly people that don't see well, don't hear well, and are very

1:20:59 ↗ slow walkers and probably don't check before they cross. So this is gonna become a

1:21:04 ↗ really, some major pinch points in there. And as of yet, I still don't know

1:21:09 ↗ who we go to with construction concerns as far as traffic and would like for

1:21:13 ↗ that to sometime come up from city council on who we go to with construction

1:21:19 ↗ concerns. Thank you.

1:21:29 ↗ Okay, please do. David Kappler, 255

1:21:35 ↗ Southeast Andrews Street. Bush Street elimination or addition of

1:21:41 ↗ a turn lane. We've been told that west of Front Street does not include the

1:21:46 ↗ kid, those kids don't come to Clark. So it seems to me the interest in

1:21:53 ↗ making turns that could be a bottleneck for traffic would be

1:21:59 ↗ westbound on Bush Street making the left turns to go up to the elementary school

1:22:05 ↗ or for parents or for the high school. I don't see the need to go

1:22:11 ↗ up West of First there, that section between the pool and the

1:22:17 ↗ restaurant and the food bank for needing a center turn lane there or an

1:22:22 ↗ extra turn lane because it'll just be a free right, a relatively free right for

1:22:27 ↗ those people. The whole food bank area is a problem because

1:22:33 ↗ when the middle school basically starts early enough that their traffic is done

1:22:39 ↗ before the food bank opens for operation. As elementary starting later I believe you're gonna

1:22:44 ↗ have more of a chance of conflict with in the morning with the food bank

1:22:51 ↗ possibly and the elementary school or even traffic.

1:23:00 ↗ Also I have to think more and more kids take classes at other

1:23:06 ↗ schools that they can't always get at their school. Gibson Eck is gonna be a

1:23:10 ↗ small high school. We're hoping that we have a lot of highly academically oriented

1:23:16 ↗ students there. They're gonna be wanting to take AP Physics and some of those AP

1:23:21 ↗ classes and those kinds of things likely that they're simply not gonna have enough students

1:23:25 ↗ at. gives an act to get all of those and they're gonna need to get

1:23:31 ↗ to Bellevue or to Issaquah High School for some potentially for some classes.

1:23:37 ↗ Maybe advanced music, whatever, advanced languages, some other things the possibility. The

1:23:43 ↗ easiest way for them to get to there instead of going completely down and around

1:23:48 ↗ the community center on the north side of the community center is the now blocked

1:23:52 ↗ off grass area that goes down to the Rainier Trail. For seven years I

1:23:58 ↗ walked down that when I worked at Issaquah Middle School and lived over on Andrews

1:24:02 ↗ Street. And it was slippery and I fell several times and got completely muddy and

1:24:07 ↗ everything else, but it was always the shortest way for me to go home. I

1:24:12 ↗ think having a stairway there, trying to do a walkway with ADA is

1:24:18 ↗ not going to work there with trying to get the grade down because it's kind

1:24:21 ↗ of steep. A stairway would work easy there and be a way for those kids

1:24:25 ↗ to save significant time in getting up to the high school if they're gonna need

1:24:30 ↗ to go to Issaquah High School or the Rainier Trail if they're walking or whatever.

1:24:34 ↗ I think northbound it's fine that they go past the community center in the

1:24:40 ↗ north, but if they're going more southbound, they're gonna have to walk around that building

1:24:45 ↗ and I don't think we need to have that. Thank you.

1:24:54 ↗ Don't forget to sign in, thank you. Other comments, other comments from the public?

1:25:00 ↗ All right, I'll close the open public comment right now. Would the city or

1:25:06 ↗ the applicant care to make comment? Okay, okay.

1:25:23 ↗ What about commission discussion? Mr. Chairman,

1:25:29 ↗ it struck me listening to this that several of the concerns that are still being

1:25:33 ↗ voiced amount to enforcement issues. And it would seem to me to be

1:25:39 ↗ relevant for the school board and the city and the Issaupel Police Department

1:25:45 ↗ to come up with a plan to perhaps assign officers there

1:25:51 ↗ for traffic control. for a couple of at least, I would say, a month. I

1:25:56 ↗ mean, I don't know technically how that personnel assignment is made. But I

1:26:01 ↗ agree with the comments that the food bank and the combination of the food bank

1:26:05 ↗ and the school, it's already congested there. And so if people are already routinely

1:26:11 ↗ ignoring the existing laws of statutes, parking, and so on, So I

1:26:17 ↗ believe it would be prudent for there to be a discussion with IPD to look

1:26:22 ↗ at the potential for when this does come into full, when it's opened,

1:26:28 ↗ having IPD presence there for enough time to get the message across that certain areas

1:26:34 ↗ are not permissible for parking, that speed limits are going to be enforced and that

1:26:38 ↗ there are other things that are relevant for not only the students, but the people

1:26:42 ↗ that use the food bank and others for their safety.

1:26:52 ↗ How do we do that? How do we do that? I don't know. Well, I

1:26:55 ↗ don't know. That's what I'm saying. I think the city and the NIPD and ISD

1:26:58 ↗ need to talk about when the schools, what the hours are going to be, what

1:27:03 ↗ the risk levels are, and what the staffing of IPD is, because it's probably going

1:27:08 ↗ to take a police officer rather than a civilian in a neon vest

1:27:14 ↗ to get their attention. But I think that without that, people are gonna continue to

1:27:19 ↗ ignore things at the risk of the pedestrians and others. So I'm just suggesting there

1:27:24 ↗ be a conversation to address the potential. Okay.

1:27:30 ↗ Okay. Mr. Chair, point of clarification. You know that long

1:27:36 ↗ driveway we're all fighting about? There's a gate that shows on the drawings,

1:27:42 ↗ Amy. Is that a chain link fence gate? Or is it one of those?

1:27:48 ↗ bar just for vehicle Is that what it is? I see you know,

1:27:54 ↗ I think that's what it is there So is that is that just currently a

1:27:58 ↗ chain link type gate at the rear end of the school campus it's a chain

1:28:03 ↗ link fence that Yeah, okay people have to climb up. Yeah, they want to get

1:28:09 ↗ up. Okay Thank you, Mr. Chair Other discussion

1:28:18 ↗ Something that comes up a lot and the lady from the community that lives to

1:28:22 ↗ the south about the construction Timing and again, it's another

1:28:27 ↗ enforcement item be nice. Maybe if I think there is a process or part of

1:28:33 ↗ the city That addresses that or has some regulation of that isn't there?

1:28:39 ↗ Yeah, be nice to at least Mean Have that available

1:28:45 ↗ because it comes up as part of our discussions here at the Development Commission. We

1:28:49 ↗ don't necessarily have purview of it, but there is some other recourse for the citizens

1:28:55 ↗ to bring comment to that. Yes, there's a telephone number that they can call

1:29:02 ↗ if they observe work outside of allowable hours. And it's one of the city

1:29:08 ↗ departments. I forget which one, but it would be nice to maybe share that information

1:29:13 ↗ with people here. Sure. because I see it coming up with several of our

1:29:19 ↗ projects. And just to follow up on that, Lucy, as I recall, in one of

1:29:25 ↗ the construction projects that's underway at present, the contractor was contacted by

1:29:31 ↗ the city and reminded of the hours and it resulted in them implying

1:29:37 ↗ so that it is a viable mechanism for people that have that concern. Right. I

1:29:43 ↗ mean, if there's work observed outside of hours, we do want to know about it.

1:29:49 ↗ Sometimes they are granted the rights to work on Saturdays. If they work on

1:29:55 ↗ Saturdays or Sundays or holidays when they're not allowed to, they may lose that privilege.

1:30:01 ↗ We currently have proposed revision to construction hours and construction

1:30:07 ↗ permitting in front of the council to both try and clarify the process,

1:30:13 ↗ simplify the permitting and make it clear for both residents, staff

1:30:20 ↗ and builders what's allowed so that hopefully that will

1:30:26 ↗ go more smoothly and we'll have better compliance. But we can provide the telephone number

1:30:33 ↗ after the meeting. I just want to make sure I give out the right one.

1:30:42 ↗ Other comments? So I think we're, process wise, we're at the place where we can

1:30:48 ↗ start looking at the design standards, the old green sheet if you will, and

1:30:54 ↗ make some decisions if the standards are acceptable or not. And so

1:31:01 ↗ if you look on your packet, it's about page 58 of 277 is where the

1:31:08 ↗ design standards start and I'll just go through. I won't read the full text but

1:31:13 ↗ I'll read the heading and then ask each of you to identify whether it's acceptable

1:31:19 ↗ or not. I do have a point of order in the commission there. Only supposed

1:31:24 ↗ to be seven commissioners voting and so Mr. Beck, since you were the last one,

1:31:29 ↗ I'd just ask you to refrain from voting on that. I know I would be

1:31:32 ↗ interested in your comments, but we can only have seven votes. So we'll need each

1:31:38 ↗ one of you to say acceptable or have your comments. So if you're OK, let's

1:31:44 ↗ move ahead and look at the design standards, the site layout, and overall design concepts.

1:31:50 ↗ The building location, is it acceptable? It's acceptable.

1:31:59 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. Okay, thank you. Energy efficient design. Acceptable.

1:32:04 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. Thank you. Functional site design.

1:32:09 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable with conditions. Still with conditions.

1:32:15 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. Lighting.

1:32:24 ↗ Maybe not applicable because it will be reviewed later.

1:32:32 ↗ And just a quick comment on that. There was some discussion about shielding of light

1:32:38 ↗ spillage to neighboring and that will be addressed during the lighting review that happens with

1:32:42 ↗ permit? Yes.

1:32:49 ↗ We have the standards in place. So all those things like requiring full cutoffs and

1:32:57 ↗ and lighting levels are all in our land use code. Thank you.

1:33:04 ↗ All right, natural setting views is the next top heading. And

1:33:11 ↗ hillside design is not applicable. Primary views.

1:33:17 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. Acceptable. Existing vegetation topography

1:33:23 ↗ features. Acceptable. Acceptable.

1:33:30 ↗ Historical, cultural landmarks. Any? Not applicable. Landscape design and use of plant

1:33:35 ↗ materials, design elements. Acceptable. Acceptable with conditions. Okay, thank

1:33:41 ↗ you. Design unity.

1:33:48 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. Okay. Enhanced

1:33:53 ↗ design. Acceptable with conditions.

1:34:05 ↗ I lost my page here. Page

1:34:13 ↗ eight. We open, I did lose my place.

1:34:22 ↗ Okay. I think

1:34:28 ↗ we're still, under that same heading of enhanced design. So the next item

1:34:34 ↗ is usable open space design. Acceptable. Acceptable with conditions.

1:34:43 ↗ Plant material selection.

1:34:45 ↗ Acceptable.

1:34:51 ↗ Acceptable with conditions. Acceptable with conditions. Design

1:34:57 ↗ harmony and compatibility, accessories, structures. Acceptable. Acceptable.

1:35:03 ↗ Acceptable. Building material components. Acceptable.

1:35:08 ↗ Acceptable. Durability and maintenance.

1:35:14 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. Compatibility.

1:35:18 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. Modulation.

1:35:27 ↗ With conditions. With conditions. And I'd say I appreciate the changes that were made subsequent

1:35:32 ↗ to the community conference at the school district and with staff's help. So. Chair Greg

1:35:36 ↗ Musil. Facade.

1:35:40 ↗ Acceptable. Chair Greg Musil. Acceptable. Chair Greg

1:35:45 ↗ Musil. Ground level.

1:35:49 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. With conditions. Large structure. Hmm.

1:35:59 ↗ Acceptable. Acceptable. I'm going to skip car. How about signage? Proposal.

1:36:05 ↗ Not applicable. Not applicable. Transition conflicting

1:36:11 ↗ architectural styles. Acceptable. Acceptable with conditions.

1:36:17 ↗ Projects with multiple structures. Acceptable with conditions. To the

1:36:23 ↗ portables. Non-motorized or vehicle areas.

1:36:30 ↗ Agree of free. That will be reviewed during the permit review, but

1:36:37 ↗ from the information we've got, I would say acceptable. Okay. Agree. And circulatory trail access,

1:36:43 ↗ circulation trail access. Acceptable. Acceptable. Just maybe there's a question here

1:36:49 ↗ that did come up with regard to the elimination of the stairway to the trail,

1:36:54 ↗ and if anybody had any thoughts on that, Mr. Kapler brought up the I think

1:36:59 ↗ if he thinks there should be a stairway to the trail there, but he's been

1:37:03 ↗ eliminated and staff have any thoughts? Could staff and the applicant provide some additional

1:37:09 ↗ perspective because there was quite a bit of discussion. Uh-huh. That'd be great.

1:37:19 ↗ So we actually included the next rationale for why we recommended the removal of that

1:37:28 ↗ and it's included in the staff memo.

1:37:36 ↗ So this diagram kind of gives you just an existing

1:37:42 ↗ condition for pedestrian circulation in the area. So

1:37:47 ↗ in evaluating whether or not that stair really warms or that,

1:37:54 ↗ basically the stair was proposed for this, part of the

1:37:59 ↗ site. This area basically is the only area along the

1:38:05 ↗ east property line where you could actually make that connection because of the steep slopes

1:38:11 ↗ and the wetlands. So in evaluating whether or not

1:38:17 ↗ that would contribute to providing additional pedestrian amenities

1:38:23 ↗ to the site, we actually look more holistically at pedestrian

1:38:29 ↗ connections. We were thinking about the middle school children

1:38:35 ↗ who were used to walking to this particular campus. And in the future, they will

1:38:40 ↗ be walking all the way down to their new school, which is on Evans and

1:38:46 ↗ Second. So what you're seeing as the red arrow are the existing sidewalks

1:38:52 ↗ in the vicinity of the Clark campus. These are basically

1:38:58 ↗ where eventually the kids will, you will find the kids walking or traditionally

1:39:04 ↗ walking to get to their school. In the future, what we would like to

1:39:09 ↗ ensure is that they can continue walking in a safe environment to get to their

1:39:15 ↗ new school. So when we looked at what's already existing out there, we actually realized

1:39:20 ↗ that there's a I'm calling it a plaza, but it's a

1:39:26 ↗ paved, very wide, what looks like a sidewalk on the north side of the community

1:39:32 ↗ center. And it's actually wheelchair

1:39:37 ↗ accessible. And so that also means that it is bike accessible. And

1:39:43 ↗ we actually found that that's a more ideal connection for both bikes and

1:39:49 ↗ pedestrians to get to the Rainier Trail and for the middle school students to use

1:39:56 ↗ to get to their new school. If you may recall, during the middle school

1:40:02 ↗ site development permit and master site plan review, we

1:40:07 ↗ recommended that a new trail connection will be provided between the Rainier Trail and the

1:40:13 ↗ new 10 foot

1:40:19 ↗ wide sidewalk and bike. Basically it's a multipurpose trail

1:40:25 ↗ that serves as a sidewalk for the new middle school. So

1:40:32 ↗ by maintaining this route, or I'm sorry, so in

1:40:38 ↗ comparing the quality of the environment for this existing route and

1:40:44 ↗ this new connection here, given that it's so close to each other and the fact

1:40:49 ↗ that this allows the kids to walk in a very open

1:40:55 ↗ public area versus having to go down into what constitute

1:41:02 ↗ the parking lot and the loading dock of the Gibson High School in order to

1:41:07 ↗ get to the trail, we would rather encourage the students to walk

1:41:13 ↗ on the north side of the community center. And we also spoke with the

1:41:19 ↗ Parks Department who had quite a few concerns about the new stair connection

1:41:25 ↗ because the parking lot that that connects to at the bottom not only is not

1:41:31 ↗ really a place for younger children to be crossing, but there was a concern that

1:41:38 ↗ parents might begin to try and pick up their children there. That parking lot has

1:41:43 ↗ no turnaround in it. So there was a concern that it would create

1:41:49 ↗ more complications in the traffic patterns by providing that connection. I can

1:41:55 ↗ understand Mr. Kapler's, you know, the shortcut attraction for the high school students.

1:42:02 ↗ I think that there was a greater concern about how elementary school children may be

1:42:09 ↗ using it or encouraged to use it by parents who are trying to find alternative

1:42:12 ↗ places to pick for pickups. Mr. Chair, can I have a follow up

1:42:18 ↗ on that? Yes. Amy, when you say we hope to encourage the

1:42:24 ↗ students to do that, traffic, whether it's

1:42:30 ↗ pedestrian or bike or car, is like water. It's going to seek the path of

1:42:34 ↗ least resistance. So I'm curious about, because that obviously it takes

1:42:40 ↗ more time to go that way. How are you gonna encourage

1:42:47 ↗ kids to go there as opposed to down through if they're going south?

1:42:57 ↗ I'm sorry, are you, referring to this route? Yeah, that's what you want them to

1:43:02 ↗ do, right? You want them to go past the community center and then head south

1:43:05 ↗ on the east side of the community center. Right. Whereas now the arrow looks like

1:43:10 ↗ it goes through the parking lot there. So if I'm not

1:43:16 ↗ mistaken, what you want them to do is something different from what they're doing now.

1:43:22 ↗ So... I guess, you know, how are you going to get that across to them,

1:43:26 ↗ particularly if they're pedestrians? So the red arrow,

1:43:33 ↗ and maybe I'm not showing this very clearly, simply shows where

1:43:40 ↗ currently, because this, or at least up to this past school year, this was the

1:43:46 ↗ middle school. So these would be the primary pedestrian connections

1:43:52 ↗ to get to their school. And so in the future, the middle school children will

1:43:57 ↗ not be taking this route. They would, if they're coming from Bush or further

1:44:03 ↗ North, they could take either second avenue or they could take this route

1:44:09 ↗ going down instead of going straight down to their former school. Now they would just

1:44:15 ↗ take, you know, a turn, you know, make a left turn and then get down

1:44:18 ↗ to the trail. I don't know if I'm explaining that. I think one thing to

1:44:22 ↗ keep in mind too, that while Gibson Eck is not unique on a national basis

1:44:26 ↗ in the Puget Sound and certainly for the Issa School District, it's a unique program.

1:44:30 ↗ It's a blend of a big picture school and maker spaces. And the kids are

1:44:34 ↗ here, they work closely with their staff to develop their curricular program. And

1:44:40 ↗ Monday, Wednesday, Friday, they're on site. Tuesday and Thursday, they're in internships off site. And

1:44:47 ↗ it'll start out with 120 kids and it'll grow to 250 kids in two more

1:44:51 ↗ years as we build up the subsequent grade levels. I really don't think

1:44:57 ↗ there's gonna be much traffic between the Gibson Eck and the Isquah High School. Just

1:45:03 ↗ because A, they're only there three days a week. Two, they're working on a very

1:45:06 ↗ specific curricular program and that their schedules probably,

1:45:14 ↗ not going to coincide with when there may be a class available at the high

1:45:19 ↗ school. I just don't see that there's going to be a lot of pedestrian traffic

1:45:23 ↗ between the two sites. I do think there is a valid concern about the

1:45:29 ↗ potential for the parking lot to get used for pickup drop off.

1:45:37 ↗ To piggyback on the other commissioner, I mean I can see kids coming down the

1:45:39 ↗ street Boehm school and it what is currently the middle

1:45:45 ↗ school coming through the parking lot across that grass field and down that hill to

1:45:49 ↗ cut you know cut off a couple minutes to get to school if they're running

1:45:51 ↗ a little late I think that's gonna be a concern for us with the middle

1:45:54 ↗ schoolers trying to go down there without a staircase and going down and falling down

1:45:58 ↗ like that gentleman down the slippery slope I was walking down that street that's what

1:46:04 ↗ I would have done as a child if you're walking to school going from east

1:46:09 ↗ from west to east here going to the middle school. Instead of going

1:46:15 ↗ straight across to that Rainier Trail, I would cut through the parking lot, ask the

1:46:19 ↗ little roundabout through the grassy field, and then down that hill. Yeah, right to the

1:46:24 ↗ Rainier Trail. I think that ends up being a more convoluted route than just coming

1:46:28 ↗ straight across. I'm talking about middle schoolers, though.

1:46:40 ↗ So maybe that gets back to my original question. If in fact it takes

1:46:45 ↗ longer to go down through the property as opposed to going out to Rainier Trail,

1:46:52 ↗ maybe that's the answer. They'll figure out themselves that if they're running late, then

1:46:58 ↗ it's easier or faster to go the other way. It just isn't apparent here because

1:47:02 ↗ it seems now to address that, Even if they're not running late, that the shortest

1:47:07 ↗ route for them is to go through the property. But if it isn't, then they'll

1:47:11 ↗ learn that they're gonna be late for class if they do that, as opposed to

1:47:14 ↗ going on the trail. Currently, the school district fence comes up and stops at about

1:47:18 ↗ this point. That's one quick way to discourage that being used as a cut through.

1:47:24 ↗ Okay.

1:47:30 ↗ Okay. All right, let's move along. Design. Parking

1:47:35 ↗ areas.

1:47:41 ↗ Acceptable. Public access adjacent to site.

1:47:50 ↗ This is where the Rainier Trail comes up. I'd say

1:47:56 ↗ acceptable with the explanation we've received. At the same

1:48:02 ↗ time, I would believe that Water will follow its own course and if it becomes

1:48:05 ↗ a problem, they can deal with it then too. So. Great. Public access within

1:48:11 ↗ the site is not applicable, I guess. Trail and non-notarized

1:48:17 ↗ facility design. Acceptable. Acceptable.

1:48:23 ↗ Transition of design elements and amenities.

1:48:32 ↗ Service and storage areas screening service yards and outdoor storage. Acceptable.

1:48:37 ↗ Acceptable. And

1:48:43 ↗ the last one is screening mechanical equipment. Acceptable

1:48:47 ↗ conditions.

1:48:58 ↗ Acceptable conditions. Other comments?

1:49:05 ↗ I know Amy what might be helpful. You put the condition or excuse me the

1:49:10 ↗ motions up on your introductory slides and what we have is not consistent

1:49:16 ↗ as far as the conditions where the conditions are being either edited or deleted and

1:49:20 ↗ I didn't catch when you put that up what the which one is the right

1:49:24 ↗ one. So could you possibly put that back up?

1:49:46 ↗ So when I was reading it, it should be identical because I

1:49:52 ↗ copied the text here and printed it on the word. Maybe something happened along

1:49:58 ↗ the way. It's your first A and B don't match. That's what you said when

1:50:03 ↗ you went through them. Right, you have different conditions for A than you do for

1:50:06 ↗ B. If you look at the conditions line on B, it says in the edits

1:50:09 ↗ to the conditions 2, 19, 23, whereas before it says for the conditions 2, 5,

1:50:12 ↗ 21. Yes, so when I was reading

1:50:18 ↗ it, I corrected myself for the second, for B. B

1:50:24 ↗ didn't cover all of the conditions that were cited in A. So

1:50:29 ↗ basically it should read identical to A. It should say, edits

1:50:35 ↗ to the conditions 2, 5, 21, 19, 29, and 32.

1:50:43 ↗ That would be a simple way of

1:50:49 ↗ correcting it. So there's no deletion of conditions there, just the modifications? So in other

1:50:54 ↗ words, when I say edits, it includes the addition, deletion, and revisions.

1:51:07 ↗ And if you so choose, you could always replace it with the exact text that

1:51:12 ↗ was used in paragraph A.

1:51:26 ↗ And I think Commissioner Morgan wanted a clarification for the wall,

1:51:32 ↗ right? Do you have that revised condition that you could pull up?

1:51:45 ↗ I'll make a motion when we get to that.

1:51:51 ↗ Number

1:51:52 ↗ two.

1:52:01 ↗ So do we have a motion?

1:52:08 ↗ I don't know if I've got a, I don't know if they're straight, but we'll

1:52:10 ↗ give this a try. Mr. Chair, I move that the Development Commission

1:52:17 ↗ Move that the development commission approve Clark Elementary and Gibson Elk High School SDP 16-00003

1:52:27 ↗ with plans, architectural drawings and technical studies. Submitted between April

1:52:34 ↗ 15th to April 30th of 2016. The staff report dated June 8th, 2016

1:52:40 ↗ with attachments one through 10. Exhibit one. and recommended

1:52:46 ↗ conditions of approval with revisions proposed tonight for conditions two,

1:52:50 ↗ five, 21, deletion of conditions 19 and 21, and the addition of

1:52:56 ↗ condition 32. I'm sorry, 29,

1:53:02 ↗ excuse me. 29. That would be, again, deletion of conditions 19 and 29.

1:53:13 ↗ Right, so again, The first sentence was move that the development commission approve the site

1:53:19 ↗ development permit for Clark Elementary and Gibson Elk. It wasn't included in our draft.

1:53:24 ↗ Do I have a second?

1:53:31 ↗ Is there any discussion? Mr. Chair, I move that we revise condition

1:53:37 ↗ number two to state in the sentence no greater than 10 feet tall

1:53:45 ↗ no less than eight feet tall and then the remainder. Second.

1:53:54 ↗ So now do I need it? I need a motion.

1:54:01 ↗ Okay. Okay. So any discussion? Is there any discussion?

1:54:08 ↗ So all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye.

1:54:15 ↗ Opposed? Okay, thank you.

1:54:24 ↗ Any other discussion?

1:54:31 ↗ So let's, now we'll vote on the main motion. All those in favor of the

1:54:35 ↗ main motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

1:54:41 ↗ Okay unanimous. And then there's a second motion. We're getting there. We're just getting warmed

1:54:47 ↗ up. We'll try this again. Okay.

1:54:54 ↗ You did so well the first time. I don't know about that. These are a

1:54:57 ↗ little confusing tonight. Mr. Chair, I move that the Development Commission direct the Development Services

1:55:03 ↗ Department to prepare the findings of fact which affirm the Development Commission's decision to approve

1:55:08 ↗ the site development permit elementary and Gibson High School, SDP 16-00003.

1:55:17 ↗ Based on the plans, architectural drawings and technical studies submitted between April 15th to April

1:55:22 ↗ 30th of 2016. The staff report dated June 8th, 2016 with attachments

1:55:28 ↗ one through 10. The staff memo dated July 13th, 2016 and edits to conditions

1:55:38 ↗ DELESTION OF CONDITIONS 19 AND 29, IN ADDITION OF CONDITION 32.

1:55:50 ↗ THE STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE STAFF MEMO AS WELL

1:55:54 ↗ AS THE STAFF PRESENTATION TONIGHT SHALL SERVE AS THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

1:55:58 ↗ SECOND.

1:56:04 ↗ ANY DISCUSSION? So would all those in

1:56:10 ↗ favor of that motion signify by saying aye? Aye. Opposed? Motion

1:56:16 ↗ passed. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'd like to add one thing too. I think a

1:56:21 ↗ lot of these proposals we're getting recently, it seems that we're getting input on construction

1:56:26 ↗ hours and conditions and so forth and some offsite items with traffic or

1:56:31 ↗ changes in streets offsite. And I want, I guess, the public to be aware of

1:56:36 ↗ fact that those are the kind of things that we don't control, can't vote on,

1:56:40 ↗ can't change. But hopefully by people speaking up here, the city staff are going to

1:56:46 ↗ hear those things and address them in the way they can. So

1:56:52 ↗ thank you. On that note, hello there. I'm Christopher Wright. I did want to offer

1:56:58 ↗ to you because construction impacts to existing residents is something that you've heard a lot

1:57:03 ↗ recently and it's something that the administration and the city council has been grappling with

1:57:08 ↗ as well. I wanted to offer in an upcoming commission meeting, maybe we could spend

1:57:13 ↗ 10 or so minutes just explaining what the regulations are, what they're going to be,

1:57:18 ↗ just so you understand and so we have a better response when it comes up.

1:57:25 ↗ And let me just add one other point because through the miracle of texting technology,

1:57:30 ↗ I'm able to confirm that development services, that's the department we're all from,

1:57:35 ↗ that's the department to contact, and our main telephone number, 425-837-3100

1:57:44 ↗ would be the number to call if you're observing work outside of the

1:57:49 ↗ allowed hours. Would you repeat that number? Sure, 425-837-3100.

1:57:57 ↗ 1-800, no, 425-837-3100. Great,

1:58:03 ↗ thank you. Yep, thank you. So we'll move ahead

1:58:09 ↗ in our agenda and start our discussion, our public

1:58:14 ↗ hearing on Silverado Public Hearing Development Agreement DA16-00002.

1:58:25 ↗ Mr. Chair. Point of order. I failed to bring any water with me.

1:58:31 ↗ Is there any procedural problem with me going out to the water fountain? Or you

1:58:35 ↗ can take a break for a few minutes. Why don't we, maybe we could all

1:58:39 ↗ stand, it's getting later, why don't we all just take a five minute break? Is

1:58:43 ↗ that acceptable? Let's just take a five minute break.

2:04:00 ↗ Thank you. I first wanted to take this opportunity to officially and formally

2:04:06 ↗ introduce our new, relatively new Director of Development Services, Keith Niven.

2:04:13 ↗ He is new as our Director, but certainly not new to the city. He was

2:04:17 ↗ a manager of the city's major development review team for many years. And then in

2:04:23 ↗ 2012 or so became the economic development director and then as of earlier

2:04:29 ↗ this year became in addition to that the director of development services. And we are

2:04:34 ↗ all very fortunate to have his history and experience and insights.

2:04:40 ↗ And he's not just saying that because he works for me. Moving on

2:04:46 ↗ to what I'm presenting to you this evening is a proposal for a development agreement

2:04:52 ↗ for a clustered plat for Silverado and the development agreement includes

2:04:58 ↗ subdividing a parcel into nine different lots. Six of those parcels would be used for

2:05:04 ↗ duplex units. One parcel would be used for a banquet facility kind of clubhouse.

2:05:10 ↗ Two parcels will be set aside for, and dedicated to the city for affordable

2:05:16 ↗ housing. And then the rest of the parcel is divided up into

2:05:22 ↗ parking areas, and then private road, and most of it will be a native growth

2:05:27 ↗ protection easement that will include a trail system. And the entire parcel is about, a

2:05:33 ↗ little less than 22 acres. I don't know if the Development Commission has

2:05:39 ↗ reviewed a clustered plat development agreement or not,

2:05:45 ↗ and if you have, it's been a really long time, so I will kind of

2:05:49 ↗ walk you through it. But first, to show you where this property is located, this

2:05:55 ↗ is kind of an overall map of the city to show that this particular property

2:05:59 ↗ is kind of in the southwest corner of the city. This is zeroing in a

2:06:05 ↗ little bit, so it's off of SR 900 on the east side of SR 900,

2:06:10 ↗ kind of directly across from the entrance to the Talus development. And

2:06:16 ↗ it's surrounded on three sides by single family development.

2:06:24 ↗ The zoning of the property is what's called single family estate. If this

2:06:30 ↗ property looks familiar to you, it's because a little over a year ago, the Development

2:06:34 ↗ Commission did host a community conference for a proposed assisted

2:06:40 ↗ memory care facility at this site from Silverado. And in order for that project to

2:06:45 ↗ move forward through the site development permit process, it required a code amendment, and that

2:06:51 ↗ code amendment was not approved by the City Council. And so since that time, the

2:06:56 ↗ applicant has been working with the city to find a way to do a similar

2:07:01 ↗ project, but within the confines of the existing codes and regulations. So

2:07:07 ↗ that's what we've been working on since then. And out of those discussions is where

2:07:13 ↗ those zoning interpretations came from that were included in your packet.

2:07:19 ↗ and including the one that I think I emailed it to you yesterday, the most

2:07:24 ↗ recent interpretation that was issued this past week regarding the use of the site as

2:07:29 ↗ it relates to assisted care. And I bring that up just because it is

2:07:35 ↗ an issue that's related to this site, but as I pointed out in the email,

2:07:41 ↗ the discussion and interpretations of the allowed uses there is of independent and

2:07:46 ↗ separate from what is before you tonight, the development agreement. The development agreement is

2:07:53 ↗ basically for the creation of the lots and the clustering of the units. And I'll

2:07:58 ↗ talk more about that in a minute. So first of

2:08:04 ↗ all, what is a clustered development? This is the official definition, there are many words

2:08:09 ↗ there, but I'll basically just say it's an option for large parcels in any single

2:08:15 ↗ family zone to basically create lots and

2:08:21 ↗ houses that are closer together, sometimes attached, oftentimes on lots

2:08:27 ↗ that are smaller than the minimum lot size in that zone, but they must maintain

2:08:34 ↗ and fall below the maximum allowed density in that zone, but by basically putting things

2:08:39 ↗ closer together, then it preserves a greater amount of open space on

2:08:45 ↗ the lot that is set aside as permanent open space, and that's what is being

2:08:49 ↗ proposed here. Mr. Chair, can I ask a question Christopher, I read this in the

2:08:54 ↗ packet where the first sentence, a development design technique that concentrates buildings to housing.

2:09:04 ↗ Is there a word missing? Is that what your question? Hey, you know, I didn't

2:09:07 ↗ write the code. I just copied and pasted it. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it concentrates the

2:09:13 ↗ structures, the houses closer together. Okay. We need a typo for the code. Yeah.

2:09:26 ↗ Sorry, what should it read? I noticed that too.

2:09:35 ↗ Yeah, the structure of the housing in specific areas. I

2:09:40 ↗ think you could get rid of the housing. If it's just read a development design

2:09:45 ↗ technique that concentrates buildings in specific areas on site,

2:09:52 ↗ I'm not sure you need both buildings and housing, I think you could use one

2:09:56 ↗ or the other. Right, yeah. Or you could just take the S off building. Or

2:10:00 ↗ dwellings. Just say it concentrates building housing in specific areas. Concentrate dwellings.

2:10:07 ↗ Rather than buildings and housing, just say dwellings. Well, I don't know that it's our

2:10:11 ↗ job to do it here, but the fact is. It's a good thing Keith is

2:10:14 ↗ here so he can direct our policy planners and straighten that out. Christopher, the fact

2:10:19 ↗ is that it's unclear. Yeah. So it, it kind of puts the whole thing in

2:10:24 ↗ question because if that's what we're basing this evening's proceedings on and it's not clear

2:10:29 ↗ or it's got grammatical errors and something as fundamental as that, I think that needs

2:10:34 ↗ to be addressed. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I think we all

2:10:40 ↗ understand what it's saying. It's not, grammatically it's not correct. Yeah,

2:10:47 ↗ and I would also say that what you're viewing tonight is parcels

2:10:52 ↗ basically so the creation of the lot lines and we're not looking at structures

2:10:58 ↗ as part of the development agreement anyway right yeah I think we can move ahead

2:11:04 ↗ tonight with that in mind Okay, and

2:11:10 ↗ this next slide actually describes in a little bit more detail what the purpose of

2:11:14 ↗ allowing clustering is. And again, it's to allow the property owner of a large

2:11:20 ↗ parcel to achieve maximum density, the maximum number of units that are allowed on the

2:11:25 ↗ site, but again, putting them closer together so that more critical areas can

2:11:31 ↗ be preserved. Again, as a result of that, you have more common usable open space

2:11:37 ↗ and preserve more of a contiguous forest area.

2:11:43 ↗ It also affords an opportunity for more affordable housing. And just again,

2:11:49 ↗ by putting the structures closer together, it's more efficient as far as

2:11:54 ↗ providing for sewer and water and all of the infrastructure and streets as well,

2:12:00 ↗ rather than spreading it out across the lot. As I

2:12:06 ↗ mentioned, for larger parcels that are greater than five acres, if a clustered plat is

2:12:12 ↗ what is being proposed, it does require a development agreement. And that is what we're

2:12:17 ↗ reviewing this evening, is the proposed development agreement. And I also say at this point,

2:12:23 ↗ with regard to process, I'd point out that the development commission tonight is not

2:12:29 ↗ making the decision final decision on the development agreement in fact what you are doing

2:12:35 ↗ is making a recommendation to the city council so it's the city council that's the

2:12:40 ↗ final decision maker on the development agreement but what we're looking for tonight is a

2:12:45 ↗ recommendation and as you see here these are the components that are

2:12:51 ↗ included in a development agreement including a project description and conceptual site plan which you

2:12:57 ↗ have those should include showing the open space that'll

2:13:03 ↗ be preserved, show the layout of the lots, you know, on kind of a high

2:13:08 ↗ level, show that the infrastructures and roads and everything will be able to be addressed.

2:13:19 ↗ Which brings me to the site plan, because as you know, the actual narrative, the

2:13:24 ↗ actual written development agreement draft was included in, in your packet,

2:13:31 ↗ but I think it's more important just to briefly show you the site plan itself.

2:13:37 ↗ And again, the details of this will be worked out in the next step. So

2:13:44 ↗ this is kind of the first step in this course. process again you'll make your

2:13:50 ↗ recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement the City Council will make their

2:13:54 ↗ decision on the development agreement and then the applicant will need to submit their formal

2:13:59 ↗ preliminary plat application and that will go through that will be the more detailed review

2:14:05 ↗ of the subdivision that will then go to the city's hearing examiner through a public

2:14:10 ↗ hearing process and then after that there's a final plot process so There's many

2:14:16 ↗ steps after this. But just to kind of show you the proposed site

2:14:22 ↗ plan that's associated with the development agreement, as you see, the white part is basically

2:14:28 ↗ the developable area of the site and the Tibbets Quarantine

2:14:35 ↗ bisects the site kind of right down the middle. And this, if you throw it

2:14:39 ↗ off by the orientation, the orientation of this site plan is a little off

2:14:45 ↗ actually, because it's north is to the left. So this is SR 900 at the

2:14:50 ↗ bottom, and as you know, that goes north-south. So just to kind of orient you.

2:14:55 ↗ But as you see, the lots are kind of clustered around the flat front buildable

2:15:01 ↗ portion of the site that's outside of the critical areas and buffers. The exception to

2:15:06 ↗ that is the two lots that will be dedicated to the city for affordable housing

2:15:12 ↗ are actually across the creek. And then as you say, the shaded area

2:15:18 ↗ is what would be set aside as permanent open space. With the exception of,

2:15:24 ↗ you'll see one of the recommended conditions in my staff report includes a trail connection,

2:15:30 ↗ because there is a regional trail that runs along what is the eastern

2:15:36 ↗ boundary of the site. Parts of it are in the county, parts of it are

2:15:40 ↗ in the city, and so the cities, Parks Department and the King County Parks Department

2:15:45 ↗ want to make sure that the applicants work with us to find the most appropriate

2:15:49 ↗ location for that trail through the open space. So again, as I said, the

2:15:55 ↗ details of that, along with the details of the bridge location that crosses

2:16:01 ↗ the creek, those will all be addressed with the more detailed preliminary plat application.

2:16:07 ↗ We wanted to make sure they were shown on here so that we'd know they

2:16:11 ↗ need to be addressed.

2:16:18 ↗ And as I said, there are just three conditions that are recommended. We are recommending

2:16:24 ↗ that you recommend approval of the development agreement. The conditions are, the

2:16:30 ↗ first one is just related to the SEPA mitigated determination of non-significance. There was one

2:16:36 ↗ issued for this development agreement. There was not a whole lot in it other than

2:16:40 ↗ acknowledging the fact that with the more detailed preliminary plat application, when we have more

2:16:46 ↗ detailed information, we will issue a more detailed

2:16:52 ↗ determination on SEPA. The second condition is

2:16:57 ↗ kind of the standard code language that will ensure that the native growth protection easement

2:17:02 ↗ will be set aside and preserved. And then as I mentioned, the third condition is

2:17:08 ↗ just ensuring that the applicants will work with the city on determining the most appropriate

2:17:13 ↗ location for a trail easement through the buildable portion of the lot and then

2:17:19 ↗ also through the NGPE. And that concludes my presentation.

2:17:25 ↗ Thank you, does applicant have a presentation, choose to make some comments?

2:17:38 ↗ Good evening, thank you for having us out another year later and

2:17:44 ↗ very much appreciate you approving previous plan, we hope to get to the same place

2:17:49 ↗ with this plan. My name's Paul Mullen. My latest residence is at 4400

2:17:55 ↗ Columbine Drive in Bellingham, Washington where we're opening a new community for 81

2:18:01 ↗ seniors in November. So that's one of our corporate

2:18:07 ↗ addresses. Our corporate headquarters is at 6400 Oak Canyon in Irvine, California.

2:18:14 ↗ We're very grateful to be here in the city of Issaquah. Our original intent was

2:18:20 ↗ to build senior housing for the citizens of

2:18:26 ↗ Issaquah. At this point, we're working with the owner, John Stefani, who's here tonight with

2:18:31 ↗ me to map the property for housing, and maybe that's where the housing is applicable

2:18:37 ↗ on the code. We like to provide housing whether it's for seniors for

2:18:43 ↗ market rate or affordable housing as we pointed out on the map or just for

2:18:48 ↗ residents here in Issaquah. So that's really the intent of me being here tonight. I'm

2:18:54 ↗ happy to answer any questions. I did want to bring up some points that Christopher

2:18:59 ↗ addressed and we did also receive the letter from King County to provide

2:19:06 ↗ a trailhead on the road side of the property for the Cedar River to Lake

2:19:11 ↗ Sammamish Trail we agree that makes a ton of sense to us how that actually

2:19:15 ↗ gets done because it's wetlands we'll have to figure out with the county and with

2:19:20 ↗ the trail system but it absolutely could be done what I'm excited about is possibly

2:19:25 ↗ the old horse trail also being connected through this property at the top which has

2:19:29 ↗ been I know somewhat contentious but why not allow it especially if the

2:19:34 ↗ Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Trail is through the property so we're all in favor

2:19:40 ↗ of that and would welcome that condition I'd like to also point out with the

2:19:45 ↗ cluster housing development I think Christopher and the code bring up a very important point

2:19:50 ↗ 95% of the native growth trees on this property will be preserved

2:19:56 ↗ so really you have a hillside of timber that is preserved with this plan There

2:20:01 ↗ is the opportunity for other developers to build the entire hillside if it were allowed

2:20:06 ↗ or it is entitled It could be proposed our proposal really is for

2:20:12 ↗ seven duplex lots on the state route 900 side of Tibbetts Creek And and

2:20:18 ↗ if the opportunity arose where the city would want to provide market rate or affordable

2:20:23 ↗ housing here in Issaquah seems to be anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000

2:20:30 ↗ home values, we'd certainly welcome that as well, but we're not necessarily proposing that tonight.

2:20:35 ↗ We're offering it as part of the development agreement. But our real intent is to

2:20:40 ↗ stay as far away from Tibbetts Creek and the natural habitat of the salmon that

2:20:45 ↗ spawn in that stream and create this clustered housing development that doesn't

2:20:50 ↗ impact the hillside and the native timber. There are two native growth trees on the

2:20:56 ↗ property that would be impacted, but our intent is to leave the other 95% of

2:21:02 ↗ the trees alone. So I wanted to just address that.

2:21:09 ↗ The other point I wanted to make about the housing that we hope to build,

2:21:13 ↗ whether it's with Silverado Development or with another development partner, and John Stefani, the owner,

2:21:19 ↗ is that Timber Ridge is obviously right across the street from state route, Ed

2:21:25 ↗ Kinney is the CEO of the company that operates Timber Ridge. It has hundreds of

2:21:30 ↗ independent living and assisted living and skilled nursing units on that hillside. Ed is a

2:21:36 ↗ big supporter and friend of Silverado and believes that there should be more senior housing

2:21:42 ↗ available whether it's adult family home, memory care, assisted living, whatever it might be.

2:21:48 ↗ So we have his absolute support and be happy to provide of support from him

2:21:53 ↗ to the commission if needed. And that's basically

2:21:59 ↗ everything I had to say about the plan. I'm happy really more to be here

2:22:03 ↗ to answer any questions that you might have about the plan. Thank you. Do we

2:22:07 ↗ have,

2:22:18 ↗ members of the public that would like to make some comments. I don't see any

2:22:22 ↗ sign up sheets.

2:22:28 ↗ If you will just give your name and address for the record when you get

2:22:32 ↗ to the microphone. We'll see if we can make that happen.

2:22:40 ↗ David Kappler, 255 Southeast Andrews Street. First a question. This is not a quasi-judicial issue,

2:22:46 ↗ this is a legislative issue, is that right? Development agreement?

2:22:54 ↗ So yes, we're treating it as a legislative item. Which just means that

2:23:00 ↗ we can lobby the mayor, we can lobby the city council and talk to people

2:23:05 ↗ outside of whatever. But just to be clear, will be quasi-traditional when we

2:23:11 ↗ get further in the process.

2:23:17 ↗ The two, the low income lots, the lots proposed for low income, I don't really

2:23:21 ↗ think are reasonable. I mean if you're just gonna

2:23:27 ↗ build houses and sell them at a somewhat reduced price or something, but the location

2:23:33 ↗ is very remote from transportation, in terms of public transportation.

2:23:42 ↗ And you got the bridge across the creek, which has got a lot of little

2:23:47 ↗ salmon in it, I can attest to that as of today. And

2:23:53 ↗ there's other critical area issues there with the creek.

2:23:59 ↗ And then the cost of, I'm not sure how you get a sewer over there

2:24:04 ↗ to deal with the sewer. And it's pretty, a lot of wet ground over there,

2:24:08 ↗ trying to do on-site septic could be a challenge. I don't see that as being

2:24:13 ↗ an advantage that that offer is there. But that's

2:24:19 ↗ that. Trails, this business of

2:24:24 ↗ connecting it actually to 900, Ren-Niziqua Road, Sunset Highway,

2:24:32 ↗ up the east-west connection is really great. That would really be beneficial. And then the

2:24:38 ↗ north-south, The missing parcel up there at the top

2:24:44 ↗ left is already King County. I wanna extend that through there. And actually

2:24:50 ↗ from that point all the way to the city's Tibbetts Valley Park is public in

2:24:56 ↗ either city or county park. The origin and history on

2:25:02 ↗ the Sammamish Cedar River Trail is almost as old as the

2:25:08 ↗ East Lake Sammamish Trail. They were both dreamed about a long time ago. We just

2:25:13 ↗ didn't have a current railroad connection from here to

2:25:19 ↗ the Cedar River to make it a lot more viable. We do have a lot

2:25:23 ↗ of Puget Sound Energy corridor through there that goes back to the 1890s and the

2:25:28 ↗ original AC generating plant at Snoqualmie Falls that completely changed

2:25:34 ↗ generation of electricity in the country. So we do have some of that corridor through

2:25:39 ↗ there and the county has bought a lot of property and is planning to buy

2:25:42 ↗ more through that corridor. But from May Valley to the Cedar is a whole nother

2:25:47 ↗ problem. But it is really a viable connection there and it would be

2:25:53 ↗ a great trail for people walking from Taliesin stuff instead of on 900 being and

2:25:58 ↗ going up there and walking that trail to Tibbets or something. Not like they're gonna

2:26:02 ↗ do that. It's definitely be a longer walk, admittedly. But it's also got, it's very

2:26:08 ↗ close as you go south to existing property that the city acquired from

2:26:14 ↗ the Talus developers and then it connects to 700 acres of King

2:26:19 ↗ County property as well as 2000 some acres of Squawk. Interpretations.

2:26:33 ↗ For this site, this kind of a situation, I think,

2:26:40 ↗ can make a lot of sense in the quality of that open space or the

2:26:44 ↗ creek through that corridor and the hillside above the creek,

2:26:50 ↗ east of the creek is really something and to be able to get that much

2:26:55 ↗ preserved open space and to get potential east-west trail connection, north-south trail connection,

2:27:04 ↗ are significant, so thank you.

2:27:25 ↗ My name is Mary Lynch and I reside at 2690 Northwest Oakcrest Drive, Essequel, Washington.

2:27:31 ↗ I'd just like to piggyback on saying that I'm a little bit concerned with the

2:27:37 ↗ affordable housing being on the other side of the creek and deeded without any time

2:27:43 ↗ constraints on when that would be done. My concern is again putting another bridge across

2:27:48 ↗ Tibbets Creek and endangering what we started there and the

2:27:54 ↗ rehabilitation of Tibbets and also the flooding of that area.

2:28:01 ↗ As David pointed out, it is a long way from any sort of regional or

2:28:06 ↗ local transportation. So if you go back out to S900, you've got cars that are

2:28:11 ↗ going 40 to 60 miles an hour along that road. So the only viable pedestrian

2:28:17 ↗ access is on the other side of the road. And yes, there is a stoplight

2:28:22 ↗ there. I don't know how many times I've seen people run the red light coming

2:28:27 ↗ especially into town, going well over the speed limit. So

2:28:33 ↗ without some sort of pedestrian improvements on that area to cross the

2:28:39 ↗ street, a major concern. If it does become a senior housing or someplace where you've

2:28:44 ↗ got service people that have to walk there because of their livelihood, they can only

2:28:49 ↗ take a bus, you're gonna have people that are having to walk from the transit

2:28:54 ↗ station, just like it's my concern with what's happening at Talos now with all

2:29:00 ↗ the stuff that's going in there is you've got service people who are not gonna

2:29:03 ↗ be able to afford to drive, a lot of them, so they're gonna have to

2:29:06 ↗ walk at all times of the night along S-900 on that one side. They can

2:29:12 ↗ at least hang a right and go up the hill. Anybody that's going to have

2:29:15 ↗ to work here is going to have to try and cross that busy street at

2:29:21 ↗ 40 miles an hour plus and it's gonna be very dangerous. So although I believe

2:29:26 ↗ in cluster housing, I'd also like to point out if you look at the access

2:29:30 ↗ for that road back there, it would mean you're gonna give up two to five

2:29:35 ↗ probably parking stalls that right now they're including as part of their coverage.

2:29:41 ↗ So that's not been well defined. So if it goes forward, those things need to

2:29:45 ↗ come out, need to clearly say who's gonna do the affordable housing it's going to

2:29:50 ↗ be there. I really think it should be some other place closer to the road.

2:29:55 ↗ But those are questions that need to be addressed and cleared up.

2:30:15 ↗ My name is Connie Marsh. store at 1175 Northwest Gilman Boulevard, Suite

2:30:21 ↗ B11, and I was at home relaxing, watching you all on TV and saw this

2:30:27 ↗ come up and heard the language beginning and had to come down. So imagine how

2:30:31 ↗ happy that made me. So in a cluster housing development agreement, the

2:30:37 ↗ use is required to be an allowable use. Right now the use that they had

2:30:43 ↗ proposed is not an allowable use via the interpretation, which then sends

2:30:49 ↗ me down the rabbit hole of what is this now

2:30:55 ↗ if the interpretation is indicating that they don't have an allowable use. We now have

2:31:00 ↗ a few houses with a clubhouse. So what exactly is that and

2:31:06 ↗ who would build that? is that even a legitimate use for cluster housing

2:31:13 ↗ that somebody would do? So it does not seem

2:31:19 ↗ very realistic that this proposal is being put forth

2:31:24 ↗ without the use that they had already considered, which would be the

2:31:30 ↗ use that's not allowed. So that put me in my circle.

2:31:39 ↗ I disagree. Then you want to put affordable housing in a place where

2:31:45 ↗ the affordable housing people are required to build a bridge across the Salmonid Bering stream

2:31:50 ↗ in order to be built, which we're just building a bridge for what a minimum

2:31:56 ↗ amount of 500,000 well it's a million something but say minimum amount of $500,000

2:32:02 ↗ just to build the bridge. Well I think you aren't going to get any affordable

2:32:06 ↗ housing out of that. you actually have to build the houses too. So I

2:32:12 ↗ believe that's a specious place to put affordable housing and is

2:32:18 ↗ ill considered and again not based in reality. So,

2:32:25 ↗ so far I'm in the rabbit hole twice and I'm pretty sure the next door

2:32:30 ↗ neighbor is gonna put his tailpipe down the rabbit hole and turn on his car

2:32:34 ↗ pretty soon, but Now, I'm going to be a little

2:32:40 ↗ bit generous and start talking about the trail linkages

2:32:47 ↗ because who doesn't want a trail down that side of the creek that has been

2:32:50 ↗ allowed for a long time? But I'm also realizing that we don't really have anything

2:32:55 ↗ in our city plans that actually link that trail to anything in particular.

2:33:01 ↗ It doesn't go through Tippetts Valley Park. So

2:33:07 ↗ even if we have a trail, what in the rest of the city plans have

2:33:11 ↗ made that trail turn into something that would work? And so we have a

2:33:17 ↗ trail that ends nowhere, which I'm not really in the rabbit hole again,

2:33:23 ↗ but I'm sort of circling the rabbit hole in that situation. So

2:33:31 ↗ if I, oh, I do have one more thing. See all that parking? Now we

2:33:36 ↗ have all that parking for a clubhouse for very few houses. So

2:33:42 ↗ what exactly is the use of this clubhouse? And if we go to my rabbit

2:33:47 ↗ hole, which is the use has to be an allowed use within the development,

2:33:53 ↗ within the code for that zone, we don't know what that use is. So if

2:33:58 ↗ we're looking at this as cluster housing, I would just say we don't have

2:34:03 ↗ enough information to put this forth. Christopher was indicating that the

2:34:09 ↗ interpretation is extraneous. That may be, but the use is

2:34:15 ↗ pertinent for any cluster housing because it is required to be allowed in the zone.

2:34:22 ↗ They have not provided exactly what this use would be. They say a clubhouse.

2:34:29 ↗ Now, because I was watching, I'm going to give you two things from your prior

2:34:36 ↗ because I can because I'm at the microphone. Providing the

2:34:42 ↗ DSD phone number for after hours work does not work because DSD is

2:34:47 ↗ closed and it usually happens on weekends. after hours when most of DSD

2:34:54 ↗ has gone home or they don't answer the phone. So I have often looked at

2:34:58 ↗ Atlas who is working on a Sunday and said wow who do I call? The

2:35:03 ↗ police I guess for stop work that seems like a pain but even if it

2:35:08 ↗ is a Saturday where there is potential could there not be a place on the

2:35:12 ↗ website indicating that they actually have Saturday hours that the public could actually access so

2:35:18 ↗ that they would know what to do. And one little last bit is the crosswalk

2:35:22 ↗ on Front Street is making people walk in the middle of the road during construction,

2:35:26 ↗ which is another one of those construction concerns. We're after hours, so who do we

2:35:31 ↗ call? So I'm standing in front of the microphone and I'm announcing it because one

2:35:36 ↗ of the members said that if we say it out loud, then it might get

2:35:39 ↗ resolved. Now circling back to this, I would say we don't have enough information as

2:35:47 ↗ what this is or how it functions and so we would like to see a

2:35:51 ↗ delay on this cluster housing development until we have more complete information as to what

2:35:56 ↗ is actually happening. Thanks.

2:36:02 ↗ Other comments from the public? So I'll close

2:36:08 ↗ the public comment period and ask the commissioners if they have questions. Yes sir.

2:36:18 ↗ Mr. Frye, I have some questions for you regarding the background for this. I

2:36:24 ↗ looked at the city website today and specifically looked for green necklaces,

2:36:30 ↗ the definition of that, the map showing it and so on. And it didn't appear

2:36:36 ↗ to me from what's on the website, which is kind of an echo of what

2:36:39 ↗ one of the members of the public said, that there's any connection at all

2:36:45 ↗ into the green necklaces from this site. So that's question number one. Is there

2:36:52 ↗ even a conceptual connection east? Not directly. I mean,

2:36:58 ↗ north to Tibbetts Valley Park, eventually. And

2:37:04 ↗ that's kind of on the outskirts of central Issaquah where the green necklace is really

2:37:07 ↗ conceived. Okay. So part of the reason this isn't part of our trail

2:37:13 ↗ planning is because this is private property, right? And so there really wasn't the ability

2:37:19 ↗ to put that public corridor as David mentioned. There wasn't a big right away that

2:37:25 ↗ we could say hey this is a great trail corridor, let's go ahead and put

2:37:27 ↗ it on our maps. When things like this happen, when development starts to establish trail

2:37:33 ↗ opportunities, that's when staff and the community start saying, how do you

2:37:39 ↗ now link this to other trails because that's the real value of trails is to

2:37:44 ↗ link them to other trails and actually allow people to go somewhere and get somewhere,

2:37:47 ↗ right? So I think that would be a to-do that might come out of it

2:37:52 ↗ if this project moved forward. Well, all right, so that leads me to my next

2:37:56 ↗ question, which is whether or not there is any conceptual possibility

2:38:03 ↗ of the acquisition by King County or the city of

2:38:08 ↗ those sections of this property that had talked about affordable housing

2:38:15 ↗ to compensate the property owner, but to add that to

2:38:23 ↗ the publicly held land there. Through a partnership with Forterra or

2:38:29 ↗ some entity like that that's been very active in working out agreements like the Nature

2:38:33 ↗ Conservancy does on a larger scale. So if I understood your question right,

2:38:40 ↗ it was actually had two components to it. One was, can we add to the

2:38:46 ↗ trail system, but it was also at the potential removal of the affordable housing? Well,

2:38:52 ↗ so the question is, is there, even a theoretical connection at this point. It wasn't

2:38:58 ↗ obvious on the city map of the green necklaces and the existing parks. And

2:39:04 ↗ also, I couldn't find anything later than last year as an update. It was the

2:39:09 ↗ last thing that had a 2015 date on it.

2:39:15 ↗ This is such a great opportunity with the trails here. When I looked at it,

2:39:19 ↗ when I looked at the packet, I just wondered if there was any possibility that

2:39:24 ↗ it could be connected through some kind of cooperative effort to

2:39:30 ↗ what the city's already got on plan. So the city is,

2:39:37 ↗ as a new park director coming in two weeks. And part of what's on the

2:39:42 ↗ parks department's work program, which will probably, my guess is, he's gotta get his

2:39:48 ↗ feet underneath him and kind of move along, but there's a parks recreation open space

2:39:54 ↗ and trails plan number two that is going to be one of the most important

2:40:00 ↗ things one of the major work products of our parks department probably in 2017. And

2:40:06 ↗ so part of that, if now we have a new basically asset that's maybe orphaned

2:40:11 ↗ out here, my expectation is that's when public agencies like the city and

2:40:17 ↗ King County would start looking at how do we make land acquisitions to link

2:40:23 ↗ that up with other things. Now, obviously we try and cooperate with private property owners.

2:40:29 ↗ And so, you know, I don't know that anybody knows enough about this area. David

2:40:35 ↗ probably knows the most sitting in this room. I don't know enough to know what

2:40:39 ↗ the likelihood is of us actually successful in connecting this up. So

2:40:45 ↗ it would be definitely something we'd have to try and figure out. Okay, well that's,

2:40:48 ↗ you emphasized earlier on that there's a whole lot more to go, this is essentially

2:40:53 ↗ a restart point for this whole project. So it just seems to me that this

2:40:57 ↗ is an opportunity to look at that. The other question that I had, and

2:41:03 ↗ I haven't looked at this property because I understand we're not supposed to do that.

2:41:06 ↗ So I haven't actually gone out there and walked it. But there is such an

2:41:10 ↗ emphasis on the amount of money and time and effort that the county and the

2:41:14 ↗ city and the state, frankly, have already put in place to reintroduce

2:41:20 ↗ Kokanee and to reinvigorate the coho run on Tibbets Creek. And

2:41:26 ↗ it does seem that the prospect of building, I mean there's an emphasis in the

2:41:32 ↗ packet material about the amount of land that's being protected permanently

2:41:38 ↗ by this proposal. But then you've got to build a road across there to the

2:41:43 ↗ affordable housing sections which would include a bridge over Tibbetts Creek which

2:41:49 ↗ frankly seems to be kind of problematic in terms of the environmental impact of that.

2:41:55 ↗ anything like this would have to have the complete cooperation of the property owner. But

2:42:01 ↗ I just, let me stop right there. What is the nature of the zoning or

2:42:06 ↗ the ownership of the land on the other side of the affordable housing

2:42:12 ↗ lot? The other side like that's hatched? Yeah, what is that? So that's all

2:42:18 ↗ part of this property right now. Okay, no, if I'm looking at this, you emphasized

2:42:23 ↗ earlier that State Road 900 runs? North and south. East, west, right?

2:42:29 ↗ North, south. North, south. So north of this property? So we're looking at the north

2:42:34 ↗ of the property, right? Okay, where that racetrack thing is there?

2:42:39 ↗ Yes. What is that? Wetlands. I'm sorry, what? Wetlands.

2:42:45 ↗ Okay, so that's all the property there that is in this, and that's gonna be

2:42:50 ↗ dedicated, right? Yes. It's gonna be protected. So the trail is gonna run through that.

2:42:55 ↗ Just just or at least conceptual I can jump in a lot of good thoughts

2:42:59 ↗ and questions There is no plan as of now to build a bridge There's no

2:43:05 ↗ plan as of now to do affordable housing that property needed to the city to

2:43:10 ↗ decide whether or not they wanted to do affordable housing I personally believe the

2:43:16 ↗ idea of a trail where that property is makes a lot of sense to me

2:43:21 ↗ to get to that property you probably need at least a footbridge and wouldn't necessarily

2:43:26 ↗ know, but the civil engineers we've employed quoted more along the lines of $100,000

2:43:32 ↗ rather than $500,000 to build that bridge. The Army Corps of Engineers would absolutely be

2:43:38 ↗ involved. It would take about a year or two to figure that out. But it's

2:43:42 ↗ not impossible and would be part of a trail system if that were to be

2:43:48 ↗ figured out. But right now, we have no plans other than part of the development

2:43:52 ↗ agreement, we were asked to provide some ideas around affordable. And so that's more or

2:43:58 ↗ less a placeholder for that. We're not dedicated to having that particular spot being affordable,

2:44:05 ↗ but we wanted to at least conceptualize, hey, these are lots the city could use

2:44:09 ↗ if needed for affordable. So to address my final question is to address the issue

2:44:15 ↗ that was raised by a member of the public is sewer of the

2:44:21 ↗ consideration at this point? The extension of provision of sewer service. Go ahead, Keith, sorry.

2:44:26 ↗ So just to put this into perspective, so the idea here is those two lots

2:44:32 ↗ would be created with the plat and they would be deeded to the city at

2:44:35 ↗ no charge. Okay, so we're talking about if the city, and this is a

2:44:40 ↗ conversation that ultimately would happen with the city council because part of a cluster development

2:44:46 ↗ agreement or not grammatically spelled out in the city code is to consider affordable housing,

2:44:52 ↗ right? So part of this proposal is to create two affordable housing lots

2:44:58 ↗ on that side of Tibbetts Creek. So what you would do, so now I've got

2:45:03 ↗ my development hat on. What you would do is you would the bridge in and

2:45:08 ↗ the bridge is like, so it's like a driveway basically. It's not, don't think of

2:45:12 ↗ like city road with sidewalks and street trees. Think 12 foot wide basically drivable

2:45:18 ↗ surface with rails on the side that keeps a car from going in. Would it

2:45:22 ↗ be like the one at Squawk Mountain Nursery that goes over the creek? Is that

2:45:26 ↗ what you're talking about? It's been a while since I've been at Squawk. It's basically

2:45:31 ↗ like what the city just permitted at Confluence Park, which is going to allow city

2:45:37 ↗ trucks to go across it, but it's not going to have the dragonflies and all

2:45:41 ↗ the other art that's incorporated into that structure. So these things, they

2:45:47 ↗ are allowed. We would likely hang the sewer and water pipes under the bridge.

2:45:53 ↗ So what would happen is those wet utilities would cross the creek under the bridge

2:45:57 ↗ deck. and service those two lots. So as you think about it, you've got two

2:46:02 ↗ lots, they could be two duplexes that could be Habitat for Humanity lots, and you're

2:46:08 ↗ paying the sole cost of the improvement of those lots is the infrastructure to

2:46:14 ↗ get there. So whatever the bridge cost is, whatever it costs to hang two pipes

2:46:18 ↗ under the bridge, then you split that cost by potentially four units, and what I

2:46:23 ↗ can tell you is that's a deal, and that is affordable, and we could easily

2:46:27 ↗ get affordable housing there. Now, what I would then say is there is a conversation

2:46:33 ↗ to be had with the city council about is that what they want? Or do

2:46:37 ↗ they want to leave it undeveloped and as a trail and whatever else. That's a

2:46:41 ↗ conversation that I think they get to have. You guys get to make a recommendation,

2:46:45 ↗ but at the end of the day that's part of their decision on this development

2:46:48 ↗ agreement is what's more important to the community. More affordable housing, which we all know

2:46:52 ↗ we're not getting enough of, we'll never get enough of, or keeping another, and I

2:46:57 ↗ don't even know what's the square footage of those two lots, keeping another whatever that

2:47:01 ↗ is in forested open space. I mean that's a great question. That's the ultimate question.

2:47:09 ↗ Thank you. Can I go ahead? Yes, Kevin. I had questions

2:47:14 ↗ surrounding density. Can you help me understand that? I'm not sure if I asked this

2:47:19 ↗ to staff or the applicant. It says there's a maximum of 24 units

2:47:25 ↗ allowed and 14 are being applied for. There is the potential that could

2:47:31 ↗ almost double to the 24? as time goes on, they could continue to develop these

2:47:37 ↗ lots to add additional units, or will they always be duplexes, two per

2:47:43 ↗ parcel, I assume? If this development agreement is approved and goes through the planning process,

2:47:48 ↗ then there would be no possibility of developing that back portion in the future. Where

2:47:54 ↗ the number came from, the 24 units, is calculation based on, so in the single

2:48:00 ↗ family estates zone, it allows 1.24 dwelling units per

2:48:05 ↗ acre, but applicants don't get the full credit for areas that are critical

2:48:11 ↗ areas and buffers. So there's kind of a big calculation in a sliding scale based

2:48:16 ↗ on how much of that lot is critical areas and buffers, and that's how we

2:48:20 ↗ come up with the number of units. It won't exceed that. And then in my

2:48:26 ↗ understanding that each of these parcels is approximately two acres. Is that

2:48:30 ↗ true? No, these are really small lots. They're really small. Yeah, like seven to. I'm

2:48:36 ↗ having trouble. Sorry, that is in the code though. It basically calls out that you

2:48:41 ↗ need two acres to do this. We have 22 acres. So these lots are all

2:48:46 ↗ of five, 10, I think the max was 11,000 square feet on these lots.

2:48:53 ↗ 7,000 is on average, so no, not two acre lots. It's really a clustered dense,

2:48:59 ↗ nice town home kind of development. It hasn't, like we had mentioned earlier, nobody's really

2:49:04 ↗ gotten to the point of identifying the actual building or structure, but the pads themselves

2:49:10 ↗ aren't much more than 7,000 on average. Clustered densely, so you're not impacting

2:49:16 ↗ the 95% of the trees on the hillside. And then I guess lastly, I'm confused

2:49:20 ↗ about this clubhouse. where it occurs and is that

2:49:26 ↗ use indeed not permitted? The code does allow what's called,

2:49:32 ↗ I use the term in the staff report, a banquet reception meeting facility.

2:49:39 ↗ Okay. Yeah, the idea really there is to provide amenities for the folks living

2:49:45 ↗ there and that is right at the head of, sorry I know this isn't working

2:49:50 ↗ on TV, But that is the clubhouse lot. So it was an

2:49:55 ↗ amenity lot. There is Tibbetts Creek Manor, which is also banquet hall in the same

2:50:00 ↗ zoning. Think of it that way. Rotary Club has meetings there. Right. That type of

2:50:05 ↗ thing. So there's no reason to reasonably think if this is senior housing that

2:50:12 ↗ somehow that turns into a pub. You know, the use isn't going to change. And

2:50:16 ↗ it's not necessarily going to be senior housing. Yeah, sure. And it's accessory to these

2:50:21 ↗ and it's. Right. Okay. I got it. But it's a, the banquet hall, it's a

2:50:27 ↗ dining hall, right? It's intended for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the residents of the

2:50:31 ↗ memory care facility. Under the code, it's called a banquet hall. I always think of

2:50:37 ↗ Tibbetts Creek Manor. I'm sorry, but that is kind of the banquet hall there, two

2:50:41 ↗ doors down. As of right now, it would be an amenity facility.

2:50:47 ↗ Nobody's figured out the interior of it. Memory care was the option that was approved

2:50:52 ↗ last time we were here under the Planning Commission. That's not necessarily what we're saying

2:50:56 ↗ tonight. Tonight we're saying, count these as housing lots. It could be age

2:51:02 ↗ restricted. It could be under the code. It could be adult family homes,

2:51:08 ↗ which we may very well build, which are similar to senior housing. So from a

2:51:13 ↗ clarification standpoint, this gets back to, I think, the thing that was making Ms. Marshall

2:51:18 ↗ a little crazy. So what they're asking for is they're asking for, is it 10

2:51:24 ↗ lots or is it nine? There's seven lots here and two on the other side.

2:51:29 ↗ I'm gonna call it nine. So they're asking for a nine lot clustered subdivision, okay?

2:51:34 ↗ And part of that would basically say, unless you guys were to specifically say

2:51:40 ↗ it has to be a certain use. Right now there's uses that are allowed within

2:51:44 ↗ the code or the SFV zone. And they include, you know, it could be a

2:51:50 ↗ single family house, it could be a duplex. You know, since they're trying to line

2:51:54 ↗ up a builder, I think they would appreciate some flexibility and not be pigeonholed in.

2:51:59 ↗ So this conversation about a clubhouse, clubhouses are allowed and they could ultimately build that

2:52:04 ↗ there. But if you guys don't specifically say it has to have a clubhouse, then

2:52:10 ↗ they could use that lot for another duplex potentially, or just a single family house.

2:52:15 ↗ You know, whatever the market bears, the highest return for is where they're headed right

2:52:19 ↗ now is to try and say, hey, look, we wanted to do assisted living here

2:52:25 ↗ unless something happens and that changes. This is going to be just a nine lot

2:52:31 ↗ subdivision which might have a clubhouse and might have two affordable housing lots

2:52:37 ↗ associated with it depending on what the city council does. Okay. So can I wait?

2:52:44 ↗ So this gets a little bit confusing because under what's being

2:52:49 ↗ proposed here without the actual use being well defined, and then we have the associated

2:52:55 ↗ interpretation that was included with the packet and then updated here just recently,

2:53:01 ↗ which is speaking to something that is more aligned with an assisted living facility.

2:53:08 ↗ So I'm trying to figure out what is the, how do you,

2:53:15 ↗ that it doesn't become an assisted living facility because if you read

2:53:22 ↗ the letter from McCullough Hill and it's talking about what constitutes a family and

2:53:27 ↗ having five unrelated people living together and then suddenly you configure this as essentially

2:53:33 ↗ rental rooms with a dining facility and you provide care, memory care,

2:53:39 ↗ suddenly it is an assisted living facility with care being provided

2:53:45 ↗ in a zone that doesn't allow it. So how do you control what this is

2:53:50 ↗ and what it isn't? Where's the line? So one of the reasons why we did

2:53:54 ↗ the interpretation was so that was our concern as well. It started to

2:54:00 ↗ feel a lot like this was going to be something that

2:54:06 ↗ might not be allowed there. And rather than them at risk. So they

2:54:12 ↗ were concerned that after they bought the land, after they built their facility and started

2:54:18 ↗ operating it, that someone would come in and basically say, I've got a zoning enforcement

2:54:24 ↗ issue here because they're using the property in a way that's not allowed by code.

2:54:31 ↗ My concern was not so much for us because we know what will

2:54:37 ↗ go there or not. It's five years from now, 10 years from now. It's that

2:54:40 ↗ what actually was approved, what was talked about, and if the city's put in the

2:54:45 ↗ place of doing a code enforcement action on this property, we want to make sure

2:54:49 ↗ that there was at least a clear trail of what is and isn't allowed there.

2:54:53 ↗ So they wanted that, we wanted that, and so that's why there's a very specific

2:54:58 ↗ interpretation on how you could do assisted living there, it has to be

2:55:04 ↗ ancillary and incidental another permitted use. So

2:55:10 ↗ if you and I buy a duplex there and we want to put our parents

2:55:14 ↗ in one of the bedrooms as an assisted living function within those residences, we could

2:55:20 ↗ do that. That's not inconsistent with the code. But for them to run a business

2:55:26 ↗ solely out of all the structures that they built on those lots, that's what we

2:55:31 ↗ considered not allowed because it's only allowed as an accessory use. So that's

2:55:37 ↗ why we did that interpretation now because it is a little hard to understand the

2:55:41 ↗ code and how this potentially would fit or not fit. And so rather than leave

2:55:47 ↗ that ambiguity, we felt like it would be better for the city if we clarified

2:55:51 ↗ that now. That's why we did that. Yeah, and the only thing I'll add to

2:55:54 ↗ that is that we're facing an epidemic. We're facing a silver tsunami that we've

2:56:00 ↗ never seen before in aging. 10,000 people a day are turning 65. As I mentioned,

2:56:06 ↗ Timber Ridge across the street has hundreds of units, they're all full. What could be

2:56:12 ↗ is adult family homes, as Keith said, you're living with your parents and taking care

2:56:16 ↗ of them. It is certainly in the latest interpretation not assisted living. Our

2:56:22 ↗ hope is it's developed into housing and it's multi-generational housing. There's a trail, there's horses,

2:56:28 ↗ there's pets, there's kids running around, and there's seniors there. Because there's seniors on the

2:56:33 ↗ hill and they're all gonna want intergenerational and pet therapy and trails and everything else

2:56:38 ↗ that we want. And so that's what we hope to see at the end of

2:56:41 ↗ the day. And what's really operating there at the end of the day is housing,

2:56:47 ↗ residences, very simply put. I can't tell you exactly who's going to be in those

2:56:52 ↗ houses, though. I don't know who will buy them. So I don't disagree with what

2:56:58 ↗ you just described as the need. The question is, is it allowed at

2:57:04 ↗ this location in the city's code? And that was my point. You crossed the line

2:57:09 ↗ at some point into a use that's not allowed in this particular zone, because it

2:57:14 ↗ would be considered an assisted living use. And I understand the need for the interpretation

2:57:18 ↗ and try to provide some clarity. There's still a little ambiguity in there, but it's

2:57:23 ↗ better than just trying to deal with the code. Can I ask just another question

2:57:27 ↗ for more background? So we did have a proposal here previously, assisted living. It did

2:57:31 ↗ require a zoning code amendment that the council elected not to

2:57:37 ↗ approve. So that project couldn't advance any further. Why did they elect not to approve

2:57:43 ↗ that zoning code amendment? CAN RECALL. SO

2:57:50 ↗ I'LL TRY AND CHANNEL THE CITY COUNCIL. SO WHAT

2:57:55 ↗ BECAME CLEAR, I THINK SILVERADO BECAME THE POSTER CHILD OF LEARNING KIND OF HOW

2:58:01 ↗ COMMITTED THE CITY COUNCIL WAS TO A BELIEF THAT THEY

2:58:07 ↗ UPZONED A HUGE AMOUNT OF THE CITY TO ACCOMMODATE BASICALLY THE GROWTH OVER THE

2:58:13 ↗ NEXT 20 YEARS AND THAT'S CENTRAL ISSAQUA. AND SO their minds,

2:58:20 ↗ they basically open the doors for things to happen. If

2:58:26 ↗ this project could happen on this property without any code amendments, they would have said

2:58:31 ↗ fine, that's great. But because there's an ask that came with it, what they said

2:58:37 ↗ was, we just up zone 900 acres. Why don't they pick of those other 900

2:58:43 ↗ acres to put this facility where it's allowed outright. And so that was it was

2:58:47 ↗ that easy and I think I

2:58:53 ↗ THINK WE UNDERSTAND IT NOW.

2:58:59 ↗ IT HELPS US COMMUNICATE TO THE REST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN TOWN THE CONVICTION

2:59:03 ↗ THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS. IF YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY

2:59:09 ↗ IN WHAT THEY CALL THE FRINGE, GREAT. OTHERWISE IF YOU NEED A CODE AMENDMENT OR

2:59:15 ↗ SOMETHING, YOU SHOULD BE TALKING AND LOOKING IN THE CORE, IN THE REGIONAL GROWS in

2:59:19 ↗ the North Center area and in Central Issaquah. Mr. Chairman, may I

2:59:26 ↗ point a clarification? If the

2:59:31 ↗ development commission tonight says, okay,

2:59:37 ↗ then the process basically, as I said earlier, restarts. Did I hear you say

2:59:44 ↗ that it could be single family homes, it could be duplexes, it could be. So

2:59:50 ↗ at this point, we're looking at the platts and recommending yay or nay to

2:59:56 ↗ go forward with it. But if we say yes, the nature of the ultimate

3:00:02 ↗ construction on the site is TBD. So you guys can decide. I mean, I think

3:00:08 ↗ you guys could leave that open to the uses that are allowed in the SFV

3:00:12 ↗ zone, or you could say, well, they talked about duplexes. Let's

3:00:18 ↗ say that we're going to approve this clustered plat for duplexes. You guys could be

3:00:24 ↗ as specific or as broad as you want on the uses. We can't change the

3:00:29 ↗ uses with the development agreement. So you couldn't say, yeah, we approve this development agreement

3:00:34 ↗ for mid-rise office space. That would not be okay. But as far as if you

3:00:39 ↗ want to leave it open to the uses that are allowed within the zone, you

3:00:42 ↗ can do that, or you could a tighter box around it if you wanted to.

3:00:47 ↗ So I'm assuming that the packet that we have now represents what the applicant wants

3:00:52 ↗ to do with the property. which is duplex housing. Right. And I was going to

3:00:57 ↗ point out. That's why I was a little confused when I heard earlier, well, it

3:01:00 ↗ could be duplexes, it could be single family homes. Yeah, in the single family state

3:01:05 ↗ zone, as far as attached housing goes, the maximum of attached housing you

3:01:11 ↗ can have is a duplex. So on each lot, the maximum they could have is

3:01:16 ↗ two attached units or one unit. But what you cannot have, which is allowed in

3:01:21 ↗ other single family zones, but in the SFE zone, could not have a triplex or

3:01:25 ↗ a fourplex. And the duplex really concentrates and maximizes the site and allows all that

3:01:31 ↗ open space. So that's really the thought at the end of the day. Mr. Chairman.

3:01:37 ↗ Yes. Yeah, can I have the floor? Paul, thanks for coming again. It's good to

3:01:43 ↗ see you again. I know we, I was involved in looking at the earlier design.

3:01:49 ↗ And I appreciate the thought that you need to look ahead There's a concern that

3:01:55 ↗ I think you can understand if we say duplex and then eventually somebody turns around,

3:02:01 ↗ you're gone, we're all gone, 20 years later they want to turn it into other

3:02:06 ↗ views, then that's an issue that I think we're concerned about. And I share that

3:02:11 ↗ concern. And then the other point that I want to make is that

3:02:17 ↗ we're subdividing this lot and you said it's kind of like brand new design now.

3:02:23 ↗ subdividing it to actually 10 parcels. I'm not sure why

3:02:29 ↗ the driveway's still there. Is the thought that the driveway will remain

3:02:35 ↗ there as part of parcel 10 and all those individual ones that's in the,

3:02:43 ↗ in that circular thing, all those parcels. Are there boundary

3:02:49 ↗ lines down here? Yeah. Where the driveway is? It's an incredibly challenging site. There's

3:02:55 ↗ really only one way onto the site, which is actually a roadway. The whole

3:03:01 ↗ bridge system here does not allow for any access to the site. But there is

3:03:05 ↗ a road. a legitimate road coming onto the site here and take some elevation down

3:03:10 ↗ into it. So that really makes the most sense for a direct drive and parking.

3:03:15 ↗ Sure, but if we're subdividing it, who would own all this driveway?

3:03:21 ↗ It would be part of a homeowners or development agreement, kind of like a homeowner

3:03:26 ↗ association, I guess you'd say. Okay. Yeah. So would you keep all those parking then?

3:03:34 ↗ It's on the sheet. I mean if we approve this. Yeah we require we were

3:03:38 ↗ required to have that amount of parking for those number of lots basically if we

3:03:42 ↗ could have less with you know. Okay nothing certain there but that was kind of

3:03:46 ↗ the requirement. Okay so it's possible that you would put a duplex here. Yeah

3:03:53 ↗ with no parking and the parking would be assigned somewhere here. Yes, and actually there

3:03:58 ↗ is parking if you come down, there you go. So you have to with the

3:04:02 ↗ duplexes have parking adjacencies. I forget the footage but it was about 100 feet or

3:04:07 ↗ so, 200 feet. We made sure all the parking, like you said, could be assignable

3:04:11 ↗ and accessible within the required square footage. Yeah, and I guess I'm kind of confused

3:04:16 ↗ because if we're subdividing it and yet we already have parkings there, so

3:04:24 ↗ maybe that's ahead jumping ahead of the horse maybe? And at the same time you

3:04:28 ↗ said there's no preconceived idea of how the design's gonna be, but yet

3:04:35 ↗ you have this little jog there. Apparently somebody thought about something going on between that

3:04:40 ↗ parcel and this parcel. Yeah, that would be the banquet hall, the first one, the

3:04:45 ↗ jog. So having access trails going between the housing to the banquet hall is kind

3:04:50 ↗ of one thought. Basically, you're pretty constrained. With a duplex, it'd probably be 7,000 some

3:04:56 ↗ odd square feet. You know, would want to have the

3:05:02 ↗ vernacular of State Route 900 very country kind of rural looking

3:05:09 ↗ homes. But yeah, we haven't really gotten to that point. But yeah, certainly there's been

3:05:14 ↗ a lot of thought given to circulation, trails. We spent a lot of time with

3:05:18 ↗ city staff thinking this through to make sure it's ALL ALLOWABLE UNDER SINGLE FAMILY

3:05:23 ↗ ESTATES. EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE HERE IS COMPLETELY ALLOWABLE UNDER THE CODE. THAT WAS OUR

3:05:28 ↗ GOAL. SO SOMEWHERE YOU HAVE A SHEET THAT'S ALL DESIGNED ALREADY. SO WHEN THIS

3:05:34 ↗ IS APPROVED, YOU JUST SLAP THAT SHEET OF PLAN OVER THIS. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT

3:05:40 ↗ FAR. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR. WITHOUT THE ENTITLEMENT, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL, WE COULDN'T DO

3:05:45 ↗ CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AT THIS POINT. THAT WOULD BE A HUGE WASTE OF MONEY. Mr. Chair,

3:05:50 ↗ can I just maybe it'll help a little bit process wise here on how this

3:05:53 ↗ works? Because so the development agreement talks specifically about cluster housing

3:05:59 ↗ and meeting the requirements of the code. It's not specifically defining the

3:06:05 ↗ use, a specific use other than what's allowed for in that zone at this point.

3:06:10 ↗ Interpretation kind of is an administrative action that the city, that the director took. as

3:06:16 ↗ a process that's appealable and that has essentially run its course so that's got

3:06:22 ↗ standing, it has standing now, the interpretation on the

3:06:29 ↗ uses that would be allowed in this zone that are more than just single family

3:06:35 ↗ in nature. Is that an administrative process and we have a legislative

3:06:41 ↗ decision that's going on? There are definitely two things and they are separate, They have

3:06:45 ↗ some bearing because of who the applicant is. The second interpretation

3:06:53 ↗ I don't think has run its course yet. It's in the process. They have not

3:06:57 ↗ indicated that they are going to appeal it, but they could. That's part of the

3:07:00 ↗ process. We would go to the hearing examiner. We think we are on solid ground

3:07:06 ↗ with the interpretation, but there is a process for that. Right now,

3:07:12 ↗ As you heard from the applicant, they are looking at this as a home building

3:07:16 ↗ site and no longer as an assisted living facility. I'm

3:07:22 ↗ just going to finish the process question. Then the permitting process

3:07:28 ↗ for this development would require what additional steps and what's the public's ability to

3:07:34 ↗ weigh in with the next steps? Let's say the development agreement is approved.

3:07:40 ↗ The development agreement is approved. As I mentioned, the next big step will be the

3:07:45 ↗ submittal of a preliminary plat application, or in other words, a subdivision application, which

3:07:51 ↗ will go through a whole other set of public notice of the application and then

3:07:55 ↗ ultimately through a public hearing with the city's hearing examiner who will

3:08:02 ↗ make the decision on the preliminary plat. And then from there, we go into the

3:08:05 ↗ construction review and the final plat. So we have a long way to go. Yes,

3:08:11 ↗ you do. And again, back to the action, the recommendation, or what's in front of

3:08:16 ↗ us this evening is the development agreement, not the interpretation.

3:08:21 ↗ That's right. OK. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. But to clarify

3:08:25 ↗ that, the development agreement does include the specification of a banquet hall clubhouse

3:08:32 ↗ as one of the specific things that would go in here, correct? As a permitted

3:08:36 ↗ use in the SFE zone, yes. of uses once again how that's

3:08:41 ↗ developed it doesn't necessarily say they have to do that it just says that's a

3:08:46 ↗ permitted use well but the the agreement with the city actual specific agreement

3:08:51 ↗ says the neighborhood will consist of 12 single-family duplex dwelling

3:08:57 ↗ units consisting of six buildings a banquet hall clubhouse open space parcel and

3:09:03 ↗ two parcels of affordable housing. Sounds to me like it says this is what's going

3:09:07 ↗ to be on there. It doesn't say seven, nine

3:09:13 ↗ parcels that could be used for whatever is allowed within that zone. It specifies that.

3:09:19 ↗ So it seems to me it says. Well, that's why I asked about the single

3:09:22 ↗ family earlier, because that's what I thought. And I do have a question. The

3:09:28 ↗ July letter from McCullough Hill Leary that each duplex will

3:09:33 ↗ include a kitchen, living room, and between four and six bedrooms occupied by up to

3:09:38 ↗ six units, six residents. Is that each one of, in a duplex, would that be

3:09:44 ↗ each of those two units would have up to six residents, so like 12 in

3:09:48 ↗ a duplex, or six in a duplex? That letter was written before the final

3:09:55 ↗ interpretation letter, so it's no longer valid, at least in the extent of the design.

3:09:58 ↗ So that letter was trying to make the case that each duplex would have a

3:10:03 ↗ kitchen and therefore it would be a residence even though all the inhabitants would be

3:10:09 ↗ assisted living patients. And what we said was, okay, we didn't agree with that.

3:10:15 ↗ So that's why that letter is structured the way it is, Mel, is because they're

3:10:20 ↗ trying to say, hey, they're like a house, there's no difference. It's gonna have a

3:10:23 ↗ bathroom and it's gonna have a kitchen. Well, but the inhabitants are actually different because

3:10:29 ↗ they're there particular reason not because they own the residence itself. So when

3:10:35 ↗ they said that the banquet hall will be used for common dining, the project will

3:10:39 ↗ function as a memory care community. That was previous to the final interpretation letter. So

3:10:45 ↗ a lot of the agenda items that are in there are very contradictory and confusing.

3:10:50 ↗ I think what's most important is that at the final outcome we're really looking at

3:10:54 ↗ a plat map. We're not considering assisted living because the final interpretation letter bodes against

3:11:00 ↗ that, but with the owner, John Stefani, multi-generational family here in Issaquah, we

3:11:06 ↗ believe he has the property rights under the single family estates to do just

3:11:12 ↗ this, build seven duplexes in a clubhouse. So I guess

3:11:18 ↗ the question that would come up in my mind, then if we have, right

3:11:24 ↗ now we have 42 parking stalls, If we develop those two

3:11:30 ↗ parcels, we lose three stalls. We're down to 39 stalls with 12

3:11:37 ↗ duplex units. And then if we have a banquet hall, and if it's truly a

3:11:41 ↗ banquet hall by the code, it's

3:11:48 ↗ gatherings by appointment only may serve as a regular meeting place for a specific organization

3:11:53 ↗ such as fraternal association, a trade union, Interns Association or for weddings,

3:11:59 ↗ other such gatherings. Then I start thinking about, okay, is this design,

3:12:05 ↗ would it be adequate for what that kind of use is? If you said, okay,

3:12:10 ↗ we've got potentially 39 parking stalls for 12 duplex units and then

3:12:16 ↗ somebody's gonna come in and throw a wedding in a banquet hall Is this plat

3:12:21 ↗ designed appropriately for that? So I guess that would get to maybe our decision whether

3:12:26 ↗ we want to recommend approval the way this is designed as a cluster

3:12:32 ↗ development. And to be clear, wouldn't be a wedding hall. It would be an amenity.

3:12:37 ↗ You know, banquet hall is very amorphous. I always think of the Tibbetts Creek Manor.

3:12:40 ↗ The Rotary Club might show up, which I counted about 10 cars at the last

3:12:45 ↗ Rotary meeting. You know, so. The parking is almost over

3:12:51 ↗ parked with 39 spaces to tell you the truth on the calculation.

3:12:57 ↗ So when the plaque comes through, there would have to be, so this shows common

3:13:03 ↗ parking and don't discount the fact that those duplexes might have

3:13:09 ↗ garages. There may actually be parking spaces within each lot that actually has

3:13:15 ↗ street access. We do have one that that doesn't have street access so that clearly,

3:13:20 ↗ unless there's some sort of an access easement that comes off of the tail of

3:13:25 ↗ that one street, you know that those people will have to park in the common

3:13:29 ↗ parking area. But it could very well be that there's additional four or eight

3:13:34 ↗ parking spaces. So if they each have two car garages and aprons that are 20

3:13:38 ↗ feet deep, then you've got an additional eight parking stalls per lot that actually has

3:13:43 ↗ street frontage. One of the reasons why you've got actually this much street around it

3:13:48 ↗ is fire access to the back, so we need to get back to those back

3:13:53 ↗ lots just in case and part of this is the fire access that you see.

3:13:59 ↗ So I guess my comment to you about the number of parking spaces is clearly

3:14:05 ↗ it's going to have to have, it's going to need to meet minimum code requirements

3:14:08 ↗ for the number of housing units that are approved. But then this clubhouse thing, if

3:14:13 ↗ they ultimately move forward with the clubhouse The size of the clubhouse is gonna generate

3:14:19 ↗ a certain number of parking spaces by code and then how they intend to use

3:14:23 ↗ it. So if it were for weddings, it's gonna have a maximum occupancy in the

3:14:27 ↗ room. The reality is there's nowhere else to park, right? I mean if there's not

3:14:32 ↗ enough parking spaces in this plat, where are you gonna park? You over in Talis?

3:14:37 ↗ Along SR 900? There really isn't anywhere else. So I think that piece of this

3:14:42 ↗ would definitely need to be well thought out during land use. If

3:14:48 ↗ we were going to recommend that this would be approved with 12,

3:14:55 ↗ I guess we would, if all the seven parcels, if it was just

3:15:01 ↗ approved as seven parcels for uses acceptable that

3:15:07 ↗ are within code within this area, Instead of actually saying yes, we're

3:15:13 ↗ specifically agreeing to put in a banquet hall here as part of the development agreement.

3:15:19 ↗ Just said we like the clustering, we like the design of the parcels, great, go

3:15:24 ↗ ahead. And then when you come back and you tell us what you want to

3:15:26 ↗ do with those, could they then come back and say, okay, now we want to

3:15:30 ↗ put a banquet hall here, here's the plan for it. I think you guys could

3:15:35 ↗ go either way. You guys could either be specific and say if you guys thought

3:15:38 ↗ that this clustered plat really only works with a clubhouse, then you could say and

3:15:43 ↗ it has to have a clubhouse on a common parcel. If that's not a determining

3:15:48 ↗ factor for you guys, if you say hey look, the cool stuff about this is

3:15:52 ↗ the affordable housing and the acres of open space and the trail opportunities and therefore

3:15:57 ↗ putting in nine lots here is the

3:16:03 ↗ win. I think you could leave it open. I think that's your call. I think

3:16:07 ↗ you should be specific in your recommendation to the council so they understand this conversation

3:16:12 ↗ that we had tonight. So on that point, so the question, I mean,

3:16:18 ↗ this is a contract. So between the developer and the city. So if we say

3:16:22 ↗ banquet hall or clubhouse, that's going to be required. Right. It's not an option unless

3:16:26 ↗ they go back and amend the agreement for the It goes back to the council.

3:16:31 ↗ So this one's a head scratcher because really the question you just posed is,

3:16:37 ↗ is this an amenity that we think has public benefit that we want to put

3:16:43 ↗ into this development because we're allowing for a development agreement to create this sort of

3:16:49 ↗ a development that's allowed under the code, which wouldn't otherwise be allowed without a development

3:16:52 ↗ agreement. So it's the public benefit piece. So obviously the.

3:17:01 ↗ dedication of the significant part of the property to native

3:17:07 ↗ growth protection, et cetera, is a huge public benefit. But I'll be honest with you,

3:17:12 ↗ I'm torn on the question about forcing this

3:17:18 ↗ piece of a development for really is a small number of units. I'm just wondering,

3:17:23 ↗ it may end up just being wasted space, depending on what the, We're certainly not

3:17:28 ↗ married to it. It was really an amenity. Would work just as well as a

3:17:34 ↗ duplex, quite honestly. And there will be, this will be decided

3:17:40 ↗ by the hearing officer. The recommendation, I mean, if it goes, whatever we

3:17:46 ↗ end up doing tonight will be between you and the applicant and the city and

3:17:51 ↗ the staff and the applicant to receive their plans and look at it, there will

3:17:56 ↗ be another public hearing in front of a hearing officer, correct, who will determine the

3:18:02 ↗ yes or no. So the next step THE NEXT STEP IS CITY COUNCIL.

3:18:08 ↗ CITY COUNCIL WILL TAKE WHAT YOU DO AND DO THUMBS UP, THUMBS DOWN. THEY MAY

3:18:12 ↗ ADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. THEY MAY DECIDE YES OR NO ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WHO KNOWS.

3:18:18 ↗ ONCE THAT DIRECTION IS CLEAR, ASSUMING THEY APPROVE IT, APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OF SOME

3:18:22 ↗ KIND AND OF SOME CONTENT, THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THINGS LIKE

3:18:28 ↗ HOW DO YOU GET THE BRIDGE OVER THE CREEK WITHOUT KILLING THE SALMON, THAT'S WHERE

3:18:31 ↗ THAT EVALUATION COMES INTO EFFECT WHERE YOU ACTUALLY DO A C-3 You keep a checklist,

3:18:36 ↗ you do the review, and you figure out how to mitigate that new shade crossing

3:18:42 ↗ of the creek. That's when you get down to some of the brass tacks on

3:18:46 ↗ these conversations that we've been having this evening. And HPA, so there's

3:18:52 ↗ lots of permits to get. Mr. Chair. Yeah, Kevin, one of the things that maybe

3:18:55 ↗ you can help clarify is that the applicant can do whatever they want with that

3:19:00 ↗ lot. Is that correct? He's presenting it. The applicant is presenting as assisted

3:19:07 ↗ senior housing because that's the need right now. And the city needs it. So

3:19:13 ↗ it's like a carrot in front for the city to approve that.

3:19:19 ↗ In the future, the need may not be there. And to be fair to the

3:19:23 ↗ applicant, they may feel like, you know what, we're gonna sell this piece of property

3:19:28 ↗ to somebody that's more commercial and not want to provide senior housing.

3:19:34 ↗ Is that... So I am not under the impression

3:19:40 ↗ that the request is to Pigeonhole this as senior housing. I think what they said

3:19:46 ↗ was they envision multi-generational housing housing that would allow for

3:19:52 ↗ maybe seniors and Children and and parents all the

3:19:57 ↗ potentially be living within the same neighborhood But I didn't hear them say this was

3:20:03 ↗ specifically going to be a senior housing project Well, it's a Silverado senior living.

3:20:10 ↗ So I presume right now it's for senior housing.

3:20:16 ↗ Am I wrong? That's the. Based on the last interpretation letter, no. The one,

3:20:23 ↗ allowable use within single family estates is adult family homes. It could very well be

3:20:29 ↗ adult family homes, which is a senior housing use. There's adult family homes, assisted living,

3:20:35 ↗ independent living, skilled nursing are the designations within the senior living kind of universe.

3:20:42 ↗ So adult family homes are allowable as a use and could be one of more

3:20:46 ↗ of the duplexes. Right. And I'm trying to be fair to the applicant in that

3:20:52 ↗ they have the prerogative to right now they say senior 20 years from now you

3:20:57 ↗ don't want to run it anymore you sell it to somebody else somebody comes in

3:21:00 ↗ and say we're going to turn it into a housing unit. being a duplex they

3:21:06 ↗ can sell it to individual they can sell it to young family. That's our goal

3:21:10 ↗ today. That's our goal today. That's possible. That's the goal today. Maybe you can guide

3:21:16 ↗ me on understanding can we put a time frame that says you know for the

3:21:20 ↗ next 30 years it will be it shall be senior housing and then after that

3:21:25 ↗ they have the prerogative to use the structure for something else other than senior housing.

3:21:35 ↗ So if your question is could you do that, yes, you could do that. There's

3:21:38 ↗ a covenant that you could put on the property that would say that. I don't

3:21:42 ↗ think the applicant is asking to do that. I think even, I think The application

3:21:47 ↗ that you have in front of you to do senior assisted living was their

3:21:53 ↗ original desire for this property. The city came out, issued a code interpretation and said

3:21:59 ↗ you cannot do that as a primary use here. So what they are now looking

3:22:03 ↗ at this property for is a market rate duplex subdivision

3:22:09 ↗ that is clustered, and no age limitations, so

3:22:15 ↗ it could be first time homebuyers, it could be seniors, it could be people that

3:22:20 ↗ are downsizing, anything. So that's what they're asking for right now. And that's a point

3:22:24 ↗ well taken, and I think that's what the concern was earlier with all the conversation

3:22:29 ↗ is that what's the option for the applicant

3:22:35 ↗ later on as far as turning it into something other than senior housing? They have

3:22:41 ↗ all the prerogative to do that long as it complies with whatever the zone is

3:22:45 ↗ only precisely as long as they comply with the zoning right now So

3:22:51 ↗ if we're thinking about the future I mean, we You know I'm just

3:22:57 ↗ proposing maybe we should think about a time frame that when the 30 years let's

3:23:03 ↗ say or 50 years when senior housing is not required that much, then

3:23:09 ↗ they have the prerogative to do something else. Well, why would they not have the

3:23:13 ↗ prerogative to do something else? I don't know that the development commission. On the agreement,

3:23:19 ↗ they said they should be senior housing. Yeah, I'm just saying, though, commissioner, that I'm

3:23:23 ↗ not sure that the development commission has the wisdom to set a

3:23:29 ↗ time frame for anything that's going to be a contract. Yeah. This contract will

3:23:35 ↗ be forwarded to the council with recommendation. Right, and I understood you to say that

3:23:41 ↗ you think that perhaps we should put a time frame in this. And my question

3:23:46 ↗ or my concern is, I don't know how to set a time frame.

3:23:53 ↗ So I don't know what the basis for that would be. Wouldn't that covenant be

3:23:56 ↗ a function of the deed and have nothing to do with us? Yeah, that's possible

3:24:01 ↗ too. It seems like the confusion

3:24:07 ↗ is really what the long term proposal for the project is. And we've sat here

3:24:12 ↗ and talked about it for an hour and we still don't know. And it doesn't

3:24:15 ↗ appear that we're gonna know. If I understand what's being requested is

3:24:21 ↗ they're asking for approval to develop that piece of property as cluster housing and

3:24:27 ↗ to be given the ability to decide what makes the most sense

3:24:34 ↗ that can get approved by the City Council that will be consistent with the constraints

3:24:40 ↗ that are put on the zoning, the zone. So the real issue is not necessarily,

3:24:45 ↗ I'm not thinking we can agree on an agreement other than something about as

3:24:51 ↗ simple as that. And then. I couldn't have said it better. Yeah, I think that

3:24:56 ↗ was right on. I agree. Yeah, just our thoughts going into this agreement

3:25:02 ↗ goes to the Council. Mr. Chair, can I ask another question of staff? I

3:25:08 ↗ guess interpretation of the cluster housing development. I'm trying to figure this out in my

3:25:14 ↗ head. We have a cluster housing development, but then we're also including in it what

3:25:20 ↗ would be a commercial use, a banquet hall, community

3:25:26 ↗ facility. So the cluster housing development really has to do with saying you're going to

3:25:30 ↗ cluster your housing units in one spot. Then we are saying banquet halls are also

3:25:36 ↗ included as an acceptable use within SFE, but are they an acceptable use

3:25:42 ↗ within a cluster housing development? Because it is not housing.

3:25:51 ↗ I think that is discretionary on your part. I don't think that is absolute. I

3:25:56 ↗ think you can make the case that it is and you can make the case

3:25:58 ↗ that it isn't. I think your point is an interesting one and I don't think

3:26:04 ↗ there is an absolute answer to it. I think you could choose.

3:26:11 ↗ Sorry for the leash, but I think you get a leash. I think the chair

3:26:16 ↗ did a nice job of summarizing what is in front of us here. I think

3:26:21 ↗ that when we are thinking about a development agreement like this and cluster housing, thinking

3:26:25 ↗ about what is the that comes from this action, because that's what we need to

3:26:30 ↗ point to. I think there's significant benefit to having affordable lots dedicated as part of

3:26:35 ↗ this proposal, and that's specifically stated in this agreement, that there is going to be

3:26:40 ↗ a significant amount of property that is preserved as open and natural. I think that

3:26:44 ↗ is a significant public benefit. I think a banquet hall and clubhouse is

3:26:50 ↗ probably more centered to the nature of the development and what's happening in the development.

3:26:55 ↗ And I don't know that there's significant public benefit to that. I don't know if

3:26:58 ↗ you have a shortage of banquet halls in this city. I'm guessing probably not. And

3:27:02 ↗ this one is probably not something that would be used beyond probably the people who

3:27:07 ↗ reside in the homes that are here. And so I guess for me, that's a

3:27:11 ↗ constraining piece to require that they build that. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But

3:27:16 ↗ I would recommend that we advance this development agreement

3:27:22 ↗ with our recommendation for approval, but I would recommend that we modify, recommend modification of

3:27:27 ↗ the cluster housing development recital number two in the agreement and

3:27:34 ↗ have it consist of seven buildings, changing from consisting of six buildings to seven buildings,

3:27:39 ↗ and then strike banquet hall and clubhouse open space parcel and two parcels of

3:27:45 ↗ affordable housing. And then it's at the discretion of the developer and of the city

3:27:49 ↗ on how the configuration of the development advances, as long as it's consistent with the

3:27:55 ↗ zoning that's allowed for this area of the city. And so being very attentive to

3:28:01 ↗ not crossing the line, particularly on the assisted living piece, otherwise

3:28:07 ↗ this gets tangled up in a hurry, I think with public and

3:28:15 ↗ our responsibility to ensure that we're staying consistent. So that would be my

3:28:21 ↗ recommendation and I can present that in a motion if people want that. So would

3:28:25 ↗ you say right now it says 12 single family duplex dwelling units consisting of seven

3:28:30 ↗ buildings. Would you take out the 12 single family dwelling units and just say seven

3:28:34 ↗ buildings? That's part of the question, does it

3:28:40 ↗ have to be specific on how to be in a single family? Whatever the maximum

3:28:44 ↗ development would be allowed in the cluster house. It says the maximum allowable density on

3:28:48 ↗ the property is 24 dwelling units, so why would you constrain it any more than

3:28:53 ↗ that? But you can't have more than a duplex. So with seven

3:28:58 ↗ lots, you could have up to 14 units. And I think there's also the

3:29:04 ↗ related parking, if it goes up to 24, the code requires a

3:29:10 ↗ specific number of dedicated parking spaces and with the constraints they've got there, I don't

3:29:15 ↗ know, I think that the property itself wouldn't

3:29:21 ↗ be conducive to the additional parking that the code requires for up to 24 units.

3:29:26 ↗ So I think that was, I thought that was. It's pretty much parked to the

3:29:31 ↗ lot count there. It's a little over parked, but I think you hit it on

3:29:34 ↗ the head. Park for seven parcels and I like the idea of it just being

3:29:40 ↗ buildings That makes sense to me seven which would effectively be 14 duplexes

3:29:47 ↗ So it could just say seven lots yeah seven parcels 14

3:29:52 ↗ buildings Leave out the discussion the mention of whether it's a duplex or

3:29:58 ↗ a family or banquet hall or You can

3:30:04 ↗ pretend it's just like that with just lots. Yeah, just lots.

3:30:10 ↗ What's the thought from the applicant? That's the original intent of this meeting was we

3:30:14 ↗ wanted to just get the lots approved exactly as Richard had mentioned. I couldn't have

3:30:19 ↗ said it better or more precisely than Richard's statement earlier. In fact, that would be

3:30:24 ↗ a perfect motion.

3:30:25 ↗ Good.

3:30:31 ↗ I would go for that. It would make it a lot easier. It becomes a

3:30:37 ↗ housing property. It will consist of just seven lots, seven parcels.

3:30:44 ↗ Don't forget about the two affordable housing ones. So there's technically nine, I think, right?

3:30:49 ↗ Well, and then I guess that would be the other question. I have real questions

3:30:53 ↗ about the wisdom of having those

3:30:59 ↗ affordable lots up there. pointed out, it's sort of up to us to make

3:31:06 ↗ a recommendation to Council. And I look at the cost of

3:31:12 ↗ putting bridges in and utilities and crossing over the creek and potential

3:31:18 ↗ impacts there to get two segregated single family lots that don't have

3:31:24 ↗ good access to mass transit or things like that. And I don't know. I'd rather

3:31:30 ↗ see all of that just open space. I mean the developer might not care either

3:31:34 ↗ way. They're deeded to the city. Yeah, because we just go to the city.

3:31:40 ↗ It'd be the city that'd be making the decision on the use of those. It's

3:31:45 ↗ kind of offering to the city trail, habitat for many homes.

3:31:52 ↗ So the cities, so to give you something to think about, because I think it's

3:31:56 ↗ an important piece. trying to take you down a rabbit hole. So the city is

3:32:01 ↗ actually in the process of working on a housing strategy. And I think what that's

3:32:05 ↗ gonna do is, and I've been asked to try and tighten up the timeline, but

3:32:09 ↗ we'll see how quickly we can run. So the idea is the city needs all

3:32:15 ↗ kinds of housing. We need affordable housing, we need housing for adults with disabilities, we

3:32:20 ↗ need workforce housing, we need entry level housing for kids getting out of college or

3:32:25 ↗ high school. We need it all. And there's no way we can ever build it

3:32:30 ↗ all within our community. We will always be wanting and needing more housing of all

3:32:35 ↗ kinds. And so part of what don't want you guys or what

3:32:41 ↗ I want you guys to think about not giving up is access to land. So

3:32:46 ↗ those lots and whatever they end up being, whether they end up being just forested

3:32:50 ↗ forever or whether they end up being housing sites, Having the access to the property

3:32:56 ↗ is powerful and it puts the city in a good spot to make good decisions

3:33:01 ↗ later. Because if it gets given up now, we'll never get it back. It will

3:33:06 ↗ just be with this plat deeded as open space and then it's open space. But

3:33:12 ↗ if it's deeded as lots for affordable housing, then the council can decide

3:33:19 ↗ that's a better value for the community or leaving it forested. There's a choice there.

3:33:25 ↗ I guess you guys can provide some clarity for that choice or at least some

3:33:29 ↗ nudging for what might be concerning about that choice. But I would urge

3:33:35 ↗ you guys to, it's an asset, it's one that we're to find more of them

3:33:41 ↗ in our community and to potentially give up two here. You're right, they're not in

3:33:46 ↗ a great location. But I know a lot of affordable housing developers that would jump

3:33:52 ↗ at a chance to get access to two lots, even in this location. Perhaps we

3:33:56 ↗ approve it with those, if we want to try to put in a recommendation that

3:34:02 ↗ they not be developed. the city

3:34:08 ↗ in terms, you know, if I felt it's better to save the creek

3:34:15 ↗ and so forth, we could have that as a recommendation, but we could still recommend

3:34:20 ↗ they approve this the way it's platted so they get that opportunity. Yes.

3:34:24 ↗ Yeah. Okay. Density and zoning are the same for those two lots.

3:34:31 ↗ Yes, same zoning. It would remain the same. So you could put duplexes on them

3:34:35 ↗ if you wanted. And again, there is ample. There's ample opportunity for

3:34:41 ↗ public discussion, debate, subcommittee of the council

3:34:47 ↗ to examine, recommend, and so on after we make our decision tonight.

3:34:53 ↗ This is, as he said, a long road with ample opportunity for debate and discussion

3:35:00 ↗ of the public before any final decision is made on the application

3:35:06 ↗ specifically the two parcels that are deeded to the city would be deeded to the

3:35:11 ↗ city. So and and so that is there's actually even another process associated with that

3:35:17 ↗ so so the disposition of city land so so the city at some point would

3:35:22 ↗ decide okay we want to go ahead and make those affordable housing parcels and let's

3:35:26 ↗ just I'm just going to use Habitat for Humanity because it's easy and we want

3:35:30 ↗ to sell them or give them to Habitat for Humanity. That takes another council action.

3:35:35 ↗ So there would be an opportunity for the public to weigh in on whether even

3:35:40 ↗ after it was final platted and those were legal lots, before the city council ever

3:35:45 ↗ disposed of them, there would be another opportunity. Mr. Chair, I personally,

3:35:52 ↗ because of the amount of opportunity that exists for public comment

3:35:58 ↗ and discussion and debate by elected members of the government, I am

3:36:03 ↗ personally comfortable with approving this as the applicant has

3:36:09 ↗ defined it. So if we were the final counsel on this, if this

3:36:15 ↗ were a traditional public hearing where we say yes or nay, I'd be

3:36:21 ↗ really hesitant to go forward. But because there is so much further review of it,

3:36:30 ↗ I'm okay, personally, with saying let's make a decision here. How about

3:36:36 ↗ somebody want to make a motion on an action?

3:36:42 ↗ Do you have some changes, Mike? Well, the part I'm struggling with is the

3:36:48 ↗ language. If we're going to propose a language change, I don't know that we need

3:36:54 ↗ to necessarily propose language change. We can make a recommendation for the outcome that we're

3:36:59 ↗ searching for maybe and let staff propose the language. I don't know what your preference

3:37:03 ↗ is, what works best with the council. Are you struggling with

3:37:09 ↗ the banquet issue or the 12 versus 14? Well, if

3:37:15 ↗ we say the challenge, here's the challenge with the language. If we say seven lots

3:37:20 ↗ and we want them to be duplexes, now we're saying it has to be lots

3:37:25 ↗ with duplexes, the banquet hall option is not on the table anymore because we just

3:37:28 ↗ said they all have to be duplexes. If we don't specify anything, then we're not

3:37:33 ↗ getting as high of density potentially. We might get single family development eventually on this

3:37:37 ↗ instead of duplexes. Higher density, I think, is better in this instance. So I think

3:37:43 ↗ that's a more positive outcome. So we could set it as a minimum of 12

3:37:51 ↗ single family units A minimum of 12 single-family units. Do you want to force them

3:37:57 ↗ to? If they decide they just want to put seven homes on them? Single-family homes?

3:38:02 ↗ Yeah. Or maybe we can say, you know, we can 12 single, or 14 single

3:38:08 ↗ minimum of 12 single-family duplexes with the option of providing a banquet.

3:38:17 ↗ So can I suggest maybe something that's easy? So how about the development commission

3:38:23 ↗ recommends approval of a clustered plat, a

3:38:29 ↗ cluster development agreement for nine lots where two are given to the city for affordable

3:38:33 ↗ housing. I mean, I don't know that it's more than that, is it, at this

3:38:38 ↗ point? Can you strike out the banquet room? So if you guys want to

3:38:44 ↗ mention the banquet room, you can. If you'd rather stay away from it, I wouldn't

3:38:48 ↗ include it in your motion. I agree. Because we don't have to, well,

3:38:55 ↗ we have the agreement in here. So

3:39:01 ↗ would we want to reword this to any extent or? So you might want to

3:39:06 ↗ also, so part of the of your recommendation might be recognizing that this application was

3:39:12 ↗ prepared for an assisted living facility and that is not what the applicant is pursuing

3:39:18 ↗ at this time. And therefore, you're basically recommending approval of a cluster

3:39:24 ↗ development agreement for nine lots where two are given to the city for uses that

3:39:28 ↗ are allowed within the SFE zone. I think that's what Richard

3:39:34 ↗ said earlier, too. I think it is, too. Sounds good to me. I mean,

3:39:40 ↗ because I don't know that there's much beyond that at this point. I mean, you

3:39:44 ↗ guys have created a good public record in terms of concerns over

3:39:50 ↗ potentially transitioning uses, concerns over impacts to the creek and the salmon in the creek,

3:39:57 ↗ trail, the importance of getting trail connections. If the city were to get this trail

3:40:02 ↗ segment, that there needs to be priority in terms of connecting it to other trails

3:40:08 ↗ so it actually fits into a network. So all those pieces I think are important.

3:40:14 ↗ I mean, I think we could probably put those in, I'm sure they're in the

3:40:19 ↗ public comment, but we could help the council understand that those were key pieces to

3:40:23 ↗ the conversations here this evening. All of which we support. Okay.

3:40:30 ↗ So then, trying to capture, I'm comfortable with that language, it leaves more flexibility, I

3:40:35 ↗ think, in future development. I won't debate whether we should push more density, but let

3:40:41 ↗ the zoning, which I've been, I guess, arguing, guide what happens on this property.

3:40:47 ↗ So I would say that I recommend, I move that the Development

3:40:53 ↗ Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the development agreement.

3:41:00 ↗ I don't have the title of the development agreement. Clustered Housing Development between the City

3:41:05 ↗ of Issaquah and Silverado Senior Living that would include

3:41:13 ↗ nine lots for cluster development with two of those lots deeded

3:41:20 ↗ to the city and an open space parcel.

3:41:24 ↗ Second. Do you want to reference that, Mike? Do you want to say as

3:41:30 ↗ generally shown in exhibit A2-2? Yes, I think that's,

3:41:36 ↗ yes, thank you. So Mike, do we need the permit? Do we need the number

3:41:42 ↗ in the motion as well? I don't think we have one. I don't think so.

3:41:46 ↗ I think the title of the agreement is probably what's in front of us. A

3:41:49 ↗ friendly amendment perhaps to add, and including the three conditions

3:41:55 ↗ listed in the administration's recommendation due with

3:42:01 ↗ SEPA and Native Growth Protection easement and the Trail Connection easement. Yes.

3:42:11 ↗ So, did we have a second for him? Yes, second. Yes, we did.

3:42:17 ↗ Just for the sake of getting late, could somebody read the motion that we have?

3:42:24 ↗ Could anybody read the motion? Did she get it? Why don't we have the

3:42:28 ↗ secretary read?

3:42:35 ↗ The Development Commission recommend approval of a cluster development agreement between the city of Issaquah

3:42:41 ↗ and Silverado for nine lots of cluster development with two lots

3:42:47 ↗ given to the city for future affordable housing units for uses that are allowed within

3:42:53 ↗ the SFE zone and including the three conditions listed in the staff report dated July

3:42:57 ↗ 20th, 2016. And

3:43:07 ↗ Also, as generally described in exhibit, whatever that is.

3:43:14 ↗ A22. But I thought one of our points of discussion was that lots eight and

3:43:18 ↗ nine were not necessarily affordable housing units, but they were units that were going to

3:43:23 ↗ be left to the discretion of the city to decide if it was. She said

3:43:29 ↗ affordable housing loss or I

3:43:37 ↗ thought we were giving them to the city for future affordable housing units. I didn't

3:43:40 ↗ think we were. You know what, I think on that point, since the agreement speaks

3:43:44 ↗ specifically to that and the cluster housing regulations say that's the thing that

3:43:49 ↗ needs to be considered, I think that we'll let the city council decide what specific

3:43:55 ↗ language they want to agree to in the development agreement, but it's specifically calling out

3:43:59 ↗ affordable housing as a requirement. I think I'm comfortable with

3:44:04 ↗ that language. Okay. I think we're all comfortable with it. So we have a motion

3:44:07 ↗ that's been seconded and we've had some discussion already. Any further discussion?

3:44:14 ↗ This works. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye.

3:44:20 ↗ Opposed? Motion carries. Looks like we have a proposal to forward. Thank you very

3:44:26 ↗ much. I want to thank Christopher and Keith in particular for shepherding us and all

3:44:30 ↗ of you for staying so late. And I want to recognize Connie and David, thank

3:44:35 ↗ you for your contribution to the city. I see you guys here all the time,

3:44:39 ↗ so appreciate that. So do we. Well I appreciate your patience with us trying to

3:44:43 ↗ figure this out too. I as well would like to thank the members of the

3:44:48 ↗ public. At this point at the meeting,

3:44:54 ↗ 146, the meeting is over.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF