Development Commission · Wednesday, September 7, 2016 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Nov 15, 2015

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 July 6, 2016

packet pp.5–10

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Nov 15, 2015 Development Commission · Jul 6, 2016

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 2016

Minutes of July 20, 2016

packet pp.11–20

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES July 20, 2016

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Riva Townhomes - SDP15-00004 (Q)

Discussion · Amy Tarce, Senior Planner

1629 segments .txt ↗

0:22 ↗ Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to

0:28 ↗ a public hearing on the Revestown Homes SPD 15-00004 And we

0:34 ↗ have some administrative things we have to do first. So we have a couple of

0:39 ↗ minutes, but then we'll open up the meeting and have some discussion. So commissioners, we

0:45 ↗ have two sets of meetings, one for July 6, 2016, and one for July 20.

0:51 ↗ So let's look at the July 6, 2016. Have people had a chance to read

0:57 ↗ those? And they have corrections or changes or-- OK. I would accept a motion on--

1:03 ↗ Mr. Chair, I move the adoption of the meeting minutes for July

1:09 ↗ or approval of the meeting minutes for July 6, 2016. Second. All

1:14 ↗ right. Motion's been made and seconded. Do we have any discussion? All

1:20 ↗ those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. How about

1:26 ↗ the July 20, 2016 minutes? Mr. Chair, I move approval of the

1:32 ↗ July 20, 2016 meeting minutes. Second. Great. The motion's been made

1:38 ↗ and seconded. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor, say

1:43 ↗ aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Great. Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, I'd

1:49 ↗ like to make one more motion. I'd like to make the motion of the Development

1:55 ↗ Commission publicly acknowledge the tremendous work that Susan Lowe does on our meeting minutes. We've

2:01 ↗ had lots of them in the last few months, and she's done an excellent job

2:07 ↗ on all of them. I'd like to acknowledge that. Excellent. Second that motion.

2:13 ↗ Your name's going to be spelled wrong if you don't. I absolutely agree.

2:18 ↗ Outstanding work. Discussion? It's pretty amazing to get through the amount of discussion

2:24 ↗ that there is without-- and then have no corrections to the minutes for

2:30 ↗ something that is that complex. So I completely agree. Lucky to have her.

2:35 ↗ Excellent job. Thank you. Staff would agree as well. All those in favor

2:41 ↗ of approving the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed? On record. It's

2:47 ↗ on record. Thank you. Thank you, Susan. Excellent job. So now I think

2:53 ↗ we have Keith Nivens has a statement to make. I'm sure it's

2:59 ↗ a statement so much as it is an opportunity to answer

3:04 ↗ questions. So good evening, development commission. Keith Niven, development services director,

3:10 ↗ economic development director. So for those of you who may be

3:15 ↗ less connected to city politics, The city council had a meeting last

3:21 ↗ night and as part of that meeting passed a temporary development moratorium

3:27 ↗ in the city. And there were a number of reasons why they

3:32 ↗ felt it was necessary to enact a moratorium. And I'm here to

3:38 ↗ basically I can either I can do one of two things and

3:43 ↗ you guys let me know what you'd like. I can either kind of give you

3:49 ↗ the high points of the moratorium, why they felt it was necessary, what's in, what's

3:54 ↗ out. I've spent all day talking to applicants, telling them whether they were in or

4:00 ↗ out. And I can tell you some of the exclusions, so there were certain things

4:05 ↗ that were excluded from the moratorium. Or I can just sit and answer questions. I'll

4:10 ↗ let you pick a lane and I'll be more than happy to

4:16 ↗ I think we would like to hear what's in, what's out, what's

4:21 ↗ excluded and maybe as well the duration. Okay. So I'll read --

4:27 ↗ Sorry. And also the reasoning behind it. Okay. We want both lanes

4:32 ↗ apparently. So rather than read the entire ordinance, what I'll do is, so there's a

4:38 ↗ laundry list at the beginning, which is basically the reasons why the council felt it

4:43 ↗ was necessary to enact a moratorium. And does everybody understand kind of what the general

4:48 ↗ basis for a moratorium, what it is? If so, great. And then I can go

4:54 ↗ through and talk about where the line was drawn to decide who's in and who's

4:59 ↗ out. And then I can give you the list of exclusions. So we can kind

5:04 ↗ of talk about those in those three pieces, if that makes sense. So the first

5:09 ↗ piece is why they felt the moratorium was important. I'm going to go ahead

5:15 ↗ and say that it basically came out of the council had asked

5:21 ↗ for basically a three-year assessment of Central Issaquah and looking at what

5:27 ↗ projects had come through the pipeline. and to basically have a conversation about whether

5:32 ↗ we thought we were on track or not. And Lucy and I did a lion's

5:38 ↗ share of the presentation. If you want to find that meeting, the date is July

5:44 ↗ 11th. So it was a council workshop. And there were at least a couple things

5:49 ↗ that I can recollect being on the agenda. One was the presentation of a dashboard.

5:55 ↗ So Development Services provided a dashboard to the council that gave some general numbers for

6:00 ↗ what had come through the pipeline so far. And then after that, we went through

6:06 ↗ an assessment of Central Issaquah, basically on a district by district basis. So there's 10

6:11 ↗ districts or neighborhoods within Central Issaquah. And we talked about what's happened in each neighborhood

6:16 ↗ and whether or not we felt like we were on target with meeting the vision

6:22 ↗ or not. So that happened on the 11th. I'm sure it was a fascinating watch

6:27 ↗ and I'll leave it up to you whether you choose to watch that or not.

6:32 ↗ So basically from that, the council felt like there were certain,

6:38 ↗ I'm just going to go ahead and read this because I

6:43 ↗ don't want to paraphrase. So indicated certain deficiencies where the vision

6:49 ↗ was not being met, comma, including, so here's the laundry list,

6:55 ↗ architectural fit with the community, urban design, vertical mixed use, affordable

7:00 ↗ housing, parking, and district vision. So those were the things that they thought

7:06 ↗ that were concerning for them that then caused them to enact the moratorium last night.

7:12 ↗ So if you want to have a discussion about any of those, what they mean

7:17 ↗ or what I think they mean, I'm more than happy to provide that at some

7:22 ↗ point. So that's the reason. Now, where they drew the line in terms of what

7:28 ↗ was... allowed to move forward and what was

7:33 ↗ basically considered caught by the moratorium was based on

7:39 ↗ a complete permit application for land use for Administrative

7:45 ↗ site development permit, site development permit, plat or short plat. So if you

7:51 ↗ already had that, so for example, Riva, Riva is considered in the pipeline

7:57 ↗ and is not being stopped by the moratorium. Other examples are things like

8:03 ↗ Gateway Senior, obviously Gateway which is under construction. So the moratorium doesn't stop

8:09 ↗ things that are already permitted. I talked to the lawyer for I keep wanting to

8:15 ↗ call it sunshine. It's sunrise. You guys issued a decision on that I think in

8:20 ↗ April. So they're in. They get to move forward with actually building their project. But

8:25 ↗ then there are other things that are on the other side of the line that

8:30 ↗ are going to have to wait until the moratorium is lifted. So the moratorium

8:36 ↗ is basically a six-month stay. So it runs for six months,

8:42 ↗ but it's a rolling six months. So what needs to happen

8:48 ↗ in that six months is the administration needs to put together

8:53 ↗ a work plan that basically puts in place procedures and actions

8:59 ↗ to alleviate the concerns that were listed in the beginning. So those things that we

9:04 ↗ talked about or that I mentioned on page one, you know, the architectural fit and

9:09 ↗ the urban design and affordable housing and vertical mixed use, we need to actually develop

9:14 ↗ a work plan on how to deal with each one of those so that there

9:18 ↗ can be tangible progress to getting to a point where the council can lift the

9:23 ↗ moratorium. Because what's happened in the past and what's ultimately been litigated not just

9:29 ↗ in this state but in other states is jurisdictions that basically run a rolling moratorium

9:34 ↗ almost in perpetuity. You cannot use a moratorium to basically just stop development. It's not

9:40 ↗ legal. You have to have a work plan that has a beginning and a perceivable

9:46 ↗ end and you need to be able to work towards that end. Okay? So,

9:52 ↗ complete application for land use was decided to be that line to figure out who's

9:57 ↗ in and who's out. And then the council also identified projects that would be excluded

10:03 ↗ from the moratorium. And I'll read you that list. And again, I can provide some

10:08 ↗ insights if you wonder why something was included and maybe something might not have been

10:14 ↗ included. So the first thing is those projects or properties that are covered by an

10:18 ↗ approved development agreement because a development agreement is a contract and unless the city put

10:22 ↗ in that contract we have the right to stop you if we impose a moratorium

10:27 ↗ then we don't have the right to stop you with a moratorium. The second thing

10:31 ↗ is transit-oriented development. So if there's a project that is a transit-oriented development project, we

10:36 ↗ wanted the ability to be able to move that forward and not keep it stalled

10:41 ↗ under the moratorium. And I can explain a little bit more about that if you

10:46 ↗ guys want, because there's a back story there. essential public facilities so this is fire

10:51 ↗ stations and hospitals specifically so if we if we needed to build another fire station

10:56 ↗ or if we wanted to if there was another hospital proposal in town and there's

11:01 ↗ not and and Swedish is actually covered by a development agreement but we figured we'd

11:07 ↗ go ahead and list it here within essential public facilities we can move forward with

11:12 ↗ those the next is publicly funded schools and the village theater That one is a

11:17 ↗ little bit weird but I can again explain that if you guys want an explanation.

11:22 ↗ The next one is projects that involve the sale of development of land currently owned

11:28 ↗ by the city or capital improvement projects so that the city can move forward with

11:33 ↗ building roads or doing things if it needed to do that. Like for example building

11:38 ↗ a water reservoir. would be something we would want to be able to move forward

11:44 ↗ with if indeed that's what was needed. Remodels and tenant improvements was listed. Single family

11:50 ↗ homes. So the idea was if you already had a piece of property and you

11:56 ↗ wanted to build your dream retirement house that you could move forward with that. Affordable

12:02 ↗ housing projects that include at least 40% of the total residential units being affordable.

12:07 ↗ And the reason the council picked 40% is that's the number in the comprehensive

12:13 ↗ plan that says is our goal for getting in this community. And then the

12:19 ↗ last item in the exclusions was emergency repairs or construction necessitated by disasters such

12:25 ↗ as fire or earthquake or something of that sort. So that was the list

12:31 ↗ of those things that kind of were outside. And that was initially the things

12:37 ↗ that caused them to want to move forward and do that last night. And

12:43 ↗ right now it's listed for six months. And the way the state statute reads

12:48 ↗ is it basically allows the jurisdiction to enact a moratorium as an emergency provision

12:55 ↗ but then requires them to hold a public hearing within

13:00 ↗ 60 days to hear from potential, from the community or

13:06 ↗ egregious property owners or developers or because they could potentially

13:12 ↗ change kind of where they drew the line in terms of vesting or

13:18 ↗ they could change what's excluded. They could add some more exclusions or even

13:23 ↗ remove some if they wanted to. So so right now that public hearing

13:29 ↗ will be in the council chambers on October 17th. So that is the

13:34 ↗ entirety of what I know. But I'm more than happy to field any

13:40 ↗ questions that you might have. Question. I'll ask it. The moratorium applies within

13:46 ↗ the entire city limits or just within the CIP? This is a great

13:52 ↗ question. So everything that they identified as being concerning was really came out

13:57 ↗ of the CIP conversation except for one thing. So the one thing caused

14:03 ↗ them to go citywide with the moratorium and that's the affordable housing piece.

14:09 ↗ So basically they said, hey, we seem, you know, we're not getting our target. We're

14:14 ↗ not even coming close to our target. And one of the things that we presented

14:18 ↗ to them on the 11th of July, which if you watch that part of the

14:23 ↗ dashboard and you can find it on the city's webpage is, There's this graphic that

14:28 ↗ shows the number of housing units that have been permitted in central Issaquah over the

14:33 ↗ past three years, which is 963, I believe, and the number of housing units of

14:38 ↗ those that are affordable, which is zero. So it was a zero next to a

14:43 ↗ 963, and I think it really kind of etched an image in the council's mind

14:48 ↗ that something needed to change as it related to that. And so since we

14:54 ↗ have plats moving on the periphery, I think the concern was

15:00 ↗ that we need to we need we need to figure out

15:05 ↗ what we want to do with affordable housing before too many

15:11 ↗ of those properties get permitted out. So they cast it citywide.

15:17 ↗ So um for vacation planning purposes how much is in the pipeline so how much

15:22 ↗ do we have that is still within the can proceed but would be coming to

15:28 ↗ the commission just out of curiosity yeah if you can i don't know if you

15:33 ↗ can answer that question i i know there are several permits that are in the

15:38 ↗ pipeline i mean we have one on the 21st um we have

15:44 ↗ Yeah, so I know at least two STPs that will be coming

15:49 ↗ through the commission. So what you're saying is no vacation then? No.

15:55 ↗ I imagine that the fall might be slightly slower and you'll probably

16:01 ↗ see it more in the new year than you would immediately. It's

16:07 ↗ a fairly long list of things that made the cutoff. Now, not

16:13 ↗ all of them would come to you. I mean, some of them

16:19 ↗ may... go to the Urban Village Development Commission. Thank

16:24 ↗ you. Of course, I think there's a proposed rezoned

16:30 ↗ up in the highlands for the 1,800 residential units to be built. Does

16:36 ↗ that-- There's not, actually. So just to be clear, so that property owner

16:42 ↗ has expressed an interest to do something that's not allowed under the current

16:48 ↗ zoning and entitlement. So they have been having community meetings to try and

16:54 ↗ garner some community support for what they would like to do. But

17:00 ↗ as of today, they have not made a request to what would

17:05 ↗ be analogous to a rezone. Because it's within the Highlands, it's got

17:11 ↗ a little bit different mechanics, but they have not asked for anything

17:17 ↗ at this point. Is that the former Bellevue College? No. So Bellevue

17:23 ↗ College is still Bellevue College. So this is so the property that's kind of across

17:29 ↗ the street from Starbucks and Babmo, it's actually shaped ‑‑ it's 20 acres and it's

17:35 ↗ shaped like an L. And there's going to be subdivisions and residential to the west

17:41 ↗ of it that Polygon owns and is going through permitting on. But the 20 acres

17:47 ↗ that Shelter Holdings owns, they've had now, I want to say at least three meetings

17:52 ↗ with the community. And then I know that the community, that the Highlands Council scheduled

17:58 ↗ a meeting like last Monday or something that I know Stacy attended, and I think

18:04 ↗ it was reported in the paper. Just to talk about that property and whether or

18:10 ↗ not there's any interest by the community and more housing. And so

18:16 ↗ far it does not seem like there's much interest in that at all.

18:21 ↗ And would that be if they did want to come to the city

18:27 ↗ for changes, would that be covered by the moratorium? So right now, so

18:33 ↗ it depends on timing. Let's get down to a ground answer. Excuse

18:38 ↗ me. Why don't you go ahead and answer his question. So it

18:44 ↗ depends on the timing. So if the request came in advance of

18:50 ↗ the development agreement expiring, which is planned to expire next year, then

18:56 ↗ it would be covered under an amendment to the development agreement.

19:01 ↗ If they made that request after the development agreement expired, then

19:07 ↗ it would be covered under the moratorium. Mr. Chair, I've got

19:13 ↗ a question. There's quite a bit of items that's, under the

19:18 ↗ six month moratorium. And I picked up a few architectural, vision, parking, and affordable

19:24 ↗ housing. You talk a little bit about affordable housing, you're gonna have to develop

19:30 ↗ something. But in the architectural, the vision side of it, and the parking, is

19:35 ↗ that something that development commission needs to get involved and provide input on that?

19:41 ↗ Or is the city just going to come up with some guidelines

19:48 ↗ Eventually, after that six-month moratorium project comes in, obviously we're

19:53 ↗ going to need to look at that on a different

19:59 ↗ eye side, because you're talking about architectural, and everybody has

20:05 ↗ a different view of that. What we view now, as

20:11 ↗ the council said, we're not there. So six months later,

20:17 ↗ another project comes in, I would suspect we probably want to

20:23 ↗ be in a position to view it differently or not. Could be. So part of

20:28 ↗ that Commission member is so when I said we have to develop a work

20:34 ↗ plan The work plan is going to be different for each of those items. So

20:40 ↗ for example How we deal with the architectural review piece which is a piece that's

20:46 ↗ not there now It could very well be that that that part of that process

20:52 ↗ would be one coming to DC to to talk about that and get some input

20:58 ↗ and help craft maybe the guidelines that ultimately then gets applied to Central Issaquah. You

21:04 ↗ know, what we need to do now in the next couple weeks is to start

21:10 ↗ to work on putting some timing to those work projects and then thinking about

21:15 ↗ what parties we would include in that. And it seems at least to

21:21 ↗ me that there would likely be some touch points for DC in that.

21:27 ↗ And I just don't know exactly what that is right now, but it

21:32 ↗ would vary depending on the topics. - Mr. Chairman. Was there any

21:38 ↗ discussion yet about the creation or the advisability of having an architectural review board to

21:44 ↗ address that issue? So you can do the architectural review piece a

21:49 ↗ couple different ways. One is you could create a separate architectural review

21:55 ↗ board that would review each application and then that review would potentially

22:01 ↗ happen separate from the normal DC review. That's one way you could

22:07 ↗ do it. Another way you could do it is the city could hire a consultant

22:12 ↗ to basically perform the architectural review and then we would incorporate that into our staff

22:17 ↗ reports and then you guys would react to that architectural analysis like you do all

22:22 ↗ the rest of the staff analysis and you could say, you know, I don't agree

22:26 ↗ with that, I don't understand that. And so that's another way you could do it.

22:32 ↗ So I think what we're open to, at least at this point, is talking about

22:37 ↗ the different methods and procedures. And then what we'll do is we'll talk amongst, you

22:43 ↗ know, within the administration and probably propose something to come out. But there's a couple

22:48 ↗ different ways to kind of do that. - Okay, next question is, without having seen

22:53 ↗ the video of the meeting, did the subject of staff workload come up? Because quite

22:59 ↗ honestly, the staff, there has been a lot going on. There's a fixed number of

23:05 ↗ people on the city staff that work on these issues before they even come to

23:11 ↗ the DC or any of the other commissions. I wonder if that was

23:17 ↗ a consideration at all or if you think it should be if it

23:23 ↗ wasn't. So what I would say is some of these things are in

23:29 ↗ play right now. So the city's already hired a consultant to

23:34 ↗ do the vertical mixed use study. So that is kind of

23:40 ↗ in process and right now we plan to provide at least

23:46 ↗ a presentation of the consultant on the 27th of September. So the 27th of September,

23:51 ↗ which is a council committee of the whole meeting, um, there will be a presentation

23:57 ↗ on vertical mixed use, and there'll also be a presentation on the housing strategy. So,

24:03 ↗ so they had asked us to do a housing strategy, um, which includes affordable housing,

24:09 ↗ but it also includes other types of housing that we're not getting right now. And

24:14 ↗ so the first piece of that puzzle and kind of separated that into four stages.

24:20 ↗ And the first is to just do an assessment of existing housing stock and then

24:26 ↗ do a forecast of what that might look like 20 years from now if all

24:31 ↗ the policies and all the market trends stay in play. Because what we know is

24:37 ↗ we're running out of vacant land to build single family subdivisions. And so most of

24:42 ↗ the housing that's going to come forward in the city is going to be multifamily,

24:48 ↗ whether it's ownership or rental, you know, but it's going to look different than what

24:53 ↗ we got the last 20 years. And so having that conversation that the first part

24:58 ↗ of that housing strategy is understanding what the pictures look like. And then the second

25:03 ↗ piece is doing a needs assessment. And we're talking about, you know, getting out into

25:07 ↗ the community and talking about housing and housing needs with different parts of the city,

25:12 ↗ because we feel like different parts of the city are going to have some different

25:17 ↗ voices in terms of expressing what kind of housing is important for the city to

25:21 ↗ get over the next 20 years. So that piece, starting that is the 27th. So

25:26 ↗ we've got a couple pieces of this puzzle already in play. I think we knew

25:32 ↗ that the architectural piece was coming even out before the moratorium came. There was a

25:37 ↗ lot of conversation about certain projects in town and what they look like and maybe

25:43 ↗ what they should have looked like. So that's not a surprise. Lucy and I and

25:48 ↗ some of the other staff in development services, we actually have talked about having a

25:54 ↗ meeting next week to sit down and start talking about how these things might unfold.

26:00 ↗ The district vision piece is a little bit more complicated but

26:05 ↗ my first thought is the city does an annual comprehensive plan

26:11 ↗ docket and that comprehensive plan is more of a long range

26:17 ↗ planning piece. So basically timing that district vision conversation with the

26:22 ↗ comp plan for 2017 probably makes sense for me. Parking, so

26:28 ↗ the parking one is a little bit of an interesting nut. The concern I think

26:34 ↗ from the council is that some of the projects that either have been built or

26:40 ↗ have been queued up in the pre-app cycle is still, and I'm just going to

26:46 ↗ use these are my words, not the council's, they're still looking very suburban. So the

26:52 ↗ projects, if they're not residential, so the commercial retail stuff, it's really more, it's

26:57 ↗ still surface parked. It's fairly low intensity, even though they might be meeting the

27:03 ↗ FAR requirements. It still doesn't look what I think people were envisioning it to

27:09 ↗ look like. So this is a conversation about density and ultimately structured parking. And if

27:14 ↗ we're still, and part of the conversation I think we're gonna get on the 27th

27:20 ↗ is are we still a ways away from the market supporting structured parking in Issaquah

27:25 ↗ as part of development projects or are we still a ways off from that? That

27:30 ↗ will help inform our conversation about parking. - I have one more question. What

27:36 ↗ is the effect of the moratorium on traffic, if any? So my opinion,

27:42 ↗ not the city's opinion, I'm going to give you my opinion. My opinion

27:48 ↗ is probably not much. I mean, I think, you know, the city's struggling

27:54 ↗ right now with, I think there's three pieces of traffic. One is construction

27:59 ↗ traffic that is related to projects that are under construction in the city.

28:05 ↗ The second is construction traffic that is construction traffic moving through the city.

28:11 ↗ Right now there's a landfill in Black Diamond that a lot of the

28:17 ↗ trucks are tending to use specifically like Sunset, but also going down SR

28:22 ↗ 900. And so we're feeling the impact of that. I think the study

28:28 ↗ that the city did about the traffic on Sunset showed that 30% of

28:34 ↗ the trips on sunset are construction trucks. So that's crazy, right? And so the third

28:40 ↗ piece is regional traffic. And so, you know, and I don't want to be, I

28:45 ↗ don't want to call it, it's more, it's got more edges than just regional traffic

28:51 ↗ because I think what you have happening on the north side of I-90 is a

28:56 ↗ little bit different than what you have on the south side of I-90. So north

29:01 ↗ side clearly it's all the Sammamish folks that are coming down through the city and

29:06 ↗ getting on the freeway to go to Bellevue or Seattle or whatnot. On the south

29:11 ↗ side you have the communities, you have Renton and Maple Valley and others that are

29:16 ↗ choosing to come through the city to get to I-90 as opposed to maybe

29:22 ↗ 18 and 90 which might be more congested. And so but that piece that regional

29:28 ↗ traffic piece and if you watch last night's meeting that definitely came up as part

29:34 ↗ of the concerns that the council has right now is we need to start having

29:39 ↗ conversations about that regional traffic piece because it's making our streets feel very full when

29:45 ↗ the reality is the impact of kind of the developments that have been approved so

29:50 ↗ far because most of them aren't occupied. I mean, you're just now getting Atlas filling

29:56 ↗ up with people, but like for example, Gateway, there's nobody living there yet. there will

30:02 ↗ be soon but not yet. And so the traffic right now, it's construction in the

30:06 ↗ city, it's construction going through the city, and it's regional that I think are the

30:10 ↗ biggest pieces. Okay. Thank you. I just have one question. I mean, doesn't this give

30:14 ↗ me a little bit of a disconnect with wanting more affordable housing than limiting the

30:19 ↗ inventory of houses? It's going to just drive up the price even further, isn't it?

30:25 ↗ So, well, so let me, so I think, so the moratorium is temporary, okay? And

30:31 ↗ so the idea is, I think part of it is, do you, you know, do

30:37 ↗ you believe, so the city create, you know, the city gets its growth projections from

30:43 ↗ the state and from PSRC. And right now, I think, I'm believe the number

30:49 ↗ that we're expected to grow over the next 20 years is like 5,500 housing units,

30:54 ↗ give or take. So if there's 5,500, we're going to get those regardless. You can

30:59 ↗ put a cork on the bottle for six months or a year, and you're still

31:04 ↗ going to get 5,500 20 years from now. They're just going to come at a

31:08 ↗ different pace. Is there something the city can do to influence whether

31:14 ↗ those come in at market or at an affordable price point? That's

31:20 ↗ the conversation that we're going to have over specifically the next six

31:26 ↗ to eight months to see if, you know, there's a lot of

31:32 ↗ tools in place. There's regulations, there's incentives, there's ways that the city

31:38 ↗ can influence what the market would otherwise provide. Other comments?

31:44 ↗ Great, thanks. Thank

31:49 ↗ you. All right,

31:54 ↗ thank you. So

31:59 ↗ I'm just gonna

32:04 ↗ do a quick

32:09 ↗ piece on quasi-judicial

32:14 ↗ that you often

32:19 ↗ see done. So tonight

32:24 ↗ you're being asked to hold a public hearing on a

32:30 ↗ site development permit based on the building size and the

32:35 ↗ parcel size. It is a quasi-judicial permit for which you

32:41 ↗ are the decision maker. A quasi-judicial matter means that you act like

32:47 ↗ a court and that the proceedings be both fair and appear fair. And there

32:52 ↗ are two components to that. Procedural due process, which has to do with the

32:58 ↗ process we go through, predominantly around notice and how the decision is made. And

33:04 ↗ substantive due process, which is using adopted regulations as the basis for the decision.

33:10 ↗ So I would ask for you to read

33:16 ↗ through these questions and I'll ask for your

33:21 ↗ responses in a moment. So she wants a

33:26 ↗ response from each one of us, correct? I

33:32 ↗ can do it as a group. How many

33:37 ↗ people answer no? Anyone answer yes? Okay.

33:43 ↗ And then the other piece has to do with ex parte contacts,

33:49 ↗ which means having conversations about this permit outside of being in these

33:54 ↗ chambers and on the microphone so that everyone can hear it. Has

34:00 ↗ anyone had any ex parte communications? No. Okay. Anyone challenge any of

34:06 ↗ the participation of any of the commissioners? Okay. Thank you very much.

34:12 ↗ I'm just going to get TJ up on the camera. Oh, yeah.

34:39 ↗ Good evening. My name is Amy Tarrs and I'm a

34:45 ↗ senior planner for the City of Issaquah. So tonight I

34:51 ↗ will be doing the presentation for what's really a continuation

34:56 ↗ of the public hearing for the Riva Townhomes SDP 15-00004.

35:02 ↗ Just to kind of provide a little bit of a

35:08 ↗ reminder or context for everyone. This project was originally

35:14 ↗ supposed to be discussed for a decision back in April of 2016

35:19 ↗ and by the request of the applicant we because they needed a

35:25 ↗ little bit more time to work with staff on one of the

35:31 ↗ conditions relating to the shared use route we pulled it out of

35:36 ↗ the agenda so we are back and now ready to provide our

35:42 ↗ recommendations and you have received the briefing response memo that

35:48 ↗ updates basically where we're at today with some minor edits

35:54 ↗ to the conditions from the original staff report and Before

35:59 ↗ I start my presentation for the record, I would like to note

36:05 ↗ that staff submitted two sets of public comments. One set was what

36:11 ↗ I had intended to submit for the April 2016 meeting. and that's

36:17 ↗ labeled attachment six to nine. And also for tonight, there's four additional

36:23 ↗ public comments after we have sent out the staff report and the

36:29 ↗ attachments. So that's called out as exhibit one to four.

36:38 ↗ So just for a quick review, this is basically

36:44 ↗ a townhouse development with 36 four-story townhomes and 85

36:49 ↗ parking spaces in 8.39 acres. Only 2.19 acres of

36:55 ↗ the site is developable due to the critical areas

37:00 ↗ on site. And what you see here where you see green

37:06 ↗ is actually the critical area buffer for this project. With the

37:12 ↗ townhomes lined up along the major circulation facility which is New

37:17 ↗ Port Way, there is a driveway that leads to the internal,

37:23 ↗ the remaining townhomes in this project. So for

37:29 ↗ tonight's meeting, I will not take you through the whole

37:34 ↗ project again. What I will do is highlight basically some

37:40 ↗ of the major topics that were the focus of our

37:46 ↗ previous public hearing discussion. Basically, there were two that were that

37:51 ↗ were that we we heard a lot of comments from the public and

37:57 ↗ also questions from the development commission. So one has to do with the

38:03 ↗ trail connection that's required for this project and how it relates to the

38:09 ↗ regional trail system. So tonight I'm going to start off with the map that's

38:15 ↗ found in the central Issaquah plan. This is a map that shows where you

38:20 ↗ see the dark green dashed lines. These are actually the streets and And then

38:26 ↗ I don't know if you can read it. It's a little hazy maybe,

38:32 ↗ but you see this solid green line and these are actually off street

38:38 ↗ shared use routes. So what we want to focus on is this area

38:44 ↗ where the Riva property is. There's two different symbols for required or significant

38:50 ↗ community spaces. that were identified in the Central Issaquah Plan. One is

38:56 ↗ this yellow circle which represents a neighborhood park and the green

39:01 ↗ and what you see here is it branches out on both

39:07 ↗ sides of the Riva property and it's a required shared use

39:12 ↗ route. So From my previous presentation, I kind of explained

39:18 ↗ that wherever you see two symbols in one property, basically

39:23 ↗ the Central Issaquah Plan identifies or provides for the staff

39:29 ↗ or the administration to select one or the other. And

39:34 ↗ basically in this particular case, because the developable area is

39:40 ↗ only two acres, we we have chosen the shared use route

39:45 ↗ as the appropriate share, I'm sorry, appropriate community space for the

39:51 ↗ REVA property. So last time we heard a lot of concerns

39:57 ↗ about requiring the shared use route through the property. And so

40:03 ↗ one of the things the Development Commission requested was somehow

40:08 ↗ we need to evaluate what are the existing, I'm sorry, the

40:14 ↗ existing shared use routes and trails, and how the future shared

40:20 ↗ route will connect to the existing ones. So what you're seeing here,

40:26 ↗ it's a little bit basically a montage of several, well in this

40:31 ↗ case two different drawings. What you see up here is the site

40:37 ↗ plan for the Gateway project which the Development Commission approved. And here

40:43 ↗ is the existing Sammamish Point condos which is basically sandwiched between

40:48 ↗ the Gateway Apartments and the future of Riva Townhomes. So

40:54 ↗ what you're seeing here is a combination of existing trails,

40:59 ↗ which is the yellow. So right now on Newport Way,

41:05 ↗ there's already an existing Mountains to Sound Greenway bike trail.

41:10 ↗ And then In the future, you're also going to

41:16 ↗ see that there's the shared use route through the Gateway Apartments.

41:22 ↗ And again, based on the Central Isoco Plan, there is also

41:27 ↗ a vision to provide another shared use route that will cross

41:33 ↗ over I-90 towards the Samat Mish State Park. So where does

41:39 ↗ that... And then for, I'm sorry, so other potential trails, right? The

41:44 ↗ Bergsma trails, this is basically a voluntary trail system for a future

41:50 ↗ residential development. And where you see the pink dashed lines, these are

41:56 ↗ all identified in the central Issaquah plan as future trails. So, we

42:02 ↗ know that there is already a trail at the Cougar Mountain

42:08 ↗ Regional Wildland State Park. So, in the future, we're also going

42:13 ↗ to see an improved parking facility that will serve future trail

42:19 ↗ users. And this is right across the Riva property. So where does

42:24 ↗ that put the Riva property with all these new developments and trail systems?

42:30 ↗ So what we have asked and recommended as far as the route for

42:36 ↗ the future shared use route under Riva property is to run along its

42:42 ↗ northern edge and then to go up north to connect

42:48 ↗ to the future Gateway Apartments, Shared Use Route and actually

42:53 ↗ at this end it becomes a boardwalk over Tibbets Creek

42:59 ↗ Wetland. We heard some comments about how about a connection

43:05 ↗ to the Rowley properties. So the The Rowley Development Agreement identified

43:11 ↗ three different locations for a connection from the Riva property to their

43:17 ↗ property. And after discussing this further with them, they have chosen a

43:23 ↗ location which is where this purple arrow is showing, which is further

43:28 ↗ north than where we originally thought. the connection will be. There are

43:34 ↗ other things that determines timing of, for all these other related connections

43:40 ↗ to the REVA property. So having said all of that, as you

43:46 ↗ may have read in our most current briefing response memo, The applicant

43:51 ↗ has provided us with two cost estimates for constructing this

43:57 ↗ shared use route. And it's a pretty significant length, you

44:03 ↗ know, about a thousand, over a thousand feet, lineal feet.

44:08 ↗ And due to the costs and weighing that cost versus

44:14 ↗ what they would have to pay in terms of a park impact fees,

44:20 ↗ staff determined that in this particular situation that it would,

44:26 ↗ the cost of requiring this shared use route is far

44:32 ↗ beyond what the property or the project would have had

44:37 ↗ to pay in terms of park impact fees. And so

44:43 ↗ we have basically recommended that condition nine, which was the, the

44:48 ↗ condition that required the construction of the shared use route to basically clarify

44:54 ↗ that the applicant will be paying the applicable park impact fees for 36

45:00 ↗ townhome units and provide a relocatable public access easement with

45:05 ↗ a width of 20 feet in the same alignment as

45:11 ↗ what's shown in attachment to of the briefing memo which

45:16 ↗ is also what's shown here and also that we will

45:22 ↗ have a signage right at the entry of the property and where the

45:28 ↗ future trailhead will be so that the future residents will be notified that there

45:34 ↗ is this expectation for this trail to be provided in the future. And

45:39 ↗ in addition to that, we are recommending deleting conditions 2.C, 10 and

45:45 ↗ 11, which all relate to the requirement for the shared use route

45:51 ↗ to be constructed by the applicant. So the other

45:56 ↗ item that garnered a lot of comments from the

46:02 ↗ public is Newport Way, including traffic and safety with

46:07 ↗ the medians that are being proposed and potential

46:13 ↗ a potential four-way stop sign or in some cases a

46:19 ↗ request for a traffic signal. So I'll start off with

46:24 ↗ this diagram simply demonstrates that we have started an initial

46:30 ↗ response to, you know, looking at the site distance triangle

46:36 ↗ for both driveways. This is Oakcrest. This is an existing

46:41 ↗ driveway and for Riva for the future driveway. And this

46:47 ↗ simply to assure the development commission that during the construction

46:53 ↗ permit review, we will continue to use the city standard

46:59 ↗ for for sight distance clearances to ensure that none of

47:04 ↗ the sight distances will be blocked by any medians. So

47:10 ↗ and then the next one has to do with the

47:16 ↗ question about whether or not Newport Way is wide

47:21 ↗ enough for both for traffic and also for, I'm

47:27 ↗ sorry, for vehicular traffic and also for pedestrian safety.

47:32 ↗ So what you're seeing here is First, the existing right

47:38 ↗ of way width on Oak Crest Drive. So along Newport Way in

47:44 ↗ front of the Riva property, the right of way actually varies from

47:50 ↗ 76 feet to 60 feet as you go further east. So right

47:55 ↗ at that intersection, it's at 76 feet and 6 inches. And so

48:01 ↗ we are requiring the applicant to basically provide what the basically

48:07 ↗ the frontage improvements for the full width of Newport Way within

48:13 ↗ this blue area. And what that includes is right of way

48:18 ↗ dedication of 1.5 feet on their side, the paving for full

48:24 ↗ width of the roadway with curbs and gutters, Commuter bike

48:30 ↗ lanes, this one is existing on the left, but this one will, I'm

48:36 ↗ sorry, since the center line is changing, everything's gonna change too. So yes,

48:41 ↗ I'm sorry. So this actually all three with a multi-use trail, what we're

48:47 ↗ calling a shared use trail that is raised and separated from the travel

48:53 ↗ lanes. Center turn lane or a landscape median, Repositioning of

48:59 ↗ street lights and that just comes with shifting the center line of

49:05 ↗ the street and then a temporary five foot gravel walkway to the

49:10 ↗ Cougar Mountain Trail Trailhead. So as part of

49:16 ↗ all of that, one of just for clarification and again to

49:22 ↗ address community concerns, currently there is a 10 foot shoulder that

49:27 ↗ that the community uses to walk to the the trailhead. So because

49:33 ↗ we are shifting the center line of Newport Way and we are

49:39 ↗ also adding a 10 foot multi-use trail, it shifts everything and that

49:45 ↗ shoulder will go away. And in lieu of that shoulder, we are

49:51 ↗ providing or requesting the applicant to provide a five foot gravel walkway

49:57 ↗ so that pedestrians can continue to access their trail.

50:03 ↗ So this is quite a short presentation because at least from

50:08 ↗ our end, we think that we have addressed all of the

50:14 ↗ concerns. And so based on our presentation and the staff report

50:19 ↗ and the briefing response memos and additional information that were provided

50:25 ↗ by the applicant, we are recommending the Development Commission to approve

50:30 ↗ this project. That concludes

50:36 ↗ my presentation. Thanks Amy. Commissioners? Comments? Concerns? I do have one question.

50:42 ↗ You mentioned the received two cost estimates at least twice as much

50:48 ↗ as the parking back fees. Can you tell us what those cost

50:53 ↗ estimates were? So it was ranging between $500,000 to $800,000. And

50:59 ↗ it doesn't even include the railings and the geotechnical

51:05 ↗ studies. Thank you. Question? Related to that is in

51:11 ↗ the new condition 9, you referred to it as

51:17 ↗ provide a relocatable public access easement. I'm not familiar with

51:23 ↗ the terms of a relocatable easement. So how does that work if you're defining an

51:28 ↗ easement on the property that could be moved to where and how does that happen?

51:34 ↗ So in other words, we have currently a general idea where that line is.

51:40 ↗ However, once we start looking at the site conditions where trees

51:46 ↗ are located, we may shift that line to avoid some of

51:52 ↗ the trees. So it will remain along this. It's not like

51:57 ↗ suddenly it's going to go to a different direction. It would still

52:03 ↗ follow the same direction, but it may not be at the exact

52:09 ↗ location as what's shown here. Because of vegetation or topography or whatever

52:14 ↗ for constructability that they would move it. Commissioner Harris. Amy, just clarify

52:20 ↗ for me. So the requirement to build that trail is essentially...

52:26 ↗ delayed indefinitely or they are going to be required to put it put the trail

52:31 ↗ in in a in a fixed time zone. I'm just not clear on that. Yes.

52:37 ↗ So in this particular case, staff is acknowledging that this trail is still an important

52:42 ↗ element of the green necklace. However, the applicant is not going to be required

52:48 ↗ to construct it. It may be that in the future, either the city

52:54 ↗ does it or some other applicant or some kind of maybe a not-for-profit

53:00 ↗ group would want to do it. So we don't know. We haven't identified

53:06 ↗ who might be building it in the future. Mr. Chair? I simply

53:11 ↗ recall there was an issue about parking with the trail system at one

53:17 ↗ point in time across the street from there. Was that, I don't see

53:23 ↗ that being proposed right now. Whatever came out of that. So the goodness

53:29 ↗ is the King County Parks Department is proceeding with applying for a grant

53:34 ↗ to build a 40, and it may change but right now what we're hearing

53:40 ↗ is a 40 space parking lot on the side so it would just be a

53:46 ↗ matter of timing so we are continuing to work with them on you know just

53:52 ↗ as far as coordinating on how to you know for them moving their project along

53:57 ↗ and how we can facilitate that So that parking lot would be at the

54:03 ↗ location of the trailhead then? Yes, so it will be inside their property where it's

54:08 ↗ safer. Okay, thank you. With the amount of units and the construction that's going on

54:14 ↗ as well up top and the way people drive on Newport as it is, why

54:19 ↗ isn't a traffic light required? I mean it seems like there's gonna be a lot

54:24 ↗ of pedestrian traffic as well as car traffic going through there. And in mornings

54:30 ↗ when people leave for work, it's kind of hazy and dark sometimes. It seemed

54:36 ↗ like a safer bet for us. As far as with, first I'll address

54:41 ↗ that in more of a regional or system-wide scale. So Newport Way

54:47 ↗ has always been intended as an arterial, which means that we want

54:53 ↗ the traffic to constantly move. So based on that, our public works

54:58 ↗ engineering director is not supportive of any sort of traffic signals that

55:04 ↗ will hinder that. However, so the second level of analysis and rational for that

55:10 ↗ has to do with the warrants, you know, and when you have a new project,

55:16 ↗ you identify, you know, how many trips that project will take. will add into

55:22 ↗ the existing trips and then whether that triggers a need for traffic signal. And in

55:27 ↗ this case, because of how low the number of units are, it doesn't really trigger

55:33 ↗ the requirement for a traffic signal. But if you're adding trailhead and making it

55:39 ↗ kind of a destination for people there's gonna be a lot of foot traffic there

55:44 ↗ so that's that's my concern is people crossing the street maybe the uh the people

55:49 ↗ in the apartment across the street go up to the trail the other way right

55:54 ↗ then you have all the foot traffic crossing Newport which is an artery that's moving

55:59 ↗ quickly so if if it's about the pedestrian safety we actually um recently installed a

56:04 ↗ new rectangular I always forget what rectangular flashing be yeah RFFD what is the

56:10 ↗ other F yeah beacon so it's it's it's a more enhanced pedestrian amenity

56:16 ↗ you know instead of just one of those that you you push the

56:21 ↗ button and then it lights up this one has you know something that

56:27 ↗ more visible and we also move the we also have a rate a

56:33 ↗ speed speed radar and and so I talked to

56:38 ↗ the director also about that and how we moved that in order

56:44 ↗ to kind of start reminding drivers that they're get they're approaching a

56:50 ↗ crosswalk and for them to slow down so and and and just

56:56 ↗ for clarification they're also required to improve the the crosswalks at the

57:01 ↗ intersection of Oak Crest and Newport Way - Amy,

57:07 ↗ there was one, I'm sorry. - No, go ahead. - There was

57:13 ↗ one thing that I noticed that referred to the anti-aircraft culvert relocation.

57:19 ↗ And as I read it, I believe it said that there would

57:25 ↗ be a requirement to regrade Newport in order to accommodate the culvert.

57:30 ↗ But that was all that was said, that regrading Newport kind

57:36 ↗ of sounds like a really big deal. Yeah so so

57:42 ↗ yes so due to the requirement for a fish passage

57:48 ↗ design culvert basically we have to we have to regrade

57:53 ↗ Newport Way so since the Since the applicant is already building Newport

57:59 ↗ Way, it's basically not a major change for them. And so as far

58:05 ↗ as with their site, they were able to accommodate the change in grade

58:10 ↗ by increasing the height of the garages that were tucked in garages. So

58:16 ↗ it didn't really affect their site plan either.

58:26 ↗ Mr. Chair, point of clarification, and maybe you can help us understand

58:31 ↗ it. I think there's like a 900 units development that's going on

58:37 ↗ along Newport Way there. And I guess the trails eventually will tie

58:43 ↗ into the walking trail will tie into that. And the issue is,

58:48 ↗ I guess, part traffic. I understand what you're saying about

58:54 ↗ putting some warning, you know, you hit a button and then the light flashes

59:00 ↗ so the driver realizes that you're approaching a sidewalk or a crosswalk. But with

59:06 ↗ the 900 units, that's going to generate a lot of traffic coming out of

59:12 ↗ there. I don't know, maybe it shouldn't be a burden for this project, but

59:18 ↗ I think the city, I think at one point in time talked about that and

59:23 ↗ then I thought I read something about that they were going to put a circular,

59:28 ↗ a roundabout there. Is that part of that or how, where is that at this

59:34 ↗ point in time? So the roundabout was actually identified for further, you

59:39 ↗ know, where the Gateway project is. So in fact, that's what

59:45 ↗ we're doing. We are in the process of installing a roundabout

59:51 ↗ right here. And is that still in progress then? Yes, it

59:56 ↗ will be constructed. We are currently reviewing the construction permit for

1:00:02 ↗ it. So just I'm seeing some skepticism. Uh, so even with

1:00:07 ↗ the gateway project, it did not generate enough traffic that we are allowed

1:00:13 ↗ to install a traffic signal. You, you have to meet a certain, it's

1:00:19 ↗ called tripping the warrants. You know, you have to hit that number or

1:00:24 ↗ you may not install a signal. These two projects are not generating enough.

1:00:30 ↗ And what is that number? I keep hearing, "We're not there." Does

1:00:36 ↗ anybody know what the number is? Is that a secret?

1:00:42 ↗ I would ask that you introduce yourself please. Jeff Schram, Traffic Engineer,

1:00:48 ↗ 10W. I testified last time in the first hearing as well. So

1:00:53 ↗ to try to provide you a more simplified answer, there's a series

1:00:59 ↗ of warrants. The one that is typically triggered the peak hour warrant. If

1:01:05 ↗ usually if that's triggered then you know multiple warrants are triggered. You would need about

1:01:11 ↗ a hundred and fifty trips from the side street to be generated during a peak

1:01:16 ↗ hour. That's equivalent of about 200 units of multifamily housing. So a project of this

1:01:22 ↗ size or even the traffic on Oak Crest on the other side will probably never

1:01:28 ↗ have enough volume to warrant a signal at that location.

1:01:34 ↗ And what is the peak hours? Morning there's a peak hours and the afternoon? We

1:01:39 ↗ look at both the morning and the afternoon peak hour. We look at both of

1:01:44 ↗ them. If either of those hours are met or in some cases like in a

1:01:49 ↗ retail district the peak hour could occur at noon or in the afternoon. If any

1:01:54 ↗ peak hour, if there's a high enough volume on the side street to warrant it,

1:01:59 ↗ you can have, as long as there's also a minimum of traffic on the arterial

1:02:04 ↗ as well. In this case there's enough volume on the arterial, just the side street

1:02:09 ↗ doesn't have enough, would not generate enough traffic to warrant a signal. Okay and what

1:02:13 ↗ are the hours, the peak hours? So the peak hour, typically the peak hour is

1:02:19 ↗ between 4 and 6 p.m. It varies throughout the city. I think in this area

1:02:25 ↗ it's between 4.30 and 5.30. It's the highest 60-minute period where traffic volumes are highest.

1:02:30 ↗ And in the morning? In the morning it's probably 7.30 to 8.30. 7.15 to 7.45

1:02:36 ↗ is about the peak time, I think, along Newport. So are you saying that the

1:02:42 ↗ traffic on Newport is not, what would trigger the warrant, but what traffic is coming

1:02:48 ↗ out of the Riviera apartments? Yeah, you need a certain level of volume on both

1:02:53 ↗ the arterial and the side street. So both of them have to meet a minimum

1:02:58 ↗ standard. What I'm saying is if there's enough volume on Newport where if if

1:03:04 ↗ a development of about 200 townhomes let's say were were generated that that would

1:03:10 ↗ be right near where the warrant level would be to warrant a signal at

1:03:15 ↗ an intersection. So when the city says that they're not allowed

1:03:21 ↗ to put a stoplight unless the warrants are triggered, by whom are they

1:03:27 ↗ not allowed? Well, there's a -- we use an MUTCD, which is a

1:03:32 ↗ manual on uniform traffic control devices, which is a nationally accepted standard. There's

1:03:38 ↗ a series of 11 warrants. that range from, several of them are traffic

1:03:44 ↗ volume driven, pedestrian demand driven, safety driven, railroad crossing, coordinated signal

1:03:50 ↗ system. There's a variety of different standards that are required. The

1:03:55 ↗ most typical is traffic volume related. If an intersection or a

1:04:01 ↗ location is not meeting those standards, then it is a recommended

1:04:07 ↗ practice not to install signals Professionally speaking, there are locations where signals have been implemented

1:04:12 ↗ when a warrant is not met under special circumstances. But, go ahead. - So is

1:04:18 ↗ this more of a funding issue than anything else about whether or not you get

1:04:23 ↗ state money, county money, federal money for the project? - It's a liability issue. -

1:04:29 ↗ Liability issue. - It increases our liability if we install it contrary to warrants, is

1:04:34 ↗ my understanding. - So the city could be sued by who? But the parents--

1:04:40 ↗ If there was a court case-- Yeah. So I'm looking at

1:04:46 ↗ my expert over here, but my understanding is it's somewhat counterintuitive,

1:04:51 ↗ but installing signals, either signals or stop signs where it is

1:04:57 ↗ not warranted and if something happens there, then we have installed

1:05:03 ↗ it contrary to the professional criteria, and therefore we have created

1:05:08 ↗ additional liability for the city. Okay. Thank you.

1:05:16 ↗ I have one more question. Are there similar criteria for

1:05:22 ↗ a roundabout? It's a great question. roundabouts do not

1:05:27 ↗ have the same criteria for signal warrants but in our

1:05:33 ↗ profession typically if a signal is warranted one alternative to

1:05:38 ↗ signalization is roundabout there is not a nationally accepted criteria

1:05:44 ↗ for minimum traffic volume standards for a roundabout would you

1:05:49 ↗ incur the same liability at that point maybe that's a

1:05:55 ↗ question for not well I want to answer

1:06:00 ↗ that. There are applications, there are more common

1:06:05 ↗ applications for roundabouts than there are signals where

1:06:11 ↗ they would be placed for conditions that would

1:06:16 ↗ account for situations where maybe traffic signal warrants

1:06:22 ↗ aren't met. It's a viable alternative for things

1:06:27 ↗ like or reducing speeds, accounting for pedestrian activity, things like that. - And

1:06:33 ↗ monitoring the flow out of that development. And won't most of the cars be

1:06:39 ↗ coming out of that development reasonably going left as opposed to right? And does

1:06:45 ↗ that factor into the flow rate, the direction they're coming out? - Sure, yeah,

1:06:51 ↗ that factors. One other element that is, in a traffic analysis is

1:06:57 ↗ level service analysis. And we have, you know, we've identified how much traffic

1:07:02 ↗ volume is generated by this development. And we look at level service standards.

1:07:08 ↗ Again, a national standard, the volume of traffic coming out here would result

1:07:14 ↗ in a level service C, which is an acceptable condition. Depending on, you

1:07:19 ↗ know, we're looking at traffic modeling, there'd be a fairly, equivalent flow

1:07:25 ↗ depending if you're in the morning or afternoon peak hour in terms of where cars

1:07:31 ↗ are coming to or from. - Okay, thank you. - Amy, I have just one

1:07:36 ↗ question. There's probably no data on this at all, but is there any indication yet

1:07:42 ↗ of the and some of the other units that are coming online. Is there any

1:07:48 ↗ indication of how many of the renters are actually working, going to work in Issaquah?

1:07:53 ↗ Any percentage ballpark in terms of will they be trying, you know, Where are these

1:07:59 ↗ people going to work? I just wonder if there's a marketing study on that that

1:08:04 ↗ was presented. There may be. They haven't. Lennar hasn't shared it with us, if there

1:08:09 ↗ is. I think that would be interesting. I don't know whether that's something for the

1:08:14 ↗ Issaquah Press to do or the city to do, but to find out as these

1:08:18 ↗ things come online, how many of the folks that are moving into Issaquah are moving

1:08:23 ↗ into these central Issaquah plan projects. are actually commuting outside of the city. Yeah, and

1:08:29 ↗ I don't know if that, it may be the census before that kind of

1:08:35 ↗ data is collected. I would imagine there's probably some numbers out there. Because the

1:08:41 ↗ report came out says there's no impact on traffic. on the development. Same

1:08:47 ↗ thing as that gentleman when you made a statement, it says it's not going to

1:08:53 ↗ generate 150 trips. So you must base it on something. So my question is what

1:08:58 ↗ is that number right now? And I'm sure somebody did some study for you to

1:09:04 ↗ make that statement. So with the 900 units that's going further going up, you know,

1:09:09 ↗ further north, somebody did some study and I seem to recall one of the

1:09:15 ↗ meetings that we had, they said that it's not going to affect the traffic.

1:09:21 ↗ And there's a lot of concern, not only from the DC, but the public,

1:09:27 ↗ and especially when you have that accident with the kid getting killed. So there's

1:09:33 ↗ a lot of concern that's coming out of that. So I guess the point

1:09:39 ↗ to answer Commissioner Randi was that I believe there's a study done. I don't know

1:09:44 ↗ what it is. So I think you're confusing the studies. I mean, you're right. There's

1:09:50 ↗ a traffic impact analysis that's performed. based on a model because the people

1:09:56 ↗ who are going to live there, there's not data on

1:10:01 ↗ who those people are and exactly where they're working. It's

1:10:07 ↗ a model based on the history and operation within the

1:10:12 ↗ city. And so the specific data on who actually has moved in and where they're

1:10:17 ↗ actually working and their modes of travel, that's a different kind of study that hasn't

1:10:22 ↗ been performed. - And just to be clear, I didn't expect the city to be

1:10:27 ↗ collecting that data. I just wondered if somebody else in their marketing studies had done

1:10:32 ↗ that and then shared it with you. That was unfortunate. - Fortunately, no. Where is

1:10:38 ↗ the nearest bus stop and which direction is the elementary from this

1:10:43 ↗ location? Are we talking about the school bus? So the school and

1:10:49 ↗ probably the residents know better than me where it is now because

1:10:55 ↗ the last time we talked about it, it was supposed to be

1:11:01 ↗ close to the crosswalk at Oak Crest. But it's important to remember

1:11:06 ↗ that School bus stops could change every single year. And so where it

1:11:12 ↗ is now versus where it is once construction has taken place is hard to

1:11:18 ↗ predict. What schools are they zoned for? That's going to make a difference on

1:11:24 ↗ traffic in the peak hours, right? Because they're zoned for one that's that way.

1:11:30 ↗ And again, the school boundaries often change after the construction of a project. So

1:11:36 ↗ we don't know it right now. And it also has come out a

1:11:42 ↗ number of times when we've been talking about these that the school district's policy is

1:11:47 ↗ that the buses do not go into these projects. So they have to, according to

1:11:52 ↗ school district policy, the stops to pick up and discharge children are on the arterial

1:11:58 ↗ rather than inside the project. and depending on where the school is would determine which

1:12:02 ↗ way the traffic goes during those peak times so we can't necessarily know that we

1:12:06 ↗ won't have 150 going one way or another depending on time of day if we

1:12:09 ↗ don't know which school they're going to go to that's gonna make a huge difference

1:12:12 ↗ on which way the traffic goes and the flow and you know how many people

1:12:16 ↗ are heading one way or another Right. Although the traffic engineer was speaking

1:12:21 ↗ to actually crossing trips coming off the side streets. So if

1:12:27 ↗ the school bus is staying on Newport, then it would be

1:12:33 ↗ absolutely right, a contributor to the through traffic, but not the

1:12:39 ↗ cross traffic. Other comments, commissioners? So I would like to take

1:12:44 ↗ a little bit of time and open up open the time for

1:12:50 ↗ some public comment. If there are members of the public that would like to make

1:12:55 ↗ a statement or a comment before you do that, I would like you to sign

1:13:00 ↗ in and make sure that we have your name. I don't know how many people

1:13:05 ↗ might want to talk, so I would just ask you to be mindful of the

1:13:09 ↗ hour and limit your discussion if possible. Mr. Chairman, would you just double check that

1:13:14 ↗ the applicant doesn't care to make a presentation? I probably misspoke and I would like

1:13:19 ↗ to ask the applicant if he would be interested if they would be interested in

1:13:23 ↗ making a making a comment before we ask the public to do that so I'm

1:13:28 ↗ not going to open the public comment at this point so I apologize for and

1:13:32 ↗ I appreciate the reminder thank you apologies accepted I'm Aaron Golden with Connor Homes I'll

1:13:36 ↗ speak very briefly because I'm on a tail end of a cold but I want

1:13:40 ↗ to thank the commission members for their time and particularly staff for their diligent efforts

1:13:45 ↗ it's been some time and for a small project it's had its complications but

1:13:50 ↗ we're very excited. We feel like it's an attractive project. It's a great spot

1:13:56 ↗ for an infill development and it meets a distinct market niche. So thank you.

1:14:02 ↗ We have staff here for any additional questions. Thank you. Now unless I've made

1:14:07 ↗ another error we'll open the opportunity for the public to make comment if they

1:14:13 ↗ so choose. We'd ask

1:14:19 ↗ you to introduce yourself before you speak. Good evening,

1:14:24 ↗ Commission members. My name is Hart Sugarman. I live

1:14:30 ↗ at 2550 Northwest Oakcrest Drive. I'm a resident here

1:14:35 ↗ for over 20 years at this location, so I'm

1:14:41 ↗ very familiar with this site. I submitted my comments

1:14:46 ↗ in writing, and Amy was kind enough to provide

1:14:52 ↗ a reply, but I do want to bring up

1:14:57 ↗ some concerns. The intersection, well first of all, the decision to

1:15:03 ↗ build this complex adjacent to the roadway with no easement or buffer zone

1:15:09 ↗ will be setting a precedence for the city. There's no dwelling, whether it's

1:15:14 ↗ a residence or building, you know, commercial building on Newport Way from the

1:15:20 ↗ west boundary on Lakemont Boulevard or to the east or southeast boundary at

1:15:25 ↗ Front Street. This is the first building that will be right smack against the

1:15:31 ↗ roadway. So this is going to create a whole new dynamics and concern. So with

1:15:37 ↗ traffic, we have the roadway. Oak Crest Drive is not a driveway. Oak Crest Drive

1:15:42 ↗ is a roadway that is serving the community of Summerhill subdivision with 55 homes. Coming

1:15:47 ↗ out of our street, we have here Newport Way, which is like Newport Way S

1:15:53 ↗ curves. It might be a shallow S, but it does create some sight lines

1:15:58 ↗ and very limited reaction time when cars are driving. So coming out of

1:16:04 ↗ Oak Crest Drive right or left is a challenge for us. Putting in

1:16:10 ↗ this driveway directly opposite is also going to be unique for Newport Way

1:16:16 ↗ because every other four-way intersection on Newport Way has traffic controls. stop

1:16:22 ↗ lights. And if you go further west into Bellevue, the first street is 164th, it's

1:16:27 ↗ a four-way stop sign. So to put in a four-way intersection without some sort of

1:16:33 ↗ controls is a risk. Now coming out of the driveway from Riva, a driver will

1:16:39 ↗ be looking to their left, but there's a curve. And now today with the roadway

1:16:44 ↗ and the grass and the brush, you can see oncoming cars. But now with the

1:16:49 ↗ buildings built at that roadway and the curve, and you have to really see it

1:16:54 ↗ yourselves because the drawing here doesn't really illustrate this, but if you come out of

1:16:58 ↗ that driveway, the time and distance for you to react to make a left turn

1:17:03 ↗ when buildings are now blocking your view because you don't have that clear view, sight

1:17:08 ↗ line of the cars that are coming westbound. That is a concern. So I think

1:17:14 ↗ you really have to look at some sort of control. Now the roundabout further down

1:17:20 ↗ at Gateway, I'm not quite sure how the bike lane cues into the roundabout or

1:17:26 ↗ pedestrians safely cross the street when there's a constant flow of cars going around and

1:17:31 ↗ around. How does that pedestrian safely cross the road if there isn't a traffic control

1:17:36 ↗ or a crosswalk enabling a pedestrian to cross the street? So likewise here, if we're

1:17:41 ↗ gonna have a trailhead with a lot of foot traffic and now we're gonna widen

1:17:45 ↗ the street, widening the street with an additional lane, how can you safely walk across

1:17:50 ↗ with just the push of a button with a rectangular flashing light? That is not

1:17:54 ↗ going to work when the street becomes wider and the person has to cross quicker

1:17:59 ↗ to safely cross. We've experienced one death at our intersection. We don't want another. So

1:18:04 ↗ I just want you to really think about the two decisions that are setting a

1:18:08 ↗ precedence. road building right at the roadway and a four-way intersection that is not having

1:18:14 ↗ some sort of actuated control that we can you know activate a signal when it's

1:18:19 ↗ necessary not that it's always going to turn red for the oncoming cars but at

1:18:24 ↗ least when cars are trying to come out that there's a trigger that will activate

1:18:29 ↗ the light so people can exit safely and another final point talus is a large

1:18:34 ↗ community adjacent to our location here, many drivers choose to drive on Newport Way

1:18:40 ↗ to get to exit 13 because it's quicker than going down State Road 900 to

1:18:45 ↗ join I-90 at exit 15. So we have a lot of traffic coming in.

1:18:51 ↗ to Newport Way, it's increasing with the Gateway project and now with Riva and

1:18:57 ↗ it's just going to compound the volume of traffic. So I think traffic studies

1:19:03 ↗ in the past won't apply to this. You have to rethink and re-engineer this

1:19:09 ↗ whole thing. And the final point is do you build the roads first and

1:19:15 ↗ then the dwellings or do you build the dwellings and then tear up the

1:19:21 ↗ road and inconvenience all the people that just moved in one before the other?

1:19:27 ↗ Thank you very much for your time. Good evening everyone. My name is

1:19:33 ↗ Tina Conforti and I live on 1220 Oakcrest Drive. I am right next

1:19:39 ↗ door with the incident of the little boy. He got killed right on

1:19:44 ↗ my corner on Newport Way and Oakcrest Drive. So I'd like to thank

1:19:50 ↗ you to listen to us and Amy to do such a great job

1:19:56 ↗ to respond to all of the email. My concern, I

1:20:02 ↗ have a big concern about this project, Riva project. The

1:20:08 ↗ unit is too close to the road. Newport Way, it

1:20:13 ↗ has nothing to offer to the residents that they buy

1:20:19 ↗ the townhouse. It has to offer traffic. A King

1:20:25 ↗ County trail right across with a parking lot and a lot of cars parking

1:20:31 ↗ right on the front of their project. Very danger if it is an incident

1:20:37 ↗ over there. They can be right, falling right in there from the door. I

1:20:43 ↗ don't feel this project that's safe. It's too close to the road.

1:20:49 ↗ The traffic a new part of way. If you don't live in the area,

1:20:55 ↗ if people don't live in the area, they don't know what it means. We

1:21:01 ↗ went through a summer time with dust all over, so much pollution with the

1:21:07 ↗ dwell trucking going back and front. I couldn't count anymore. A mini truck each

1:21:13 ↗ day, they went up and down a new part of way. And

1:21:19 ↗ we came close to an incident. It was very unusual.

1:21:24 ↗ A truck from the street cleaning from Gateway Project comes

1:21:30 ↗ to Ococres Drive and does a U-turn on our street.

1:21:36 ↗ Our street is not legal to do a U-turn. He

1:21:42 ↗ almost came this close, and I was walking. And

1:21:48 ↗ I took a picture, Mrs. Lynch has the photo that I took. It

1:21:54 ↗ came this close to hit another car right on the local crosswalk. And

1:22:00 ↗ me, I was right on the crosswalk. This is not allowed in our

1:22:05 ↗ neighborhood. Everybody can do everything they want. They have to respect the regulations.

1:22:11 ↗ Now the schools are open. See children on our corner. WE

1:22:17 ↗ ARE GOING TO PUT UP WITH THE MOTOR ACCIDENT. YES, WE DO NEED

1:22:23 ↗ A STOPLIGHT. YES. BECAUSE THE NUMEROUS VALUES IT WILL BE HEADED ON TO

1:22:28 ↗ WHEN ALL OF THE PROJECTS ARE DONE ON NEW PORTWAY, YOU ARE GOING

1:22:34 ↗ TO MAKE MORE FOUR TIMES DOUBLE THAN THE TRAFFIC IT IS TODAY OVER

1:22:40 ↗ THERE. I CONSIDER NEW PORTWAY, RIVA PROJECT, IT'S VERY DANGEROUS CLOSE TO THEIR

1:22:46 ↗ ROADS, AND I APPRECIATE If you could take in consideration what

1:22:51 ↗ we go through with all of these projects done over there, we struggle

1:22:57 ↗ every day to pull up with the noise. It's Newport we can't take

1:23:03 ↗ all of this traffic. I propose the first alternative road to be prepared

1:23:09 ↗ for all of these projects. And I'm still going to work on trying

1:23:15 ↗ to figure out how can we help the neighbors? How can we

1:23:21 ↗ help to eliminate more traffic? I think before we do all of this project, we

1:23:27 ↗ have to think first, what is the necessity in the area? I feel very, the

1:23:33 ↗ project close to the road, it's very unsafe. There's no view to look. There's traffic

1:23:39 ↗ to look, King of County trailer, and a lot of parking lot. Thank you for

1:23:45 ↗ listening.

1:24:00 ↗ Good evening. My name is Joe Verner. V like victory ER

1:24:06 ↗ and ER address is 1230 Oakwood Place Northwest in the Summerhill

1:24:11 ↗ subdivision. I just want to take a couple of minutes to

1:24:17 ↗ thank you for listening to our comments and to debunk a

1:24:23 ↗ couple of myths about traffic control on Newport at the intersection

1:24:28 ↗ to our subdivision Oak Crest.

1:24:35 ↗ That intersection is

1:24:41 ↗ right here. There's

1:24:46 ↗ a crosswalk here.

1:24:51 ↗ Would you speak

1:24:56 ↗ in the microphone?

1:25:02 ↗ You can use

1:25:07 ↗ the mouse on

1:25:12 ↗ the computer. You

1:25:17 ↗ don't have to

1:25:23 ↗ touch. Okay, there's the intersection of

1:25:29 ↗ Oak Crest and Newport. Right here is a crosswalk. Right here is

1:25:35 ↗ the school bus stop. Now, Lucy, I understand your answers. The city

1:25:40 ↗ has been going to do something about Newport for 30 some odd

1:25:46 ↗ years and nothing has happened. We're going to have another four, five,

1:25:52 ↗ six years of development on Newport alone with just the projects that

1:25:58 ↗ are approved. The roadway is not going to be torn up while

1:26:04 ↗ those projects are working. The school districts are not going

1:26:10 ↗ to Burgoyne, they're going to change the lines. So that bus stop

1:26:16 ↗ is going to stay there. The street's going to stay the same

1:26:22 ↗ as it is now. The only thing that's changing is there's increased

1:26:28 ↗ traffic because there doesn't seem to be a control of development on

1:26:33 ↗ the valley floor. So I just want to debunk some myths about

1:26:39 ↗ the crosswalk that's there now. Our Summerhill subdivision For seven years,

1:26:45 ↗ 2008 or 2007 to 2014, petitioned the city to reduce the

1:26:51 ↗ speed limit on Newport Way from 40. We wanted 25, but

1:26:56 ↗ it's down to 30 now. We wanted some traffic control at

1:27:02 ↗ that intersection. But our esteemed public works director said, "No." Took

1:27:07 ↗ the death of a four-year-old to get the mayor off his

1:27:13 ↗ chair, and get everybody going to reduce the speed limit and

1:27:18 ↗ to get the city to put in a new crosswalk sign that

1:27:24 ↗ had bigger flashing lights and that worked more frequently than the prior

1:27:30 ↗ one did. I don't know where you folks live, but I invite

1:27:35 ↗ you to come out and go across that crosswalk. You better increase

1:27:41 ↗ your life insurance policy before you do. It's not that it doesn't

1:27:46 ↗ work, it's that it's ineffective Because the drivers don't stop for it.

1:27:52 ↗ Now we're going to have more traffic coming up from Reba, more traffic

1:27:58 ↗ from the Gateway, more traffic from Atlas and Talus, all going up Newport

1:28:04 ↗ to go west to go to work. We're going to have another accident

1:28:10 ↗ to get you folks to change your minds and say, gosh, those guys

1:28:16 ↗ at Summerhill must have been really correct. And now what's the city's liability,

1:28:22 ↗ Lucy? and Mr. Traffic Control expert.

1:28:27 ↗ What are you gonna do when you got

1:28:33 ↗ some other death or more? Thanks for listening.

1:28:39 ↗ - My name is Mary Lynch and I

1:28:45 ↗ reside at 2690 Northwest Oakcrest Drive, Issaquah, Washington.

1:28:51 ↗ I have got some pictures I would like to also show. But before I do,

1:28:57 ↗ I do want to thank Amy. I think she has attempted to put together a

1:29:03 ↗ package that does follow the CIP and the goals brought out in it. But I

1:29:09 ↗ would like to remind the development commission that when the CIP was passed, the city

1:29:14 ↗ already had identified that it had flaws. Unfortunately, it has taken them a

1:29:20 ↗ while to get any sort of process to look at those flaws and to redo

1:29:25 ↗ any of it. And I would ask you that if you have a chance tomorrow

1:29:31 ↗ at Land and Shores, there's a pretty long list of to-do items where they're going

1:29:36 ↗ to try and rush through some more changes to the CIP. And that's about the

1:29:41 ↗ only chance with the few showing up in the planning and policy meeting that the

1:29:46 ↗ public even has to make those changes. But it's all being rushed through once again

1:29:51 ↗ without a lot of public comment. to what the changes have made and there are

1:29:57 ↗ things that should be in there. So if you have a chance I would recommend

1:30:02 ↗ it's 5:30 tomorrow here in the council room. The agenda is on there. I can't

1:30:06 ↗ attend because I've got some other work and this is my second meeting. I was

1:30:11 ↗ at the meeting last night. But I do want to recognize what Amy has tried

1:30:16 ↗ to do. That being said I would I'd like to first say, one of the

1:30:21 ↗ conditions of the multimodal trail that we're no longer going to ask the developer to

1:30:26 ↗ put in, I agree with that because I don't think the trail should be there

1:30:30 ↗ to begin with. And just because the CIP says we have to have it, why

1:30:35 ↗ are we building another trail like we did in Gateway across to wetlands? And now

1:30:41 ↗ it's going to be given to the city in perpetuity to have to maintain a

1:30:45 ↗ wetlands and then build a trail, like you heard, at what expense? Where is it

1:30:50 ↗ in the budget and the park budget, which we already don't have enough funds for

1:30:54 ↗ existing parks? How are we going to fund that and when is that going to

1:30:59 ↗ happen? And who's going to maintain that wetlands? That being said, in order for this

1:31:04 ↗ project to go forward, what really still has never been presented clearly is you have

1:31:10 ↗ to have the relocation of the anti-aircraft creek. And as Amy said, they're going to

1:31:15 ↗ move the road into an existing area where the anti-aircraft creek is going to be

1:31:21 ↗ filled in. Right now, when we walk from our neighborhood down to the

1:31:26 ↗ trailhead or when other people do, we have roughly 20 feet that we can walk

1:31:32 ↗ safely away from traffic. You're reducing and moving the cars over there and you're giving

1:31:38 ↗ us five feet of gravel. I have pictures I can send you that I've taken

1:31:44 ↗ over the years. When cars come around this curve here, most of them end up

1:31:50 ↗ three to four feet into our intersection And by the time they get here, they're

1:31:56 ↗ at least two to three feet still into the bike lane. Many of them in

1:32:00 ↗ the larger trucks come into the gravel. This summer with all the trucks that we've

1:32:05 ↗ had going down our route from Gateway, most of those trucks have been driving on

1:32:09 ↗ the gravel when they come around that curve. Because what happens? Yes, they're now saying

1:32:14 ↗ they're going to have a traffic circle, not a stoplight at Gateway. It's a small

1:32:20 ↗ traffic circle. But what's happened this summer is cars are stopped there, held up by

1:32:25 ↗ the street sweeper, or cars turning in. As soon as they're let go, they come

1:32:30 ↗ zooming around that corner. They are increasing their speeds to well over 40 miles an

1:32:35 ↗ hour as they come around our corner. The other thing they want to do with

1:32:40 ↗ Riva is, you know, reduce the, widen the, and the comments with Hart said, is

1:32:45 ↗ widen that side of the road here where our crosswalk is. So that we have

1:32:50 ↗ even a moving target. So that means cars coming around here at 40 miles an

1:32:55 ↗ hour can come even further into this area. So now those of us that are

1:33:00 ↗ down here that have to, the stop signs here, in order to see we have

1:33:05 ↗ to commit ourselves into the intersection. And so we have been hit or almost hit

1:33:10 ↗ by cars coming through here. So that's the design of that on this one. We

1:33:15 ↗ also will now have cars and we have bicyclists that come to this trailhead, which

1:33:19 ↗ are not going to have access here. They're going to have to come down, make

1:33:24 ↗ a turn around this corner, and in a minute I'll show you what Tina said.

1:33:29 ↗ But we're going to have them making U-turns here, coming back, driving in the gravel

1:33:33 ↗ where we're supposed to walk back to get to the trailhead. We have mothers on

1:33:38 ↗ bikes that I've seen this summer that they ride to this trailhead, they get off

1:33:42 ↗ their bikes and they walk the trails. We have people with dogs that walk along

1:33:47 ↗ here. Why not, if we're gonna have this anti-aircraft creek in the city, either the

1:33:52 ↗ developer or the city at the time of this project be required to put the

1:33:57 ↗ rest of the road in before anything is done. I know why, cuz you know

1:34:02 ↗ what is gonna be this used? This is gonna be staging area for the contractors.

1:34:08 ↗ Because where are they going to go in here? Where are they going

1:34:13 ↗ to stage any of their trucks? Right now, Gateway at least has a

1:34:19 ↗ flat area where the parking all supposed to go that they're using to

1:34:24 ↗ stage their trucks. Where are these trucks for this contractor and developer gonna

1:34:30 ↗ stage? It's either gonna be up our street or it's gonna be here

1:34:36 ↗ in the gravel area or in the, that being said, let me show

1:34:41 ↗ you some pictures then. That more clearly show my . Can I pull

1:34:47 ↗ this out? Yeah.

1:34:53 ↗ Hopefully it was recorded tonight. I don't know if you knew that

1:34:59 ↗ most of the public comments yesterday weren't recorded for the meeting unfortunately.

1:35:05 ↗ Open folder to view. Oh, the other thing, just to prove my

1:35:10 ↗ point on speed, the only way we've even maintained close to 30

1:35:16 ↗ is by constantly calling the city, sending them pictures. And once in

1:35:22 ↗ a while the police have come out. And for those short period

1:35:28 ↗ that they're there, we get people going the speed limit.

1:35:34 ↗ This I took in late June. This shows

1:35:39 ↗ you here is an average representation of what's

1:35:44 ↗ occurring. That was the truck that was going

1:35:50 ↗ 38 miles an hour. I also caught city

1:35:55 ↗ trucks doing that. I caught a Federal Express

1:36:00 ↗ truck and a lot of other commuters. And

1:36:06 ↗ this was about I think 8:30 in the

1:36:11 ↗ morning. And unfortunately we don't have this speed sign going

1:36:17 ↗ from the other way, but after a year and a half of standing down

1:36:23 ↗ there, I can pretty well tell you what a car is going within a

1:36:28 ↗ couple miles an hour. Yeah, this is what Tina was trying to tell you.

1:36:36 ↗ That's what we had to put up with in order to at least get

1:36:42 ↗ a little bit of dirt off our roadway all summer versus going on to

1:36:48 ↗ the S900, making a safe turn and coming back. About every five minutes, this

1:36:53 ↗ was going by here, and then they went up to Pine Cone and did

1:36:59 ↗ the exact same thing without any flaggers or anybody controlling them. But we got

1:37:05 ↗ a little dirt off the road. The other thing I'd like to say is

1:37:11 ↗ it depends on which traffic engineer you talk to. After the accident last

1:37:17 ↗ year and much protest, we finally got the city to agree to hire a

1:37:23 ↗ consultant that came in and did a traffic study. If you will look at

1:37:28 ↗ that document, which is document 3699 on page 37 and 38 of there, they

1:37:34 ↗ clearly state Future volumes and proposed three lane sections and a 30

1:37:40 ↗ mile an hour speed limit are the threshold where improvements beyond a marked crossing

1:37:46 ↗ are necessary to avoid increased risk to pedestrians with a marked crosswalk alone. They

1:37:51 ↗ made the relocation of the speed, the other thing, reduce curb radius to reduce

1:37:57 ↗ the crossing length so the pedestrians are in the street for a shorter period

1:38:03 ↗ of time. Not widen it, reduce it. install a rectangular flashing beacons

1:38:08 ↗ and with new technology consider advance warning beacons on either side, considering consider

1:38:14 ↗ a median refuge like the new one that they installed without public comment

1:38:20 ↗ down on Front Street at Bush to so people can't make left hand

1:38:25 ↗ turn lanes anymore to do that. Let me show you. This is in

1:38:31 ↗ the traffic study and this is what they recommended. I since the beginning meeting

1:38:37 ↗ have been asking the city staff to look at the traffic report and listen

1:38:43 ↗ to this traffic engineer who has come out and spent a long time, a

1:38:49 ↗ day or two at this intersection and this is what they recommended for the

1:38:55 ↗ future with increased control and traffic calming. We've got none of this in this proposed

1:39:01 ↗ and as Hart said, we don't even have any, even if the bond were to

1:39:05 ↗ pass, there's no promise from the city that those monies are going to be spent

1:39:10 ↗ on our roadway. And so we have to put up with the existing road unless

1:39:15 ↗ you guys tonight make some decisions, the conditions that would help make our streets safer.

1:39:20 ↗ Thank you.

1:39:37 ↗ Hello, my name is John Fisher, 2122 Newport Way NW, Issaquah. I'm also on the

1:39:43 ↗ backside of a cold, so please excuse me. First, I'd like to thank the Development

1:39:49 ↗ Commission for their attention to this proposal, and I'd also like to thank the applicant,

1:39:54 ↗ who in my view has been attentive and communicative with the members of the community

1:40:00 ↗ and existing residents on this project. So I suppose the overarching theme of my

1:40:06 ↗ comments will be contradictions. And I'll try to work my way from macro to micro

1:40:11 ↗ as best I can. First off, let me see if I can work my way

1:40:17 ↗ back to the maps that were up here. Since I said I would be

1:40:23 ↗ macro to micro, let's see what I can put up here. Okay. So first

1:40:29 ↗ off, and my comments will pile on top of the eloquent comments of everyone

1:40:35 ↗ else here. But first off, on the Central Esquire plan, it is understandable that

1:40:40 ↗ you would want to concentrate development in the Valley. Development will come,

1:40:46 ↗ but here's where I see a contradiction. You have Tibbets Creek

1:40:52 ↗ that runs up north-south here, and the central Issaquah district extends

1:40:57 ↗ to the west of Tibbets Creek. Now the intention is for

1:41:03 ↗ the central Issaquah district to be a walkable urbanist community, but

1:41:08 ↗ I see an inherent conflict here. you have no commercial development west of

1:41:14 ↗ Tibbets. All of the amenities that anyone living west of Tibbets would want to access

1:41:20 ↗ are east of the creek. At the same time, you do want to protect the

1:41:25 ↗ creek. Tibbets Creek is an important resource to Issaquah. Its wetlands are an important resource

1:41:30 ↗ to Issaquah. How do you reconcile those two things? You want everyone who lives here

1:41:36 ↗ to be able to walk or ride a bus to the amenities that they

1:41:42 ↗ want. But I think even with all of the development that is proposed here,

1:41:48 ↗ you have no transit access west of Tibbets. And I do not see a

1:41:53 ↗ prospect of transit coming west of Tibbets. I would love to hear a correction

1:41:59 ↗ to that. I come to you as someone who Rides transit to commute

1:42:05 ↗ and also as someone who is very fond of the trail amenities

1:42:11 ↗ that Issaquah has to offer. But I see a contradiction here. Moving

1:42:16 ↗ in a little bit closer in, let's see here.

1:42:22 ↗ This I have submitted written comments that were rather extensive

1:42:28 ↗ back in March that questioned costs and other aspects of

1:42:33 ↗ the trail proposal here. And I'll reiterate those comments now.

1:42:39 ↗ So there is this trail proposal that runs in a

1:42:45 ↗ generally north-south direction. That is opposite

1:42:51 ↗ of the east-west direction that would provide any connectivity

1:42:56 ↗ benefit for residents of the left bank of Tibbetts.

1:43:02 ↗ The cost differences between the fees that the developer

1:43:07 ↗ would pay and what it would cost to build

1:43:13 ↗ a raised, lighted, 20-foot wide right-of-way bridge across the

1:43:18 ↗ critical area have been noted. The other thing I would note

1:43:24 ↗ is that if we proceed with an easement, I did argue

1:43:30 ↗ for the fact that this trail, this north-south trail, which gives

1:43:36 ↗ no benefit of connectivity to Sammamish Point residents, I would

1:43:42 ↗ argue that to tear out the trees that sit right against Sammamish Point is

1:43:48 ↗ an adversely negative impact on Sammamish Point and that the mitigation of tree removal

1:43:53 ↗ be to the west. If that easement proceeds, do we still have that assurance

1:43:59 ↗ that mitigation is toward the west rather than toward the east? So

1:44:05 ↗ finally some comments regarding just to pile on on

1:44:10 ↗ traffic and on pedestrian movements. It's a little difficult for me

1:44:16 ↗ to be objective because I have, you know, when the 210 used to run along

1:44:22 ↗ this road, it does not anymore. We lost that bus route. I got off this

1:44:28 ↗ bus once and a school child got off and tried to cross Newport Way and

1:44:34 ↗ almost got hit. That was not easy to watch. But... I

1:44:39 ↗ hear traffic studies that take Riva into consideration in isolation. You

1:44:45 ↗ also have the expanded parking in this area, the park and

1:44:51 ↗ ride. You do have proposals. You have Bergsma that would provide walkways on

1:44:57 ↗ the south side of Newport, but how long will it take for those

1:45:02 ↗ to come to fruition? That's a tough question. How long will people be

1:45:08 ↗ jaywalking across this road? How many years with the pass-through traffic that you're

1:45:13 ↗ seeing so much of which is not Issaquah residents. It's passed through

1:45:19 ↗ from south of Issaquah in particular. Finally, I would say that Issaquah is

1:45:25 ↗ a very fortunate community. It has a lot of resources, but that does

1:45:31 ↗ not absolve us from being very careful in how public funds are used.

1:45:37 ↗ As all these things are considered, I would

1:45:43 ↗ urge those involved to consider the context that

1:45:49 ↗ existing residents of this area have and the

1:45:55 ↗ concerns that we have that the city expenditures

1:46:00 ↗ and the use of the park fees be

1:46:06 ↗ responsible. Thank you. Any other comments from the

1:46:12 ↗ public? OK, I'll close the public

1:46:18 ↗ comment portion of the meeting. And any comments from staff

1:46:23 ↗ or commissioners? MR. Mr. Chairman, I want to just first

1:46:29 ↗ remind folks that there is a very clear set of

1:46:35 ↗ purview that defines the purview of the Development Commission. And

1:46:40 ↗ the concerns that individuals have expressed tonight, commissioners, members of

1:46:46 ↗ the public, and so on, are absolutely legitimate. But there

1:46:52 ↗ really needs to be an understanding of what is in the purview

1:46:58 ↗ of the Development Commission to address. And some of the key issues,

1:47:03 ↗ I would remind folks here that have been brought up tonight, are

1:47:09 ↗ not within the purview of the Development Commission to address. City Council,

1:47:15 ↗ the staff, the mayor are the ones who make the rules. That

1:47:21 ↗ said, on this specific application, I will

1:47:27 ↗ express my continuing concern about the intersection issue. I understand the data,

1:47:32 ↗ I understand the standards that have been used by the city staff

1:47:38 ↗ and by the applicant to address the traffic issue and the pedestrian

1:47:44 ↗ issue and the school bus issue, but there comes a time when

1:47:50 ↗ as an individual member of this commission with the attendant responsibilities, when

1:47:56 ↗ I look at that map, and I drive Newport a

1:48:01 ↗ lot as well. When I look at that map and the

1:48:07 ↗ alignment of a crosswalk with two opposing streams of traffic crossing

1:48:13 ↗ a major arterial, maybe out of line to say this, but

1:48:19 ↗ emotionally and rationally, that just doesn't work for me. The issue

1:48:25 ↗ of liability was brought up earlier about this reliability of the

1:48:31 ↗ city. And I understand that, I agree with it, but I believe

1:48:37 ↗ that the present alignment of that traffic flow and those intersections will result

1:48:43 ↗ in an additional liability because I cannot believe that over an extended period

1:48:49 ↗ of time as traffic increases on that arterial with the enlarged trailhead, all

1:48:54 ↗ of the things that have been mentioned repeatedly by a number of members

1:49:00 ↗ of this meeting tonight, that there will not be another fatal

1:49:06 ↗ accident and God forbid there are, but I have as serious

1:49:11 ↗ an issue with that alignment as I've had with anything since

1:49:17 ↗ I've been on the DC. - Other comments? - I agree

1:49:23 ↗ with that. - I have one question, I should have asked

1:49:28 ↗ this earlier, I guess. In the conditions 22, 23, 24 talk about,

1:49:34 ↗ you don't have to pull them up, but they talk about incorporating natural materials and

1:49:40 ↗ providing architectural details. So those were put in place back in March. There's certainly been

1:49:46 ↗ time enough for changes to be made to the plans so that they could have

1:49:51 ↗ been brought back to the commission at this point for us to review those changes

1:49:57 ↗ to have input on them as opposed to just leaving the condition, waiting for this

1:50:03 ↗ to finish and presumably they would go to staff for approval of

1:50:08 ↗ those changes. I guess I'm wondering why we didn't get those changes made

1:50:14 ↗ during this, you know, four or five month period. So customarily what we,

1:50:20 ↗ how we address or how we handle conditions is, you know, we expect

1:50:26 ↗ that those, once we have a condition and we have an approved

1:50:31 ↗ site development permit that we work out the details with the applicant after. In

1:50:37 ↗ some cases, the applicants would, you know, voluntarily come and offer like for the

1:50:43 ↗ Gateway project where a lot of their, they would rather reduce the amount of

1:50:49 ↗ conditions on their land use permit. So they provided us immediately with the revised

1:50:55 ↗ plans and elevations. So, but in this case, the applicant opted to just put

1:51:01 ↗ it aside for, you know, for a follow-up work after the SDP approval. I

1:51:07 ↗ guess just a comment then. My preference would be, given the time, that it

1:51:13 ↗ would have been better to have them make those changes and give the Commission

1:51:19 ↗ a chance to apply on the changes they did make and hopefully meeting those

1:51:25 ↗ that desire for more natural materials and those kind of changes like we used

1:51:31 ↗ to do between a community conference and a SDP you can make those changes we

1:51:36 ↗ could look and say yes we agree with those and would have been nice in

1:51:42 ↗ this case to have that opportunity and I will keep that in mind in the

1:51:48 ↗ future so we can advise applicants in the future of your preference thank you would

1:51:54 ↗ I was just conferring with the applicant. Would you would

1:52:00 ↗ like the applicant's traffic engineer to speak to Commissioner Harrison's

1:52:06 ↗ and obviously other commissioners concerns? Again for the record, excuse

1:52:12 ↗ me, Jeff Schramm. So I have been in front of

1:52:17 ↗ this Commission on several projects. I was responsible for the

1:52:23 ↗ traffic study for Gateway Apartments, Senior Housing and Riva. I

1:52:29 ↗ have been at probably all of these meetings and I have heard

1:52:35 ↗ loud and clear the concerns of traffic, safety, growing volumes, and I

1:52:40 ↗ get it. I understand. I think it's important to note that maybe

1:52:46 ↗ you can help me pull up that exhibit that showed, it had

1:52:52 ↗ a lot going on but it kind of showed some sight lines.

1:52:58 ↗ I think the question that you've asked Commissioner Harrison is or

1:53:03 ↗ at least you've questioned is, is the intersection safe? As a

1:53:09 ↗ professional, it's my responsibility that road design meets the standards, city

1:53:15 ↗ standards, established criteria. In my professional opinion, the improvements that are

1:53:20 ↗ going to occur at the intersection are that, they are improvements

1:53:26 ↗ to an existing condition. I don't disagree with the residents that

1:53:32 ↗ are coming to that stop sign out of Oak Crest have some limitations

1:53:38 ↗ and when they look left and right for cars, cars that travel above speeds,

1:53:43 ↗ trucks that travel as well. What this project does is it builds out the

1:53:49 ↗ required frontage. It builds out the city's plan for Newport Way as a parkway.

1:53:55 ↗ It will add turn lanes which provide safe refuge for left turners that don't

1:54:01 ↗ exist there today. left turners for oak grass left turners for

1:54:06 ↗ the riva town homes the lanes the through lanes will narrow which

1:54:12 ↗ will um which will have an effect of also slowing speeds which

1:54:18 ↗ would be complementary to the reduction in speed that the city um

1:54:24 ↗ you know changed there recently The recently improved rapid flashing location

1:54:30 ↗ and improvement over what existed before will continue to be maintained. What

1:54:36 ↗ this exhibit shows, and I apologize it's a little bit grainy, but

1:54:41 ↗ what it shows is that with the new aligned intersection and the

1:54:47 ↗ widening that will be resulting, from the improvements, we'll improve the sight lines to

1:54:53 ↗ meet the city standards. What this shows is a vehicle will be able to see

1:54:59 ↗ and meet the city's minimum standards for that classification of road. The other thing that

1:55:04 ↗ the project will do is it'll improve the curb ramps at each of the corners

1:55:09 ↗ for ADA accessibility for pedestrian access. and improve as well the crosswalk delineation it will

1:55:15 ↗ provide the type of striping that is reflect reflectorized to a level that will be

1:55:20 ↗ an improvement over what exists there today what essentially this project is doing is it's

1:55:26 ↗ implementing what the city is required requiring of newport way and i believe in my

1:55:32 ↗ professional opinion there the added traffic there will be mitigated by the improvements that are

1:55:38 ↗ being required and that will be implemented What is being planned there is in

1:55:44 ↗ no way would be inconsistent with what the city could do as over time

1:55:49 ↗ and what the city's pedestrian crossing study does and further evaluate the improvements that

1:55:55 ↗ may be necessary you know along that corridor as development continues to grow and

1:56:01 ↗ continues to occur but the bottom line is it will be an improvement over

1:56:07 ↗ an existing condition. Can you speak a little bit, Jeff,

1:56:12 ↗ about why we talked about a traffic signal. Can you talk

1:56:18 ↗ about a four-way stop sign? Yeah. It warrants for what we

1:56:24 ↗ call an all-way stop or four-way stop. Similarly, there's a standard.

1:56:30 ↗ On an arterial road, all-way stop control is –

1:56:36 ↗ not good practice and it also is not safe. An arterial

1:56:42 ↗ is intended to do, it's to carry traffic through this corridor

1:56:47 ↗ and to implement an all-way stop at those location would neither meet warrants

1:56:53 ↗ or be a safe condition. And so the appropriate control here is stop control,

1:56:59 ↗ which would be consistent with the remainder of the intersection that exists along the

1:57:05 ↗ corridor. I think Mr. Sugarman had indicated that this would be the only four-way

1:57:10 ↗ stop or location that has control. That's not true. Pine Cone, 54th,

1:57:16 ↗ All those intersections that exist along the

1:57:21 ↗ arterial have stop control as they approach

1:57:27 ↗ the intersection. So an always stop really

1:57:32 ↗ is not the appropriate control point at

1:57:38 ↗ this intersection. Excuse me. Excuse me. The

1:57:43 ↗ public comment period is over. So--

1:57:49 ↗ There is not a four-way intersection on the fourth way. Three-way

1:57:54 ↗ intersection. You were designing out-- All right. All right. I'll just

1:58:00 ↗ ask you to stop. Thank you. Other-- A question related-- do

1:58:06 ↗ we have a temporary trail? There were some comments about the

1:58:11 ↗ temporary trail that runs from Oakhurst down to the trailhead for

1:58:17 ↗ Cougar Mountain. What's the expected duration that will be a temporary

1:58:23 ↗ trail condition there? And is there the possibility of creating at least curb separation

1:58:29 ↗ between the edge of the roadway and the trail to provide at least some amount

1:58:34 ↗ of physical separation? So that idea is actually something that came

1:58:40 ↗ to my mind too after listening to the public and it's not a big deal

1:58:46 ↗ to look into that. We will definitely, I mean we definitely want people to feel

1:58:51 ↗ safe and so you know we you know we propose the condition recognizing that we

1:58:57 ↗ would like to have a safe clear walkway for pedestrians and if that will help

1:59:03 ↗ we'll definitely provide that. Again the question is for

1:59:09 ↗ the duration that that trail will exist. We're doing that as a result of we're

1:59:15 ↗ doing frontage improvements for the Riva project but that side of the road will remain

1:59:21 ↗ in the unfinished frontage condition until development happens on that side of the road. Is

1:59:27 ↗ that my understanding? So the tricky thing is that's actually a city property. There's a

1:59:33 ↗ existing stormwater pond there. So we don't have any plans for doing

1:59:39 ↗ anything there in the near future. Well, there's no development on

1:59:44 ↗ that property that would trigger frontage improvements, but as part of

1:59:50 ↗ the bond measure, completing the missing segments of Newport is one

1:59:56 ↗ of the items on the bond for this fall.

2:00:04 ↗ So Mr. Chairman, just so I could understand, so from Oak

2:00:10 ↗ Creek to the trailhead, which they're in the process of developing

2:00:16 ↗ that parking lot, so that area there, is it going to

2:00:22 ↗ be a sidewalk or? It's gravel. It will be a five-foot

2:00:28 ↗ gravel path because it's temporary. And basically where you see this blue

2:00:34 ↗ line, this is where the trailhead is from the intersection. And so the bond, is

2:00:39 ↗ that going to be able to pay for that sidewalk, concrete sidewalk? Or is there

2:00:45 ↗ any plan to put a sidewalk in there? So my understanding is that the bond

2:00:51 ↗ would complete that side of the street that was not part of the Riva frontage

2:00:57 ↗ improvements. Yeah, it's on the opposite side of the street. So the city will pay

2:01:03 ↗ for that then? It's not designed at this time,

2:01:08 ↗ but that's the point of the bond is to complete

2:01:14 ↗ those segments that are left as all these other developments

2:01:20 ↗ are happening. Okay. Thank you. One more detailed question. Absolutely.

2:01:26 ↗ It's related to condition number four that was edited related.

2:01:32 ↗ It was the 10-foot wide sidewalk condition. And you

2:01:37 ↗ refer to it as a through block passage walkway, which looking at

2:01:43 ↗ the project plan, it's actually just the sidewalk access to buildings 34

2:01:49 ↗ and 36. I don't know if you have a detail of it

2:01:55 ↗ in tonight's presentation. So the amended condition, the original

2:02:01 ↗ condition required a 10 foot wide sidewalk providing, shall be

2:02:06 ↗ provided to serve buildings 34 to 36 in the communal

2:02:12 ↗ open space play area. Amy, can you go to the

2:02:17 ↗ first slide that you had instead of that one? Thank

2:02:23 ↗ you. Right, so. So it's, it's actually this walkway here

2:02:28 ↗ and I, so, um, kind of looking i think this

2:02:34 ↗ one is actually the correct version so the only reason um so

2:02:40 ↗ we we had one version of the site plan um this was

2:02:46 ↗ what they originally provided and The Central Sequoia Standards has this very specific

2:02:52 ↗ requirement for every front door of a unit to face a primary through block

2:02:57 ↗ passage. And that is also very specific that it has to be a 10

2:03:03 ↗ foot wide walkway. In this particular, so we originally started with that condition because

2:03:09 ↗ what they showed us was something more like a five foot walkway, five foot

2:03:14 ↗ wide walkway. And so we had a condition because we said you must meet

2:03:20 ↗ the standards and the standards said 10 feet. So they then submitted a site

2:03:26 ↗ plan that showed a 10 foot wide walkway for these three units and There

2:03:31 ↗ are some shifting that happened between the first site plan to this last site plan.

2:03:36 ↗ So one of the things that they had to do and I don't know if

2:03:42 ↗ you guys remembered this, staff had noted our concern that the fire trucks needed a

2:03:47 ↗ little bit more space in order to turn in. So in the process of them

2:03:52 ↗ providing a little bit more space for the fire trucks, all these units moved a

2:03:57 ↗ little bit to the east. And so that further reduced the area for

2:04:02 ↗ an open space. And then it became this awkward open space with a

2:04:08 ↗ gigantic walkway in a teeny tiny open space. And so we evaluated that and

2:04:14 ↗ we determined that we're not going to get a lot of people walking to access

2:04:19 ↗ three units. So in this particular situation, we recognize that it's really better to have

2:04:25 ↗ a smaller walkway and a more usable open space. And that kind of gives us

2:04:31 ↗ the best benefit and the balance of both benefits. So we just made it very

2:04:37 ↗ clear that it will be a six foot wide walkway because we don't really have

2:04:42 ↗ a standard of a five foot walkway in Central Issaquah. And so but moving but

2:04:48 ↗ using the words through block passage walkway which were added to the new condition that

2:04:53 ↗ didn't exist in the previous condition. That's a term of art in the code through

2:04:59 ↗ block passage. It is a standard. Okay. And then just as far as the way

2:05:04 ↗ the condition is written, it says that the passage walkway serving units 34 through 36

2:05:10 ↗ shall be six feet wide. So what we really mean is it needs to be

2:05:15 ↗ at a minimum six feet wide or is it just that's what it's that's a

2:05:20 ↗ definitive dimension. Yes it's very specific yes. You want it to be exactly six feet

2:05:25 ↗ wide? Yes. Okay. You're trying to make sure that the dimensions stay consistent

2:05:31 ↗ with what the outcome you're trying to get, the balance. Is that okay?

2:05:37 ↗ Yes. So the contractor has a challenge. Thank you. That helps. Mr. Chairman,

2:05:42 ↗ I would like to just, if I may, I want to be really

2:05:48 ↗ clear that I did not intend to even come close to impugning anybody's

2:05:54 ↗ professional or personal integrity on the issue of safety at that intersection. I absolutely accept

2:06:00 ↗ the analysis that's been done and the intention of the city to make that intersection

2:06:06 ↗ as safe as possible. It just seems to me that it's when I look at

2:06:12 ↗ it, and I'm not a traffic engineer, we've long since established that, that it seems

2:06:17 ↗ counterintuitive. I'm not questioning anybody's integrity about the fundamental object that we all have here,

2:06:22 ↗ which is safety above everything else. And Amy, I have a question to follow up

2:06:28 ↗ on Commissioner Morgan's point. At what point will the members of the commission and the

2:06:34 ↗ public be able to see what that's going to look like in terms of the

2:06:39 ↗ materials and the colors and so on? So because we had, we're hoping that the

2:06:45 ↗ way we wrote the condition is clear enough so that the development commission would

2:06:51 ↗ approve this project with that condition and with the comfort

2:06:57 ↗ level that staff can work out those details. Now if

2:07:03 ↗ that's not the case, we're welcoming any kind of revision

2:07:09 ↗ to that condition. if it means that you guys prefer

2:07:14 ↗ to see it again and I guess Lucy this is where

2:07:20 ↗ I would need your help if that's what what's your what

2:07:26 ↗ you think needs to happen I guess it's up to you

2:07:31 ↗ the development commission so Amy could you please pull up the

2:07:37 ↗ elevations I have this view So this just gives

2:07:43 ↗ you more of a general character of it. The

2:07:48 ↗ materials will be primarily the hardy plank and

2:07:54 ↗ And that condition came about because we recognize similar to the Gateway

2:08:00 ↗ project. This is in the Western Gateway District of Central Issaquah. And

2:08:06 ↗ there's this very and again with with as a reminder, and I

2:08:12 ↗ guess we do have some new members in the commission. But when

2:08:18 ↗ we reviewed the two Gateway projects, there were very strong

2:08:24 ↗ like comments from from the commission about what that character would look like

2:08:30 ↗ for the Western Gateway. Um and we also have a very specific language

2:08:36 ↗ in the central Sequoia plan for the Western Gateway district that calls out

2:08:42 ↗ natural materials. So because this the proposed architecture doesn't

2:08:48 ↗ really have any natural materials then just to

2:08:53 ↗ be consistent with the way we treated the

2:08:58 ↗ two Gateway projects we included that condition. So

2:09:04 ↗ I believe if I'm understanding at least for

2:09:09 ↗ condition which is the incorporation of natural materials.

2:09:15 ↗ The intention of the implementation was that the appearance of

2:09:20 ↗ the buildings did not alter, but that potentially the material

2:09:26 ↗ being used to achieve the appearance so that the color

2:09:32 ↗ was consistent with what was presented, the appearance was consistent,

2:09:37 ↗ but the material achieving that might be, for instance, wood

2:09:43 ↗ or stone, where it might be hardy plank, for instance, shown.

2:09:49 ↗ So, at least for that condition, that was why a new

2:09:54 ↗ representation was not presented, because the thought was that at the

2:10:00 ↗ level at which this could be represented in the drawings, it

2:10:06 ↗ would not appear different. Now, that may not meet the commission's

2:10:12 ↗ goals, but I think that was-- That's why those boards are so nice when they

2:10:17 ↗ bring those in with materials. And I guess in answer to Commissioner Harris, the design

2:10:23 ↗ of the units, the modulation, all that, I think are pretty good. I think if

2:10:28 ↗ I had a big concern about-- these changes and wanted to really see them, I

2:10:34 ↗ would have pushed that more. But I think in the future, given the time frame

2:10:39 ↗ we had on this one, that large gap in time, it could have been put

2:10:44 ↗ in. - Understood. - Mr. Chair, just, I mean, my concern with the traffic has

2:10:48 ↗ been noted. The other issue I have with the closeness to the street, I think

2:10:53 ↗ that is, possible issue of having someone park in someone's kitchen right that that street

2:10:59 ↗ is sometimes in the night where you know people move very quickly on there and

2:11:04 ↗ just a little mistake can end up with someone sitting in somebody's kitchen with their

2:11:10 ↗ you know headlights flashing at the living room so uh not sure i i'm not

2:11:15 ↗ that comfortable with a project on the street on artery being that close to the

2:11:21 ↗ street so um Hopefully this is good enough for a little

2:11:26 ↗ illustration. So this is Newport Way. So none of the units are

2:11:32 ↗ directly perpendicular to the street. So you're it's highly unlikely that you're

2:11:37 ↗ going to have people's car lights flashing into the the actual living

2:11:43 ↗ spaces. Not so much the car lights, but the car itself being

2:11:49 ↗ in the living space. So I think that probably The standard

2:11:54 ↗ that is driving that is Central Issaquah requires not just, you know,

2:12:00 ↗ often you have a setback from a property line. Central Issaquah actually

2:12:06 ↗ has a build two line. So there is a maximum amount that

2:12:11 ↗ you're allowed to set back from the property. And anywhere from zero

2:12:17 ↗ to 10 or 15 feet. - In this case, 15. - 15 feet

2:12:23 ↗ is the requirement in this district. And so they are in that zone

2:12:29 ↗ between zero and 15 where they are required to be. And so I

2:12:35 ↗ think that's the challenge is that they've placed their buildings where the code

2:12:41 ↗ requires them to be. - I'm sorry, Amy, you said that, Units

2:12:46 ↗ are not perpendicular to Newport Way. Looking at the, at least the

2:12:52 ↗ floor plans that we had, I think our original floor plans, and

2:12:58 ↗ I thought they were, I thought the units were perpendicular. Did they,

2:13:04 ↗ has the layout changed? So in other words, the car lights are,

2:13:09 ↗ they're perpendicular. So the face of the units-- - They're not perpendicular to

2:13:15 ↗ the car light. - Right, exactly. So in other words, yes, they are perpendicular

2:13:21 ↗ to Newport Way as far as the orientation, but the cars are going this

2:13:26 ↗ way, so you don't have car light shining into the units. - Okay, thank

2:13:32 ↗ you. - Sorry, thank you for the clarification. - Other comments? - I guess

2:13:38 ↗ I have one, I have a big one. I still have a concern about

2:13:44 ↗ even the requirement to have the relocatable public access easement

2:13:51 ↗ CHRIS RODGERS: I don't think I've heard anybody from the public, the neighbors,

2:13:57 ↗ Issaquah, trails club, David Kepler, proponent, anybody want to put that boardwalk in

2:14:02 ↗ there. I personally don't see a big benefit of that, that there would

2:14:08 ↗ be many people at all that would ever be there. And to hear

2:14:14 ↗ it's half a million to $800,000 to be there, I guess I would

2:14:19 ↗ prefer to take that requirement out completely. I know maybe it's against

2:14:25 ↗ the Central Issaquah plan, but-- I think that's the problem is that it puts

2:14:31 ↗ staff in a very difficult position that the Central Issaquah requires that connection. We're

2:14:36 ↗ not building it at this time. I don't know. Does it truly require it?

2:14:42 ↗ Yes. I mean, it literally says you must build this. To this property owner.

2:14:48 ↗ Yes. Can I ask a follow-up question? Can I chase this one a little bit?

2:14:53 ↗ Because I've been thinking about the same thing. So the current central Issaquah plan has

2:14:57 ↗ not amended but that's now being kind of taken a look at now with the

2:15:01 ↗ moratorium that we've heard about early in the meeting this evening. So there may be

2:15:05 ↗ some changes. Whether it changes this requirement or not, don't know. But it could eventually.

2:15:09 ↗ And the Rivers and Stream Board is actually looking more directly at some of the

2:15:13 ↗ trail connections I think. So the easement that's being proposed, we're not requiring this developer

2:15:18 ↗ to construct the trail. We're requiring the property owner to provide an easement that would

2:15:23 ↗ allow for future construction of the trail, but just the easement. Correct. So it retains

2:15:28 ↗ the right to do it should it remain in the plan or should it get

2:15:33 ↗ funded someday if it still looks like it's the right thing to do, but it

2:15:38 ↗ doesn't require anything other than an encumbrance on the property. I think I'm maybe contrary,

2:15:43 ↗ a little contrary to your point, but I guess that's what we do, is I

2:15:48 ↗ think preserving, there hasn't been support of it. Nobody seems to be interested in, at

2:15:53 ↗ least at this point in time, based on all the variables that are being considered,

2:15:57 ↗ seeing that built. But I think preserving the ability to build it in the future,

2:16:02 ↗ if it remains in the plan, is something that probably want to leave there for

2:16:06 ↗ now, in my opinion. I don't know. Because there's no-- other than the encumbrance on

2:16:12 ↗ the property, but reality is you can't build there anyway because it's protected property.

2:16:18 ↗ It's a critical area. So I don't know that-- I would be struggling if

2:16:24 ↗ we were forcing it as a condition to be constructed as part of the

2:16:30 ↗ project. But I don't know that I object to the easement. And the list

2:16:36 ↗ of the work plan that Director Niven mentioned, includes, and we have

2:16:41 ↗ already begun meeting, we have a new parks director. I'm not sure if

2:16:47 ↗ you're aware of that. Jeff Watling from Kent, I believe, began August 1st.

2:16:54 ↗ and we have already begun meeting with him on a series of questions around Central

2:17:00 ↗ Issaquah, implementing Central Issaquah, where are certain kinds of parks and facilities shown, where are

2:17:05 ↗ shared use routes shown. They're going to begin what's called PROS II, and I know

2:17:11 ↗ you're gonna ask me what that is, and I'm gonna guess it's Parks, Recreation, and

2:17:17 ↗ Open Space, something that begins with a T. That

2:17:23 ↗ is coming and so we have delayed all of this laundry list of

2:17:29 ↗ questions to be integrated into that plan so that we're looking at the

2:17:35 ↗ city, we're looking at it citywide at the same time that we're deciding

2:17:41 ↗ how to implement central Issaquah around these topics. And so I think Commissioner

2:17:47 ↗ Brennan is identifying that we are preserving the ability that

2:17:52 ↗ although the public and the commission have expressed concerns that

2:17:58 ↗ through that public process, we may decide that is the right

2:18:04 ↗ connection or we may decide it is no longer an appropriate connection

2:18:10 ↗ and that we are allowing ourselves to then move forward or not

2:18:15 ↗ move forward based on that more comprehensive examination of what the city

2:18:21 ↗ needs both within Central Issaquah and the entire city. - Maybe a

2:18:27 ↗ solution would be adding a sentence to the effect of if the trail

2:18:33 ↗ is no longer required at the Central Issaquah Plan, this requirement would be eliminated. -

2:18:39 ↗ This easement. - This easement. 'Cause I partly think for anybody that's got a house

2:18:44 ↗ that backs up to that, if they go to sell their house, there's gonna be

2:18:50 ↗ somebody saying, you know, there's a potential easement back here. You could have a trail

2:18:56 ↗ right in your backyard hanging over them. in perpetuity. Who is

2:19:01 ↗ going to decide to give that up though? Well,

2:19:07 ↗ if the city decides in their continual updates of

2:19:12 ↗ the Central Issaquah Plan, if they decide that that's

2:19:18 ↗ not a required trail anymore and eliminate that, then

2:19:23 ↗ the easement would go away. And you know, that

2:19:29 ↗ certainly is possible because we typically wouldn't get that easement till

2:19:35 ↗ the end of construction. As we're coming up towards either temporary or final

2:19:41 ↗ certificate of occupancy would be the time that we would likely get those

2:19:46 ↗ easements because it's easier to do them once you have roads constructed and

2:19:52 ↗ you're surveying in those pieces relative to the actual constructed improvements. I would

2:19:58 ↗ think by that time, a year, well, at least a year, if

2:20:04 ↗ not two, from now, we would have clarity on what was happening with those

2:20:10 ↗ improvements. Can I ask a question? So let's imagine a world where the easement

2:20:16 ↗ goes away. Then what is the use of that space? And is it truly

2:20:22 ↗ all wetland? I'm not as familiar. I didn't review the project Amy, can

2:20:28 ↗ you pull up the slide, please? What are we open to at that point,

2:20:34 ↗ if anything? And what are the potential uses for that? Would they be open

2:20:40 ↗ space? If it's a wetland, who's required to maintain that wetland? Does it fall

2:20:46 ↗ within the development property entirely? could you just speak to that a

2:20:52 ↗ little bit is that clear my question so yes so it remains a private

2:20:57 ↗ property so it will remain the responsibility of the property owner to maintain um

2:21:03 ↗ it is not developable in in other words you can't build an another set

2:21:09 ↗ of townhouses back there but could it be landscaped could it be play area

2:21:14 ↗ could it be No. So it's actually all part of

2:21:20 ↗ the requirement in exchange for their developing the 36 units is

2:21:26 ↗ for them to enhance or rehabilitate the current conditions of the

2:21:32 ↗ wetland. So if the easement doesn't exist, it's just a green

2:21:38 ↗ closet. But Amy, isn't the green portion of that not in

2:21:43 ↗ the wetland? The southern portion closest to Newport? Oh, this part

2:21:49 ↗ here. Yes. This green area closest. I think. Kevin. I'm sorry. I

2:21:55 ↗ just wanted you to understand that the part that's green is not

2:22:01 ↗ in the wetland. Got it. There is topography dropping off of Newport.

2:22:06 ↗ And then you also have the future, I'm sorry, yeah, it moved

2:22:12 ↗ over here. Yeah, so Lucy's right, this is also, there's a drop

2:22:18 ↗ here. So there's limited land and it isn't the most usable. In

2:22:23 ↗ the future, if there was, if that trail, if that easement was

2:22:29 ↗ released and not built, and there was, for instance, a need for

2:22:35 ↗ parking or a play area, it would absolutely be re-landscaped.

2:22:40 ↗ Okay. Everything that's impacted by construction outside of the critical

2:22:46 ↗ areas, which is a separate enhancement plan, would be re-landscaped. So in the

2:22:51 ↗ future, if the residents determine that there was some use for that and

2:22:57 ↗ the easement had been released, there would certainly be the opportunity to consider

2:23:03 ↗ that for another use. Great. And even potentially before the project's finished. Excellent.

2:23:08 ↗ But limited to just the green area or just this area here. Right.

2:23:14 ↗ Right, with no improvements. OK. Thank you. Further comment?

2:23:20 ↗ So should we start crafting some of these changes

2:23:26 ↗ to conditions that we've heard commissioners, or is there

2:23:32 ↗ more discussion? Or should we work on that while

2:23:37 ↗ you're discussing? We can craft it too. We'll come

2:23:43 ↗ up with something. Sure. I was just going to

2:23:49 ↗ type it so everyone could see it. That's all.

2:23:54 ↗ Yeah. So do you have a suggestion? Should we--

2:24:01 ↗ We have a motion on the first and then amended or do you

2:24:07 ↗ want to? Yeah, I think we should have a motion. Then we can

2:24:12 ↗ amend the conditions. Then just take each one as an amendment. Right, yeah.

2:24:18 ↗ Mr. Chair, I move that the Development Commission approve the site development permit

2:24:24 ↗ for the project known as Riva Town Homes, file number SDP 15-00004 with

2:24:30 ↗ plans and technical reports received on October 16th. 2015 through February

2:24:35 ↗ 26, 2016. Staff report dated March 3, 2016 with attachments 1

2:24:41 ↗ through 17. Briefing response memo dated March 30, 2016 and attachments

2:24:47 ↗ 1 through 9. And briefing response memo dated August 31, 2016

2:24:52 ↗ with attachments 1 through 3 and exhibits 1 through 4. subject

2:24:58 ↗ to the conditions of the staff report dated March 3, 2016, as revised

2:25:04 ↗ in the briefing response memo dated July 31, 2016, and as amended tonight.

2:25:10 ↗ And there is a quiz on that for everybody later. I second. Great.

2:25:15 ↗ So we have a motion that's been seconded. Is there a discussion? Mr.

2:25:21 ↗ Chair, I move that we amend condition nine. I don't know that you

2:25:26 ↗ like this. I just put something up there. Perfect.

2:25:33 ↗ To add a sentence to it. So in

2:25:38 ↗ the latest briefing response memo, condition number nine

2:25:44 ↗ was revised. So I'm taking that revised condition

2:25:49 ↗ as the condition and looking at sentence number,

2:25:55 ↗ the second sentence and proposing that if it's

2:26:00 ↗ determined to be necessary. or other language that the

2:26:06 ↗ Commission proposes. Yeah, so the, I guess I was going to say, but

2:26:12 ↗ you said it's already determined to be necessary or? So, that's where the

2:26:17 ↗ words become. So right now it is determined to be necessary or maybe

2:26:23 ↗ it's if determined to be necessary by certificate of occupancy for the project.

2:26:30 ↗ The idea being that if through the process that the city is going through with

2:26:35 ↗ PROS II, this is not a connection that the city ends up supporting and the

2:26:39 ↗ community supports, then that easement would not be necessary. Mr. Chair, maybe a different way

2:26:44 ↗ to do it is you could leave the condition as written, but just add to

2:26:49 ↗ the end of it. So essentially, the plan calls for it now, but add to

2:26:54 ↗ the end that something in fact should change as to this, essentially as a call

2:26:58 ↗ to plan. CHRIS JERRAM: Yeah, so we would leave everything

2:27:04 ↗ there that's there. And I would leave it more

2:27:10 ↗ open than that. And just say that if at

2:27:15 ↗ any point it's determined that the trail is no

2:27:21 ↗ longer required by Central Issaquah plan or standards, and

2:27:26 ↗ the relocatable public access easement will be eliminated. Or

2:27:32 ↗ shall not be required. CHRIS JERRAM: Shall not be

2:27:37 ↗ required. If it's already in place, you want to

2:27:42 ↗ allow them to be able to have it removed.

2:27:49 ↗ Yeah, no longer required. Thank you. So

2:27:54 ↗ point of clarification, Mr. Morgan, would it

2:28:00 ↗ go back, revert back to the developer

2:28:05 ↗ then? For the homeowners association? The developer

2:28:11 ↗ still loans the land. It just wouldn't

2:28:16 ↗ have an easement that impacts it hanging

2:28:22 ↗ out there. That looks good to me.

2:28:27 ↗ I hope we have a second, though.

2:28:33 ↗ Second. So we have a motion that

2:28:39 ↗ amends Condition nine to include that final

2:28:44 ↗ sentence. Been moved and seconded. All those

2:28:49 ↗ in favor of that modification say aye.

2:28:55 ↗ Aye. Opposed? OK, that motion carries. So

2:29:00 ↗ now we go back to the motion

2:29:05 ↗ that Commissioner Morgan read. Is there further

2:29:11 ↗ discussion on-- I don't want anything.

2:29:16 ↗ I'm just trying to follow through

2:29:21 ↗ on -- Right. Offer a possible

2:29:26 ↗ new condition. Seemed to be an

2:29:31 ↗ important -- Okay. That's what I

2:29:36 ↗ was wondering. Okay. Let me double

2:29:42 ↗ check here. So that was --

2:29:47 ↗ okay. Good. So a curb is

2:29:52 ↗ already being provided. on

2:29:57 ↗ the opposite side of the street? - That

2:30:03 ↗ was part of Amy's presentation. - Well, so

2:30:09 ↗ they would already have to be putting the

2:30:15 ↗ curb in for storm drainage control, so that

2:30:21 ↗ we don't need to add a condition to

2:30:27 ↗ that effect. - Catchy, Amy, thanks. - Other

2:30:33 ↗ changes, requests? We have a motion as presented

2:30:38 ↗ with the modification, the change identified.

2:30:45 ↗ All those in favor, say aye. Aye.

2:30:50 ↗ Opposed? Nay. So one nay vote. You

2:30:56 ↗ did such a great job. Mr. Chair,

2:31:01 ↗ I move that the development Commission direct the

2:31:07 ↗ Development Services Department to prepare the findings of fact and conclusions

2:31:13 ↗ which affirm the Development Commission's decision to approve the site development

2:31:19 ↗ permit for Riva Townhomes, file number SDP15-0004, with plans and technical

2:31:24 ↗ reports received on October 16, 2015 through February 26, 2016 staff

2:31:30 ↗ report dated March 3rd, 2016 with attachments one through 17. Briefing

2:31:36 ↗ response memo dated March 30th, 2016 and attachments one through nine

2:31:42 ↗ and briefing response memo dated August 31st, 2016 with attachments one through

2:31:47 ↗ three and exhibits one through four, subject to the conditions of the staff

2:31:53 ↗ report dated March 3, 2016, as revised in the briefing memo dated July

2:31:59 ↗ 31, 2016, and as further amended tonight. CHRIS JERRAM: Second. TODD BANDUCCI: We

2:32:05 ↗ have a motion that's been seconded. Is there discussion? All those in favor

2:32:11 ↗ would indicate by saying aye. CHRIS JERRAM: Aye. TODD BANDUCCI: Opposed? CHRIS JERRAM:

2:32:17 ↗ Nay. TODD BANDUCCI: One nay. So motion carries.

2:32:24 ↗ I think, I don't know of any other business that needs to be conducted. I

2:32:29 ↗ think we can officially call our meeting adjourned, but before we do that, I really

2:32:34 ↗ would like to, you know, I think Commissioner Harrison made an excellent point that talked

2:32:39 ↗ about some of the comments that were made that are out of the purview of

2:32:44 ↗ the Development Commission. The reality is that sometimes they are, but the staff is sitting

2:32:49 ↗ here and they hear those comments and I think it's really vital in the context

2:32:54 ↗ of public participation that those comments get to be made. So I appreciate the effort

2:32:59 ↗ and the time that people were willing to spend and the comments don't go unnoticed

2:33:04 ↗ to be sure. So I'd like to call the meeting adjourned. Thank you. - Our

2:33:08 ↗ next meeting is September 21st, just so you know. So no vacation. No

2:33:14 ↗ vacation.

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