Development Commission · Wednesday, October 19, 2016 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

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

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 28, 2016

packet pp.5–14

▶ Watch from 1:07 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

with the Commission. He showed renderings of the proposed landscaping, both for each unit, in the courtyards, and on the rooftop gardens, and showed how blank walls will be screened. He

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing: Issaquah Apartments - Site Development Permit

Mike Martin, Associate Planner · packet pp.15–36

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

Development Services 1775 – 12th Ave. NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3100 issaquahwa.gov

1568 segments .txt ↗

0:16 ↗ Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the public hearing

0:22 ↗ on the Issaquah Apartments site permit, site development permit number 160005. We have an

0:28 ↗ administrative task to take care of it. As soon as we're done with that

0:33 ↗ we'll have a presentation from the city and then from the applicant and then

0:39 ↗ I'll open up the session for public comments. If you do intend to speak

0:45 ↗ We'd really like you to sign in, and we'll call

0:51 ↗ you up after that. So at this point, we have

0:56 ↗ notes, minutes from the September 28, 2016 meeting. You read

1:02 ↗ those notes and ready to make a motion? Mr. Chair,

1:07 ↗ I move we approve the minutes of the September 28,

1:13 ↗ 2016 Development Commission meeting. Any second? The motion has been

1:18 ↗ made and seconded. Is there any discussion?

1:24 ↗ All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Well, minutes are

1:30 ↗ approved. So thank you. I think we're ready for you.

1:42 ↗ Good evening again to the members of the Development Commission. I'm Lucy Sloman, Land

1:47 ↗ Development Manager. I'm going to take us through our quasi-judicial prep for this evening's

1:53 ↗ meeting. This is because it's a project in central Issaquah and the size of

1:59 ↗ the project means that the commission is the decision-making body. And because you're the

2:05 ↗ decision making body, it is a quasi judicial matter. And so we go through a

2:10 ↗ little bit of discussion on that. That means that you are acting as a court

2:16 ↗ and that the proceedings have to both be fair and appear fair. To achieve that,

2:22 ↗ we have both procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process means that

2:28 ↗ we follow a certain process including certain kinds of noticing and that

2:34 ↗ all discussion associated with this matter is taking place in

2:40 ↗ a public forum. Substantive due process means that we are

2:46 ↗ basing our recommendation and you're basing your decision on adopted

2:52 ↗ regulations. So first I would like you to read through

2:58 ↗ a series of questions and then I'll ask what your

3:04 ↗ answers are. Who all answers no to these questions?

3:10 ↗ Anyone answer yes? Then, as I mentioned, all discussions related to

3:16 ↗ this have to take place in a public forum. And so

3:22 ↗ if you have had any contacts or discussion or communication around

3:28 ↗ this permit outside of the public forum, can you indicate that?

3:35 ↗ So no one has had any. And

3:40 ↗ then the public and applicant have an

3:45 ↗ opportunity to challenge any of the participants.

3:50 ↗ Does anyone have a challenge? Great, thank

3:56 ↗ you. Good evening. My name is Mike Martin and I am an

4:02 ↗ associate planner with the city. I am the project planner for the Issaquah Apartments Project.

4:07 ↗ Tonight is the second meeting in front of the Development Commission. Thank you for those

4:13 ↗ that were able to attend the special meeting on September 28th. Tonight's the second meeting.

4:18 ↗ I believe that the commission will issue a decision tonight if they feel comfortable doing

4:24 ↗ so. So we're moving forward anticipating a decision. And I'll

4:30 ↗ just start with a little bit of housekeeping before I jump into the project. First,

4:36 ↗ just a little bit of update about the development moratorium that I know likely everyone

4:41 ↗ here is aware of. The city council enacted the moratorium on September 6th, and the

4:47 ↗ legally required public hearing was held this Monday, October 17th. No changes were made

4:53 ↗ to the moratorium as it was drafted with September 6th. So as it pertains

4:59 ↗ to this permit, nothing really has changed. This project had a vested land use

5:04 ↗ permit application long before the moratorium was enacted. So for that reason, the project

5:10 ↗ is vested under the moratorium. There is a chance that the terms of the

5:16 ↗ moratorium could be altered or adjusted. and those discussions are ongoing. For members of

5:22 ↗ the public that are interested in being a part of that process, I encourage you

5:27 ↗ to reach out to the City Council through an email or attend the next City

5:32 ↗ Council meeting on November 7th. They're also going to be discussing the issue at the

5:38 ↗ October 26th. It's a work session for the 2017 budget, but they've carved out some

5:43 ↗ time to talk about the moratorium then as well. One other piece

5:49 ↗ regarding SEPA, there was no appeal filed for the SEPA permit for this project. I

5:54 ↗ will issue a final SEPA in the coming days that will go out at the

6:00 ↗ same time or prior to any potential notice of decision should we get to that

6:06 ↗ point. There was no new mitigation, but there will be some new findings based on

6:11 ↗ some comments that we received. Since we

6:17 ↗ have a couple commissioners that were not present at the previous meeting, I'll just do

6:22 ↗ a very quick overview of the project once again and for the public. As you

6:27 ↗ can see here, I think we're all familiar with where the project is located. It's

6:31 ↗ just south of Safeway along 7th Avenue, kitty corner from the Atlas Apartments.

6:37 ↗ Brief summary, 110 units, 112 parking spaces, 8,100 square feet of required affordable

6:43 ↗ housing. I think that nets out to 11 units as it's drafted up

6:48 ↗ now. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. The

6:54 ↗ Juniper Trail crosses right in front of the project, and that will be

7:00 ↗ refreshed as part of this. And there's three community spaces provided, two of which

7:05 ↗ are rooftop decks and then a ground level one adjacent to the Juniper Trail. I

7:11 ↗ actually just added this slide in at the last minute in case we needed it,

7:16 ↗ but this is just a quick site plan. You can see the 7th Avenue there.

7:22 ↗ The site is accessed through the south driveway, which is right here. This drive

7:27 ↗ right here, these are bollards, which they don't show real well, but this is an

7:33 ↗ emergency access only, no private vehicle access. Parking primarily under the building in the rear.

7:38 ↗ It's not subgrade, but it's under building, and then there's a small surface lot at

7:44 ↗ the entrance there. So the way that tonight's presentation is going to go, I'm going

7:49 ↗ to present the briefing response memo that was sent out on October 13th. That memo

7:55 ↗ is prepared jointly with the applicant. So what we did is we listened to all

7:59 ↗ the comments and testimony that we heard commissioned discussion from the previous meeting and we've

8:04 ↗ packaged all that into a briefing response and I've set it up so that there's

8:09 ↗ nine sections with all of the questions we heard I tried to package it into

8:14 ↗ nine sections. I did my very best. I went back and watched the video of

8:18 ↗ the previous meeting to capture everything that we heard. If you feel like I've missed

8:23 ↗ something, feel free to jump in or address it during commission discussion. Our goal here

8:28 ↗ was really to take everything we heard and put our best foot forward to give

8:33 ↗ a good response to those issues. So the way this will work, it'll be a

8:37 ↗ bit of a joint presentation. I'll address all of the-- kind of headings and then

8:43 ↗ the applicants team will have an opportunity to also address their piece of it. So

8:49 ↗ be a bit of a back and forth and we'll see how it goes. So

8:55 ↗ jumping into the memo and these first two I packaged one and seven because intuitively

9:00 ↗ they just make sense to discuss together. The rest are separate but number one pertain

9:06 ↗ to construction management and public safety. One thing we heard at the last meeting was

9:12 ↗ a big concern from the public primarily about how this project is going to build

9:16 ↗ out in a way that doesn't create substantial impact to the community. The first thing

9:21 ↗ I'll say is projects of this scale do not build out without causing an impact.

9:25 ↗ I'm not going to sit here and tell you that this is not -- that

9:30 ↗ people are not going to be aware of this and that there's not going to

9:35 ↗ be an impact. What we do is we have tools to try to mitigate that

9:40 ↗ impact. And the primary tool that the city has is the construction management plan, which

9:45 ↗ is a required component of the site work permit. And there are several elements as

9:50 ↗ part of that plan, which are in the orange here. And the applicants prepared kind

9:55 ↗ of a draft plan to show that they're taking care and taking thought about how

10:01 ↗ it is they're going to manage this project so that it is effective. bodes well

10:06 ↗ for the community. There are a couple other issues at play. One is there's going

10:12 ↗ to be some potentially simultaneous projects occurring with the Inniswood development, which is, I think

10:17 ↗ they're going to have their first meeting in front of you in maybe a month

10:22 ↗ or so, and then work related to a roundabout at Newport Way. Those are all

10:28 ↗ in close proximity, and the city's very aware of how the projects need to work

10:33 ↗ together to maintain traffic flow and safety. So with that, I'm making a commitment myself

10:39 ↗ to make sure that all of those developers are held accountable and that I work

10:44 ↗ with them and our team at the city works with them to try to balance

10:50 ↗ everything so that we can move forward. There's a number of issues here, which I

10:56 ↗ think I'll let the applicant address and I'm happy to fill in any blanks. but

11:02 ↗ I'll turn it over to Kyle with American Classic Homes. - Yeah, thank you. Thanks,

11:07 ↗ Mike. And thank you all for coming here tonight. Does everyone have a copy of

11:12 ↗ the construction management plan or have they seen a copy? I'm not gonna go through

11:17 ↗ the whole thing. It's a pretty long, exhaustive document, but if you have any questions

11:22 ↗ on it, we have our contractor here too that put it together and we'd be

11:27 ↗ happy to answer any questions. So starting at the top of these issues,

11:33 ↗ where will the construction worker parking be? Can I switch? - I would just

11:39 ↗ go ahead and take it down. - So the project has been broken up

11:45 ↗ into phases. Obviously with, you know, depending on what scope of work is, the

11:51 ↗ site will change form over time. So this, what you're looking at here is

11:57 ↗ phases one through four. And what that consists of,

12:03 ↗ Demolitions is phase one. Site prep and soil improvement is

12:08 ↗ phase two and three. Utilities, foundation, elevated slab, and wood

12:14 ↗ framing is four and five. And siding is phase six.

12:20 ↗ And street improvements is the last phase. So for phases

12:26 ↗ one through four, we have on-site parking. They have 30

12:32 ↗ stalls shown to the west there and then an additional

12:38 ↗ six on the south side and for pedestrian access we're showing it not

12:44 ↗ changing so that juniper trail will stay open during that phase they'll have

12:50 ↗ flaggers out there maintaining traffic and pedestrian safety at both entrances and you

12:55 ↗ can see the flow of traffic through the through the site

13:03 ↗ the next phase four and six parking still in the

13:08 ↗ same location and pedestrian access still along juniper we'll be

13:14 ↗ doing some work from that juniper side but they'll be

13:19 ↗ diverted out with jersey barriers and flaggers to maintain safe

13:25 ↗ safe path of travel the final phase when we're actually

13:30 ↗ rebuilding juniper trail The plan currently is to divert pedestrian traffic

13:36 ↗ to the opposite side. There's currently no sidewalk there. We will create

13:42 ↗ a temporary safe sidewalk, Jersey barriers, flaggers. There's just obviously no way

13:48 ↗ to keep the pedestrian traffic open while you're rebuilding that actual trail.

13:54 ↗ And keep in mind this plan has not been approved by the

13:59 ↗ building during the building permit process and that's when it gets fully

14:05 ↗ vetted and I'm sure there'll be some changes and we'll obviously work

14:11 ↗ with them along the way. As far as impacts to the adjacent

14:16 ↗ community, we have noise mitigation measures put in place. The city has,

14:22 ↗ you know, times of work that we'll be abiding to. We

14:27 ↗ send out, our contractor sends out a monthly bulletin to residents

14:33 ↗ within a certain area, updating them of the work to come

14:39 ↗ that month. And if there are any special activities, you know,

14:45 ↗ road closures or Anything that's special that doesn't fall within that monthly

14:50 ↗ kind of bulletin, a notice will be sent out to everybody over 72

14:56 ↗ hours advance notice. So for instance, if a sidewalk has to

15:01 ↗ get shifted or a crosswalk has to get closed temporarily and that's

15:07 ↗ not on the current month plan, then a notice would get sent

15:13 ↗ out to everybody. And they'll have phone numbers directly to the site

15:18 ↗ staff that people can reach out to them with comments, concerns, or

15:24 ↗ just questions. Hall routes, let's see, we haven't addressed hall routes, but...

15:31 ↗ That's here. So we went through and did a takeoff of how much import and

15:37 ↗ export we figure we'll have on the project. Our site is, I'd say, unique compared

15:42 ↗ to some of the other projects that have occurred around here. We are doing our

15:48 ↗ best to not go below grade. We don't have any below grade parking.

15:54 ↗ And we're not, you know, we're actually raising the building from the current

16:00 ↗ elevation out there. So there will be some material that's brought in during

16:06 ↗ our soil improvement period, but we're not removing, you know, there was a

16:12 ↗ comment about concern about the removal of a bunch of, you know, peat

16:18 ↗ soil and inadequate soil on the site, and we're not doing that, so.

16:24 ↗ i think that will you know minimize the amount of truck traffic that we

16:30 ↗ have and we'll see the bulk of that in the first part of the

16:36 ↗ project while the site work is going on and Mike brought up the other projects

16:42 ↗ in the area and we have, we've been in contact with the other projects in

16:47 ↗ the area. We've discussed the roundabout timing and the timing of the other projects and

16:52 ↗ I'm fairly confident that we will have most of this high truck traffic work done

16:57 ↗ prior to that work even happening. But we are in close coordination with them and

17:02 ↗ our contractors will be talking to each other on a regular basis to make sure

17:06 ↗ that's a coordinated effort.

17:14 ↗ This is the haul route plan that we're proposing. Obviously, again, this

17:20 ↗ has not been approved by the city. This is our first take

17:25 ↗ at it. What we see is the logical route. That'll get approved

17:31 ↗ through the city's process. And if there are changes to that, we're

17:37 ↗ more than happy. This is an alternate route coming from SR 900.

17:50 ↗ I'll just add a couple of points. One about the construction management plan, that

17:56 ↗ is a dynamic plan. It's not something that we review once and put it

18:02 ↗ to bed. It's something that gets reviewed weekly or monthly with our site inspectors

18:08 ↗ that are on-site probably almost every day. We'll be visiting with the applicant all

18:14 ↗ throughout the development process to make sure that we're addressing the issues. One

18:20 ↗ piece, this third bullet point I think is an important one and it's something

18:26 ↗ that I'm going to read because I want it to be on the record.

18:31 ↗ That the amount of import/export material, we had them do an analysis, which is

18:37 ↗ provided in your packet. It was estimated to result in 761 truckloads. Those are

18:43 ↗ single trucks. Of course, they can't estimate it perfectly, but if their

18:49 ↗ numbers are wrong and there's a significant change in that, in the

18:54 ↗ city's toolbox could be a new SEPA review. I want to make

19:00 ↗ that real clear that if there's something that changes about the conditions

19:05 ↗ and there has to be additional hauling that's not within the ballpark

19:11 ↗ of 761 trips, we could require a new SEPA and halt the

19:17 ↗ project. So I know the applicant's taking care to vet those numbers and

19:22 ↗ I was real clear with them when they were doing that that they

19:28 ↗ needed to provide accurate numbers and I'm confident that those numbers are accurate.

19:34 ↗ Number two, parking. Always a hot button. First thing I'll say is the

19:40 ↗ project meets the code required parking. for the Central Issaquah Plan. So from

19:46 ↗ a code perspective, the project complies. Is adequate parking provided? Yes. The code requires

19:52 ↗ for this project 100 stalls. They have 112 on-site stalls. As we talked at

19:58 ↗ the last meeting, 100 of those actually count, and then 12 which are provided

20:03 ↗ in a tandem configuration do not count toward the overall total, though we acknowledge

20:09 ↗ that they're there. and also there will be some on-street parking. Right now that's

20:15 ↗ estimated at 11 stalls and it may be adjusted down slightly pending site distance analysis

20:21 ↗ that will occur with the site work permit. And then I'll turn it over here.

20:27 ↗ Also like to just reiterate that we've brought all of our consultants with us tonight

20:32 ↗ so at the end of this if there are any questions that you have in

20:38 ↗ greater detail they're here to answer those. Excuse me, would you introduce yourself please? Oh

20:44 ↗ yes, my name is John Shaw, I'm with American Classic Homes. Sorry. So I, besides

20:49 ↗ being code compliant, from the very beginning of this process, we at American Classic have

20:55 ↗ viewed this site as a transit-oriented development. It was one of the primary reasons we

21:00 ↗ were interested in this location. And so with that said, we did extensive research

21:06 ↗ on other buildings around the area that are located in similar distances to Park and

21:12 ↗ Rides. And what we found is with the 112 stalls, three motorcycle stalls, the on-street,

21:17 ↗ we found that we were building to what the market demand was showing us. And

21:23 ↗ so with that, we really then tried to focus on our multimodal approach. And that

21:29 ↗ was what I kind of touched base on at our last meeting. And some of

21:34 ↗ the other things we're doing, and in order to prevent parking spillover, one of the

21:40 ↗ main things we're doing is at this time, we're not anticipating charging for parking. And

21:45 ↗ we find that that's gonna really drive everyone to be in our lot and utilize

21:50 ↗ the parking we have. We have a 50% larger bike room than what's required because

21:56 ↗ we feel that because we're on the Juniper Trail, where we're located within the city,

22:02 ↗ this is a huge part of our project. And to go over and above that,

22:07 ↗ we're providing several community bikes. So those who may not have a bike will have

22:12 ↗ the option to commute around the downtown. And then on top of that, we're providing

22:18 ↗ a rideshare Uber, Lyft, you name it, waiting area within our main

22:23 ↗ lobby indoors. So, you know, through that we feel that we've approached

22:29 ↗ this from the very beginning as a transit-oriented site and we feel

22:35 ↗ that we've met the market demand for what we're offering. Number three

22:41 ↗ pertains to tree retention and tree density. So as you'll recall with

22:47 ↗ the original staff report, part of that included an AAS, an administrative

22:53 ↗ adjustment of standards. for the trees. This project, so the requirement

22:58 ↗ for the code is to retain 25% of the total caliper inches

23:04 ↗ of the trees on site. This site plan doesn't provide for the

23:10 ↗ retention of any trees as it's presented. And so an AAS was

23:16 ↗ required. That AAS was included in it. The analysis and approval

23:22 ↗ of that is based on AAS criteria from the Central Issaquah Plan. That

23:28 ↗ is provided as part of your approval tonight. So in other words, the

23:34 ↗ commission is the decision maker for the AAS. There's an alternative if you

23:40 ↗ elected to deny that. They would have to keep at least one tree.

23:46 ↗ Now I know in working with them on this, There are four trees

23:51 ↗ that I think there's a good chance that will be retained or can be retained.

23:57 ↗ But because it's not 100%, I had them go ahead and just assume that they

24:02 ↗ could not be kept because we've had some challenges with that on other projects. But

24:07 ↗ if we need to revisit the AAS, it's on page 22 of the staff report,

24:13 ↗ and the analysis is in there, and the staff's recommendation is for approval. But that's

24:18 ↗ up to you. The second piece pertains to street trees and I just

24:23 ↗ want to add a piece there. So I think it's really good that we

24:29 ↗ have this public process and we have an engaged community and this condition is

24:35 ↗ a reflection of that. This condition came out of some comments that I heard

24:40 ↗ at the last meeting and that was about retaining previous investments and in this

24:46 ↗ case the street trees, the columnar hornbeams. Whether or not it's possible to keep

24:52 ↗ them, we're going to find out. Because we do need to widen that street, this

24:57 ↗ planter strip has to move over, and it's not consistent with where the street trees

25:02 ↗ need to be. But we've asked them to analyze the potential for relocating those trees.

25:07 ↗ I think these trees could possibly be a good candidate for that based on their

25:12 ↗ structure, and they don't necessarily have a super wide root ball. So the condition, I'll

25:17 ↗ just read it. Prior to submittal of a site worker landscape permit, the applicant shall

25:22 ↗ submit a feasibility report prepared by a certified arborist to determine if it is feasible

25:28 ↗ to relocate the existing street trees, columnar hornbeams, into the newly constructed planter strip along

25:33 ↗ 7th Avenue Northwest. The feasibility report may be subject to review by an independent certified

25:38 ↗ arborist. So I think that's clear, but let me know if you have questions.

25:50 ↗ So as it comes to the trees, I think I'd also like to start off

25:55 ↗ by saying because I live here in Issaquah, I've lived here my entire life, that

26:00 ↗ this is something that we heard the public and the Development Commission loud and clear

26:05 ↗ is important to me. And so with that, you know, this is an infill site

26:09 ↗ and it has multiple objectives and obstacles that you're going to have to overcome here.

26:15 ↗ What we're doing to try to do our best and to mitigate that is we've

26:19 ↗ added 11 more trees on the roof decks there. And one thing that we were

26:24 ↗ talking amongst ourselves is that's going to be important for us is not just to

26:29 ↗ have the residents enjoy those trees, but to situate them where we'll be able to

26:34 ↗ have the public enjoy them as well. So as you're walking down the street, you'll

26:39 ↗ be able to realize those trees and that experience from ground level. You'll notice around

26:45 ↗ the exterior, and we've got our landscape architect here who can delve into this further

26:50 ↗ for you if you'd like, but around the exterior we've added the deciduous trees that

26:55 ↗ we talked about at the last meeting. We've gotten a larger one here in the

27:01 ↗ class four stream area that we're mitigating. And then one other thing we're looking into

27:06 ↗ is We also have arborvitaes around the entire perimeter of the site. Now,

27:12 ↗ we realize it's effective screening. However, we feel it can sometimes be kind

27:18 ↗ of monolithic. And so we are actively looking at, can we find another

27:24 ↗ alternative to an arborvitaes that give it a little more pizzazz, if that's

27:30 ↗ the right word. Mike mentioned that we're exploring... how we can keep the

27:36 ↗ existing street trees and how we can relocate them if at all possible. Also providing

27:41 ↗ seven off-street parking. And then two things that we have been planning on doing from

27:46 ↗ the very, well, not from the very beginning, but one from the very beginning is

27:51 ↗ we've reached out to a local mill worker And we're going to try to whatever

27:55 ↗ lumbers coming off the site in terms of the trees that are there, we're going

27:59 ↗ to try to mill that up and use it on our site, whether it's if

28:02 ↗ we have enough, if we could do a park bench or even the placards next

28:05 ↗ to the units. We're trying to get creative with the wood that we're going to

28:09 ↗ be bringing off site and how we can make sure that we take in a

28:12 ↗ sustainable manner. And actually what was really neat, I was recently reached out to, and

28:17 ↗ I'm blanking on her name, but she had looked at all the old 100-year apple

28:21 ↗ trees out there and had found one that she wants to take a scion from

28:26 ↗ and put in her garden. They're based out of Seattle, and they basically kind of

28:30 ↗ rejuvenate these old apple trees and save the bloodline, if you will. So we're going

28:35 ↗ to meet her in December when she felt that it was a better time to

28:39 ↗ set up that endeavor to try to save that bloodline of that

28:45 ↗ particular apple tree that she's interested in. So it's, I can't wait

28:50 ↗ to meet her on site. I've never seen that done. But those

28:56 ↗ are some of the aspects that we're doing to make sure that

29:02 ↗ we address this. Item four pertains to traffic. And you can see

29:08 ↗ the issues here. One question came up. How does the city

29:13 ↗ collect impact fees? How long do we have to spend them? What can

29:19 ↗ we spend them on? The answer is 10 years. So this project will

29:25 ↗ pay just south of $500,000 in traffic impact fees that will go into

29:31 ↗ the city's fund to fund projects citywide. And actually, I'm going to cheat a

29:36 ↗ little bit because I'm going to read verbatim one piece out of the memo from

29:41 ↗ page 7 of the memo, page 21 of the packet, just because it summarizes all

29:46 ↗ of these issues better than I can describe it. at the site development phase

29:52 ↗ of development review the city requires an applicant to provide a traffic impact analysis prepared

29:57 ↗ by a licensed traffic engineer the purpose of the tia is to analyze how development

30:02 ↗ will impact traffic flow patterns and quantities within the immediate vicinity of the project site

30:07 ↗ and to determine vehicle trip counts Development of the Issaquah Highlands property is included in

30:12 ↗ the city's long-term plans for development capacity in the central Issaquah area and was studied

30:18 ↗ as part of the environmental review for implementing this plan and is consistent with the

30:23 ↗ traffic model established for this corridor. The city's traffic model is for the entire city

30:28 ↗ based on the growth anticipated through the year 2030 and is updated every three years

30:33 ↗ to reflect construction activities during that period. The Issaquah Apartments will mitigate its impact to

30:39 ↗ the city's transportation system by constructing frontage improvements and paying the city's traffic impact and

30:45 ↗ bike pedestrian mitigation fees. The State Growth Management Act requires jurisdictions to adopt level of

30:51 ↗ service standards for their transportation systems and to prohibit development if it will cause transportation

30:56 ↗ level of service to fall below the adopted level. For the City of Issaquah, the

31:02 ↗ adopted level of service is LOSD. This means that with the exception of six

31:08 ↗ intersections which may operate at LOS E or F, new developments must operate within the

31:14 ↗ citywide established level of service framework. This is verified through a computerized traffic model which

31:19 ↗ ensures that new development does not result in any concurrency intersections except for the aforementioned

31:25 ↗ six following below LOS D. That's the last paragraph. The current traffic model has

31:31 ↗ been developed based on the expected growth through 2030 and assumes 10,000 residential units in

31:37 ↗ 7.5 million square feet of commercial space. For this project, the TIA states that the

31:42 ↗ project will add 230 new trips with 33 of those falling within the a.m. peak

31:48 ↗ hour and 43 falling within the p.m. peak hour. This data is based upon published

31:54 ↗ data in the trip generation manual published by the International Transportation, not Transpiration, Engineers Manual.

32:00 ↗ New trips created by this project fall within the threshold of the existing traffic model

32:06 ↗ and the additional trips do not result in any intersections operating below the established levels

32:11 ↗ of service. As such, the project meets the concurrency requirement and is only required to

32:16 ↗ pay the traffic impact fee of $4,997 per unit. So I apologize if that was

32:21 ↗ a little long-winded, but I think it's a good summary for you all to hear,

32:27 ↗ including the public, the way that the city has shifted, the way it

32:32 ↗ views traffic concurrency and has moved into this simplified model. That's a brief summary

32:38 ↗ of that. A couple more items on here. I think I hit one and

32:44 ↗ two. Oh. We had a comment at the last meeting about this intersection, which

32:50 ↗ is located to the south. This is 7th and Juniper. About some drivers maybe

32:56 ↗ not following the law and going through the stop sign and speeding. I want

33:02 ↗ to just put this up here. The red line indicates kind of the safe walking

33:06 ↗ route as it exists now. The situation out there is that on the upper right

33:11 ↗ where there's not a red line, there's no sidewalk there. And then the lower left,

33:15 ↗ there's no sidewalk. So as one walks north or south, they kind of have to

33:20 ↗ do a dogleg across as we only have two crosswalks at that intersection. This is

33:25 ↗ something that we're going to look at. It's not necessarily a requirement of this project

33:30 ↗ to fix this intersection if it needs fixing, and I'm not saying that it does.

33:36 ↗ But I've talked to our public works engineering department and one of our traffic engineers

33:41 ↗ specifically, and we're going to look at ways in which this intersection might

33:46 ↗ be able to be improved for pedestrians. And the possibilities include

33:52 ↗ advanced warning, maybe enhancing the striping, maybe enhancing sight distance, a

33:58 ↗ number of potential options there. And then the last one, I'm

34:04 ↗ going to sit back. The last piece is there was a

34:10 ↗ question about the crossing right here. We're still evaluating that

34:16 ↗ as to the location relative to site distance for drivers. So we don't

34:21 ↗ have a pinpointed location for that exactly at this time and as we

34:27 ↗ evaluate the site distance through the site work permit, we'll finalize that location.

34:33 ↗ My expectation is that that moves to the north a little bit. And

34:39 ↗ then finally wear and tear on the roadway. This is one of the another

34:45 ↗ component of the construction management plan and the city can require them to do a

34:50 ↗ asphalt analysis and I'm not sure if that's the correct term exactly but basically they

34:55 ↗ have to go out and analyze the roads in the immediate vicinity and then analyze

35:01 ↗ them after the fact and if there's significant deterioration they would be required to take

35:06 ↗ care of that. So we'll be looking for that at the construction management plan review.

35:12 ↗ And that wraps up my piece about traffic. Did you guys have anything to add

35:18 ↗ on traffic? Okay. Number five is building design. We had a lot of discussion about

35:24 ↗ this at the last meeting. I felt there were kind of three issues that needed

35:30 ↗ to be looked into a little bit more. The first was blank walls. And the

35:36 ↗ applicant addressed that in their packet. You'll look and see... In staff's opinion, their walls

35:42 ↗ at the north and south meet the condition as do the walls around the community

35:47 ↗ space at the ground level with the exception of their rear concrete wall. I think

35:52 ↗ staff feels that that is still falling a little bit short in terms of the

35:57 ↗ blank wall perspective. I think the applicant has a different opinion on that which they're

36:02 ↗ free to share and I guess we'll just hash it out with discussion with the

36:07 ↗ commission at the appropriate time. The second one was the eastern building entrance wasn't

36:13 ↗ really associated with the Juniper Trail. So as you'll see in the pending

36:19 ↗ elevations, they've added some weather protection to kind of bring that elevation out

36:24 ↗ to the sidewalk of sorts, which is consistent with the condition. And then

36:30 ↗ finally, the The building design elevations were inconsistent with certain parts of

36:36 ↗ the code pertaining to the base, middle, and top provisions. And we talked

36:41 ↗ about that at the last meeting. They came forward with their preferred design.

36:47 ↗ I went back and listened to the tape again. And in coordination with

36:53 ↗ them, we kind of packaged together what we thought was the DC's preferred

36:58 ↗ design. And that was the one that required an AAS. which I've drafted

37:04 ↗ in draft form as an attachment. If tonight you elect to pick a design

37:10 ↗ that requires an AAS, that would just be incorporated into the decision. If you

37:16 ↗ pick a design that doesn't require the AAS, then it just kind of goes

37:21 ↗ away. And then lastly, they've come forth with two code-compliant designs that we didn't

37:27 ↗ see last time just for the sake of discussion, and we'll see how that

37:33 ↗ goes. So I'll turn it over to John. How's Brian doing? Join

37:39 ↗ me here. So the issue pertaining to the blank walls. Are you

37:45 ↗ presenting this or what? I don't know. Well, thank you.

37:51 ↗ So we're pretty excited about what we came up with. Brian did a great job.

37:56 ↗ I'll let him turn over to hit on the architectural parts of it. All right.

38:00 ↗ Thanks, John. So my name is Brian Palladar with Group Architect. In response to the--

38:05 ↗ start with the blank walls here. Where's my little mouse here? There we have one.

38:10 ↗ There he is. Starting first with the blank walls at the northern and southern ends

38:15 ↗ of the property. On the north end of over here, previously there's a blank wall

38:19 ↗ adjacent to the main building lobby here. And at that point we added a, in

38:23 ↗ response to comments, we added a window in the back of the leasing office and

38:27 ↗ added additional green screening and some ground level landscaping to help mitigate the blank wall.

38:32 ↗ We had shown a concept of that at the last meeting and it seemed like

38:36 ↗ we were going the right direction so we kind of kept going with that. On

38:40 ↗ the south side of the building adjacent to our surface parking lot, this originally all

38:45 ↗ brick wall, which is adjacent to future pedestrian connection, was not appropriately detailed. And so

38:51 ↗ we went back, revisited the landscaping patterns and also the building surface treatment. So we've

38:56 ↗ broken the wall up into smaller sections, infilled with a synthetic wood paneling that we're

39:02 ↗ using for accent on the upper level of the towers. and just using that in

39:07 ↗ the lower sections. We've picked up on the registry lines of our canopies and our

39:12 ↗ loft units that are alongside the streets and then we continue that registry line around.

39:17 ↗ And then where appropriate, we're adding in clear story type windows, et cetera, and some

39:22 ↗ of those loft units to kind of bring that scale moving around.

39:28 ↗ Moving on to the interior of the courtyard, as Mike mentioned, same kind of detailing

39:33 ↗ is present now with wrapping the lofts around. So similar treatment here on the south

39:38 ↗ wall of that interior court. This is Juniper Trail right here in front for anyone

39:44 ↗ that wasn't here at the last meeting or just wants to follow our renderings. At

39:49 ↗ the north end, we've matched that similar pattern and scale as you turn around. This

39:54 ↗ is actually the east entry that previously was unrelated uh per the the comments received

40:00 ↗ at the meeting so we've extended out the canopy that connects us up to provide

40:05 ↗ pedestrian weather protection and cover from the juniper trail entry this entry is a second

40:10 ↗ second entry back to our the internal circulation of the building and it's also a

40:15 ↗ convenience entry specifically for our bike room, which is actually right behind here. So our

40:20 ↗ bike users have an immediate access point to get out to the Juniper Trail and

40:24 ↗ use it or obviously anywhere else they like to go. With respect to the treatment

40:29 ↗ of the blank wall of the garage behind, as Mike mentioned, in our dialogue with

40:33 ↗ staff, I think staff wanted to see us do more. These renderings, in all honesty,

40:38 ↗ are not going to do it justice to what it's really going to be. We've

40:43 ↗ added architectural detailing and scoring within these walls, our parking garages

40:48 ↗ behind here, but we've also added surface treatment in the form

40:54 ↗ of green screens and in intermittently openings for into the wall

41:00 ↗ itself. And so that plus ground level landscaping, such as these

41:05 ↗ columnar shrubs, and the fact that this is set back approximately I want to say

41:10 ↗ it's 30 feet plus or minus and the fact that we have street trees out

41:13 ↗ here I think the reality is is this blank wall is not going to be

41:17 ↗ a very blank wall from anyone that's out in Juniper Trail or certainly out in

41:21 ↗ the vehicular side I mean it we can we can argue about how much work

41:24 ↗ we want to spend on this particular surface and getting around that blank wall but

41:28 ↗ I honestly don't think that that's making it a better project at that point and

41:32 ↗ i don't mean that in a negative way i just i think that we can

41:36 ↗ continue adding detail but our intention is to green this thing up and if we're

41:40 ↗ putting plants over as much of the building as possible then it seems like that's

41:44 ↗ that's going to enliven the space better there is a provision in the code as

41:47 ↗ well that that says that we can contribute to our landscaping coverage by providing green

41:51 ↗ screen uh shielding the parking i don't remember the code citation directly but that was

41:55 ↗ really the direction that we're going we're trying to turn this into a into a

41:59 ↗ well landscaped courtyard Following then into the sections that were really

42:05 ↗ looking at the design options of the project, the original option is here on the

42:10 ↗ right. And so the original option was looking at it still functioning on a three-part

42:15 ↗ system. design with the base middle top with an accent looking at the corners and

42:19 ↗ treating we actually chose to treat the corners differently as as you may recall and

42:24 ↗ we have a taller ground level structure in order to have a double height space

42:29 ↗ again reinforcing the city's desire that while we proposed loft style dwelling units along that

42:34 ↗ pathway that could always become a future retail or other commercial use at some point

42:38 ↗ in the future And so that really starts to be, because of some of the

42:43 ↗ changes in the building heights, it starts to really adjust what is the code definition

42:48 ↗ of a story transition at the third level. And so after a lot of internal

42:53 ↗ design effort, we arrived at a proposed option in this one-three-one kind of configuration. Again,

42:58 ↗ having a top course of the building, a main body, and then our main ground

43:03 ↗ level. And we chose to accent the corners while still respecting the building line separations

43:07 ↗ there. um as a result of some of the the comments received at the development

43:13 ↗ commission meeting option b is i apologize is this do we have the other big

43:17 ↗ ones we do excellent okay thank you so we'll look at those guys in just

43:22 ↗ a second um the the two main things that i wanted to point out on

43:27 ↗ as we talk about these options some of the options that were proposed were specifically

43:31 ↗ just permutations that the board felt they really wanted to see more study of that

43:36 ↗ and so we've presented that for everyone's review and joint dialogue. But the other thing

43:42 ↗ that was also clarity was trying to help everyone understand which portions of the design

43:48 ↗ require an AAS because some portions, like in our preferred scheme, Technically, this modulation break

43:54 ↗ occurs at the deck of the fifth story, not at the transition of the third

43:59 ↗ story. So technically, that alone requires an AAS. We still feel that this body design

44:04 ↗ is an appropriate design treatment, and we feel like it's our favorite of all the

44:10 ↗ portions presented. But it requires technically an AAS, should you approve it. On the corners,

44:15 ↗ we chose this accent piece in the striation of each floor level, which again, because

44:21 ↗ we don't technically break the siding distinctively between the lower three stories of the building

44:26 ↗ and the upper, that design gesture is technically in AAS. Again, we feel this is

44:32 ↗ the best design, but with that, we'll show you some of the other permutations that

44:37 ↗ we have looked at. One of the first studies that the board had requested was

44:42 ↗ looking at one of our concept sketches, which simply combined the one corner condition that

44:47 ↗ was more code compliant where we do change siding transition and materials here. So we

44:52 ↗ have the first two stories in that accent wood panel siding and then move to

44:57 ↗ a painted cement board above that, again, maintaining that distinction between floors three and below

45:02 ↗ and four and above. This scheme investigated keeping the 131 base and simply going more

45:07 ↗ code compliant. So again, AAS would be required for this portion, but we have a

45:13 ↗ code compliant corner accent, so to speak. Some of the other schemes then that we

45:18 ↗ looked at, again, trying to follow the design thinking through and really see what was

45:23 ↗ happening with this. This scheme simply is a version of what you just saw, but

45:28 ↗ now we've reduced down the body to be code compliant. And so this transition happens

45:34 ↗ in more of a, it's still a one-three-one composition, but this is pretty equal in

45:39 ↗ size and scale. And that equality in scale to us felt like it started to

45:45 ↗ lack architectural hierarchy. It's technically code conforming, but it's not respecting, I think, the better

45:50 ↗ look of the design in our opinion. And then we also looked at another version

45:55 ↗ that simplified the body down and actually brought the blue that was the body base

46:01 ↗ further into the corner element, again, going with the code compliant approach. So and

46:07 ↗ then in summary, these were just the options together looking at them all side

46:13 ↗ by side. So I know the building design was a big issue. We'll have

46:19 ↗ an opportunity to revisit that couple more and I'll try to run through these

46:25 ↗ quickly. Affordable housing. Some questions about the kind of the nuts and bolts of

46:31 ↗ that. And the first one was who determines what is affordable? That comes

46:36 ↗ out of the Central Issaquah Plan. And again, this project utilized the density bonus program

46:42 ↗ in exchange for added building height and floor area. They're required to provide affordable housing.

46:49 ↗ Now, out of the 100% of affordable housing that they're providing, 20%

46:55 ↗ of that has to be provided at the low income level, which

47:01 ↗ is 50% of median income as defined by the Seattle Metropolitan Statistical

47:06 ↗ Area HUD report. So we look at that and determine the affordability

47:12 ↗ levels. That's the required component. And then there's an elective component, which

47:18 ↗ they're also utilizing, which is the remaining 80%. And that 80% is a mix

47:24 ↗ of mid-moderate and moderate income based on that HUD report. And that's at the

47:30 ↗ 70% and 80% median income level. So it's 20% at affordable rate, 50%, and

47:36 ↗ then the remaining 80% a mix between 70% and 80%. percent of

47:42 ↗ median income and we resolved that in coordination with ARCH, a regional

47:48 ↗ coalition for affordable housing, which isn't the provider of, well, they're an

47:54 ↗ advocate group on the east side for affordable housing. So that covers

48:00 ↗ those two pieces. Response seven was packaged in with number one. The

48:06 ↗ commission did ask to see concept signage, so the applicant went ahead

48:11 ↗ and prepared that. i just want to reiterate that signage is not something that

48:17 ↗ we review at this phase at the land use phase so staff has not reviewed

48:23 ↗ this but the applicant wanted to kind of provide an idea of what they had

48:29 ↗ proposed for that did you want to talk about the signage at all you can

48:35 ↗ see the signage there And then number nine was just a

48:40 ↗ few other questions that didn't really fit into the other categories, so I tried to

48:46 ↗ hit them. Question about garbage, recycling, and food waste, how that would function. There's a

48:52 ↗ waste room at the back of the building where the truck will come in and

48:57 ↗ service the cans. There's waste chutes that lead into that room. There was a question

49:03 ↗ about hazardous materials and asbestos. With their building permit, they'll be required to provide an

49:09 ↗ asbestos report indicating if there's any asbestos on site. If there is, then there's protocols

49:14 ↗ and professionals that go in and take care of that. Same with hazardous materials. They're

49:20 ↗ required to disclose those. And if any are identified, then the appropriate professionals would be

49:25 ↗ consulted to take care of those. There was a technical question

49:31 ↗ about stormwater. What King County surface water design manual will be used? And

49:37 ↗ that is the 2009 manual with the 2011 Issaquah addendum. A couple questions

49:42 ↗ came up about schools and the impact of adding new residents to the

49:48 ↗ community and how that impacts schools. The city deals with that through the

49:54 ↗ collection of school impact fees. For this project, it's roughly $150,000. regarding

49:59 ↗ the location of bus stops that's determined by the isaac school district and they

50:05 ↗ revisit that annually based on their changing student demographic to to determine where bus

50:11 ↗ stops are most appropriate the city only gets involved to the extent that we

50:17 ↗ would facilitate the the design of the streets as much as we can to

50:23 ↗ allow for the buses to move through maneuver and keep it safe

50:28 ↗ Regarding regional growth impacts, I know that's on a lot of folks mind. We heard

50:34 ↗ some of that at the last meeting. Those discussions are ongoing at the community level

50:40 ↗ with the moratorium discussion. As it pertains to this project, we really need to not

50:46 ↗ consider the greater impact to the city. And I know that sounds crazy, but we

50:52 ↗ were required to stick to the code basis and Growth impacts are dealt

50:58 ↗ with through other policy discussions and those are certainly ongoing again if you

51:04 ↗ have concerns about that Please join in the process at the meeting on

51:09 ↗ November 7th And then lastly another another condition change that came out of

51:15 ↗ some citizen comment just a slight revision to condition 7 to omit stone

51:21 ↗ pavers as a suitable material for the Juniper Trail.

51:27 ↗ So I'm proposing that we strike that from

51:33 ↗ the condition. That concludes the presentation tonight. Next

51:38 ↗ step we'll have public comment. If you are

51:44 ↗ here to speak tonight, please sign in at

51:50 ↗ the sign-in sheet right there. And did the

51:55 ↗ applicant team have anything else they'd like to

52:01 ↗ add? Okay, thank you. At this point we

52:06 ↗ will consider open for public comment. So if

52:12 ↗ you do have comments, please

52:18 ↗ Good evening. My name is Ron Fall, 520 Mountain Park Boulevard, Southwest. I want to

52:24 ↗ compliment the developer. I think it's a wonderful looking building. It's a nice design. A

52:29 ↗ couple things that I really like about the building. You have adequate bike parking. I

52:35 ↗ think that's a real plus. You have large overhangs to shield people from the rain.

52:41 ↗ And you have nice big windows to allow a lot of sunlight in. And I

52:47 ↗ think it's a very welcoming looking building. A couple things that I

52:53 ↗ thought were strategic to this project is that our recommendations to the developer

52:58 ↗ is to consider maybe cameras over the bike stalls because this is a

53:04 ↗ high theft area. Maybe a shopping cart storage area so that people could

53:10 ↗ put their shopping carts or provide shopping carts for them being that you

53:15 ↗ are right behind a shopping center. Now, if I was a

53:21 ↗ commuter and I was living in this building, I would be frustrated to have to

53:27 ↗ use the bus because there's no covered bus service on Gilman, either on the south

53:32 ↗ side or the north side, which means I'd have to stand in the rain. So

53:38 ↗ if we're going to have a parking strategy set up where we're going to try

53:43 ↗ and encourage people to use public transportation, then I might consider reaching out to Sound

53:48 ↗ Transit or somehow develop a covered bus parking or sorry

53:54 ↗ a covered bus stall so that people could don't have to

54:00 ↗ stand in the rain. I have a concern about the use

54:05 ↗ of synthetic wood. What material is that and in Highlands we

54:11 ↗ are already seeing material failures which are like a it's a

54:17 ↗ fiber board that's failing. How regularly would the windows be washed

54:23 ↗ and cleaned because the building is predominantly glass and so that would be a

54:28 ↗ concern as well? The trees up in front, I like the trees. They look really

54:34 ↗ nice on the drawings. My concern is that does the tree have enough footprint for

54:39 ↗ the roots to grow or is the tree going to end up having to be

54:44 ↗ removed once it gets to a desirable size because it's either going to interfere with

54:49 ↗ public utilities or the sidewalk or it's just not going to be able to get

54:54 ↗ enough moisture when it rains because there's not enough dirt coverage. Thank you

54:59 ↗ very much, and I do like your project.

55:05 ↗ Are there any other members of the public

55:10 ↗ that wish to speak? Please sign in. I

55:16 ↗ suppose. You suppose. Funny. My name's Connie Marsh,

55:21 ↗ and I have a store at 1175 Northwest

55:27 ↗ Gilman Boulevard and also live in town. So

55:32 ↗ transit-oriented development. I just looked it up in

55:38 ↗ your design standards. which says development at or near transit

55:43 ↗ facilities that relates directly to and occurs because of the presence of faster,

55:49 ↗ convenient, and reliable transit, is denser and more mixed, diverse than would otherwise

55:55 ↗ occur, has jobs and housing in balance, and generates and attracts more pedestrian

56:01 ↗ and other non-motorized trips to and from the community 24-7. So given the

56:07 ↗ definition, I don't think you can call this transit-oriented development. The nearest bus

56:12 ↗ stops on Gilman are sporadic and only function part of the day, and it's

56:18 ↗ quite a trek down to the transit center. So my concern with this is

56:24 ↗ it's not unusual in Issaquah that this is true, is that we are looking

56:30 ↗ at putting affordable housing in here. and it is not conducive to a person

56:36 ↗ who doesn't own a car. So when you're looking at trying to live with

56:41 ↗ little money and you have to own a car, We've done it in the Issaquah

56:47 ↗ Highlands where you can't, it's harder to get to the transit station. We've done it

56:52 ↗ in Tallis where it's a heck of a walk to get down to the transit

56:56 ↗ center. So I don't think we should continue that pathway. I don't think there's a

57:01 ↗ rule against it at this point in time. I just want to bring it up

57:05 ↗ because it is a continued issue and I don't think we're going to solve our

57:10 ↗ affordable housing problems if we make all of our people in affordable housing buy cars

57:14 ↗ so they can get around right i do agree with ron's sentiment if we're going

57:20 ↗ to say that people are going to be taking the bus we need to make

57:26 ↗ it dry convenient and safe for them to be able to do that so i

57:32 ↗ was looking for the colors of the building did you all bring the colors today

57:37 ↗ digitally okay so uh In our ever-present conversation about colors of buildings

57:43 ↗ in Issaquah, which Atlas has spurred, it makes you look around and you say,

57:49 ↗ why doesn't that work? And why do some of the other buildings change?

57:55 ↗ work and I thought they the colors aren't reflective of what we ever see in

58:00 ↗ nature every time I look at Atlas for example that is not our color of

58:04 ↗ gray it is a color of gray some from someplace else that is never the

58:08 ↗ blue of our sky every day I look at that and it is never the

58:13 ↗ blue of our sky it is never the green that we see and so the

58:17 ↗ colors that they provided I don't know what they will look like in the context

58:23 ↗ of our nature so I would just ask that that they look at it that

58:28 ↗ way and say wow it should echo our land it should not stand out against

58:33 ↗ as a strident clash to our own colors So views from the roof, good. I

58:39 ↗ like to hear that they're thinking that, and I'm interpreting what he said, that they

58:44 ↗ are going to move the trees to the edge of the roof so that the

58:49 ↗ people who are around it will be able to see the trees. That's how I

58:54 ↗ interpreted when he said, the people on the ground will be able to enjoy the

58:59 ↗ trees. My hope would be the people on the ground could eventually be able to

59:03 ↗ go up into the building and get on the roof and it would be publicly

59:07 ↗ open, but I think that's a pipe dream. On the other hand, the people who

59:11 ↗ live in the building look like they're going to be able to use the roof.

59:15 ↗ But in looking at their schematic, it did not seem like they were maximizing the

59:19 ↗ views from the roof. for the benefit of the people in the building. It seemed

59:22 ↗ like you would be able to see squawk, but maybe not Lake Sammamish. So I

59:26 ↗ would like to see that the views from the top of the roof be maximized

59:29 ↗ for the people who are going to live in there because they're going to be

59:32 ↗ able to get more rent if they do that. On with the colors for me,

59:37 ↗ deciduous trees and a gray building. And we all know what that does in the

59:43 ↗ winter time, everything is gray and you look at a gray building with gray trees.

59:49 ↗ So I think we need more evergreen components and I see that they're using vertical

59:55 ↗ vegetation, which is great. If some of that vertical vegetation was evergreen, then that would

1:00:00 ↗ help provide a variety of color throughout the building that appears to be missing

1:00:06 ↗ at this point in time. So another lesson that we could take

1:00:11 ↗ from Atlas is Atlas now has some fences that seem to be

1:00:17 ↗ right up against the sidewalk and are not pedestrian friendly. And so

1:00:23 ↗ the pictures here that show Juniper is going to be sort of open and

1:00:29 ↗ appear like you were part of that development should not have a fence that

1:00:35 ↗ makes it look like the sidewalk is right up against the private property because

1:00:40 ↗ that is not welcoming. And I I frankly don't remember ever seeing

1:00:46 ↗ that fence on Atlas. It may have come later or

1:00:52 ↗ I may have missed it, but I think that needs

1:00:58 ↗ to be a consideration for the welcomingness of the public

1:01:04 ↗ through Juniper. Thank you. Hi, my name's Annette Traeger and

1:01:09 ↗ I live at 710 7th Avenue Northwest. And I have

1:01:15 ↗ a couple of concerns about the project. I think it

1:01:21 ↗ looks nice. and I don't have any issues with that. However, I

1:01:27 ↗ do have issues with the Juniper Trail. I walk on that every day, and

1:01:33 ↗ so I feel like it will be an impediment while this is going on

1:01:39 ↗ for free-flowing to get to Safeway and to the restaurants there. I'd like to

1:01:44 ↗ see it... easy for people with disabilities because there are a lot of

1:01:50 ↗ apartments that live down there that have people with disabilities that need to cross the

1:01:56 ↗ street and elderly folks that walk to Safeway daily. And in fact, the women that

1:02:02 ↗ own the property there, she used that daily to walk along there. And so I'd

1:02:07 ↗ like to see safety and easy accessibility along 7th as we will no longer have

1:02:13 ↗ a sidewalk there. I'd also... I'm a little worried about

1:02:19 ↗ the construction parking. Having seen the Atlas project, how they had

1:02:25 ↗ to get extra parking there for their construction workers, and this

1:02:30 ↗ project, from what I saw today, doesn't have added construction parking.

1:02:36 ↗ It's going to be construction on site. Is that correct? Construction

1:02:41 ↗ on site? Parking on site? I have real worries about that.

1:02:47 ↗ Real worries about that. As we live on 7th, we

1:02:53 ↗ had construction parking on our street way down, and they

1:02:59 ↗ had off-site parking that they had provided. Also, I would

1:03:05 ↗ like to see that the hall route be completely...

1:03:11 ↗ restricted to Gilman Boulevard, not come down Juniper at

1:03:17 ↗ all with the construction that's on the corner there

1:03:22 ↗ right now and with the upcoming roundabout, I don't

1:03:28 ↗ see. 760 trucks can come down through the through

1:03:33 ↗ the Juniper Street, I'd like to see it completely restricted

1:03:39 ↗ to Gilman Boulevard and on 7th that way. If they

1:03:45 ↗ can get in that way, they can get out that

1:03:50 ↗ way. So thank you for listening to my concerns. My

1:03:56 ↗ name is Mary Lynch and I reside at 2690 Northwest

1:04:01 ↗ Oakcrest Drive, Issaquah, Washington. And I just want to say, Mike, I appreciate the

1:04:07 ↗ time you've taken to listen to the comments, and I think you've done a good

1:04:12 ↗ job of addressing most of them. I still have some concerns, though. First of all,

1:04:17 ↗ one of the comments about not digging down and filling in this land, I'd just

1:04:22 ↗ like to remind people what happened to the city after Safeway was filled in. and

1:04:28 ↗ some of the other areas that all the other existing properties then were flooded

1:04:34 ↗ for a number of years after. So I just hope that the stormwater plan

1:04:39 ↗ that the city has enacted really is working so that the other surrounding properties are

1:04:44 ↗ not flooded because this piece of property currently takes in a lot of water not

1:04:49 ↗ only from the ground but also from the trees that are there so eliminating both

1:04:54 ↗ of those there is going to be a lot of storm water come off and

1:04:59 ↗ let's hope it goes in the right direction and doesn't flood the surrounding properties That

1:05:04 ↗ being said, I wasn't sure if the 760 trucks was just for the fill or

1:05:09 ↗ if it was for the total project. Because my other concern is having seen what's

1:05:14 ↗ happened with the Marriott and Atlas is I know once the building is started, streets

1:05:18 ↗ are going to probably have to be closed down for part of the time for

1:05:23 ↗ deliveries and that sort of thing. So I think there needs to be a plan

1:05:28 ↗ on that. And you really don't want school children park you know walking along the

1:05:33 ↗ street and having to cross the street where you've got a truck route going so

1:05:38 ↗ i think some more safety and working more closely with the schools needs to happen

1:05:43 ↗ um you know as the project moves forward on that i also think that the

1:05:48 ↗ city is taking uh an ostrich approach when you're talking about school bus zones

1:05:54 ↗ because Atlas and this project will create bigger school stops and I understand

1:06:00 ↗ what you said here but I also know firsthand most school bus stops

1:06:05 ↗ do not change on an annual basis. They only change when something is added. And

1:06:11 ↗ if you're already talking about impact fees for the school, I think you're thinking about

1:06:16 ↗ people living there. So I think you need to look at where in the neighborhood

1:06:21 ↗ can 50 or 60 or 100 students stand and not have impact on the existing

1:06:26 ↗ neighborhood. and work more closely with the school district. And as we fill out the

1:06:31 ↗ central area plan, those are some of the things you need to plan. And as

1:06:35 ↗ has been pointed out, we don't have local bus transit, so right now we're not

1:06:40 ↗ worrying about it. But I did walk with Kurt Scheman this week to show him

1:06:44 ↗ the, I don't know how many of you tried to cross the street at Atlas,

1:06:49 ↗ but that is not a pedestrian friendly crosswalk. It doesn't fit with a walk and

1:06:53 ↗ roll plan. It doesn't fit with a crosswalk plan. And although the traffic study didn't

1:06:58 ↗ really look at the Gilman intersection, most of those people are going to be walking

1:07:02 ↗ that direction if they're going to walk to work, if they're walking to one of

1:07:06 ↗ the few buses that run along there, or if they're going to go to shopping.

1:07:11 ↗ And so I think we need to take a more global look at all our

1:07:15 ↗ projects, not just this project, but all of the projects going forward. Or what are

1:07:20 ↗ the walking paths and where people are gonna go to the routes and for bicycling

1:07:24 ↗ and make sure showing trail connections, walking path connections for the whole city. And that's

1:07:29 ↗ something I would like to see changed in the central area plan also. Something we've

1:07:34 ↗ had trouble with out on the Gateway area is yes, they put in the truck

1:07:40 ↗ washing wheel station, but that didn't happen right away and it didn't really get going

1:07:45 ↗ right away. So we have a lot of dirt and I know there's only maybe

1:07:50 ↗ the 760, but there's a lot of dirt that has spread throughout the Newport Way

1:07:55 ↗ with those trucks. So I think that also needs to be identified as what's happening

1:08:00 ↗ while this is being removed. It's a small enough property, I don't even know if

1:08:05 ↗ they have room for a truck washing station or not for the wheels. But I

1:08:09 ↗ think that needs to be identified and a better job of the street sweeper also

1:08:14 ↗ working in that area. Because what we've had problems with is the street sweeper is

1:08:19 ↗ using our entrance to our development to make its U-turns. And there's been no, even

1:08:24 ↗ though I've asked, there's been no flaggers down there to help that person turn around.

1:08:29 ↗ So we're trying to get out of our neighborhood as that street sweeper is turning

1:08:35 ↗ around. And there's been some very close accidents, or near accidents there. The other thing

1:08:40 ↗ I know that's happening at Atlas and also at the Issaquah School is And also

1:08:46 ↗ at the project and gateway is breaks and construction breaks and a lot of the

1:08:51 ↗ workers still are smoking and there's been a lot of complaints from neighborhood surrounding those

1:08:56 ↗ sites is the amount of smoke that is infiltrating into their houses. Not just the

1:09:01 ↗ construction noise and that that you would normally expect, but the amount of cigarette and

1:09:06 ↗ other smokes that come into their houses too. So I think that needs to be

1:09:11 ↗ looked at as far as where those people, they need breaks, that they are taking,

1:09:16 ↗ have breaks in an adequate place and away from where people are living as far

1:09:21 ↗ as smokes. The last thing I want to talk about, and I also sent this

1:09:26 ↗ in for the SEPA, is I still question the fact that we're giving an impact

1:09:31 ↗ fee reducing it giving them credit for building the trail because once again this is

1:09:37 ↗ public funds that built the trail that's there and it's still in good shape the

1:09:42 ↗ one behind Safeway may need some updating but that's largely due to city's lack of

1:09:48 ↗ maintenance but the one in front of this project is a good working trail and

1:09:53 ↗ our dollars paid for that so to give them credit

1:09:58 ↗ for rebuilding it because

1:10:04 ↗ you want to move

1:10:09 ↗ the street, I just

1:10:15 ↗ don't get that. And

1:10:20 ↗ I really think that

1:10:25 ↗ in Issaquah, development needs

1:10:31 ↗ to pay for development.

1:10:36 ↗ And our tax dollars

1:10:42 ↗ shouldn't be wasted with

1:10:47 ↗ this type of project.

1:10:53 ↗ Thank you. Hi, my

1:10:58 ↗ name is Steve Pereira.

1:11:04 ↗ I live at 170

1:11:09 ↗ Northeast Dogwood Street for

1:11:15 ↗ about nine years now.

1:11:22 ↗ So like I said last time this came up, there's a number of features in

1:11:27 ↗ this that I like. The larger bike room, I think the heating and the water

1:11:31 ↗ conservation efforts are appreciated. Thank you for those. Just again, listening to the presentation today,

1:11:36 ↗ there's a number of things that come up that still seem kind of maybe the...

1:11:41 ↗ The crosswalks on the adjacent streets, talking with engineers, those are still kind of

1:11:47 ↗ maybe might happen, might not happen. That's just an example of why are we

1:11:53 ↗ approving before we've had those things looked at and fully addressed. It just seems

1:11:58 ↗ we're still ahead of the process. One of the things I've heard

1:12:04 ↗ about is, and I'm sorry, I don't remember the acronym, AAS stands for something,

1:12:10 ↗ administrative approval of. Administrative adjustment of standards. Correct. And I guess one of the

1:12:15 ↗ things I've heard is that all that we can look at in improving this

1:12:21 ↗ is whether or not it meets code. So I've heard people talk about things

1:12:27 ↗ like parking and crosswalk, or school parking or safety, some of which may or

1:12:32 ↗ may not be within code specifically or maybe outside of code specific. One of the

1:12:38 ↗ things I've heard talk about is whether or not the building design meets code specifically

1:12:44 ↗ or not, depending upon which plan is approved. Part of what I'm hearing from staff

1:12:49 ↗ is all we can look at is code, and that doesn't seem to be adequate

1:12:55 ↗ for what people talk about. We want safe areas for kids to go to school.

1:13:02 ↗ parking for construction aren't specifically addressed. It seems to me that you're the governing body

1:13:06 ↗ that has the ability to say yay or nay whether or not things move forward.

1:13:10 ↗ I think you have a wider scope to look at it more than just code

1:13:15 ↗ and what it says. And if you don't feel that's the case, then you have

1:13:19 ↗ things like AAS to look at and say no, we don't think this meets code

1:13:23 ↗ and because it doesn't meet code, we're gonna act on that decision of saying no

1:13:27 ↗ and that's a perfectly valid reason for saying No, one of the things I specifically

1:13:33 ↗ dislike is a reduction in number of trees that are evergreen trees and just putting

1:13:39 ↗ deciduous trees that don't reduce the carbon footprint. When I look at the ISQA's sustainability

1:13:45 ↗ growth level of keeping 50% of a tree canopy, we're putting, taking down larger trees

1:13:51 ↗ and putting in smaller trees that I guess maybe count as trees. They don't do

1:13:57 ↗ anything for the carbon footprint. So I'm looking to this body to

1:14:02 ↗ just say more than just yes because you meet code, but

1:14:08 ↗ yes because this maybe isn't all that we want to see

1:14:13 ↗ in Issaquah. So I'm asking for more than just saying yes

1:14:19 ↗ for the sake of saying yes because it meets code. So

1:14:24 ↗ thank you. Any other comment, public wishing to make comment? At

1:14:30 ↗ this point I'll close the public comment period. Does our applicant

1:14:35 ↗ wish to respond? Any of the comments you heard? I

1:14:41 ↗ know staff does. I don't know about that. Do you want to just respond to

1:14:47 ↗ all the comments that you're asking if we can? If you wish to. Yes. Okay.

1:14:52 ↗ I wrote down most of them, I think, so I'll try to address them. Can

1:14:57 ↗ you hear me? If there are others that I missed or didn't get written down.

1:15:03 ↗ Could you introduce yourself, please? Sorry? Could you introduce yourself? Kyle Weeks with American Classic

1:15:08 ↗ Homes. The first one was about cameras. It is our intention

1:15:14 ↗ to include security cameras on site and specifically the bike room. That's standard

1:15:19 ↗ practice for us. Shopping cart storage, something we can definitely look at. I

1:15:25 ↗ don't know what Safeway has to say about us taking shopping carts on

1:15:31 ↗ our site, but covered bus stalls, working with Metro. Again, I can say

1:15:37 ↗ we're happy to look at it, and we are happy to look into it, but

1:15:43 ↗ obviously I can't commit to anything at this point. There was a concern about the

1:15:49 ↗ Prodema, the wood material. Brian, you can elaborate on this, but it's like an epoxy-based

1:15:54 ↗ composite material. It's not a cement board type material. faux wood product. It's

1:16:00 ↗ a very durable UV resistant product. We had samples in last time we were

1:16:06 ↗ in here of it. And so if there are any concerns about that, happy

1:16:11 ↗ to provide that. Colors to echo nature. You know, we presented the palette that

1:16:17 ↗ we had last time. I think that's a palette that we're happy with and

1:16:23 ↗ we're open to suggestions, but that was a Like I said, that's what we present

1:16:29 ↗ and that's where we believe fits and works with our building. Let me jump on

1:16:33 ↗ that. Sure. I just want to add in on the colors. I mean, again, Kyle

1:16:38 ↗ and I have grown up here. I still live here. From the very beginning, we

1:16:43 ↗ have wanted this to be better than Atlas. I mean, that has been one

1:16:48 ↗ of our goals. So we have put a lot of time and

1:16:54 ↗ thought into the color, the materials, and we want to do it

1:17:00 ↗ right for what it's worth. Maximizing the roof deck views. We situated

1:17:06 ↗ that roof deck, the upper roof deck, where we felt that it

1:17:12 ↗ would capture the best views and give the best potential for the

1:17:18 ↗ tenants there. Vertical evergreen on the... on the green walls. It's a

1:17:24 ↗ great idea. We'll definitely look into it. That's the type of feedback we love to

1:17:29 ↗ hear. Absolutely no fences on that juniper trail. We want that to be as open

1:17:35 ↗ and as inviting as possible. So we don't have to worry about that. There

1:17:41 ↗ was one specific that I do want to really address. That was the

1:17:46 ↗ concern about access along Juniper and having ADA access the entire time. We

1:17:52 ↗ fully understand that there will be disabled folks who have to use that

1:17:57 ↗ trail. Our contractor, we feel, is one of the best in the industry. If

1:18:03 ↗ there is a situation where you have to divert the trail off of a

1:18:09 ↗ sidewalk, there will be an ADA ramp there. We will have flaggers at every

1:18:15 ↗ intersection. There will not be any unsafe conditions the entire time, I can assure

1:18:21 ↗ you that. And we will absolutely make it so that it's accessible for people

1:18:26 ↗ with disabilities to access that. I wanted to also mention, so in regards

1:18:32 ↗ to the construction parking on site, the hall routes, we've got a great general contractor

1:18:38 ↗ on board and we will hold them accountable and work with them to make sure

1:18:44 ↗ that they're not impacting the street in the neighborhood you live. And regarding

1:18:50 ↗ the hall route, I mean, that's something that we're going to continue

1:18:56 ↗ to refine with the city staff. I think a lot of the

1:19:01 ↗ rest of the comments will be addressed during the review of the

1:19:07 ↗ construction mitigation plan and worked out with the city during that time.

1:19:13 ↗ Did he have Mike? Yeah, there's a couple of points I want

1:19:18 ↗ to touch on construction worker parking. I think staff is concerned about

1:19:24 ↗ that as well, whether or not they will be able to accommodate all of it

1:19:30 ↗ on site. I'm not sure that they can. And to that extent, they would need

1:19:35 ↗ to demonstrate where they're going to park their vehicles off site. And that might include

1:19:41 ↗ leasing adjacent property. I know that's what Atlas did. But it's not going to be

1:19:47 ↗ parking on the public streets. they're going to have to find another way. So

1:19:53 ↗ that is something that's a little premature to nail that down all the way, but

1:19:58 ↗ we'll be looking at that with the construction management plan. Regarding some of the offsite

1:20:04 ↗ impacts that I heard from Mr. Pereira, the staff is bound within the code and

1:20:10 ↗ within the law to process these permits in a fair manner. And to that extent,

1:20:15 ↗ we use the tools that we have, which are the applicable codes and in some

1:20:21 ↗ cases the law. If we were to act outside of that, it would be

1:20:27 ↗ putting the city in a huge position of liability because we're bound to process

1:20:33 ↗ permits given the rules that we have in the Issaquah Municipal Code and in

1:20:38 ↗ the Central Issaquah Development Design Standards. So to that extent, it's not something that

1:20:44 ↗ we can just arbitrarily decide, well, this intersection over here has a new impact

1:20:50 ↗ the developer needs to do X. In order to require anything like that, there has

1:20:56 ↗ to be a clear nexus for us to make a requirement outside of that. And,

1:21:02 ↗ you know, I didn't become a planner to build Shoddy to be a part of

1:21:08 ↗ Shoddy development. I'm here doing public service to try to get the best developments. And

1:21:14 ↗ to that extent, I'm really... trying to think about all the things that I

1:21:20 ↗ can to offset the impacts and create a project that works well for the city.

1:21:26 ↗ Regarding impact fee credits, that's a great point. In the staff report, I specifically said

1:21:31 ↗ may receive impact fee credits and not will receive impact fee credits. That is certainly

1:21:37 ↗ not a given and I appreciate the comment and that's definitely something we will take

1:21:43 ↗ into account when we determine if any impact fee credits

1:21:48 ↗ will be given. I just wanted to touch on one

1:21:54 ↗ point that the applicant made. I think it may have been the one point where

1:22:00 ↗ we had some disagreement, which was that one wall on the community space down on

1:22:05 ↗ the main level. I think the applicant addressed it from a blank wall perspective, and

1:22:11 ↗ I think that's valid. But the code also has provisions relative to structured parking. And

1:22:17 ↗ the provisions specifically say that it would be architecturally integrated and designed in

1:22:23 ↗ a similar fashion to associated or adjacent buildings. And so the reason I

1:22:28 ↗ identify that is that the materials of that wall are distinctly different than

1:22:34 ↗ all the other ground level walls which use brick material. So it's not

1:22:40 ↗ that the treatments that they're providing aren't attractive, it's just that it's to

1:22:46 ↗ be architecturally integrated so that it doesn't stand out as, for instance, like

1:22:52 ↗ a wall of a garage. And so I think that's where staff had some questions.

1:22:56 ↗ I don't think that we think that it is a difficult thing to do. It

1:23:01 ↗ would be pulling some of the materials such as the brick or the wood paneling

1:23:06 ↗ into that wall so that it

1:23:12 ↗ referenced the rest of the building we agree that the scoring lines and the

1:23:18 ↗ green screens and such are good techniques we would just like to see some

1:23:23 ↗ of those other materials pulled in consistent with the code that i think that's

1:23:29 ↗ it i think that's all yeah all right unless you have questions for us

1:23:35 ↗ oh yeah i'd like to open up now commissioners uh comments concerns

1:23:40 ↗ what section is that lucy on the garages sure it's

1:23:46 ↗ 15.3.c um i've got the code here if you want

1:23:52 ↗ me to hand it to you i've got it here

1:23:58 ↗ okay and it's just under standards for structured parking thank

1:24:04 ↗ you so mr chair maybe just a couple of questions

1:24:10 ↗ so the In the construction management plan, you were talking about construction of

1:24:16 ↗ a temporary sidewalk in the kind of later phase, later phase of phase five on

1:24:21 ↗ the other side of the street because obviously the Juniper Trail is going to be

1:24:27 ↗ on that sidewalk. It's going to be torn up while the streets widened, et cetera.

1:24:32 ↗ The question I have is if you're going to create a temporary sidewalk on the

1:24:36 ↗ other side of the street to pull people away from the hazards of the construction

1:24:41 ↗ activity, why don't you just do that at the beginning and reroute traffic, pedestrian traffic

1:24:45 ↗ to that side of the street for the duration instead of trying to maneuver them

1:24:49 ↗ around construction equipment, et cetera, that's in place. So if you could tell me a

1:24:55 ↗ little bit more about your thinking on the timing and strategy around that. - Yeah,

1:24:59 ↗ I can go into that. Jen, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but our

1:25:05 ↗ intent was to, so there is no sidewalk on that side currently, and in order

1:25:10 ↗ to create a temporary sidewalk, we would have to take up the street parking there,

1:25:15 ↗ and that's actually where the sidewalk would be, was where the street parking is. So

1:25:20 ↗ our intent was to minimize the reduction of on-demand, on street parking in the area

1:25:25 ↗ because I know that's obviously a concern for everybody is the amount of parking. So

1:25:30 ↗ that I believe was our initial intent. I mean, there's no reason we couldn't do

1:25:35 ↗ that, but you would, we would be giving up that entire row of on street

1:25:39 ↗ parking for that duration of the job. And then just a follow on question then

1:25:44 ↗ to that. So what, And that's something that you'll work out with city staff. Right.

1:25:49 ↗ The Commission isn't going to weigh in on all the specific details and timing of

1:25:53 ↗ this construction plan and as I think Mike mentioned it's a it's a dynamic plan

1:25:56 ↗ it changes as the construction. Exactly. But as you you since you don't have a

1:26:00 ↗ sidewalk on on that side of the street where does it terminate and how do

1:26:04 ↗ you get people back across the street safely to the sidewalk? You're going to take

1:26:08 ↗ them to the other side of the street now you got to get them back

1:26:12 ↗ over. Well, you could either get them back over at the end of our site

1:26:17 ↗ or we would just take them all the way to the very end of the

1:26:22 ↗ street. We'd have it on the entire east side of 7th, down to the intersection.

1:26:26 ↗ But again, we have to work that out with them. If we can propose something,

1:26:31 ↗ then they'll tell us something different. One thing that just jumped out at me when

1:26:36 ↗ I can't remember who exactly said it, but if we move it over to the

1:26:40 ↗ very beginning, handicap... You know, not being on the structured path that's currently

1:26:46 ↗ there could be. We'd have to look at that also. So it's just one

1:26:52 ↗ thing I thought of that we should at least have out there as to

1:26:57 ↗ why. And just one comment. When you relocate that temporary sidewalk across the street,

1:27:03 ↗ there is the Goodwill drop-off site as well as the, forget the name of,

1:27:09 ↗ at work or whatever that business is. And it's very busy. and highly trafficked

1:27:14 ↗ people going in and out. So that's going to be another thing that you'll have

1:27:20 ↗ to mitigate for. Mr. Chair. Yeah, question for the applicant. I see you have a

1:27:26 ↗ route, a truck route, you have A and B, and I take it A is

1:27:31 ↗ coming from the freeway? Yeah, there was one that was traffic coming from I-90 and

1:27:37 ↗ then one that was coming from SR-900. Correct. Okay. So are you hauling more stuff

1:27:43 ↗ in at the beginning? or hauling out more? Well, it'll be a mixture.

1:27:48 ↗ We'll be hauling material in and out. And I don't have those specific quantities

1:27:54 ↗ on me right now, but I believe they're in the memo there. And it

1:28:00 ↗ should say by activity what quantities are import and water export. You're importing about

1:28:06 ↗ 10,000 cubic yards of water? and then you're hauling out, exporting about 6,000 cubic

1:28:12 ↗ yards. And the bulk of that material that we're bringing in would be rock-type material

1:28:18 ↗ for our ground improvement, you know, aggregate-type material. Okay, those are the heavy stuff. And,

1:28:23 ↗ yeah, you probably have more coming in. So the question that I have is that,

1:28:29 ↗ why are we having two routes, one coming in and one going out? Coming

1:28:35 ↗ in through Gilman and then Seventh and then going out on Newport Way and

1:28:41 ↗ then out to 900. Could we not just have one route? In other words,

1:28:46 ↗ obviously there's some, wear and tear on the roadway. So with two routes in one

1:28:52 ↗ and out the other, you're creating two routes that's suffering all this wear and tear.

1:28:58 ↗ One coming in, the same route going back out. So instead of doing a loop,

1:29:03 ↗ you're asking why can't we come in and out the same way? Right. Jen, you

1:29:08 ↗ want to come up? You've got to come up here. And

1:29:14 ↗ while you're getting there, the disturbance to the neighbor was another issue.

1:29:20 ↗ You know, here you are disturbing in the morning and then in

1:29:25 ↗ the afternoon, especially at the Newport Way, you're starting to get into

1:29:31 ↗ the residential folks here. So, yeah, tell me what your thoughts are.

1:29:37 ↗ Jin Lee with Excel Pacific. So the driving concept was that the

1:29:42 ↗ trucks would have right turns only and that's why it was a one-way loop.

1:29:48 ↗ We thought we felt that that was probably the safest thing to do. We

1:29:54 ↗ can you know examine a kind of a two-way transport route but at this

1:30:00 ↗ point we just felt that a loop was probably the simplest way

1:30:05 ↗ to ensure safety. Okay, but there's no restriction on making left-hand turn,

1:30:11 ↗ right? No, but it's more dangerous than a right-hand turn. Okay, yeah.

1:30:17 ↗ So, yeah, because I see you're doing left turn when you're leaving.

1:30:23 ↗ There's only one left turn. Going to 900. Yeah, that's right.

1:30:29 ↗ But yeah, if that's something that you can look at, I guess I'm more concerned

1:30:35 ↗ about the disturbance that it would create for the neighbors as you're getting into the

1:30:41 ↗ new Portway area. Plus that we're in terror on the roadway. And if we're going

1:30:47 ↗ to do a monitoring of before and then during and then after the construction, how

1:30:53 ↗ the roadways are, and then that would save some effort on doing two roadways rather

1:30:59 ↗ than just one if you have one route yeah um we'd be happy to work

1:31:04 ↗ with staff uh to refine the truck route okay yeah um and then the the

1:31:10 ↗ other advantage is that the school issue a block away you got isco -

1:31:15 ↗ Valley School. - That's right. - And some of the kids are going into, I

1:31:21 ↗ think there was a daycare there at one point in time and they're probably not

1:31:27 ↗ there anymore. But there are kids walking in that roadway. So if you can push

1:31:32 ↗ the route to Gilman, then all your trucks, all your construction delivery would be on

1:31:38 ↗ the north side of the site. And that would be up safety-wise, any kids that's

1:31:44 ↗ going in, school, leaving school, you know, that would free up that area there. Yeah,

1:31:50 ↗ that's quite doable. That would involve a left turn out of the southerly entrance, and

1:31:56 ↗ yeah, that's perfectly doable. But we'll work with staff. Yeah, okay. Mr.

1:32:01 ↗ Chair, I have a follow-on. Commissioner Long's question. Did I understand you, sir, to

1:32:07 ↗ just say that the question that I had before Commissioner Long asked is, is

1:32:13 ↗ it physically possible for a double truck, a tandem truck, to actually... get

1:32:19 ↗ out of that site by turning as opposed to making just the right hand turns

1:32:25 ↗ that you've presented to us in the plan. - I believe-- - Is it possible?

1:32:31 ↗ - I haven't done actual geometry, but I believe so. Typically a double lane road

1:32:37 ↗ and plus a sidewalk, plus the width of the entrance, we can pull it off.

1:32:42 ↗ You'll be amazed what they can do. Well, and those trucking numbers were our counts

1:32:48 ↗ for single haul trucks, single, you know, not a tandem truck and trailer. And so

1:32:54 ↗ that's what we've calculated everything off of. Yeah, I don't think there would be any

1:32:59 ↗ problem, obviously, with a single haul. But the double haul was the object of my

1:33:04 ↗ question because I'm obviously familiar with that area. And I just have... that doesn't seem

1:33:10 ↗ to work for me. I don't know how much of the traffic would be the

1:33:15 ↗ double halls, but that's a very, you know, it's a small residential street. I'm wondering

1:33:20 ↗ how they're going to go in there, load up, and then turn around on site

1:33:25 ↗ to go out the same way they came in. So we're proposing to use single

1:33:29 ↗ trucks. The only reason we threw in the option of a truck and trailer was

1:33:34 ↗ because there was concern about the quantity of truck traffic You know, traffic. And so

1:33:40 ↗ by limiting, obviously by doubling up, it limits our trips. Thank you. And

1:33:45 ↗ Commissioner Harrison, they weren't turning around in the site. They were using, they

1:33:51 ↗ were flowing through the site. So they were using that emergency exit. what

1:33:57 ↗ would in the future after build out was shown as an emergency. With the bollards.

1:34:02 ↗ So that would not have the bollards at that time and so that would be

1:34:07 ↗ the in route and then the permanent entrance and exit would be the exit route.

1:34:12 ↗ Cuz you're right, there's not enough room on site. Mr. Chair, follow up question. There's

1:34:17 ↗ an issue that came up about the dirt that's being carried out off site. And

1:34:22 ↗ I don't know if there's a term for it where you have a wash. Yeah,

1:34:27 ↗ a wheel wash. Yeah, wheel wash with gravel and then somebody's there to wash it.

1:34:31 ↗ That's right. Wash every truck that leaves the site. That's right. That way they'll minimize

1:34:36 ↗ the dirt being carried outside. And then typically a street sweeper also to pick up.

1:34:41 ↗ Okay, yeah. And you have that here? The city will require both of those. They'll

1:34:46 ↗ be required to have a wheel wash, certainly. And those requirements are actually written

1:34:52 ↗ into our subcontracts with the trucker. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:34:58 ↗ I have, has there been, this is for staff, has there been

1:35:04 ↗ the question of the experience with the composite material up in the

1:35:10 ↗ Highlands? Has that resulted in any change in code that you know

1:35:16 ↗ of? So those aren't materials that we've typically

1:35:22 ↗ regulated. Mr. Fall had brought that up at a PPC

1:35:27 ↗ meeting. Anyway, we had heard about this and followed up, and

1:35:33 ↗ the building that I believe that he's referencing is more the

1:35:39 ↗ sort of stucco-like or the cement panel, which is distinct from

1:35:44 ↗ this material. I don't know about this particular material, and it's... but

1:35:50 ↗ the one that I was aware of that he

1:35:56 ↗ was commenting on was a cement panel. Mr. Chair,

1:36:01 ↗ I just wanted as a comment, I have become

1:36:06 ↗ really aware lately that there are several examples, in

1:36:12 ↗ my opinion, there are several examples of multifamily complexes

1:36:17 ↗ inside the city limits that are potentially very compatible

1:36:23 ↗ in terms of their colors and materials. I think there are a

1:36:29 ↗ number of things that we can point to. Some of them predate, you know,

1:36:35 ↗ were built 10, 12 years ago. But there really are a number of, in

1:36:40 ↗ my opinion, a number of multifamily elements in the City of Issaquah that do

1:36:46 ↗ use very contemporary Northwest materials and look, which I think are compatible with this

1:36:52 ↗ CIDDS. that we can always kind of refer to in the future when we have

1:36:56 ↗ these things come up, 'cause I've been really looking around and we've got some very

1:37:00 ↗ nice complexes here as far as I'm concerned about the architectural things. The last comment

1:37:05 ↗ that I have is I really do think that the, and this is beyond

1:37:11 ↗ the purview, way beyond the purview of the Development Commission and I understand that,

1:37:16 ↗ but the suggestion that there be much more attention placed on covered bus stops

1:37:22 ↗ I think is just dead on because it is not going to happen that

1:37:28 ↗ people are gonna stand out in the rain waiting for buses. So I

1:37:34 ↗ don't know, obviously that's county and everything else, but we're not

1:37:39 ↗ going to get where we want to go on that issue

1:37:45 ↗ unless people can be protected from the elements while they're waiting

1:37:51 ↗ for bus. Thank you. Other comments, commissioners? We want to address

1:37:57 ↗ the massing studies as a singular conversation. I know that was a

1:38:03 ↗ big point last time and it came up towards the end. Do we want to

1:38:09 ↗ defer that to the end or maybe address that now? Do it now. Thank you,

1:38:15 ↗ by the way, the applicant and the architect for preparing some alternate studies. I think

1:38:20 ↗ I came out of the last meeting, well I'm realizing now, confused. So your preferred

1:38:26 ↗ method is non-code compliant? Okay. I thought your preferred method was code compliant. I

1:38:32 ↗ guess if I had to just cast a vote, I would vote for option C.1,

1:38:38 ↗ which is code compliant, for a number of reasons. And I think there's elements in

1:38:43 ↗ there that we all agreed on that we liked. I think it is a corner

1:38:49 ↗ site. That's important. And I think all the schemes have done a good job of

1:38:55 ↗ embracing the corner. What I like about the options that break up the corner,

1:39:01 ↗ into the two levels or three as it were, diminishes the scale on that corner,

1:39:07 ↗ which I think is important. I think there's a lot of feedback about the Atlas

1:39:13 ↗ and I'm sure there'll be feedback about this building being too big, right? So anything

1:39:19 ↗ we can do, any tools available to us to diminish that height on that corner,

1:39:24 ↗ I think is an important element. I think down the line where we see the,

1:39:30 ↗ the middle stories being reduced do the same thing. I think they reduce and diminish

1:39:36 ↗ the overall height of the building. So for those reasons, I like C.1. Well, I'm

1:39:42 ↗ sorry, is that C.1 different than this C.1? - I thought they were, yeah. -

1:39:48 ↗ They appear to be different. The C.1 I like does not have the blue on

1:39:53 ↗ the corner. It has the synthetic. C2 on this diagram, it's C.1

1:39:59 ↗ in our packet. So those are my thoughts. I appreciate the study.

1:40:05 ↗ So which one do you prefer? C.2 represented on the screen. In

1:40:11 ↗ our package, C1. It's C.1. Thank you for clarifying that. So for

1:40:17 ↗ the sake of discussion, let's... let's refer to the item numbers as

1:40:22 ↗ they're listed on the screen and then i thank you for clarifying that they are

1:40:28 ↗ different in the packet and i i assume that c.2 represented on the screen is

1:40:34 ↗ code compliant yeah both of the c options are code compliant okay and if mr

1:40:39 ↗ chair if you don't mind i'll make it easier i'll vote for option b i

1:40:45 ↗ think it's not true And I completely agree with Commissioner Pricehead about the

1:40:51 ↗ breaking up the corner and the mass of that. I can understand the architect's desire

1:40:57 ↗ to have a standalone structure there, but I do think the massing at this corner

1:41:02 ↗ is important to break up. And I do prefer it broken up with the brick

1:41:08 ↗ look as an option B. But I also do agree with the architect about the

1:41:14 ↗ 131 structure in the body of the building itself. And I think to

1:41:19 ↗ have it actually broken up between those two elements with a 131

1:41:25 ↗ and a 122 tends to break up the building a little more.

1:41:31 ↗ So I would vote for option B. One clarification, Mr. Chair. Okay.

1:41:37 ↗ For the architect question, what happens at the other end of the

1:41:43 ↗ building? Do you have the same kind of setup? Yes, that's correct.

1:41:49 ↗ So this approach... Where's my mouse? Oopsies. This... same detail approach happens at

1:41:55 ↗ the same return here which is mid building and we have a similar modulation at

1:41:59 ↗ the south end a slightly different massing because of the way that it interacts with

1:42:04 ↗ our roof deck amenity deck down here in the lofts but essentially the similar scale

1:42:08 ↗ so yes it's a it's a repetitive motif okay so whatever we vote on option

1:42:13 ↗ B or C, it'll be the same exactly? That's correct, yes. And also at the

1:42:17 ↗ last meeting we had presented images that showed how obviously the intent is that it's

1:42:21 ↗ a four-sided design. So the similar design gesture would be carried around to the back.

1:42:26 ↗ I don't want to say the back because all sides are important and that's also

1:42:30 ↗ the side that faces Aegis. So that same design gesture is going to be mirrored

1:42:35 ↗ on the west and the south sides. Brian, could you clarify one point that Commissioner

1:42:39 ↗ Morgan made? Because I think I want to make sure that there's no confusion about

1:42:45 ↗ future building materials. In option B, the dark two lower bands of the corner,

1:42:50 ↗ floors two and three, that's the synthetic wood product and not brick. Yeah, it's

1:42:56 ↗ easier to see in this particular image. I just wanted to make sure you

1:43:02 ↗ weren't surprised. I misspoke. Correct, yeah. We're using that synthetic, it's actually, I believe

1:43:07 ↗ it's called a phenolic resin pattern. That structure is... present here on the inside as

1:43:12 ↗ an accent, and we really are just wrapping it in to that. So there's definitely

1:43:16 ↗ a blending of those materials. Thank you, Lucy. Mr. Chair, this is a question for

1:43:21 ↗ staff, just a clarification on our authority here. So I remember there was some reservation

1:43:27 ↗ expressed at the last meeting on this project about doing an administrative adjustment of standards

1:43:32 ↗ for this under the code and whether or not we were in range of what

1:43:38 ↗ is allowed under the code for an AAS on AAS. on modification, essentially modification

1:43:43 ↗ of what's required under the code. Are we in bounds here or is this

1:43:49 ↗ a concern? So attachment three is the draft AAS that responds to the options

1:43:55 ↗ that are proposed. So I think we have the tools in our toolbox if

1:44:01 ↗ you want to elect to go with the proposed option or option B, those

1:44:07 ↗ both require an AAS. and we have that drafted and

1:44:13 ↗ would integrate it into an approval. And just for

1:44:19 ↗ context, those types of AASs were approved administratively for

1:44:24 ↗ the tall buildings at Gateway and Gateway Senior. There

1:44:30 ↗ was some criticism about doing those AASs. So instead, so

1:44:36 ↗ the staff worked for code compliant elevations. We are, so it's not something

1:44:42 ↗ that we're, we think is problematic. We just think it was appropriate to

1:44:47 ↗ have that conversation in the context of the commission discussion. Great. That's helpful.

1:44:53 ↗ Thank you. So if I understand it, option B would require an AAS

1:44:59 ↗ option. C2 would not require it. C1 and C2 both

1:45:05 ↗ do not. Proposed option and option B would. So we have four

1:45:11 ↗ options up here. The proposed option and option B both would require

1:45:16 ↗ the AAS and both C1 and C2 do not. They are code

1:45:22 ↗ compliant as is. So think of option C as complies. C for

1:45:28 ↗ complies. I don't know what I was thinking. The comments,

1:45:34 ↗ gentlemen, what are your thoughts? Mr. Chairman, I actually do. I would like to compliment

1:45:39 ↗ staff and the members of the public and the applicant. I know that obviously the

1:45:44 ↗ applicant asked for this to be approved at the last meeting and we didn't for

1:45:50 ↗ stated reasons. But I believe that this process, as we've experienced it so far, is

1:45:55 ↗ really a good example of how it's supposed to work. I think the public

1:46:01 ↗ in this particular case has had significant contributions to the

1:46:07 ↗ improvement of the project. And again, the applicant has been

1:46:13 ↗ in hearing and doing based on the material and the statements that were given last

1:46:19 ↗ week. So I just want to pass on my personal appreciation to all three of

1:46:25 ↗ the major parties in this for coming up with responses to the concerns and the

1:46:31 ↗ issues and the suggestions that were made in the last meeting. - Mr. Chair? -

1:46:37 ↗ Yeah. - Yeah, I do share the same sentiment from some of our commissioner here.

1:46:42 ↗ I appreciate the applicants, I wasn't here last meeting, but I did read

1:46:48 ↗ some of the comments and I appreciate your presenting different options that's available.

1:46:54 ↗ I would, and I appreciate because the way that it's presented, you got

1:47:00 ↗ two, you know, rather than just a flat building, you got two major

1:47:06 ↗ items that's standing out, emphasizing the building, both ends of the building.

1:47:12 ↗ The issue about the parking, I trust it's a concrete wall and then behind

1:47:18 ↗ it is a parking? Yeah. Yeah, that's correct. I think something needs to be

1:47:24 ↗ done on that. you know, for whatever it's worth, you know, they put ivy, you

1:47:29 ↗ know, to cover up rough concrete. I mean, it's very nice, that facade that you

1:47:34 ↗ have, and also then you've got this yard, which is nice, and you've got some

1:47:39 ↗ trees, greenery that's covering concrete behind it. During the winter time you're going to

1:47:45 ↗ see the concrete. So if you put some ivy, it's a metal screen that

1:47:51 ↗ have ivy climbing all over it. Maybe that's something that will soften the concrete

1:47:57 ↗ looks. And then as you go down, then you have this another emphasis of

1:48:03 ↗ the building, which I like very much. So let me interrupt you just a

1:48:09 ↗ second. Let's close on the options here before we move

1:48:14 ↗ off that. So we've had a number of different people express their concern or

1:48:20 ↗ their interest. Lucy, I like your notion of thinking in the context of AASs

1:48:25 ↗ and whether we really wanted to do that or not. So the C option

1:48:31 ↗ seems, C2 seems to be the one that would be the most consistent without

1:48:37 ↗ having to ask for an administrative adjustment. And I wanted

1:48:42 ↗ to make sure that the comment that I made is clear. I'm not saying

1:48:48 ↗ that I think it's a problem to do the AAS if the Commission believes

1:48:54 ↗ that We believe that an AAS to accomplish B or the preferred option is within

1:48:59 ↗ our purview and that is consistent with the criteria. I just wanted to be clear.

1:49:04 ↗ So Mr. Chair, can I weigh in then? Absolutely. And that's the reason I asked

1:49:09 ↗ the question. If we have latitude here, I think we should use it. I think

1:49:15 ↗ clearly the kind of creating the separation between the levels on the corner, I

1:49:21 ↗ think brings the scale down as far as the visual and that's a very prominent

1:49:26 ↗ corner as you're approaching the project down 7th Street. So I like that the condition

1:49:32 ↗ that you're showing on the corner on option C and on option B. Um, but

1:49:38 ↗ since we don't have, since we have some latitude here, I like the geometry of

1:49:43 ↗ option B better where you've got that, uh, tolerant midsection. And then just from a

1:49:47 ↗ functional standpoint or design standpoint, having the roof decks at the top floor, instead of

1:49:52 ↗ one story down, we don't have the top floor looking down on top of the

1:49:56 ↗ decks. below is probably just from an enjoyment and privacy standpoint I think is

1:50:02 ↗ better for the tenants that will occupy those units. But just strictly from a

1:50:08 ↗ design standard, my preference would be the geometry and the material presentation that's shown

1:50:13 ↗ in option B. I think that would be my preference.

1:50:20 ↗ So is that the... Eight options up there we can all push. Seven

1:50:25 ↗ options. There's only four here. It is a bit subjective. A lot subjective.

1:50:31 ↗ I don't know how to... How about this? Is anybody opposed to option

1:50:37 ↗ B? Is there a general consensus that option B would be the preferred

1:50:43 ↗ choice? Yes. Or the preferred, our recommendation. We need to make a motion on

1:50:49 ↗ that. We just agree that that's the plan. Are you deleting option B? No, we're.

1:50:54 ↗ That's what we're going for. We're going for B? We're going for B? Recognizing that

1:50:59 ↗ that will take an administrative adjustment. Let's see what the, let's see in the AAS,

1:51:05 ↗ did it specify here in the AAS itself or would we specify in it which

1:51:10 ↗ option we're choosing or would that become a condition? So I've given the chairman

1:51:16 ↗ the draft motion and if and when we get to that point

1:51:22 ↗ I'll put it up on the screen and we can amend that

1:51:28 ↗ to include your selection and bring in the AAS. Okay. I'm convinced.

1:51:34 ↗ The notion about privacy I think is a good one for those

1:51:39 ↗ those terrace spaces off the units assuming that there's not two-story units

1:51:45 ↗ those are separate. units, I then would agree with

1:51:51 ↗ option B. Okay. Wall in the garage? Let's move on

1:51:57 ↗ to the blank wall in the garage. I would go

1:52:02 ↗ for option C too. The reason is that I like

1:52:08 ↗ the breaking up of the tall building concept and having

1:52:14 ↗ different materials on it that creates that. Then you have

1:52:19 ↗ the deck story and again it's a personal choice, you

1:52:25 ↗ know, I would go with C too.

1:52:30 ↗ Like B. B. B it is then. So be it.

1:52:36 ↗ So be it. Okay, how about the blank wall in

1:52:42 ↗ the garage? Okay, the blank wall in the garage, like

1:52:47 ↗ I have stated, I think you have a very nice

1:52:53 ↗ facade. You know, the tallness of the building is being

1:52:59 ↗ broken up with this modular structure. that you have

1:53:04 ↗ at both ends. But that concrete wall, if you can soften it, like

1:53:10 ↗ I said earlier, some kind of a metal mesh, and then let ivy

1:53:16 ↗ grow over that, i think actually sorry to interrupt but we actually are trying to

1:53:20 ↗ do that already these it's it's hard to really render green screen because we have

1:53:25 ↗ to actually model individual leaves but we are trying to do that we're adding screen

1:53:29 ↗ screen elements with that expanded mesh fabric that will allow you know ground you know

1:53:34 ↗ ground rooted uh plantings to grow up and occupy the wall structure. And that's in

1:53:38 ↗ addition to, you know, ground cover and plants and shrubs that would actually be already

1:53:42 ↗ in front of the wall as well. So we're trying to take a one-two approach

1:53:46 ↗ both on the surface of the wall and then also bringing that, you know, coming

1:53:51 ↗ forward from the face of the wall as well. Sorry. Is there a way to

1:53:55 ↗ continue the materials from the two ends onto that wall? You know, we debated that

1:53:59 ↗ a lot. And actually, I think it is worth talking about this a bit because

1:54:04 ↗ one of the, the answer is technically speaking, yes, of course it's possible, right? One

1:54:08 ↗ of the original mandates, and this, I'm going to go forward for a second to

1:54:12 ↗ the building massing. One of the original mandates, I believe, in the zoning code is

1:54:17 ↗ that we break up the mass of the building. And when you look at the

1:54:21 ↗ length of this site, I mean, our site's what, 400 and something feet long. I

1:54:25 ↗ mean, as we talked about in the first meeting in the massing study is like,

1:54:29 ↗ we intentionally kind of offset the building slightly in order to break up the overall

1:54:33 ↗ major scales. And we found that going back to the blank wall discussion was that

1:54:36 ↗ when we did that, it really meant that this is the front mass, so to

1:54:40 ↗ speak. We're engaged along Juniper. When we set the other part of the mass on

1:54:44 ↗ the tower back, it created this opportunity for this courtyard whereas when we had these

1:54:48 ↗ other loft units they could come forward and engage juniper and so what we really

1:54:52 ↗ ended up with was was a bookend around what this courtyard was when we looked

1:54:56 ↗ at in part of our design process that's saying well should this base just continue

1:55:00 ↗ to wrap around we felt that that was actually a bit dishonest because what we're

1:55:04 ↗ really doing is we're trying we're taking something and yes for the for the code

1:55:08 ↗ as lucy talked about it's like it should have that relationship back to to what's

1:55:12 ↗ there. However, when we started looking at it, it's like what we're really doing is

1:55:16 ↗ we're just forcing this to follow that pattern instead of respecting that body and the

1:55:20 ↗ stepping of the mass. So we felt that this separation reinforced the fact that that

1:55:25 ↗ is pushing the building back. We thought it was more strong vision. What about bringing

1:55:29 ↗ materials from the top floor down to that level? So kind of like a reverse

1:55:33 ↗ Oreo? I think we looked at a version of that. I think we discounted it

1:55:37 ↗ earlier just because, again, the the the current scheme really sets that body. If I

1:55:42 ↗ were to see in this image, I apologize. It sets this, kind of the blue

1:55:48 ↗ as a main body here atop the base that was this. And so I think

1:55:53 ↗ when, I apologize, that's going back to one of the earliest concept sketches on our

1:55:59 ↗ end. But when we looked at bringing this down, it just felt like it really

1:56:04 ↗ was increasing the scale. The top floor. but what's that software is different material than

1:56:09 ↗ the the three center floors well there's the yeah there's that at the three-part tripartite

1:56:13 ↗ level as well but the other thing that does is we're trying again to reduce

1:56:17 ↗ the scale of the building and when you take a material and you run it

1:56:21 ↗ basically from ground to the fourth story or the fifth story it's it's increasing the

1:56:24 ↗ apparent scale no i mean match it to the top floor so that the top

1:56:28 ↗ and the bottom floor are the same oh i i see almost almost a aba

1:56:32 ↗ kind of approach that's certainly a possibility i can't remember if we looked at that

1:56:36 ↗ specifically but That certainly would be an option as well. I personally like the treatment.

1:56:41 ↗ I like what they've done. I think it's well integrated. I like the green screen.

1:56:46 ↗ I like the scoring and the variation. I think it does give strength to that

1:56:52 ↗ middle section. And if you were to reduce the corner materiality, I think it would

1:56:57 ↗ start to dilute the corners. I generally agree and like what they've done. I don't

1:57:02 ↗ know. Is there any lighting planned for those walls or anything like that? um

1:57:08 ↗ we help just give it some character we can certainly uh continue more of it

1:57:13 ↗ um i failed to to describe this in the um in the earlier discussion but

1:57:18 ↗ with these blank walls in addition to breaking the wall massing up we also added

1:57:22 ↗ pedestrian level like wall sconces that are marching along in all the pedestrian areas and

1:57:27 ↗ um i don't know that we've really gotten into the low voltage design for inside

1:57:32 ↗ of this courtyard but certainly there's opportunities both at the wall and also up lighting

1:57:38 ↗ at say the the landscaping elements as well to kind of develop the space generally

1:57:43 ↗ visually sure well i say i um i always get concerned about landscaping being used

1:57:48 ↗ to disguise a wall and that over time landscaping can die can change somebody says

1:57:54 ↗ hey let's change out the landscaping and all of a sudden it's out and we

1:57:59 ↗ end up with a gray concrete wall. And even with the scoring, I think it

1:58:04 ↗ can look like a gray concrete wall. And it's a fairly long, it's hard to

1:58:09 ↗ tell in this view, but in the, like your 3.01 view in your original package,

1:58:13 ↗ when you look at the whole building, it's a fairly long section of wall. And

1:58:18 ↗ I get afraid that as gray concrete, it's going to look like the garage, even

1:58:23 ↗ though I understand the setback and everything. Um, The compromise is our way

1:58:29 ↗ to, can we create a colored concrete or something

1:58:34 ↗ that can still be a concrete wall, could still

1:58:40 ↗ be scored, but won't be a gray concrete garage

1:58:45 ↗ wall. Is that possible? Yeah. I think that there's a number of

1:58:51 ↗ things that we could play with with that. I mean, there's certainly design rhythms that

1:58:55 ↗ we could say that we're just going to pick up a lot more of this

1:58:58 ↗ particular pattern and simply maybe we integrate a concrete frame instead of a brick frame,

1:59:02 ↗ but we pick up on some of the other similar siding choices that there is

1:59:05 ↗ maybe a little bit more of a repetition. I think there's always a lot of

1:59:09 ↗ design permutations in that. I think if we're going to take the approach that we

1:59:13 ↗ just have to assume that there is never going to be a green there or

1:59:17 ↗ there's going to be an extended period where there isn't a green, for example, green

1:59:21 ↗ screens do take time to grow in. Ideally, the ones that grow in the best

1:59:25 ↗ are the ones that actually get white. I've seen some green screens in poor locations,

1:59:29 ↗ and you wonder why nothing grows. That's not the case in this case because I

1:59:33 ↗ think we have good exposure. I guess my point is that, yes, we can add

1:59:37 ↗ a detail element to this and work with that at one kind or another. But

1:59:41 ↗ we only brought one study for purposes of look at this tonight. - If you

1:59:45 ↗ don't mind me, Mr. Chair, asking staff, I guess, Lucy, do you feel like that

1:59:50 ↗ you have to have a building element there or is there other, say, come up

1:59:54 ↗ to something else to staff that you feel is acceptable? I don't think

2:00:00 ↗ that the only way to do it is to pull those

2:00:05 ↗ particular materials in. I think that your suggestion of potentially staining

2:00:11 ↗ the concrete and/or picking up the rhythms from the adjacent walls

2:00:17 ↗ so that the scoring is a similar rhythm, sorry

2:00:23 ↗ I'm having word trouble, rhythm to the walls that are adjacent as opposed

2:00:28 ↗ to a distinct rhythm. I think those are great ways of meeting the

2:00:34 ↗ intent of the code. uh mr chair i have a follow-up

2:00:40 ↗ for commissioner morgan's question uh i know that uh it's part of the uh most

2:00:46 ↗ of what we do here that the developer is responsible for maintaining the landscape for

2:00:51 ↗ a specific period of time five years as comes to mind for some three um

2:00:57 ↗ but to commissioner morgan's question can this if This project, any project

2:01:03 ↗ has a wall that they propose to use green screening or landscaping to cover and

2:01:08 ↗ it does die. Does the city have the ability to go back and say you

2:01:14 ↗ need to do something with this to the owner of the property at that point?

2:01:19 ↗ So you're correct that there's a performance bond that they're installing the landscape

2:01:25 ↗ before we release the certificate of occupancy. And then there is a maintenance

2:01:31 ↗ bond for three years to ensure establishment of the landscape. And subsequent to

2:01:36 ↗ that, I think if a vine died, it would be unlikely that

2:01:42 ↗ we would go and have a conversation with the applicant. It's usually pretty

2:01:48 ↗ extreme situations like, you know, if they reduce if all the trees are sort

2:01:54 ↗ of carved down to little lollipop trees, that would certainly be a circumstance in

2:02:00 ↗ which we would intervene. So I think that part of what you see in

2:02:06 ↗ the code is an emphasis on architectural treatments that are complemented by landscape rather

2:02:12 ↗ than relying solely on landscape to treat those blank walls. And I think the

2:02:18 ↗ applicants demonstrated that they're able to do that on many other locations using

2:02:23 ↗ the landscape to complement the architectural treatments. Mr. Chair, just to throw my

2:02:29 ↗ two cents in. So this is a little different than some of the

2:02:35 ↗ other projects we've seen where the entire story is a garage and we're

2:02:40 ↗ trying to deal with that kind of continuity of concrete. And in this

2:02:46 ↗ particular instance, we're trying to create a different space. So it's a different feel when

2:02:51 ↗ you enter the courtyard and having the different materials in that space makes it a

2:02:55 ↗ more interesting place to be. If you try to kind of transfer all of the

2:02:59 ↗ materials around through that, it's kind of a monolithic experience and it's not as interesting.

2:03:04 ↗ That being said, concrete by itself is not a bad material. It can be integrated

2:03:08 ↗ into design, but it's got to be treated well. I mean, it can't just be

2:03:13 ↗ you know, pour it in place and left as it is. So we're talking about

2:03:18 ↗ scoring it. We're talking about a finished treatment on it that would be high quality,

2:03:22 ↗ not patchwork gray that you might see in a foundation wall. So I think, I

2:03:26 ↗ don't know if I want to get into all of the details of what we

2:03:31 ↗ would do here. I don't have a problem with concrete, but the treatment needs to

2:03:35 ↗ be more than just the landscaping. So maybe there's some additional work you could do

2:03:39 ↗ on how the scoring happens. So as As you were mentioning, you could bring in

2:03:45 ↗ some additional of the patterns that are in the adjacent walls to match it up

2:03:51 ↗ a little bit better. So something a little bit more than the landscaping is probably

2:03:57 ↗ appropriate here. But as far as the material itself, I don't really have a problem

2:04:03 ↗ in this particular application of concrete, exposed concrete, or painted concrete in this courtyard space,

2:04:09 ↗ in my opinion. Yeah, I would agree. Concrete's not a big ugly thing.

2:04:14 ↗ It's just that it's there and then you need to do something with it.

2:04:20 ↗ You could put indentation, you could put a form of tree. Are we talking

2:04:26 ↗ about texture? Texture, yeah. You could put an indentation that it's a tree or

2:04:31 ↗ I know the Lowe's building when we were looking at it, they came up

2:04:37 ↗ with it's not just brick. They have different color and if you look close enough,

2:04:43 ↗ there's a house, there's a little kid, there's a balloon and stuff like that. So

2:04:47 ↗ it makes it very interesting when you look at it. It's not just brick. In

2:04:52 ↗ this case, I think it's a good point that Mr. Morgan brought it up that

2:04:57 ↗ do something with it because you have a very nice building and all of a

2:05:01 ↗ sudden you have this concrete that's kind of bare. Although I tried to work with

2:05:06 ↗ you in putting this trellis that covers with ivy. I thought that's

2:05:12 ↗ what they do when they, that's what architects do when they make a mistake, they

2:05:17 ↗ put ivy cover it. In this case, I think put some indentations, put some interesting

2:05:23 ↗ story in there or kids or Pacific Northwest, something like that to make it interesting.

2:05:28 ↗ And to clarify, these are 16 foot tall walls. Concrete walls? Correct.

2:05:34 ↗ Yeah. The loft is approximately 16 or 17 feet approximately to this area.

2:05:40 ↗ So it's a good size. Correct. So it sounds like the general consensus

2:05:46 ↗ is that the landscaping wouldn't be considered adequate moving the colored material

2:05:52 ↗ around would probably not be what we would really be looking for

2:05:57 ↗ because it would seem to limit the space. So coming up with

2:06:03 ↗ a recommendation to score that, carry the texture around, but maybe not

2:06:09 ↗ the color, or color the concrete. How do we articulate that so

2:06:15 ↗ we can move ahead? Can we leave it to staff discretion? Sure.

2:06:21 ↗ So just because we just went through this process, we could write

2:06:27 ↗ a general, you know, generally capture what you're saying in a condition.

2:06:33 ↗ We could generally capture in a condition and have the chairperson concur,

2:06:39 ↗ which is what we did with Sunrise, and we just went through

2:06:44 ↗ that process, which some of you may remember. Those are two options.

2:06:50 ↗ So what's your druthers? I'm comfortable letting them staff ability

2:06:56 ↗ to prove this tonight and then move on but work on that

2:07:01 ↗ detail with the staff. I'm comfortable with that. And then I can

2:07:07 ↗ concur with that? Yes. Other comments? Concerns? Just one more question about

2:07:13 ↗ there was there were lots of there was lots of discussion and

2:07:18 ↗ questions about the landscaping and the kind of loss of the trees on

2:07:24 ↗ the site and then the plantings or the landscape plantings And initially

2:07:30 ↗ they were concerned about the lack of evergreens or conifers on the site

2:07:35 ↗ and you said that you've added some additional trees and I was looking

2:07:41 ↗ at the landscape plan, struggling to understand where those were being added to

2:07:47 ↗ the plan. So give the landscape architect a little work tonight. Hi, I'm

2:07:53 ↗ Roby Snow with the LA Studio. I'm the landscape architect. So what we

2:07:59 ↗ did in responding to the comments from the last meeting is we added, we

2:08:04 ↗ had deciduous trees pretty much lining every spot that we kind of widened spot

2:08:10 ↗ in this planting strip. And what we did is we came in and alternately

2:08:15 ↗ located evergreen trees in the parking lot, as you see here. And then there's

2:08:21 ↗ two on this side, one kind of close to the entry. And those are,

2:08:27 ↗ you know, pretty, They're not like redwoods or anything, but they're 40-foot

2:08:33 ↗ Alaskan false cypress. So they're nice, vertical, have a really distinct character. You're probably

2:08:38 ↗ familiar with them. I think they add a lot of nice character as kind

2:08:44 ↗ of something that helps screen the building from the adjacent property. Is that the

2:08:50 ↗ Nootka false cypress? Yeah, it's a nice looking tree. Yeah, if you have those,

2:08:55 ↗ I don't know, those image sheets. Yes. It kind of goes back to what

2:09:01 ↗ we were talking about before, and I could talk about that a little bit about

2:09:07 ↗ this courtyard. The Hollywood juniper is a very distinct tree. It has a very three-dimensional

2:09:12 ↗ character to it. It's evergreen, and we've got three of those along this concrete wall,

2:09:17 ↗ so it's As Brian said earlier, it's kind of hard to illustrate those in these

2:09:23 ↗ study models. Those look kind of very one-dimensional, kind of flat. So those Hollywood junipers

2:09:28 ↗ will really help screen and buffer that wall a lot. And then also you'll see

2:09:34 ↗ the green screen images on there where we have a nice color of vine, semi-evergreen

2:09:39 ↗ to evergreen. With that exposure, that'll really add a lot of flavor and color, really

2:09:44 ↗ help break up that wall. So that was, and also what's not shown in those

2:09:50 ↗ earlier images is, you know, we have trees out here, you know, there's three trees

2:09:54 ↗ out here that weren't shown on that. So that really adds a lot of layering

2:09:59 ↗ of landscaping that'll help buffer that. So going back to the evergreens, Uh, we added,

2:10:04 ↗ we did add some redwoods. We added 2 big redwoods here along the stream. Um,

2:10:08 ↗ so that was, you know, those are going to be signature trees for the whole

2:10:13 ↗ neighborhood. Really? I mean, you're going to see that tree is you're coming down the

2:10:17 ↗ street here and it's going to help frame the building. And we also, you know,

2:10:21 ↗ the city has designated the, um. Eddie's white wonder dogwood is a signature tree. We

2:10:26 ↗ have some of those sprinkled here to help frame at the entries as well. So

2:10:32 ↗ we've really tried to, you know, accentuate the project and the property and address the

2:10:37 ↗ comments from the last meeting by adding evergreens. As John said earlier, we have the

2:10:43 ↗ trees on the roof and on the terrace that will be visible from the street.

2:10:48 ↗ And so hopefully that... Thank you. Other comments? So

2:10:54 ↗ while you're contemplating that, we drafted two

2:11:00 ↗ conditions, one to capture which elevation and

2:11:06 ↗ one to capture the treatment of the

2:11:12 ↗ courtyard wall. Mike was going to pull

2:11:17 ↗ up that document and start typing those

2:11:23 ↗ up. I don't know if there's additional

2:11:29 ↗ conditions that you're considering as well. I

2:11:35 ↗ don't think so. I don't think there

2:11:41 ↗ are.

2:11:47 ↗ So I've never had my typing put on public display here.

2:11:52 ↗ It's like those old typing tests. Boy, aren't we dating ourselves.

2:11:58 ↗ Words a minute. Three errors. Lucy, while he's doing that, the

2:12:03 ↗ question, a couple of the conditions that were in the original

2:12:09 ↗ report, would those be revised somewhat since they've addressed a couple?

2:12:14 ↗ It was maybe condition 13 they addressed? So

2:12:20 ↗ 7 you revised. Condition 13 had to

2:12:25 ↗ do with the facades and so forth.

2:12:31 ↗ Do we leave it in there and

2:12:36 ↗ they've addressed it or? So Mike? Yes.

2:12:41 ↗ Maybe list this as revised condition 13

2:12:47 ↗ because I think Mel's correct that this

2:12:52 ↗ is essentially replacing that condition. Thank you.

2:12:57 ↗ That was a good catch.

2:13:28 ↗ And I think likewise

2:13:34 ↗ this one regarding the

2:13:39 ↗ courtyard wall, I think

2:13:45 ↗ that we've concurred with

2:13:50 ↗ the applicant that the

2:13:56 ↗ blank walls have received

2:14:01 ↗ sufficient treatment and therefore

2:14:07 ↗ it would be revised

2:14:12 ↗ condition 15 for the

2:14:17 ↗ courtyard wall. So Mike's

2:14:23 ↗ not only having to

2:14:28 ↗ type in front of

2:14:34 ↗ me, he's trying to

2:14:39 ↗ read my handwriting, so

2:14:45 ↗ it's not helping. Doing

2:14:50 ↗ pretty well. Great. I'll

2:14:56 ↗ mess up now.

2:15:06 ↗ Mike, you need, yeah, rise condition

2:15:11 ↗ 15 complement. There you go. Yeah,

2:15:17 ↗ where's spell check when you need

2:15:23 ↗ it? And it would be texture?

2:15:28 ↗ That would be an E instead

2:15:34 ↗ of an I. Yeah. Complement. L-E.

2:15:39 ↗ L-E. L-E. Complement is... You have beautiful

2:15:45 ↗ blue eyes but they don't compliment the sky. There

2:15:51 ↗ you go. I swear I'm a good speller. Okay.

2:15:56 ↗ Is it possible to reference texture as a tool

2:16:02 ↗ available to us? Sure. In the treatment of that

2:16:08 ↗ wall? Where would you add that in? I think

2:16:13 ↗ that's great. Where would you? Just add it right

2:16:19 ↗ here. You know, stain and or texture. Does that

2:16:24 ↗ work? Yeah. Can we jump in? Yes. Mr.

2:16:30 ↗ Chair, I move that the Development Commission approve the site development permit for

2:16:36 ↗ this co-apartment's project file number SDP 16-00005 as described and evaluated in the

2:16:42 ↗ staff report dated September 21, 2016 with attachments 1 through 9 briefing response

2:16:47 ↗ memo dated October 13, 2016 with attachments 1 through 4 and project drawings

2:16:53 ↗ and reports received September 7, 2016 and all subsequent submittals up

2:16:59 ↗ to October 19, 2016, the subject of the conditions therein and

2:17:05 ↗ as amended tonight and then shown in revised condition 13 and

2:17:10 ↗ revised condition 15. Second motion. Clarification. Are we on the second

2:17:16 ↗ revision condition number 15, are we talking about the western wall,

2:17:22 ↗ not the eastern wall of the courtyard? Yes, the west. That's

2:17:28 ↗ fronting the street. What's the west portion of the courtyard? West portion of the

2:17:33 ↗ courtyard. Yeah, I think of it. So you're standing in front of the building and

2:17:39 ↗ looking at that wall, you're looking west. It is confusing, but yeah, I think you're

2:17:44 ↗ inside the box. You're in the box, so you're... It's on the east elevation of

2:17:49 ↗ the building, but it's western facing. Is that C1 or C2? I'd say looking west.

2:17:54 ↗ Looking west, yeah. It's just when you look at it, it's a western wall. The

2:17:59 ↗ courtyard. Okay. I guess we all understand which wall it is. But it was a

2:18:04 ↗ good question. Yeah. There's no wall on the east side, I guess. So we've had

2:18:09 ↗ a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Do we need to state in revised

2:18:14 ↗ condition 15 anything about just approval by staff or by chair? I was going to

2:18:19 ↗ bring that up. I think one of the things that we said was that we

2:18:24 ↗ would, the staff and the chair would agree. Okay. Okay. Do you want to add--

2:18:29 ↗ I think it's implied. I don't know that it needs to be added. But if

2:18:33 ↗ you're more comfortable adding it-- I think if it's just working with staff, you might

2:18:37 ↗ be right. But I think there's some discussion about whether the chair would be part

2:18:41 ↗ of that approval. Can we just add a sentence at the end of that that

2:18:45 ↗ says final design will be approved by staff and chair? I'm

2:18:50 ↗ sorry, I missed that. The final design

2:18:56 ↗ will be approved by staff in consultation

2:19:01 ↗ with the Development Commission Chairperson. Point of

2:19:07 ↗ order, I'll just go ahead and abstain

2:19:12 ↗ since we already have seven members in

2:19:17 ↗ the panel. Correct. And TJ, just regular

2:19:23 ↗ members can vote on this. I'll alternate

2:19:28 ↗ too. No, just regular members can vote on

2:19:34 ↗ this. So for, is there further discussion? All those

2:19:40 ↗ in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion

2:19:45 ↗ carries. Okay. You did this to me last time.

2:19:51 ↗ Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I'd like to make a

2:19:57 ↗ motion. I move that the Development Commission direct the Development Services Department

2:20:03 ↗ to prepare findings of fact and conclusions for the review and approval by the

2:20:09 ↗ Development Commission Chairman affirming the Development Commission's decision to approve the Issaquah Apartments project File

2:20:15 ↗ number SDP16-00005, subject to the conditions listed in the staff

2:20:21 ↗ report dated September 28, 2016, with attachments 1 through 9.

2:20:26 ↗ Briefing response memo dated October 13, 2016, with attachments 1

2:20:32 ↗ through 4. And project drawings and reports received September 7,

2:20:38 ↗ 2016. 2016 and all subsequent submittals up to October 19th 2016

2:20:44 ↗ and subject to the conditions therein and as amended tonight conditions

2:20:50 ↗ 13 and 15. second I think there's an additional piece that

2:20:56 ↗ needs to be bred at the bottom I think he read

2:21:02 ↗ though I was reading oh I'm sorry yeah I got the

2:21:08 ↗ whole thing I need to drink a water now better pay

2:21:15 ↗ So we've had a motion and a second. Is there

2:21:21 ↗ discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

2:21:26 ↗ Opposed? Motion carries. So I think unless there's other business

2:21:32 ↗ announcements that need to be made, I think we will--

2:21:37 ↗ I was just going to say, I think the next

2:21:43 ↗ meeting is November 3rd, is the Inniswood Apartments at Juniper

2:21:48 ↗ and Newport. I think that there's one

2:21:54 ↗ other permit I'm aware of that will come forward to

2:21:59 ↗ the Development Commission maybe late this year or early next

2:22:05 ↗ year. November 2nd. Oh, is it November 2nd? Thank you

2:22:10 ↗ for checking. Move to adjourn. Let's adjourn the meeting. Thank

2:22:16 ↗ you, public, for your participation.

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