Development Commission · Wednesday, March 5, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 15, 2025

packet pp.5–12

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Wednesday, January 15, 2025

4. PUBLIC HEARING

Site Development Permit & Preliminary Plat Application for Madison Lane Townhomes, Quasi-Judicial (A)

Emily Medina, Associate Planner Hossein Mansouri, Jamie Schroeder, and Peter Durland, Applicant Team Application No: SDP24-00008; PP24-00001 Location: 800 Front St. S. Parcel: 3424069188 Applicant: Hossein Mansouri, D.R. Horton Description: Site Development Permit and Preliminary Plat application for a unit lot Public Hearing Order: · packet pp.13–1042

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

STAFF REPORT Site Development Permit and Preliminary Plat File No. SDP24-00008; PP24-00001 (PRJ23-00011) February 26, 2025

5. REPORTS

City Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.1043

▶ Watch from 1:07:35 Open packet at p.1043 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission 2025 Schedule (subject to change)

1476 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ good evening and welcome I'd like to

0:07 ↗ call the March 5th city of isqua

0:09 ↗ development commission meeting to order

0:11 ↗ at 6:30 p.m. as a reminder we have a

0:14 ↗ remote aspect to our meetings this means

0:16 ↗ both staff and members of the public may

0:18 ↗ be participating in the meeting remotely

0:20 ↗ via WebEx for those attending remotely

0:23 ↗ if you have questions or issues please

0:25 ↗ send the host a chat message or email

0:27 ↗ staff at Christen l isua goov excused

0:31 ↗ absence for this meeting tonight is

0:33 ↗ commissioner Gilbert our first item of

0:36 ↗ business is to take action on the

0:38 ↗ meeting minutes for January 15th hope

0:40 ↗ we've had a chance to look them over are

0:42 ↗ there any corrections to the January

0:43 ↗ 15th minutes in the agenda

0:47 ↗ packet hearing none the minutes are

0:49 ↗ approved as

0:51 ↗ submitted next I'd like to open the

0:53 ↗ floor for any members of the public in

0:54 ↗ person or virtually who like to make a

0:57 ↗ general comment not about the Madison

0:59 ↗ Lane Town Homes project but on General

1:02 ↗ topics there will be an opportunity

1:04 ↗ later in the meeting for those who' like

1:05 ↗ to comment about the project on

1:07 ↗ tonight's agenda Miss Jackson has

1:10 ↗ anybody signed up to make General Public

1:12 ↗ comments no chair okay thank you we'll

1:16 ↗ roll on into regular business and our

1:17 ↗ main agenda item for the evening pred

1:20 ↗ decision open record public

1:22 ↗ hearing the order for this hearing will

1:24 ↗ be as follows first the purpose of the

1:26 ↗ public hearing followed by our

1:28 ↗ appearance of fairness dis closures then

1:31 ↗ we'll open the public hearing with a

1:32 ↗ staff presentation followed by an

1:34 ↗ applicant presentation then we'll open

1:37 ↗ the floor for public comment there'll be

1:39 ↗ an opportunity for rebuttal by applicant

1:41 ↗ and then staff and then we'll close the

1:43 ↗ public hearing commission deliberation

1:46 ↗ will then be followed by action

1:48 ↗ including motions amendments and vote

1:50 ↗ and that will conclude the agenda item

1:52 ↗ on the Quasi judicial permit if for any

1:55 ↗ reason the hearing can't be completed

1:56 ↗ this evening it may be continued to a

1:59 ↗ specified date

2:01 ↗ purpose of this hearing this is the

2:03 ↗ formal public hearing for the Madison

2:05 ↗ Lane Town Homes development proposal

2:08 ↗ being considered as a preliminary plat

2:10 ↗ and site development permit application

2:12 ↗ for an 11 unit residential development

2:15 ↗ divided between two buildings located at

2:17 ↗ 800 Front Street South purpose of the

2:20 ↗ hearing is to solicit public comment and

2:22 ↗ facilitate review discussion and

2:24 ↗ decision on the application by the

2:27 ↗ development

2:28 ↗ commission this is a qu judicial hearing

2:31 ↗ and so miss Medina please proceed with

2:34 ↗ our appearance of fairness

2:40 ↗ disclosures thank you chair

2:57 ↗ Sanford all right good evening

2:59 ↗ commissioner we'll start with the

3:01 ↗ appearance of fairness

3:03 ↗ um so as chair sford said quasi judicial

3:07 ↗ decisions require proceedings to be fair

3:09 ↗ in fact and appearance um expart

3:12 ↗ contacts are prohibited um and the test

3:15 ↗ is would a disinterested person knowing

3:17 ↗ the totality of a decision Maker's

3:19 ↗ personal interest in a matter be

3:20 ↗ reasonably justified in thinking that

3:22 ↗ partiality may exist uh decision makers

3:24 ↗ who have personal interest prejudgment

3:26 ↗ of issues or partiality are disqualified

3:28 ↗ from the proceedings

3:30 ↗ so I'm going to go through the questions

3:32 ↗ for the commissioner and I'm going to

3:34 ↗ stop at the end of each question and get

3:36 ↗ your response um as we go through these

3:38 ↗ um each of the Commissioners can just

3:40 ↗ respond out loud as we go through do you

3:43 ↗ have a personal interest Financial or

3:45 ↗ otherwise in the outcome no does your

3:48 ↗ employer have an interest Financial or

3:50 ↗ otherwise in the outcome no do you have

3:53 ↗ any familial social or business

3:55 ↗ relationships or connections with any of

3:57 ↗ the parties or non-parties who have an

3:59 ↗ interest in the outcome no do you have

4:02 ↗ any special knowledge about the

4:04 ↗ substantive or the merits of this

4:05 ↗ proceeding which would or could cause

4:08 ↗ you to prejudge the outcome

4:12 ↗ no will will there be any prospective

4:15 ↗ employment for you or your family as a

4:17 ↗ result of the decision no do you own or

4:20 ↗ control property within 300 ft of the

4:22 ↗ subject property no do you have any

4:25 ↗ expart Communications regarding this

4:27 ↗ project no

4:30 ↗ do you believe you can sit and hear this

4:31 ↗ matter fairly and impartially both as to

4:34 ↗ the respective positions of the

4:35 ↗ proponents and the opponents of this

4:37 ↗ matter

4:40 ↗ yes uh questions for the audience does

4:42 ↗ anyone in attendance wish to challenge

4:44 ↗ the the participation of any

4:45 ↗ commissioner based on the appearance

4:47 ↗ Airness

4:49 ↗ Doctrine thank

4:51 ↗ you all right I'm going to pass out our

4:55 ↗ um

5:10 ↗ okay thank you now we'll open the public

5:13 ↗ hearing at 6:37 p.m. first we'll proceed

5:17 ↗ with staff's presentation so miss Medina

5:20 ↗ while you're up there I will need to

5:22 ↗ swear you in please state your name and

5:24 ↗ position with the city for the record

5:27 ↗ Emily Medina associate planner with the

5:29 ↗ Community Development do you swear by

5:32 ↗ oath or affirmation the testimony you're

5:33 ↗ about to provide is true yes thanks

5:36 ↗ please proceed thank you chair Stanford

5:40 ↗ uh so as has been said today we are here

5:43 ↗ to talk about the Madison Lane Town

5:45 ↗ Homes uh so the there's two aspects to

5:50 ↗ this proposal um this is the preliminary

5:52 ↗ plat

5:53 ↗ 24-1 and the site development permit

5:57 ↗ 24-8 this is located at 800 Front Street

6:00 ↗ South and is in the Oldtown sub area it

6:04 ↗ is zoned mfh which is multif family high

6:07 ↗ and it is land use designated as multif

6:09 ↗ family residential just going to grab my

6:15 ↗ note so um the summary of this proposal

6:17 ↗ is it's two three-story buildings 11

6:20 ↗ residential units total there's common

6:22 ↗ amenity space at the rear of the site uh

6:25 ↗ water sewer storm water and Frontage

6:27 ↗ improvements in an internal access Drive

6:30 ↗ um which is entered on off of Front

6:32 ↗ Street so the site Zoning for this site

6:35 ↗ is 20 um the density allowed is 29

6:38 ↗ dwelling units per acre the site is7

6:41 ↗ Acres so a total of 20 units would be

6:43 ↗ permitted on site but 11 units um are

6:45 ↗ proposed meeting the density requirement

6:47 ↗ for the site beneath the maximum allowed

6:51 ↗ uh site and building designed all the

6:54 ↗ architectural elements adhere to the

6:56 ↗ standards both within the um site and

6:59 ↗ building design sections of our code

7:01 ↗ buildings are oriented towards the

7:03 ↗ adjacent Transportation facilities uh

7:05 ↗ all the main entries face the sidewalks

7:08 ↗ and each unit has its own separate entry

7:11 ↗ um each unit has weather protection at

7:13 ↗ its entrance there's ground level

7:15 ↗ transparency provided throughout the

7:17 ↗ development and there's no blank wall

7:19 ↗ that extends longer than 30 ft design

7:22 ↗ elements are repeated as you can see in

7:24 ↗ the exhibit there with modulation and

7:26 ↗ changes in materials um window patterns

7:29 ↗ and colors provided you can see up close

7:32 ↗ of those materials on the sample boards

7:33 ↗ going around and then the end units um

7:37 ↗ on either side of this development which

7:40 ↗ is unit 1 and 11 face the street and the

7:42 ↗ park

7:45 ↗ respectively uh parking meets all the

7:48 ↗ requirements the residential uh

7:50 ↗ requirements is 13 to 22 spaces allowed

7:54 ↗ and 22 are proposed one motorcycle space

7:57 ↗ is required and one is proposed for

7:59 ↗ bicycle spaces there was no short-term

8:01 ↗ requirement for this given its location

8:03 ↗ and use and then for longterm 11 are

8:05 ↗ required and 11 are proposed these

8:07 ↗ long-term spaces are within each unit's

8:11 ↗ garage landscaping and trees so the

8:14 ↗ whole site perimeter um has Type 3

8:16 ↗ landscaping around it um there's

8:18 ↗ specific requirements for type 3

8:20 ↗ landscaping and this includes 30%

8:22 ↗ Evergreen and uh be required throughout

8:25 ↗ and they are exceeding that with 54%

8:27 ↗ proposed um it is also requ that there

8:29 ↗ be one tree per 5,000 sare ft of

8:32 ↗ required Landscaping um and there's this

8:35 ↗ is far exceeded with one uh tree per 123

8:38 ↗ Square ft um of landscaping proposed

8:41 ↗ there are um there's a pathway at the

8:44 ↗ rear of the property you can see this

8:46 ↗ kind of just to the south of the play

8:48 ↗ area um this extends all the way back to

8:51 ↗ the rear property line with wood chips

8:53 ↗ proposed for the pathway um there is a

8:55 ↗ condition recommended regarding this um

8:58 ↗ that I will get into at the end end of

8:59 ↗ this presentation um this meets the

9:01 ↗ green necklace amenity requirement as

9:04 ↗ this uh site abuts the Rainer Trail

9:06 ↗ property um that is required for trees

9:10 ↗ it's a 35% retention requirement which

9:12 ↗ would be

9:14 ↗ 182 um diameter of breast height inches

9:17 ↗ and 270 are proposed canopy coverage is

9:21 ↗ required at 33% um which would be

9:24 ↗ 9,892 square ft and this is uh exceeded

9:28 ↗ by a total

9:31 ↗ 26385 Square ft

9:34 ↗ proposed so this site is required to

9:37 ↗ provide community and amenity spaces

9:40 ↗ there is um given 11 units that means

9:42 ↗ 1100 ft is required in 1490 ft² is

9:47 ↗ proposed um that's what's at the rear of

9:49 ↗ the site there is some passive area as

9:51 ↗ well as a play area and

9:54 ↗ benches um 30% of uh many SPAC is

9:58 ↗ required to be Landscaping this is

10:00 ↗ currently not met with how this is

10:02 ↗ proposed um but this could be easily met

10:05 ↗ by expanding the um amenity space to

10:08 ↗ include the area to the right this was

10:10 ↗ just a miscommunication between the

10:12 ↗ applicant and I have what could be

10:13 ↗ counted so it is conditioned to meet

10:15 ↗ that and I would expect them to be able

10:17 ↗ to easily meet that when they come in

10:18 ↗ for construction

10:20 ↗ permitting um we require 11 seating

10:22 ↗ units for the amenity area and 12 are

10:25 ↗ proposed and then 48 square ft per unit

10:28 ↗ of private outdoor ameni space which is

10:30 ↗ proposed with a balcony um for each unit

10:33 ↗ there's two way finding locations

10:35 ↗ proposed throughout the site and then

10:37 ↗ unit 11 is oriented towards the Rainer

10:40 ↗ Trail so that end unit on the um east

10:44 ↗ side of the property it faces out and

10:46 ↗ provides eyes on the community amenity

10:48 ↗ area and just has that interaction with

10:51 ↗ the Park

10:53 ↗ area so for Oldtown design standards um

10:57 ↗ similar to oh

11:00 ↗ Kristen you blocked my um it the front

11:04 ↗ entries are pedestrian oriented and

11:06 ↗ include weather protection and the

11:08 ↗ required architectural features this

11:10 ↗ includes things like lighting variety of

11:12 ↗ Paving patios uh low walls and Landscape

11:17 ↗ borders um Front Street transparency is

11:20 ↗ required at 15% so that's um the eye

11:24 ↗ level on the first level would require

11:25 ↗ 15% be windows and uh 23% is proposed

11:30 ↗ and then the buildings do not contain

11:31 ↗ more than three main

11:38 ↗ colors um I seem to have lost control of

11:41 ↗ the main screen who's ever pulling up

11:43 ↗ the attendees sheet seems to be

11:46 ↗ controlling oh I oh there we go sorry

11:48 ↗ the attendees sheet was over top of my

11:50 ↗ presentation um so that that covers the

11:54 ↗ site development permit um in uh code

11:58 ↗ review and then the preliminary Ary plat

11:59 ↗ code review so um this is a Consolidated

12:03 ↗ review because the preliminary plat is a

12:05 ↗ level three review through the city and

12:07 ↗ the site development permit is a level

12:09 ↗ four they get Consolidated as only one

12:11 ↗ public hearing is allowed to be had when

12:13 ↗ it there's two permits um and so you

12:15 ↗ consolidate into the highest level of

12:16 ↗ review which is level four before the

12:18 ↗ development commission for review and

12:20 ↗ decision so for preliminary plat review

12:23 ↗ um the plat includes required and

12:24 ↗ appropriate Provisions for utility

12:26 ↗ streets open space and drainageways it

12:28 ↗ meets all applicable IMC standards

12:31 ↗ maintenance agreements will be recorded

12:33 ↗ with the final plat um which is

12:35 ↗ specified as recommended condition

12:36 ↗ number three and then all the lots are

12:39 ↗ developable there's no reasonable use

12:41 ↗ exception going to be required for this

12:43 ↗ and then all the unit lot subdivision

12:45 ↗ criteria are met which are further

12:47 ↗ broken down in the staff

12:50 ↗ report sea review happened in March and

12:53 ↗ a determination of non-significance was

12:55 ↗ issued three comments were received um

12:58 ↗ that sta responded to uh they are

13:00 ↗ included in your packet as exhibit U I

13:03 ↗ believe um the DNS was issued as all

13:06 ↗ impacts will be mitigated through code

13:08 ↗ requirements and the uh conditions on

13:11 ↗ this approval or the dis uh commission's

13:16 ↗ decision so following the publishing of

13:19 ↗ my staff report um the applicant

13:22 ↗ provided some comments um about two of

13:25 ↗ the conditions that um the city was

13:28 ↗ receptive to in a agreed that uh some

13:30 ↗ revisions to the condition should happen

13:32 ↗ so um condition number five wood chips

13:35 ↗ for pedestrian pathway that's what we

13:37 ↗ talked about in the south for the green

13:38 ↗ necklace amenity um when I originally

13:41 ↗ wrote the condition it was proposed to

13:43 ↗ have a requirement that the wood chips

13:45 ↗ be um kept in usable condition and

13:48 ↗ replenished annually and specifically

13:50 ↗ state that on the face of the plat as

13:52 ↗ well as the M maintenance agreement

13:54 ↗ within the cc&rs and I've revised that

13:56 ↗ to be more General that the a

13:59 ↗ requirement for maintenance of The

14:00 ↗ Pedestrian pathway shall be stated on

14:02 ↗ the face of the final plat and reference

14:04 ↗ a maintenance agreement with the cc&rs

14:07 ↗ so just making it a little more General

14:08 ↗ so simple on the face of the plat that

14:10 ↗ The Pedestrian pathway just is just to

14:11 ↗ be maintained and then the cc&rs can get

14:13 ↗ into the specifics of what that looks

14:15 ↗ like um just in case down the line if we

14:18 ↗ move from wood chips to something else

14:22 ↗ we don't have to do a plat amendment to

14:23 ↗ not allow them to do wood chips but

14:25 ↗ staff is recommending that maintenance

14:28 ↗ of The Pedestrian path way specifically

14:30 ↗ exist on the face of the plat as that

14:32 ↗ allows um the city to have

14:33 ↗ enforceability that the path be

14:35 ↗ maintained um as it is required to meet

14:39 ↗ that green necklace um amenity code

14:42 ↗ requirement and then the second is um

14:45 ↗ condition 12 and it's just a little

14:46 ↗ rewarding of the second sentence that

14:48 ↗ instead of having to provide

14:50 ↗ documentation demonstrating compliance

14:52 ↗ that the applicant um shall notify our

14:55 ↗ department of actions taken pursuant to

14:57 ↗ this condition to ensure comp clients um

15:00 ↗ and this is just in case nothing needs

15:01 ↗ to be done there wouldn't be any

15:03 ↗ evidence to show so it's just giving

15:05 ↗ just making sure that we're not backing

15:07 ↗ the applicant into a corner that they

15:10 ↗ isn't fair for them to get out of um so

15:12 ↗ that was run by our engineering

15:13 ↗ department and they agreed that the

15:14 ↗ revision to the condition made

15:19 ↗ sense thank you let me know if there's

15:21 ↗ any

15:22 ↗ questions questions on staff's

15:24 ↗ presentation

15:32 ↗ Comm Brennon and Mr just really quick um

15:34 ↗ procedural question so the this is a

15:37 ↗ level four approval permit approval

15:40 ↗ correct so it's for both the site

15:42 ↗ development permit and the pre pre

15:44 ↗ preliminary plat okay good thank

15:48 ↗ you just a general timing question so

15:51 ↗ sepa permit issued last

15:54 ↗ March and we're now in March of 25 is

15:57 ↗ that just kind of how long long it takes

15:59 ↗ to go through the whole process correct

16:02 ↗ so for this um permit we issued what's

16:05 ↗ known as an O the optional DNS process

16:07 ↗ so the sea determination was issued with

16:09 ↗ the notice of application so it was a

16:10 ↗ combined notice so it was issued pretty

16:13 ↗ early on in the process which is what

16:15 ↗ the state prefers if we can do it so it

16:17 ↗ just the process for sdp uh PP approval

16:22 ↗ takes about a year so that's just yeah

16:24 ↗ just about what the timeline takes great

16:27 ↗ thank you

16:31 ↗ other

16:34 ↗ questions I have several but they're

16:36 ↗ really on the staff report in detail so

16:39 ↗ I think I'm going to save them for a

16:40 ↗ little bit later during deliberation

16:42 ↗ time okay right thank

16:45 ↗ you thank

16:48 ↗ you now we will proceed with the

16:50 ↗ applicants presentation I will need to

16:53 ↗ swear you an uh please state your name

16:55 ↗ for the

16:57 ↗ record uh Peter derland I'm the attorney

17:00 ↗ for the

17:01 ↗ applicant thank you you swear by oath or

17:04 ↗ affirmation the testimony you're about

17:06 ↗ to provide is true I do thank you please

17:09 ↗ go ahead thank you uh good evening

17:12 ↗ Commissioners my name is Peter derland

17:14 ↗ as I just said and I'm the attorney for

17:15 ↗ the applicant uh with me is Hussein

17:18 ↗ mansuri um who is our project manager

17:21 ↗ he's going to explain some more of the

17:22 ↗ project details for you um other members

17:25 ↗ of our team include our civil engineer

17:27 ↗ Jamie Scher our architect Travis

17:30 ↗ McDonald and our entitlements manager

17:32 ↗ railan hulquist they're online um they

17:35 ↗ won't be part of our presentation but

17:37 ↗ they're here to answer any of your

17:38 ↗ questions if you have them um as City

17:41 ↗ staff has already uh provided a lot of

17:43 ↗ project details we're going to kind of

17:44 ↗ supplement um some of their findings

17:47 ↗ here um before we begin just wanted to

17:50 ↗ take a minute uh to note the approval

17:52 ↗ criteria that's before you uh today um

17:56 ↗ as staff noted it's a Consolidated level

17:58 ↗ four permit review for site development

18:00 ↗ permit and the preliminary plat uh

18:03 ↗ basically we're just here to ensure the

18:05 ↗ project complies with all requirements

18:07 ↗ under code um as the staff noted in the

18:11 ↗ report and presentation uh applicant uh

18:14 ↗ complies with all the applicable

18:15 ↗ regulations under code uh and we

18:18 ↗ respectfully ask that you approve the

18:20 ↗ project subject to conditions uh we'll

18:22 ↗ get into the two conditions that we

18:24 ↗ mentioned before uh we have a slight

18:26 ↗ difference with uh staff on condition

18:28 ↗ five but completely agree about

18:31 ↗ condition 12 so with that I'll turn it

18:33 ↗ over to Hussein to explain the

18:45 ↗ project good evening Commissioners uh

18:48 ↗ first of all uh I would like to thank

18:51 ↗ you for all just attending today's

18:54 ↗ meeting and I believe now it's time for

18:56 ↗ me just to

18:59 ↗ where okay uh we will also yes and could

19:02 ↗ you repeat your name please for the

19:04 ↗ record my name is Hussein

19:05 ↗ mansuri and do you swear by oath

19:08 ↗ affirmation the testimony you're about

19:09 ↗ to provide is true yes I do thank you

19:11 ↗ please proceed

19:13 ↗ uh my presentation will likely be

19:16 ↗ shorter than uh what Emily presented

19:19 ↗ right now and as she did a fantastic job

19:21 ↗ covering the all the keyn notes and

19:23 ↗ details of the project uh however I'm

19:25 ↗ here to answer any questions you may

19:27 ↗ have and also have my team members I

19:30 ↗ have Jamie our civil engineer here and

19:32 ↗ also as Peter mentioned we have Travis

19:34 ↗ architect and U our uh entitlement

19:37 ↗ manager railand just join online for

19:40 ↗ more detailed question if you guys have

19:42 ↗ any uh can I just move next one and uh

19:47 ↗ the property is currently awakened and

19:49 ↗ when we first saw this it uh we

19:51 ↗ recognized the opportunity to uh for to

19:55 ↗ improve the property this is and make

19:58 ↗ the space uh into a place where people

20:01 ↗ can leave and own homes throughout the

20:03 ↗ design process we work closely with

20:05 ↗ Emily and the city staff uh to ensure

20:08 ↗ that the project lines with the needs of

20:09 ↗ the neighborhood while also complying

20:11 ↗ with all necessary requirements per city

20:13 ↗ code our goal has always been to create

20:16 ↗ a product that feels like blank to the

20:19 ↗ neighborhood

20:21 ↗ one and uh as you can see from the side

20:26 ↗ plan Evolution Slide the project team

20:28 ↗ has

20:29 ↗ has uh responded to all comments

20:32 ↗ suggestions and requests made during the

20:34 ↗ review process to the develop a site

20:37 ↗ plan that complies with the zoning codes

20:39 ↗ and aderes to the guidelines set for the

20:41 ↗ Old Town neighborhood in response to the

20:43 ↗ comments that we received from the

20:45 ↗ city uh over the last year uh we've made

20:48 ↗ some key adjustments resulting reducing

20:51 ↗ the unit Counts from 12 to

20:53 ↗ 11 and uh the front Improvement now

20:57 ↗ includes a new f 5 foot planter strips

21:00 ↗ along the uh Front Street South behind

21:04 ↗ the sidewalk as well as a ride we

21:09 ↗ dedication uh and also as you can see

21:13 ↗ here uh we do have the uh Amin space

21:16 ↗ located on the Eastern portion of the

21:18 ↗ property and uh also we provided uh a

21:24 ↗ pathway from the uh very end of the uh

21:29 ↗ close to the unit 11 all the way to the

21:32 ↗ Eastern property line uh to meet the

21:35 ↗ connectivity because of the having the

21:37 ↗ trail on the east side of the

21:39 ↗ property next slide and uh here is the

21:44 ↗ final site plans as you can see we have

21:47 ↗ two buildings 11 units uh total of 22

21:50 ↗ parking spaces and one guest

21:54 ↗ parking which can be uh designated as

21:59 ↗ back which will be designated as uh temp

22:03 ↗ loading and unloading uh during a

22:05 ↗ specific time during the day from 9:00

22:07 ↗ a.m. to 5:00

22:10 ↗ p.m. and uh all the units will be

22:13 ↗ accessed from the front of the street

22:15 ↗ from front of the buildings and except

22:17 ↗ two units uh unit one will be accessed

22:20 ↗ from the uh directly from the uh front

22:23 ↗ uh Front Street South and unit 11 will

22:25 ↗ be accessed from the east side of the

22:28 ↗ building

22:29 ↗ uh facing the Amin

22:32 ↗ space and also we've made sure that this

22:34 ↗ layout is f pedestrian friendly with a

22:38 ↗ clear connection from Front Street to

22:40 ↗ the interior of the project ensuring

22:42 ↗ ease of access for all residents and

22:45 ↗ visitors next slide

22:48 ↗ please and you've seen the elevations

22:51 ↗ before this is the building elevations

22:54 ↗ for building a and we've worked hard to

22:57 ↗ ensure these design fit within the uh

23:00 ↗ codee while also creating a project that

23:02 ↗ we can be proud of and I believe we

23:04 ↗ struck a good balance between the design

23:06 ↗ and the Code

23:09 ↗ Compliance next one

23:11 ↗ please and here is uh another couple of

23:15 ↗ elevations for Building B which is

23:17 ↗ located uh on the interior side of the

23:21 ↗ building interior side of the side and

23:24 ↗ next slide

23:26 ↗ please uh here is uh two conditions that

23:30 ↗ we would like to propose minor changes

23:32 ↗ and uh Peter can just take it from here

23:35 ↗ he's just going to go through the

23:36 ↗ changes that we

23:40 ↗ expect and I believe I'm still swor

23:43 ↗ in um so like I said before condition 12

23:47 ↗ uh we agree this is the same language

23:49 ↗ that uh you saw from the um updated

23:52 ↗ staff report um our only contention for

23:56 ↗ condition five is um um that it could

23:59 ↗ lead to problems down the road if we

24:01 ↗ includeed on the plat so that's the only

24:03 ↗ thing that uh we'd like to remove there

24:06 ↗ um we would still be required to

24:09 ↗ maintain it uh in the CC andrs because

24:12 ↗ it's still a condition of this

24:14 ↗ development however um we we just we

24:17 ↗ just think it'd be a lot simpler to keep

24:19 ↗ it off the final plat it can uh lead to

24:22 ↗ a lot of uh issues down the road I've

24:25 ↗ seen um plats from many many years ago

24:27 ↗ come back up and then the property

24:29 ↗ changes and then there's something else

24:31 ↗ that you have to go through uh such as a

24:32 ↗ plat Amendment which can get kind of

24:34 ↗ complicated and so we just want to avoid

24:36 ↗ that for any future owners um as we when

24:40 ↗ I was looking through code we think that

24:42 ↗ uh IMC

24:45 ↗ 18346 D3 um is generally how this is um

24:50 ↗ being implemented the language there

24:52 ↗ says joint use agreements and

24:53 ↗ maintenance agreements as necessary to

24:55 ↗ include uh on the face of the plat we

24:58 ↗ think the ccnr uh provision um meets

25:02 ↗ that standard but that's the that's the

25:04 ↗ only change that we would have here and

25:06 ↗ happy to answer any questions that you

25:07 ↗ guys

25:14 ↗ have chair could you give the reference

25:17 ↗ again the code reference you just gave

25:19 ↗ sure uh 18 uh

25:21 ↗ 34

25:23 ↗ 060

25:27 ↗ D3 thank you

25:50 ↗ yeah while we looking that up and we may

25:53 ↗ come back to that question in a moment

25:56 ↗ uh we had some public comments

25:59 ↗ regarding uh control of storm

26:02 ↗ water in the uh staff report this is

26:05 ↗ section

26:07 ↗ 13 um there was a letter from samamish

26:11 ↗ Plateau water regarding the storm water

26:13 ↗ system and a response to that in the in

26:17 ↗ the uh staff

26:18 ↗ report and also in the esa there's I

26:23 ↗ guess that's page 236 of

26:26 ↗ 1043 it says based on site observations

26:29 ↗ and a review of the topographic map the

26:31 ↗ overall gradient appears to slope

26:33 ↗ slightly to the west of the property

26:35 ↗ surface water drainage is expected to

26:37 ↗ flow West but your sheet A2 seems to

26:40 ↗ show the opposite I'm not sure my

26:42 ↗ overall question is how can we ensure

26:44 ↗ that runoff from pollution generating

26:47 ↗ impervious service will be captured for

26:49 ↗ Bio retention I wonder if you could talk

26:52 ↗ maybe this is not the appropriate time

26:54 ↗ or maybe someone else can speak to this

26:57 ↗ but can you walk through the bio

26:59 ↗ retention and uh capture of impervious

27:02 ↗ surface runoff for us please in the

27:04 ↗ design uh sure so yeah I I am not the

27:08 ↗ expert on that so I can't run through

27:09 ↗ that for you I will say uh just on a

27:12 ↗ procedural level uh we did um address

27:15 ↗ that with the letter and so that's part

27:18 ↗ of the site conditions for approval here

27:20 ↗ but I can let um could let our expert

27:23 ↗ actually speak on that

27:31 ↗ thank you and if you could please

27:33 ↗ introduce yourself and I'll swear you in

27:35 ↗ uh my name is Jamie schroer I am civil

27:37 ↗ engineer with cph Consultants thanks do

27:40 ↗ you swear by oath or affirmation the

27:41 ↗ testimony you're about to provide is

27:43 ↗ true yes I do thank you pleas great um

27:47 ↗ you'd mention the the existing Topo of

27:50 ↗ the

27:50 ↗ site um it does go east I think that is

27:54 ↗ a typo talking about going west okay

27:56 ↗ because everything falls toward the

27:58 ↗ trailes to that side um in

28:02 ↗ general um the Topo and the the design

28:05 ↗ of the road is going to fall to the West

28:07 ↗ as well um so the pollution generating

28:10 ↗ portion which is the roadways driveways

28:13 ↗ all that that cars will drive on um

28:16 ↗ that's going to surface drain it it

28:18 ↗ basically goes U to the South along the

28:21 ↗ curb there's a curb cut and if you in

28:25 ↗ the let's see

28:29 ↗ sorry in the drainage plan you can see

28:32 ↗ there's a bar retension toward the end

28:34 ↗ of the driveway or toward the end of the

28:36 ↗ drive and that's that's collecting all

28:39 ↗ the surface drainage that's pollution

28:40 ↗ generating I wonder if we could see the

28:43 ↗ sheet the details the the retention

28:46 ↗ water retention there's one sheet that

28:49 ↗ specific Fus be sheet six of 22

29:03 ↗ right yeah so as you can see on this the

29:07 ↗ the track 99 what is it 999 that

29:10 ↗ includes the drive out the main Drive um

29:14 ↗ the sidewalk is at grade as well because

29:16 ↗ all the driveways to have a curb go up

29:19 ↗ and down there's just too many driveways

29:21 ↗ real close so the sidewalk is at grade

29:23 ↗ and then you have those driveways that

29:26 ↗ go off to each individual unit

29:28 ↗ um so the the driveways would flow away

29:31 ↗ from the buildings getting back to that

29:34 ↗ tract and then flow to the west and we

29:38 ↗ basically pitch everything to the

29:40 ↗ opposite opposite side it may go to the

29:43 ↗ center there's a there's a

29:45 ↗ CB um that you can

29:47 ↗ see there's it says flu line a little

29:50 ↗ bit to the right of your cursor there

29:53 ↗ but that's all flowing there and all of

29:56 ↗ that area collects and goes to the bio

29:59 ↗ retention which provides the water

30:01 ↗ quality which is a enhanced BMP for

30:04 ↗ water

30:05 ↗ quality okay and how about capture

30:07 ↗ toward the back of the property um that

30:10 ↗ that part is flowing back so it actually

30:12 ↗ kind of has a low point between the two

30:15 ↗ buildings so we will flow a portion of

30:18 ↗ that back to the east I'm sorry to the

30:22 ↗ West so we're flowing away from Front

30:25 ↗ Street um to about the end of unit six

30:29 ↗ there's a catch Bas in in there and then

30:32 ↗ the remainder of that drive is going to

30:33 ↗ come back um to the west and all that

30:37 ↗ will collect in that CB and then go into

30:39 ↗ the bio

30:40 ↗ retention okay thank you appreciate

30:44 ↗ that Mr chair can I have a quick

30:46 ↗ follow-up question on that yes I recall

30:48 ↗ the letter that you're referring to from

30:50 ↗ the sanish water and SE folks was

30:55 ↗ that um discharging into the groundwater

30:59 ↗ was their concern and so this system

31:02 ↗ still does that is that correct yeah

31:05 ↗ we're in a critical area uh recharge

31:07 ↗ area um and it's I I can't remember I

31:11 ↗ think it's split between a one and a

31:12 ↗ three however that works with the map

31:15 ↗ but we're kind of on the border of it um

31:18 ↗ but part of those conditions are um to

31:21 ↗ provide water quality for it which is

31:23 ↗ enhanced which we're doing with the bio

31:24 ↗ retention so everything that's pollution

31:27 ↗ generating um we'll go through that W

31:29 ↗ water quality and that bow retention the

31:32 ↗ remainder you can see to the very West

31:34 ↗ there's a trench so that's an

31:36 ↗ underground berri trench that's Rock for

31:39 ↗ infiltration and that only takes the

31:41 ↗ roof areas which are clean okay thank

31:45 ↗ but all of it infiltrates and finally to

31:48 ↗ clarify that the city does permit

31:50 ↗ infiltration in this particular instance

31:53 ↗ is that correct CH s so our storm water

31:55 ↗ engineer um with the city responded to

31:57 ↗ some am plateau and they exchanged um I

32:00 ↗ was on a couple emails back and forth

32:01 ↗ and it ended up with some Amish Plateau

32:04 ↗ being fine with what what was proposed

32:06 ↗ and um them and the our storm water

32:08 ↗ engineer uh with what is proposed by the

32:11 ↗ applicant

32:14 ↗ so other comments

32:23 ↗ questions commissioner

32:25 ↗ Morgan did you have one commissioner

32:27 ↗ morg

32:30 ↗ yeah I guess the question if you can go

32:32 ↗ back to the um the proposed changes to

32:43 ↗ the uh and I guess sorry uh before your

32:45 ↗ question I'd also uh just draw your

32:47 ↗ attention to in the public comments um

32:50 ↗ part of how we're addressing this is

32:52 ↗ this isn't the final uh design we would

32:55 ↗ still have to go through another round

32:56 ↗ of approval and part of what the

32:59 ↗ infiltration uh condition under I

33:01 ↗ believe it's 10 uh that's partially what

33:04 ↗ it's what it's there to address but

33:06 ↗ sorry okay so um could you pull up your

33:08 ↗ changes again to commissioner Moran you

33:11 ↗ want to see the applicant's changes the

33:13 ↗ applicant recommended changes correct

33:16 ↗ okay

33:23 ↗ last sorry give me one moment

33:30 ↗ nope that's the wrong

33:51 ↗ one so so the change would be that the

33:53 ↗ wood chip the maintenance of the trail

33:56 ↗ stated as a maintenance agreement within

33:58 ↗ the

33:58 ↗ ccnr and and if I understand right you

34:01 ↗ said it was 18

34:03 ↗ 34060

34:05 ↗ d uh yes I believe

34:09 ↗ so so the the recorded unit subdivision

34:12 ↗ must

34:13 ↗ include and item three says joint use

34:15 ↗ agreements and maintenance agreements as

34:17 ↗ necessary MH

34:20 ↗ so the recorded unit subdivision so it

34:25 ↗ but you said but you don't want it on

34:26 ↗ the on the face of the plat but the so

34:30 ↗ this would put the a reference to the

34:33 ↗ ccnr agreement for the maintenance on

34:36 ↗ the face of the plat just not

34:38 ↗ specifically um just not specifically

34:41 ↗ this condition the one condition yeah

34:43 ↗ then a question for you can the cc&rs be

34:45 ↗ changed by the

34:46 ↗ homeowners uh yes they can okay are

34:50 ↗ there so theoretically could the

34:52 ↗ homeowners go in and change the ccnr and

34:55 ↗ say we don't have to maintain that trail

34:56 ↗ anymore I believe they could um and but

35:00 ↗ so part of this change is I believe um

35:03 ↗ we would still need to have everything

35:06 ↗ that's within those ccnr especially if

35:08 ↗ we have the wood chips for pedestrian

35:10 ↗ pathway reference for that ccnr uh on

35:13 ↗ the face of the

35:15 ↗ plan okay if if that makes sense um I

35:18 ↗ guess so but if it's referenced on the

35:20 ↗ ccnr but if they change the ccnr saying

35:22 ↗ they don't need it

35:24 ↗ anymore

35:26 ↗ then some body could look at ccnr say we

35:29 ↗ don't have to do that anymore uh there

35:31 ↗ is some potential for that yeah is there

35:34 ↗ a way to force something to remain in a

35:37 ↗ ccnr um yes uh I don't know off the top

35:41 ↗ of my head exactly how we would um

35:43 ↗ continue that but this would still be as

35:46 ↗ as proposed this is still going to be

35:48 ↗ part of the conditions for development

35:50 ↗ so we need to have that within the ccnr

35:52 ↗ when we when we draw them up yeah

35:55 ↗ curious if there's a there's a way to

35:57 ↗ state that there are some parts of a

35:59 ↗ ccnr that could not be changed by

36:02 ↗ homeowners I don't

36:07 ↗ know Mr chck and I followup question on

36:10 ↗ M Bren um can you talk a little bit more

36:13 ↗ about what the concern is I mean ongoing

36:16 ↗ maintenance is is the requirement yes

36:20 ↗ and um you know it's not an honorous

36:22 ↗ requirement no so I I just I'm trying to

36:25 ↗ understand what the concern is to have

36:27 ↗ that

36:28 ↗ condition which is specified in the code

36:30 ↗ stated on the plat yeah yeah so the the

36:33 ↗ concern there is that um if there is

36:35 ↗ going if if we need to transition away

36:39 ↗ from that on the property at any point

36:41 ↗ in time after this you would need to do

36:43 ↗ a plat Amendment which is a very

36:45 ↗ honorous and complicated process we just

36:47 ↗ kind of want to avoid that for the

36:48 ↗ Future Property Owners we have no issue

36:51 ↗ with this condition we just want to make

36:53 ↗ sure that the plat is is clean once it's

36:56 ↗ um once it's approved

36:59 ↗ so it um my understanding following up

37:01 ↗ to commissioner Morgan's question about

37:03 ↗ ccnr is that that is really in the

37:05 ↗ control of the homeowners the city

37:07 ↗ doesn't have a role once uh in the

37:10 ↗ process of creation and or Amendment

37:12 ↗ future Amendment so the this amendment

37:16 ↗ would take the city out of the loop if

37:18 ↗ there was a future Amendment to the ccnr

37:20 ↗ that changed that condition uh yes that

37:22 ↗ is

37:25 ↗ correct and again these are our proposed

37:27 ↗ changes um

37:29 ↗ understand thank

37:31 ↗ you wonder if there could be a separate

37:33 ↗ maintenance agreement not in the ccrs

37:36 ↗ that does specify this requirement that

37:38 ↗ is not and referred to from the surface

37:40 ↗ of the

37:42 ↗ plat that is also possible and the

37:44 ↗ applicant would be agreeable to such

37:46 ↗ such a thing we'd have to discuss with

37:48 ↗ the city of course

37:52 ↗ but any other questions for applicant

38:02 ↗ commissioner does

38:04 ↗ this the extent of the questions here

38:06 ↗ the presentation he doesn't get into the

38:08 ↗ further into the design we can you can

38:11 ↗ ask either now and we'll have another

38:13 ↗ opportunity during deliberation

38:14 ↗ commissioner so you could do questions

38:17 ↗ now or

38:18 ↗ later I I just have a general question

38:21 ↗ about parking um you know when people

38:24 ↗ have guests over you you've only got

38:26 ↗ maybe two spots in the driveway um

38:29 ↗ probably taken up by your personal

38:31 ↗ vehicle where where are the guests going

38:33 ↗ to park and are they allowed to park

38:36 ↗ along Front

38:41 ↗ Street sorry would

38:46 ↗ you so technically we have three parking

38:48 ↗ spots one on the driveway and two inside

38:51 ↗ the building inside the building there

38:52 ↗ would be tandem parkings so each

38:54 ↗ building has two parkings inside the

38:56 ↗ building at at the first floor the

38:58 ↗ ground floor and there is driveway which

39:00 ↗ would be available for any

39:02 ↗ guest and then the a followup is there

39:05 ↗ an ADA requirement for like a specific

39:09 ↗ Ada

39:10 ↗ spot we did not have any re any

39:14 ↗ requirements for the Ada yeah realizing

39:17 ↗ this is in a public space so I'm not

39:18 ↗ sure it's requirement or

39:21 ↗ not I don't believe so but at building

39:24 ↗ permit our building plans examiner will

39:26 ↗ review for ada8

39:29 ↗ requirements and then the this is kind

39:32 ↗ of directed to civil also um I assume

39:36 ↗ that trash pickup and um fire truck

39:40 ↗ turnarounds have all been encountered

39:41 ↗ for uh trash would be uh trash cans will

39:45 ↗ be placed inside the building there's a

39:48 ↗ designated area and during the days that

39:50 ↗ needs to be picked up they will be

39:51 ↗ brought up on the street and then taken

39:53 ↗ inside inside the garage so we have

39:55 ↗ designated area at the back side of the

39:59 ↗ uh I mean once you get in the inside the

40:02 ↗ garage it's going to be on the back so

40:03 ↗ that's they where they're going to keep

40:05 ↗ it I guess I'm just thinking from uh uh

40:08 ↗ the trash pickup companies sure so the

40:11 ↗ firet truck turnarounds in the plan set

40:13 ↗ and then we require um rology to sign

40:15 ↗ off on the pl and they do that during

40:17 ↗ the construction permitting so we have a

40:19 ↗ form that rology has to approve and sign

40:21 ↗ off

40:24 ↗ on then getting back to the storm water

40:27 ↗ um was there is there a requirement with

40:30 ↗ the city as far as capacity I mean if

40:33 ↗ it's a 10year storm or is it is it a 25

40:37 ↗ year then if it does exceed that I

40:40 ↗ assume just Overland flows to the creek

40:43 ↗ below or that drainage area to the

40:50 ↗ east uh correct the the city has

40:53 ↗ requirements for flow control that are

40:55 ↗ in the doe manual as well as there to

40:57 ↗ the storm water manual um flow control

41:01 ↗ technically you have to do from half the

41:03 ↗ 2year half the 2-year Peak to the

41:06 ↗ 50-year is what you have to meet

41:09 ↗ pre-existing conditions on um in this

41:12 ↗ case we're fully infiltrating so we have

41:14 ↗ soils conducive to infiltration so we

41:17 ↗ expect everything would fully infiltrate

41:20 ↗ but if something didn't like you said it

41:22 ↗ would continue and i' get my directions

41:25 ↗ mixed up but toward the railroad tracks

41:28 ↗ would flow that way if some but we don't

41:30 ↗ expect it would we're expecting it fully

41:32 ↗ infiltrate given the rates did um I did

41:36 ↗ notice that you had a very low water

41:38 ↗ table so you're probably right

41:42 ↗ um there was a comment about an adjacent

41:45 ↗ property with settlement issues I

41:46 ↗ noticed that the Geotech report only had

41:49 ↗ anticipated settlement of a half an

41:51 ↗ inch uh that's kind of outside of my

41:53 ↗ expertise

41:54 ↗ so probably would have to point back to

41:57 ↗ the Geotech report okay thank you thank

42:03 ↗ you any other questions

42:09 ↗ applicant I want I think I'll get into

42:11 ↗ it at this time instead of saving all

42:12 ↗ these for later uh Mr Hussein maybe may

42:15 ↗ be the most appropriate for this I'm

42:19 ↗ looking at uh sheet

42:21 ↗ two uh I'm I'm sorry applicant sheet

42:24 ↗ A2 in the packet um that building a west

42:30 ↗ elevation if we could pull that one

42:35 ↗ up so this would be the elevation that

42:38 ↗ faces Front Street from the first

42:40 ↗ building

42:53 ↗ okay right and looking at the West there

42:56 ↗ yeah the right the Front Street facing

42:58 ↗ that's lower right I guess

43:00 ↗ yeah so I guess my questions are trying

43:03 ↗ to get to your sense of the practicality

43:07 ↗ of these things um is the are there any

43:11 ↗ accent colors used in this design I know

43:13 ↗ they you're restricted to three primary

43:15 ↗ colors but did you consider any accent

43:17 ↗ colors for the

43:19 ↗ design uh I think it would be best if my

43:22 ↗ architect answer your questions which we

43:24 ↗ have him available online okay fine Mr

43:26 ↗ Travis

43:28 ↗ yeah my questions will be in the same

43:29 ↗ general yeah

43:36 ↗ area all right can you hear me yes okay

43:40 ↗ do I need to be sworn in for this uh yes

43:42 ↗ please take your name uh Travis McDonald

43:46 ↗ and you swear by o through affirmation

43:47 ↗ the testimony you're about to provide is

43:49 ↗ true I do yes thank you please go ahead

43:53 ↗ and Travis excuse me I have made you a

43:56 ↗ panel now so if you'd like you can turn

43:58 ↗ your camera on as well oh

44:04 ↗ okay there we

44:06 ↗ go um you're correct accent colors are

44:10 ↗ permitted uh in the Oldtown overlay

44:12 ↗ District here we did not propose any any

44:15 ↗ strong accent colors for this project

44:16 ↗ though we we kind of wanted to keep this

44:18 ↗ a little bit toned down um go with Warm

44:21 ↗ Neutral earth tones for the three uh

44:23 ↗ primary body colors and use um kind of a

44:26 ↗ dark uh charcool uh color for our

44:30 ↗ trim and um looking at the top Windows

44:34 ↗ there in the portion to the right are

44:37 ↗ those undivided Windows they appear to

44:39 ↗ be those top two windows on the right

44:42 ↗ side correct yeah all our all our

44:44 ↗ windows are proposed currently without

44:47 ↗ um simulated divided lights in them okay

44:50 ↗ did you consider division for those

44:52 ↗ windows or would there be a problem with

44:54 ↗ that um we could certainly cons consider

44:57 ↗ it

44:58 ↗ um this is just my opinion but um often

45:02 ↗ times those those tend to look a little

45:03 ↗ dated um but but we could certainly

45:06 ↗ consider it and see um how that might

45:08 ↗ affect this

45:09 ↗ elevation okay and I don't know if this

45:12 ↗ is the best sheet maybe sheet C1 it

45:15 ↗ shows details of the entrances we see at

45:18 ↗ B there's a 21in high concrete seal wall

45:23 ↗ that appears on most of the units uh

45:26 ↗ that are inward facing

45:27 ↗ is that same wall used on the west end

45:32 ↗ and the East End of these two buildings

45:35 ↗ or is that that same wall there or not

45:39 ↗ it is not is only it is only for the

45:41 ↗ private Drive facing entryways um these

45:44 ↗ ones have a have a different set of

45:46 ↗ features this one um the entryway for

45:48 ↗ for this street facing unit here is

45:50 ↗ lined with Landscaping not landscape

45:53 ↗ borders right and those are those are

45:55 ↗ all shrubs correct they're they're no

45:57 ↗ trees in that lining I think did you

46:00 ↗ consider using that uh 21in seal wall as

46:04 ↗ a opportunity for more variety as well

46:07 ↗ as Unity with the rest of the

46:09 ↗ design we did not um we we wanted to

46:12 ↗ maintain as a direct um pedestrian

46:15 ↗ Pathway to this entryway as possible um

46:17 ↗ for um just for visibility to the

46:20 ↗ entryway um so to incorporate a seat

46:22 ↗ wall like that um potentially would have

46:25 ↗ had us offset the entry um or offset the

46:28 ↗ pathway I should say um so it seemed

46:31 ↗ that the the landscape border was was

46:33 ↗ the preferred option for these um just

46:34 ↗ given their street facing nature okay

46:37 ↗ thank you that's all I had about that

46:38 ↗ thanks

46:42 ↗ okay any

46:43 ↗ [Music]

46:51 ↗ others since we have the AR since we

46:54 ↗ have the architect I'm just curious on

46:56 ↗ that same I guess if

46:57 ↗ you if you could scroll to the left a

47:00 ↗ bit showing the yes so that I think no

47:04 ↗ no no down below yeah the I guess the

47:06 ↗ rear elevation for those units it it

47:09 ↗ just sort of jumps out at me those um

47:12 ↗ the the T the lighter colored twostory

47:16 ↗ tall sections of the building um they

47:21 ↗ seem like a a very

47:25 ↗ tall you know light colored with nothing

47:28 ↗ there and did you consider the

47:31 ↗ possibility of some kind of band within

47:33 ↗ there to break up that

47:36 ↗ elevation um that that could be possible

47:39 ↗ you know we we tried to be a little lean

47:42 ↗ towards the modest side since this is

47:44 ↗ the rear elevation it is yeah heavily

47:47 ↗ screened from adjacent properties with

47:49 ↗ you know dense proposed Landscaping

47:50 ↗ along the property line so you know

47:52 ↗ again we're we're trying to be modest

47:54 ↗ with our treatment back here um uh

47:57 ↗ additional banding could could be a way

47:59 ↗ to further uh break those up but um okay

48:02 ↗ we weren't sure it was necessary I don't

48:04 ↗ I don't yeah and I don't think it's

48:05 ↗ necessary because of all the Landscaping

48:07 ↗ to be there but it's I guess at least a

48:08 ↗ suggestion for considerations thank you

48:12 ↗ appreciate that

48:15 ↗ yes other questions for

48:21 ↗ applicant hearing none thank you now

48:24 ↗ we'll move into the public comment

48:26 ↗ portion of the hearing uh Miss Jackson

48:29 ↗ has anyone signed up to comment on this

48:31 ↗ topic no

48:33 ↗ chair and no commenters signed up online

48:39 ↗ either no chair okay thank you so we can

48:43 ↗ skip the rebuttal section uh applicant

48:46 ↗ has no rebuttal to the comments that

48:47 ↗ were not

48:48 ↗ made so Commissioners are there any

48:51 ↗ objections to closing the public hearing

48:53 ↗ at this point

48:56 ↗ hearing no objections I'll now close the

48:58 ↗ public hearing at 7:21

49:03 ↗ p.m. so now it's time to move on to

49:05 ↗ deliberation portion of the meeting but

49:07 ↗ first we need to make a motion is there

49:10 ↗ a motion on the item before the

49:11 ↗ commission Mr chair Mr brenon I move

49:14 ↗ that the development commission approve

49:16 ↗ the preliminary plat and the site

49:18 ↗ development permit for Madison Lane Town

49:20 ↗ Homes numbers PP

49:24 ↗ 24001 and sdp

49:29 ↗ 24008 as described and evaluated in the

49:32 ↗ staff report dated February 26

49:35 ↗ 2025 with exhibits U or a through U

49:39 ↗ subject to with the conditions therein

49:41 ↗ with amendments to conditions 5 and 12

49:45 ↗ as provided in tonight's staff

49:48 ↗ presentation I also move that the

49:50 ↗ development commission direct the

49:51 ↗ community Planning and Development

49:53 ↗ Department to prepare findings of fact

49:55 ↗ and conclusions

49:57 ↗ for the review and approval by the

49:59 ↗ development commission chairman

50:00 ↗ affirming the development commission

50:02 ↗ decision to approve the Madison Lane

50:04 ↗ Town Homes approval numbers pp24

50:09 ↗ 00001 and sdp

50:14 ↗ 24008 subject to the conditions listed

50:17 ↗ in the staff report dated February 26

50:20 ↗ 2025 with exhibits a through U subject

50:24 ↗ to the conditions herein as uh with the

50:27 ↗ amendments to uh conditions 5 and 12 as

50:30 ↗ provided in tonight's uh staff

50:33 ↗ presentation and um as further amended

50:37 ↗ tonight if changes are made during

50:40 ↗ deliberations do I have a second

50:44 ↗ second second thank you is there a

50:48 ↗ discussion of the

50:52 ↗ motion um Emily could you pull up the

50:57 ↗ revised

50:58 ↗ Amendment or revised conditions

51:12 ↗ yes so I guess a question of the

51:15 ↗ revision that the applicant had for

51:19 ↗ condition

51:25 ↗ five I I feel it should remain on the

51:27 ↗ plat for the code

51:37 ↗ M Mr um Comm

51:39 ↗ Bren I understand the concern expressed

51:43 ↗ by the applicant um regarding having

51:46 ↗ something on the plat because that is a

51:48 ↗ fairly arduous process to go through

51:50 ↗ especially uh when you've got multiple

51:52 ↗ owners um once this project um is

51:55 ↗ completed

51:57 ↗ uh but that being said the language of

51:59 ↗ the code is fairly specific here too

52:01 ↗ regarding maintenance agreements um

52:03 ↗ being stated on the face of uh recorded

52:07 ↗ documents or recorded plats I guess my

52:09 ↗ concern is that I guess I two points one

52:11 ↗ that I made earlier is I don't think

52:12 ↗ this is an an honorous condition and I

52:15 ↗ don't know that it would change into the

52:16 ↗ future much I think this would be a

52:18 ↗ fairly um a fairly simple thing to do

52:23 ↗ over time uh and I this is going to be a

52:26 ↗ fair stable development um from what I

52:28 ↗ can see uh and uh the city's out of the

52:32 ↗ loop if the condition is just recorded

52:36 ↗ as part of the ccnr so I would agree um

52:40 ↗ with the condition as drafted by

52:47 ↗ staff and yeah Comm Mor I'm sorry um I

52:51 ↗ think I would agree the same thing in

52:53 ↗ reading the language says a recorded

52:54 ↗ unit lot subdivision must include

52:57 ↗ maintenance agreements as

52:59 ↗ necessary and just have a hard time

53:02 ↗ figuring out how you work around that

53:04 ↗ language so I would agree that should

53:07 ↗ stay as

53:19 ↗ stated should we have a motion to conf

53:22 ↗ affirm the condition as stated

53:28 ↗ uh Mr chair uh the motion included the

53:31 ↗ the staff proposed amendments to the yes

53:35 ↗ uh conditions so it's already in the

53:37 ↗ motion we've already covered it yeah

53:38 ↗ thank

53:41 ↗ you other

53:46 ↗ comments had a question I guess for

53:49 ↗ staff this would

53:52 ↗ be um looking at the transpo group here

53:56 ↗ review approval letter that's page 71 of

53:59 ↗ 1043

54:32 ↗ great yes thanks so it says we request

54:35 ↗ the applicant provide a site distance

54:37 ↗ analysis of the driveway as part of

54:39 ↗ their site plan

54:40 ↗ application so my question is is that

54:43 ↗ represented as the site triangle that we

54:47 ↗ see on sheet C

54:49 ↗ 2.0000 and others or do we need a

54:52 ↗ condition for this I believe it is shown

54:55 ↗ through that

54:56 ↗ okay and so the site triangle covers

55:00 ↗ this request site distance correct site

55:03 ↗ distance triangle covers was reviewed by

55:05 ↗ our CPD engineer okay thank you and then

55:08 ↗ I have another on code 18.

55:14 ↗ 700.00 windows and doors for

55:20 ↗ multifam right

55:35 ↗ 18700 what was the rest of that 70000

55:38 ↗ 18700 100 all right do you want me to

55:41 ↗ share that on the screen uh yeah

55:49 ↗ please that's right hope it is I'm

55:52 ↗ looking at

55:55 ↗ B4 undivided Windows right divided

55:59 ↗ Windows must be used as appropriate to

56:01 ↗ the architectural style of the building

56:04 ↗ so uh as I asked before I'm kind of

56:06 ↗ looking for opportunities to add some

56:08 ↗ detail to the Front Street facing facade

56:11 ↗ there uh I wonder how we um did Staff

56:14 ↗ first of all uh consider this

56:17 ↗ requirement and I wonder how we

56:19 ↗ interpret as appropriate would one

56:22 ↗ divided window on the site be

56:24 ↗ appropriate or um

56:26 ↗ how do how do we meet the intent of this

56:29 ↗ sure um staff um concluded that it

56:31 ↗ complied as there was divided Windows

56:33 ↗ provided with the development but of

56:36 ↗ course when it comes to design there in

56:38 ↗ some of our design standards there is

56:39 ↗ some ambiguity to what exactly that

56:42 ↗ means um as appropriate so the

56:45 ↗ commission is always uh welcome and able

56:48 ↗ to add a condition if you would like to

56:50 ↗ see more divided Windows added to the

56:53 ↗ development thank you and I guess

56:57 ↗ commission um I'm having a little

56:59 ↗ trouble with the West End of building a

57:02 ↗ and it's facing on Front Street and the

57:04 ↗ sidewalk there and I'm wondering about

57:07 ↗ whether we've met the requirement for uh

57:11 ↗ an engaging and interesting uh side to

57:13 ↗ the street

57:15 ↗ there so the intent I think is

57:19 ↗ development should display an appealing

57:21 ↗ visually engaging Street Edge on all

57:23 ↗ sides that face streets avoiding a

57:25 ↗ backside appearance

57:26 ↗ so I'm looking at anything we could we

57:28 ↗ could do there uh wonder what your

57:31 ↗ opinion is on dividing some of those

57:33 ↗ windows there especially the ones the

57:35 ↗ the two upper

57:41 ↗ windows it's the one on the the bottom

57:43 ↗ right there

57:51 ↗ yeah um M morning um I guess what does

57:56 ↗ stand out to me is not necessarily the

57:58 ↗ divided windows but there's a fairly um

58:01 ↗ good siiz blank wall portion below the

58:04 ↗ two upper windows and the lower to the

58:06 ↗ right if there was another window added

58:08 ↗ in that area would that be the

58:11 ↗ requirement well you know uh I think the

58:14 ↗ requirement as written could have two

58:18 ↗ interpretations um that I I believe the

58:23 ↗ requirement said that structures must

58:25 ↗ have divided Windows as approp and the

58:29 ↗ decision is made as appropriate to the

58:30 ↗ architecture right so it doesn't

58:33 ↗ necessarily say that divided windows

58:36 ↗ will not be used it says simply that

58:39 ↗ they're used in a way that's appropriate

58:41 ↗ to the design yeah so I personally would

58:45 ↗ like to see a bit more variety in that

58:48 ↗ side and I wonder if anybody else had

58:49 ↗ that

58:50 ↗ sensor and yeah I agree about the blank

58:53 ↗ space there however it's less 30 ft

58:57 ↗ right the blank that blank

59:02 ↗ wall commissioner price uh well I would

59:05 ↗ I would have two comments I I guess the

59:07 ↗ first is is this is this engaging and is

59:09 ↗ there visual interest for this facade

59:11 ↗ facing this elevation um you know

59:15 ↗ arguably you don't you don't experience

59:17 ↗ the world in elevation you're going to

59:18 ↗ be driving or walking by this and I

59:21 ↗ think they did a good job of how they

59:24 ↗ designed the front the back and this

59:28 ↗ facade so you're you're going to see

59:30 ↗ that first third of the building as you

59:33 ↗ pass and then this elevation and then

59:36 ↗ coming the other way you'll see the back

59:37 ↗ you know you experience the world in 3D

59:40 ↗ so I think in in if you look at it in

59:42 ↗ that context I think it does a good job

59:44 ↗ and achieves so and

59:47 ↗ then are the windows appropriate to the

59:50 ↗ style that's a function of what style is

59:51 ↗ this building this is a you know I don't

59:55 ↗ know it's a quasi

59:58 ↗ traditional um leaning to contemporary

1:00:01 ↗ it's it's a it's a quiltwork of styles

1:00:05 ↗ that uh uh MO is very code driven has

1:00:09 ↗ pushed most buildings to look like this

1:00:11 ↗ and um I don't know if that's the

1:00:13 ↗ desired outcome I don't think it's an

1:00:14 ↗ unattractive building but it's not a a

1:00:18 ↗ traditional building in the true

1:00:20 ↗ traditional sense it doesn't fall under

1:00:23 ↗ under any of the other categories that

1:00:25 ↗ we we sometimes engage which is is it is

1:00:28 ↗ it arts and crafts is it Craftsman is it

1:00:30 ↗ Grange you know the there's no style

1:00:34 ↗ required here so therefore H you know I

1:00:38 ↗ think it's kind of up to them to a

1:00:40 ↗ degree um I think it does a good job of

1:00:44 ↗ meeting the Oldtown standards uh but I

1:00:47 ↗ don't I don't feel like it needs to go

1:00:50 ↗ as far as as having divided lights I

1:00:54 ↗ would also say and this is more of my um

1:00:57 ↗ pessimistic view is that buildings of

1:00:59 ↗ this quality aren't going to have

1:01:01 ↗ Windows of a certain quality that have

1:01:04 ↗ nice looking divided lights they're not

1:01:06 ↗ going to look that good um

1:01:09 ↗ so I would I would in my opinion I think

1:01:13 ↗ this is

1:01:16 ↗ fine any other

1:01:19 ↗ comments uh this is why I don't comment

1:01:22 ↗ on architecture

1:01:28 ↗ commissioner brenon uh Mr chair just a

1:01:30 ↗ quick comment I um kind of leaning to

1:01:33 ↗ commissioner price did a nice job

1:01:35 ↗ providing a characterization of what the

1:01:36 ↗ experience will be like I don't know

1:01:38 ↗ that divide divided Windows would make a

1:01:42 ↗ significant difference one way or the

1:01:44 ↗ other in this particular elevation of

1:01:46 ↗ those two upper Windows um so I'm I'm

1:01:50 ↗ satisfied with the design as presented

1:01:54 ↗ um uh understand the interest in trying

1:01:57 ↗ to break this up a little bit but you're

1:01:59 ↗ going to see more than just this

1:02:01 ↗ elevation as you're looking at this

1:02:03 ↗ development so um I'm comfortable with

1:02:06 ↗ this thank you okay good and I think

1:02:08 ↗ that the trees and the Landscaping are

1:02:10 ↗ really strong feature of this design and

1:02:13 ↗ you'll see a lot of that in this design

1:02:14 ↗ so that helps as

1:02:17 ↗ well any other discussion

1:02:21 ↗ comments Mr Rada I have a question for

1:02:24 ↗ staff um on the transportation study it

1:02:27 ↗ noted 77 trips and it didn't require a

1:02:30 ↗ traffic study um what what number of

1:02:34 ↗ trips would drive a traffic study that

1:02:36 ↗ was uh under

1:02:38 ↗ the Kimberly horn or Kimmy kimle horn

1:02:44 ↗ document give me one second to pull up

1:02:47 ↗ what you're looking at so I can make

1:02:48 ↗ sure I'm on the same page

1:02:59 ↗ um so the traffic study or excuse me our

1:03:02 ↗ traffic impact analysis when you have to

1:03:03 ↗ go from a traffic memo to a full-blown

1:03:05 ↗ traffic impact analysis I believe is

1:03:07 ↗ driven by PM peak hour trips versus um

1:03:10 ↗ total new trips if I'm correct yeah so

1:03:13 ↗ um since it's only six new PMP go trips

1:03:15 ↗ it didn't trigger the need for um a

1:03:18 ↗ full-blown traffic impact

1:03:20 ↗ analysis what's the is there a number

1:03:23 ↗ though that I could there is a number I

1:03:25 ↗ want to say

1:03:26 ↗ it's 30 I want to say it's 30 um I am

1:03:31 ↗ happy to ask our traffic engineer and

1:03:33 ↗ email you the answer to that one I

1:03:35 ↗ thought if it was eight there might

1:03:38 ↗ be I believe I believe it's higher than

1:03:40 ↗ that okay thank

1:03:44 ↗ you commissioner Bron yeah just a quick

1:03:47 ↗ followup so we we did on traffic so we

1:03:50 ↗ did receive comments and most of the

1:03:51 ↗ comments from the public were related to

1:03:53 ↗ you know the traffic on Front Street and

1:03:56 ↗ you know what's the city doing to

1:03:58 ↗ provide some relief is there anything

1:04:00 ↗ that you can tell us this evening that

1:04:03 ↗ would kind of respond to what the city

1:04:06 ↗ is doing uh to provide some relief on

1:04:08 ↗ Front Street sure um I can shed some

1:04:11 ↗ light on how we go about this and I'll

1:04:13 ↗ let Kristen jump in if she has more to

1:04:15 ↗ add to it so essentially when any devel

1:04:18 ↗ new development Redevelopment or change

1:04:20 ↗ in use comes into the city we require

1:04:22 ↗ they submit for what we call a

1:04:23 ↗ transportation concurrency application

1:04:25 ↗ um and that's the transportation

1:04:27 ↗ concurrency certificate that's one of

1:04:28 ↗ the exhibits so that con permit has to

1:04:31 ↗ come in with the development application

1:04:33 ↗ and when that comes in it's um has the

1:04:36 ↗ it manual the traffic uh Manual of the

1:04:39 ↗ different types of uses and they fill

1:04:41 ↗ out how many new um PM peak hour trips

1:04:45 ↗ are being um uh generated by this use

1:04:49 ↗ and then the city has what we call a

1:04:51 ↗ trip bank which has all of the available

1:04:53 ↗ number of trips um we have a trip bank

1:04:56 ↗ for Central isqua and a trip bank for

1:04:58 ↗ areas outside of Central isqua and a

1:04:59 ↗ trip bank for our Das separately I

1:05:02 ↗ believe um so then those trips are

1:05:04 ↗ deducted from the trip trip bank and the

1:05:08 ↗ trip Bank makes sure that our um streets

1:05:11 ↗ don't fall below level of service

1:05:13 ↗ standards which for the Citywide is a

1:05:15 ↗ level of service D that's our required

1:05:18 ↗ level of service standards with a couple

1:05:19 ↗ intersections are allowed to fall a

1:05:21 ↗ little bit more below that that's in our

1:05:22 ↗ code so um the there has to be enough

1:05:26 ↗ trips if there's not enough trips you

1:05:28 ↗ don't get your development so um that's

1:05:31 ↗ essentially the conclusion here is there

1:05:32 ↗ was enough trips in the trip bank for

1:05:34 ↗ them to be issued their transportation

1:05:35 ↗ certificate which means that this

1:05:38 ↗ development is not going to cause um the

1:05:41 ↗ impacted streets and intersections to

1:05:42 ↗ fall below the city's standard level of

1:05:44 ↗ service great uh thanks for that and and

1:05:47 ↗ I do just uh bigger picture there's a

1:05:50 ↗ significant project underway out in uh

1:05:53 ↗ at The Interchange of Highway 18 in a

1:05:55 ↗ lot of the trips coming through isqua

1:05:58 ↗ along Front Street and now Hobart Road

1:06:00 ↗ are heading toward Highway 18 so um I

1:06:03 ↗ know the city the mayor and council

1:06:05 ↗ members were very active in getting that

1:06:07 ↗ project funded and so hopefully that

1:06:09 ↗ will provide uh some noticeable relief

1:06:12 ↗ uh when that is completed uh in the next

1:06:14 ↗ year or so so but yeah uh transportation

1:06:18 ↗ is the focal point for just about every

1:06:20 ↗ development I think that comes before

1:06:22 ↗ the commission and probably before in

1:06:24 ↗ front of the staff so thanks for the uh

1:06:26 ↗ information appreciate that

1:06:29 ↗ absolutely thanks commissioner and staff

1:06:31 ↗ I think it's important to have that as

1:06:32 ↗ part of the record

1:06:34 ↗ than any other

1:06:36 ↗ discussion regarding the main

1:06:41 ↗ motion M

1:06:46 ↗ Morgan hearing no further discussion

1:06:48 ↗ with deliberation concluded it's time

1:06:50 ↗ for the commission to take action on the

1:06:52 ↗ item before us and we're voting on the

1:06:54 ↗ main motion to remind us as commissioner

1:06:56 ↗ Brennan stated uh we're not going to um

1:06:59 ↗ force him to restate the entire long

1:07:01 ↗ motion but I think we're clear what

1:07:03 ↗ we're voting on all in favor of the main

1:07:05 ↗ motion say I I all opposed no the motion

1:07:10 ↗ is approved

1:07:12 ↗ unanimously this concludes the Madison

1:07:14 ↗ Lane Town Homes preliminary plat and

1:07:16 ↗ site development permit notice of

1:07:18 ↗ decision will be issued by staff within

1:07:21 ↗ 7 Days moving on to city council updates

1:07:24 ↗ i' like the staff to to provide any

1:07:26 ↗ updates on city council

1:07:28 ↗ activities I don't have any updates for

1:07:30 ↗ you tonight oh okay too bad we have all

1:07:33 ↗ this time and no updates are there any

1:07:35 ↗ other items of business or announcements

1:07:37 ↗ from staff okay thank you thanks the

1:07:40 ↗ staff and the applicant and there being

1:07:42 ↗ no further business before the

1:07:44 ↗ commission I adjourn the meeting at 7:39

1:07:47 ↗ p.m.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (5)

Sanford

Commissioners Brennan

Ikeda

Morgan

Price

Staff (2)

Christen Leeson, Principal Planner Amanda Jackson, Meeting

Records Assistant Emily Medina, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of January 15, 2025