Development Commission · Wednesday, August 6, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 11, 2025

packet pp.5–8

▶ Watch from 0:49 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Wednesday, June 11, 2025

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Front Street Townhomes Major Site-Plan Amendment, Quasi- Judicial (A)

Emily Medina, Associate Planner Richard Rawlings, New Home Company Application No: MSPA25-00002. Related: SDP24-00002, PRJ22-00022 Location: 665 Front St. N Parcel Number: 2824069025 Applicant: Jaden Patten, The New Home Company Description: Amendment to approved site Public Hearing Order: · packet pp.9–82

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

STAFF REPORT Site Development Permit – Major Amendment File No. MSPA25-00002 (PRJ22-00022) July 25, 2025

Well 9 PFAS Treatment Facility Site Development Permit, Quasi-Judicial

Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Alex Capron, Facet Consultants Application No: SDP24-00015 Related: PRJ24-00002 Location:940 1st Ave NE Parcel Number: 8843500120 Applicant: Sammamish Plateau Water Description: Site Development Permit for a Sewer District's sanitary sewer system, Public Hearing Order: · packet pp.83–513

Topics: Land UseWater

Open packet at p.83 ↗

Staff report:

STAFF REPORT Site Development Permit – Level 4 File No PRJ24-00002 /SDP24-00015 July 22, 2025

5. REPORTS

City Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.515

▶ Watch from 58:32 Open packet at p.515 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission 2025 Schedule (subject to change)

1380 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ Good evening and welcome. I would like

0:10 ↗ to call the August 6 city of Isqua

0:12 ↗ Development Commission meeting to order

0:14 ↗ at 6:33.

0:16 ↗ As a reminder, we have a remote aspect

0:18 ↗ to our meetings. This means both staff

0:19 ↗ and members of the public may be

0:21 ↗ participating in the meeting remotely

0:22 ↗ via WebEx. For those attending remotely,

0:25 ↗ if you have questions or issues, please

0:27 ↗ send the host a chat message or email

0:29 ↗ staff at Kristen Lisiqua.gov.

0:36 ↗ Excused absences for this meeting are

0:38 ↗ Commissioners Fasoon, Mayo, and Gilbert.

0:42 ↗ Alternate member Katie Stanche is

0:44 ↗ filling in this evening as a regular

0:45 ↗ member. Welcome, Katie.

0:49 ↗ Approval of minutes. Our first item of

0:51 ↗ business is to take action on meeting

0:53 ↗ minutes for June 11th, 2025. Has

0:56 ↗ everyone had an opportunity to review

0:58 ↗ the minutes? Are there any corrections

1:00 ↗ to the minutes provided in the agenda

1:02 ↗ packet?

1:05 ↗ Hearing none, the minutes are approved

1:07 ↗ as submitted.

1:09 ↗ Next, general comments. I would like to

1:12 ↗ open the floor for any members of the

1:13 ↗ public in person or virtually who would

1:16 ↗ like to make a general comment. Not

1:18 ↗ about the Madison Lane town home

1:19 ↗ projects or the PAS treatment facility,

1:22 ↗ but on general topics. There will be an

1:24 ↗ opportunity later in the meeting for

1:25 ↗ those who would like to comment about

1:26 ↗ the projects on tonight's agenda.

1:30 ↗ Miss Jackson, has anyone signed up to

1:32 ↗ make public comments?

1:34 ↗ >> No, chair. Okay.

1:39 ↗ >> No one present would like to make

1:40 ↗ comments.

1:41 ↗ Okay, we will move on.

1:46 ↗ Next up, the public hearing. And the

1:49 ↗ agenda item is the preddecision open

1:51 ↗ record public hearing. The order of

1:53 ↗ operations for this hearing will be as

1:55 ↗ follows. First, the purpose of the

1:57 ↗ public hearing

1:59 ↗ followed by our appearness of fairness

2:00 ↗ discussions. Then we will open to the

2:03 ↗ public hearing or open the public

2:05 ↗ hearing with a staff presentation

2:07 ↗ followed by the applicant presentation.

2:09 ↗ Then open the floor to public comment.

2:12 ↗ Opportunity for rebuttal by applicant

2:13 ↗ then staff. Close the public hearing.

2:16 ↗ Commission deliberation.

2:19 ↗ Commission action. And then conclude

2:21 ↗ agenda item on the quasi judicial

2:23 ↗ permit. If for any reason this hearing

2:26 ↗ cannot be completed this evening, it may

2:28 ↗ be continued at a specific date.

2:31 ↗ The purpose of this formal public

2:33 ↗ hearing is for a major amendment to the

2:35 ↗ Front Street town homes approved site

2:37 ↗ development permit. The purpose of this

2:39 ↗ hearing is to solicit relevant public

2:41 ↗ comment and facilitate the review,

2:43 ↗ discussion, and decision of the

2:45 ↗ application

2:46 ↗ by the development commission. This is a

2:49 ↗ quasi judicial hearing.

2:52 ↗ Miss Madina, please proceed with our

2:54 ↗ appearance of fairness disclosures.

3:00 ↗ >> Good evening, commissioners. Get our

3:02 ↗ presentation up and started here.

3:08 ↗ All right. It's not in front of me, so

3:10 ↗ excuse me if I I'm just making sure that

3:12 ↗ you guys can see what I'm looking at.

3:14 ↗ All right, so starting off our front

3:16 ↗ street town homes um presentation with

3:18 ↗ the appearance of fairness.

3:23 ↗ Uh so this is a quasi judicial decision.

3:26 ↗ Uh the contacts context for that is that

3:28 ↗ it requires proceedings to be fair in

3:31 ↗ fact and appearance. Um exparte contacts

3:35 ↗ are prohibited. Um the test of this is

3:37 ↗ would a disinterested person knowing the

3:39 ↗ totality of a decision maker's personal

3:41 ↗ interest in a matter be reasonably

3:43 ↗ justified in thinking they may part they

3:45 ↗ part that partiality may exist. Excuse

3:48 ↗ me. Decision makers who have a personal

3:50 ↗ interest prejudgment of issues or

3:52 ↗ partiality are disqualified from the

3:54 ↗ proceedings.

3:58 ↗ So I'm going to ask you commissioners a

4:01 ↗ couple questions. Um after each question

4:03 ↗ if you could just verbally answer yes or

4:05 ↗ no. Um and then we will move on to the

4:07 ↗ next one. First, do you have any

4:09 ↗ personal interest financial or otherwise

4:11 ↗ in the outcome?

4:14 ↗ Does your employer have any interest

4:16 ↗ financial or otherwise in the outcome?

4:19 ↗ Do you have any familial, social or

4:21 ↗ business relationships or connections

4:23 ↗ with any of the parties or nonparties

4:25 ↗ who have an interest in the outcome?

4:27 ↗ >> Yes,

4:29 ↗ >> I do. And I think you had something to

4:31 ↗ interject on the first one.

4:32 ↗ >> Is this just about the front street

4:33 ↗ home? This is just about the French

4:34 ↗ street town homes. Correct.

4:36 ↗ >> Okay. Uh as stated in the initial

4:38 ↗ meeting that we had, I sat on a board

4:40 ↗ with the project architect. Uh beyond

4:43 ↗ that, I have no connection to this.

4:45 ↗ >> Do you feel you can be impartial in your

4:46 ↗ decision-m?

4:47 ↗ >> Yes.

4:48 ↗ >> Great. Do you have any special knowledge

4:50 ↗ about the substantive or the merits of

4:52 ↗ this proceeding which would or could

4:54 ↗ cause you to perger the outcome?

5:00 ↗ Will there be any prospective employment

5:03 ↗ for you or your family as a result of

5:04 ↗ this decision?

5:07 ↗ Do you own or control within 300 Do you

5:10 ↗ own or control property within 300 ft of

5:12 ↗ the subject property?

5:15 ↗ Have you had any exparte communications

5:17 ↗ regarding this project?

5:21 ↗ Um, do you believe you can sit and hear

5:23 ↗ this matter fairly and impartially both

5:25 ↗ as to the respective positions of the

5:26 ↗ proponents and the opponents of this

5:28 ↗ matter?

5:32 ↗ Does anyone in the audience um wish to

5:35 ↗ challenge the participation of any

5:36 ↗ commissioner based on the appearance of

5:38 ↗ fairness doctrine?

5:40 ↗ All right. Nobody virtually either. I

5:43 ↗ assume

5:45 ↗ no one's on virtually so I assume not.

5:48 ↗ All right. Thank you, commissioners. Um,

5:50 ↗ so I'll now begin the presentation um

5:53 ↗ for the public hearing for the Front

5:54 ↗ Street Town Homes.

5:55 ↗ >> Hold on. Yes.

5:56 ↗ >> Um, first I need to open the public

5:59 ↗ hearing.

5:59 ↗ >> Yes, we do. Sorry.

6:00 ↗ >> At 6:38.

6:04 ↗ And first we'll proceed with staff

6:06 ↗ presentation. I'll need to swear you in.

6:08 ↗ Please state your name and position at

6:10 ↗ the city for the record.

6:11 ↗ >> Emily Medina, associate planner.

6:13 ↗ >> Do you swear by oath or affirmation that

6:15 ↗ the testimony you are about to provide

6:16 ↗ is true?

6:17 ↗ >> I do. Thank you. Please proceed.

6:19 ↗ >> Thank you. Um so yes, the presentation

6:23 ↗ for the site development permit a major

6:26 ↗ amendment for the Front Street town

6:27 ↗ homes. Um the location is 66 Front

6:32 ↗ Street North. This is the site next to

6:34 ↗ the Dairy Gold. Used to be a Bank of

6:36 ↗ America site. Um most of you will

6:39 ↗ remember, we've talked about this a

6:41 ↗ couple months ago and now we're back for

6:43 ↗ second take. Um it's within the Oldtown

6:45 ↗ sub area zone CBD um and land use

6:49 ↗ designation um is retail.

6:52 ↗ So we it has an approved site

6:54 ↗ development permit um which we had a

6:57 ↗ public hearing for before you

6:58 ↗ commissioners on January 25th of this

7:01 ↗ year and it was approved with 13

7:03 ↗ conditions. Uh the original SDP proposal

7:07 ↗ was for 27 residential units and two

7:09 ↗ commercial spaces throughout three

7:11 ↗ buildings. Um there's community space,

7:14 ↗ utility and frontage improvements, and

7:15 ↗ internal access road.

7:18 ↗ So none of those major aspects of the

7:21 ↗ proposal have changed. Same number of

7:23 ↗ units, same number of buildings, um

7:25 ↗ relative pretty much the same exact

7:27 ↗ footprint. Um the proposal changes are

7:29 ↗ mainly design changes to the facade. Um

7:32 ↗ there's one additional retail parking

7:35 ↗ stall next to the retail south location.

7:37 ↗ And then there's a canopy that's been

7:39 ↗ added over the south retail parking.

7:43 ↗ So, um the reason this had to come in

7:44 ↗ for a major amendment um is due to the

7:47 ↗ fact that the changes in facades are

7:49 ↗ greater than 10% of the building. Um

7:51 ↗ since it affects the whole bu all three

7:53 ↗ buildings on all sides. Um and then the

7:56 ↗ changes were inconsistent with the

7:57 ↗ approved development. Um doesn't with

8:00 ↗ the approved development permit. Doesn't

8:01 ↗ mean they're inconsistent with code,

8:02 ↗ just means it's looks different than you

8:04 ↗ originally saw. So, we bring it back to

8:06 ↗ the commission um for approval again.

8:11 ↗ So, I just wanted to do a quick overview

8:12 ↗ of code sections that are not being

8:14 ↗ altered. Uh this is a pretty narrow

8:16 ↗ scope of what this amendment is. So,

8:19 ↗ there's no changes to permitted use, um

8:22 ↗ form and intensity, which is stepbacks,

8:24 ↗ height, impervious surface, um no

8:27 ↗ changes to the landscaping, lighting,

8:30 ↗ and then certain sections of the

8:31 ↗ building and site design um also do not

8:33 ↗ have any changes. So, um, I'll

8:35 ↗ specifically be just focusing on what is

8:38 ↗ being affected and how the new design

8:40 ↗ complies with those. Um, just of note is

8:44 ↗ the conditions on the approved STP, as

8:46 ↗ mentioned, there was 13 on that original

8:48 ↗ STP. Those aren't changing. They're not

8:50 ↗ going anywhere. They are still going to

8:52 ↗ be enforced. Um, and they will be

8:53 ↗ reviewed for as part of the uh,

8:55 ↗ construction permitting. So, the site

8:56 ↗ work, building permit, landscaping, all

8:58 ↗ will still be required to comply with

9:00 ↗ those original conditions.

9:03 ↗ So site and building design. The three

9:06 ↗ major changes um in regards to this code

9:09 ↗ section are changing color. Uh the

9:12 ↗ repetition of the building facade is

9:15 ↗ more broken up. So instead of every

9:16 ↗ other being different, it has a little

9:18 ↗ bit more of a broken up facade. And then

9:21 ↗ brick at the ground floor entrances has

9:24 ↗ been added. In terms of this complying

9:26 ↗ with co code, it has all the required

9:29 ↗ architectural elements. The buildings

9:31 ↗ are oriented towards the transportation

9:33 ↗ facilities. The main entries face

9:35 ↗ sidewalks and each unit has its own

9:37 ↗ entry with weather protection. Um, no

9:39 ↗ blank wall longer than 30 ft and then

9:41 ↗ the repetition and modulation is still

9:44 ↗ provided.

9:46 ↗ For parking, um, one additional retail

9:48 ↗ parking spot has been added. Uh this

9:51 ↗ increases to a total of four from the

9:54 ↗ previously approved three spaces which

9:56 ↗ is still within the required parking for

9:58 ↗ retail of three to seven.

10:02 ↗ Oldtown design standards. So um the

10:04 ↗ major changes that you're going to see

10:06 ↗ here are in the brick color. Um the

10:10 ↗ plints have been added which now

10:12 ↗ complies with code. There was a

10:13 ↗ condition about that on the original

10:15 ↗ SDP. Um, but that change is being

10:17 ↗ addressed here as well since it is a

10:19 ↗ code compliance issue. Uh, and then

10:21 ↗ there's the extension of the retail

10:23 ↗ facade with parking screening, which is

10:24 ↗ what you see on the bottom image with

10:26 ↗ the greenery coming up. That's now

10:28 ↗ screening the parking from view from the

10:30 ↗ sidewalk and street. And then there's a

10:32 ↗ revised window and entry configuration.

10:35 ↗ Um, makes the entryway of the retail

10:37 ↗ more prominent versus it used to extend

10:39 ↗ all the way up and it kind of got lost

10:42 ↗ in the residential behind it. It's now

10:44 ↗ prominent like what's retail and what is

10:46 ↗ the residential.

10:49 ↗ All right, those are our main changes.

10:51 ↗ Um believe I wait for questions until

10:54 ↗ after the applicant proposal or would

10:57 ↗ you like to do questions?

10:58 ↗ >> No. Are there any questions from the

10:59 ↗ commission on the staff presentation?

11:03 ↗ >> No questions.

11:07 ↗ Now we'll proceed with the applicant's

11:09 ↗ presentation.

11:14 ↗ I'm going to share my screen for you.

11:20 ↗ Not that

11:39 ↗ page up or down. Oh, here we go.

11:42 ↗ >> I'll need to swear you in.

11:44 ↗ >> Yeah, you bet.

11:45 ↗ >> Okay. Please state your name for the

11:47 ↗ record.

11:48 ↗ >> Richard Rawlings.

11:49 ↗ >> Do you swear by oath or affirmation that

11:52 ↗ this testimony you're about to provide

11:53 ↗ is true?

11:54 ↗ >> I do.

11:55 ↗ >> Thank you. Please proceed.

11:56 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh good evening. Um my name

11:59 ↗ is Richard Rawlings. I'm with the New

12:01 ↗ Home Company. And uh the reason that

12:04 ↗ we're here and proposing uh these

12:06 ↗ changes to the project, I was sitting

12:08 ↗ here when the project was originally

12:11 ↗ proposed, we were under contract to buy

12:13 ↗ it, pending the approval of the site

12:16 ↗ plan and the uh commission's, you know,

12:18 ↗ positive

12:20 ↗ uh vote, if you will. But I heard and

12:23 ↗ looked pretty clearly there was a um

12:27 ↗ there was a feeling among the commission

12:28 ↗ that I agreed with that while the

12:30 ↗ project uh checked all the boxes was one

12:33 ↗ of the phrases that was used. There was

12:35 ↗ some conversation and discussion about

12:38 ↗ the the the aspect of the old how does

12:40 ↗ it fit in with with the old town and

12:43 ↗ that historic nature but the commission

12:46 ↗ couldn't quite verbalize a condition.

12:48 ↗ And so after 20 minutes or so of saying,

12:51 ↗ well, can't we just ask the staff to

12:53 ↗ work with the applicant to address it

12:56 ↗ was determined we really couldn't come

12:57 ↗ up with a condition. But um but I could

13:01 ↗ kind of see, if you will, and we're sort

13:03 ↗ of I guess it's unique to come back when

13:05 ↗ we have an approved project and try to

13:07 ↗ respond. But I agreed and we want the

13:09 ↗ project to be as successful and uh

13:12 ↗ compatible with the you know, with the

13:14 ↗ the neighborhood as possible. So

13:21 ↗ there you go. It's just my fingers.

13:23 ↗ Oh gotcha.

13:27 ↗ Am I no good at this?

13:30 ↗ Oh gotcha.

13:32 ↗ Okay, now I'm working.

13:40 ↗ So what uh in working with um scale

13:44 ↗ design Curtis Bigalow he's the original

13:45 ↗ architect and still current. We looked

13:48 ↗ at it and thought what what is it about

13:51 ↗ this this um retail and residential

13:54 ↗ frontage facade and orientation bulk and

13:57 ↗ massing so forth. It really isn't quite

14:00 ↗ meeting maybe as as far as it could to

14:03 ↗ to blend in. I think we identified a

14:05 ↗ couple of things as Emily mentioned. And

14:07 ↗ there was kind of this prominent

14:08 ↗ threestory nature at the commercial

14:10 ↗ entry and it tied up to the third floor

14:13 ↗ of the building that kind of behind. And

14:17 ↗ uh in orange you'll see the the roof

14:20 ↗ lines, the orange dotted line. There

14:22 ↗ really there wasn't a consistent what

14:23 ↗ you would expect to see at the retail

14:25 ↗ level 13 or 15 or 20 foot uh level with

14:30 ↗ something going on behind it. There

14:32 ↗ there was a little bit of of um

14:33 ↗ disjointment there. And um also the uh

14:38 ↗ um there was variation in height of the

14:41 ↗ facade openings.

14:43 ↗ And then uh I thought the brick was a

14:45 ↗ little commercial in a sense like new

14:47 ↗ commercial color. It was a really cool

14:49 ↗ color. And so on that particular

14:52 ↗ building

14:54 ↗ so now we have pretty distinct retail

14:57 ↗ horizontal consistent level the material

15:00 ↗ and what's going on above it is is good.

15:02 ↗ It's residential. It does sit back. it

15:05 ↗ is visible but yet um it's it's there

15:08 ↗ isn't an element that's kind of trying

15:10 ↗ to blend the two and so we feel good

15:13 ↗ about the distinct uh nature there and

15:15 ↗ the consistency with the

15:17 ↗ smaller retail scale and the window

15:20 ↗ openings are now more consistent.

15:25 ↗ This is your other retail frontage. This

15:28 ↗ is this was prior. And so it had kind of

15:31 ↗ a even though it's a smaller building

15:33 ↗ facade lengthwise had this fairly

15:36 ↗ massive um entry wrap.

15:41 ↗ And uh then the large building behind

15:45 ↗ which um while it had a material breakup

15:48 ↗ didn't quite feel like that was meeting

15:51 ↗ um uh

15:55 ↗ wouldn't call it an old town intent but

15:57 ↗ it felt like it could use a little extra

15:59 ↗ detail to uh mitigate that and bring it

16:03 ↗ to be residential looking. Right now

16:05 ↗ it's kind of a question whether it's

16:08 ↗ really residential or not.

16:12 ↗ So and again working with scale design.

16:16 ↗ So now we have the same brick uh

16:18 ↗ changing color that the brick is the

16:22 ↗ entry is still wrapped but it's wrapped

16:23 ↗ with the brick so it doesn't stand out

16:25 ↗ the entry to the commercial at the at

16:26 ↗ the retail level. As Emily mentioned

16:29 ↗ it's extended that brick element to

16:32 ↗ screen the parking. The parking wasn't

16:33 ↗ screened before from the sidewalk. So as

16:35 ↗ you walk by there could be two cars

16:37 ↗ sitting there. probably some utilities

16:39 ↗ on the residential building. And so

16:41 ↗ we've extended that character of the

16:43 ↗ retail as a screen. And that's this

16:47 ↗ this portion here, right? That wasn't

16:50 ↗ there before. That was um essentially

16:52 ↗ open parking.

16:54 ↗ And so it has brick columns, a solid

16:56 ↗ lid, and then we'll use some grids and

16:59 ↗ uh and greenery to fill in what would

17:01 ↗ normally be glazing.

17:05 ↗ And then on the building behind

17:07 ↗ um part of the reason that building

17:09 ↗ behind is didn't have detail is it's um

17:13 ↗ there's some fire rating aspects of that

17:15 ↗ wall in particular. And so while we

17:17 ↗ can't punch windows in it, we can do

17:21 ↗ some uh faux window detailing and also

17:25 ↗ um add the turret and and have this have

17:29 ↗ more of what you would consider a

17:31 ↗ townhouse kind of elevation and facade

17:34 ↗ versus what was uh previously there,

17:37 ↗ which the form wasn't really easily

17:40 ↗ recognizable. Just going to back up real

17:42 ↗ quick. not super recognizable, but what

17:45 ↗ is that form that's going on in the

17:46 ↗ residential behind?

17:49 ↗ And the final comment um that we heard

17:53 ↗ was that the there was some repetition

17:55 ↗ on the Holly Street frontage, which is

17:57 ↗ uh all residential. And so you can see

18:00 ↗ previously unit after unit whether it's

18:02 ↗ the for bay or the back portions just uh

18:06 ↗ fairly repetitive.

18:10 ↗ And so we are suggesting now

18:19 ↗ re uh we've added brick at the ret at

18:21 ↗ the residential entry. So at the street

18:25 ↗ scale, pedestrian scale, that's a

18:27 ↗ warmer, richer feel. But then in terms

18:30 ↗ of the color, you can see it's not every

18:31 ↗ other unit is just the same

18:34 ↗ uh you know AB ab

18:38 ↗ changes where the colors are to have

18:41 ↗ some parts of the building deeper color

18:43 ↗ stand out and some some recede and see

18:46 ↗ the retail wraps with the nice same roof

18:49 ↗ line uh roof height character wrapping

18:52 ↗ the corner. It stands out more as a as

18:56 ↗ the retail wrap. So that's it. uh wanted

18:58 ↗ to be very brief, but um

19:02 ↗ we agreed with what we heard that night

19:04 ↗ and we sort of stepped forward and I was

19:06 ↗ a little surprised that it would be a

19:07 ↗ major amendment after thinking that I

19:10 ↗ you know we were complying with what we

19:12 ↗ were hearing but at the same time I

19:13 ↗ totally appreciate that if you're going

19:15 ↗ to have changes to a certain extent then

19:17 ↗ it really should come back through the

19:18 ↗ process. So

19:21 ↗ I can answer any questions if you have

19:22 ↗ any.

19:24 ↗ >> Any questions from the commission?

19:28 ↗ Thank you.

19:34 ↗ Now we'll move to the public comment

19:35 ↗ portion of the hearing. Miss Jackson,

19:37 ↗ has anyone signed up to comment on this

19:38 ↗ topic? No, chair, they have not. Is

19:42 ↗ there anyone present who would like to

19:43 ↗ comment?

19:45 ↗ Okay, we'll move on.

19:54 ↗ Commissioners, are there any objections

19:55 ↗ to closing the public hearing?

20:00 ↗ Hearing no objections, I now close the

20:02 ↗ public hearing at

20:04 ↗ 6:52 p.m.

20:08 ↗ Now, it's time to move into the

20:09 ↗ deliberation portion of the meeting. But

20:12 ↗ first, we need to make a motion. Is

20:13 ↗ there a motion on the item before the

20:15 ↗ commission?

20:19 ↗ Richard,

20:21 ↗ >> I move that the development commission

20:23 ↗ approve the site development permit

20:24 ↗ major amendment for Front Street Town

20:26 ↗ and Homes, MSPA25-00002,

20:32 ↗ as described and evaluated in the staff

20:34 ↗ report dated July 25, 2025 with exhibits

20:38 ↗ A through E subject to the conditions

20:40 ↗ therein and as amended tonight. And I

20:44 ↗ move the development commission direct

20:45 ↗ the community planning and development

20:47 ↗ department to prepare findings of fact

20:49 ↗ and conclusions for review and approval

20:51 ↗ by the development commission chairman

20:53 ↗ affirming the development commission's

20:55 ↗ decision to approve the Front Street

20:56 ↗ town homes major amendment MSPA25-00002

21:02 ↗ subject to the conditions listed in the

21:04 ↗ staff report dated July 25, 2025 with

21:08 ↗ exhibits A3 subject to the conditions

21:10 ↗ therein and as amended tonight.

21:14 ↗ Second.

21:16 ↗ >> Thank you.

21:18 ↗ Uh does anyone want to discuss or

21:20 ↗ deliberate?

21:21 ↗ >> Yes. Okay. Uh have a couple of

21:24 ↗ questions. I'm not sure whether this is

21:26 ↗ for uh staff or the applicant or both.

21:30 ↗ So in sheets A330 and A31 and the

21:34 ↗ revised the revised ones in the plan

21:37 ↗ set, it looks like there are two

21:39 ↗ different reds there on those diagrams.

21:42 ↗ Are we is it all the same red? Are we

21:44 ↗ talking about the deep red or uh on

21:47 ↗ those two? If you pull those up, I think

21:49 ↗ you'll see one's a little brighter than

21:51 ↗ the other.

21:55 ↗ Just share my screen real quick.

22:09 ↗ Could

22:12 ↗ you repeat what sheet you said?

22:13 ↗ >> Right. So it would be be A30 and A31 the

22:16 ↗ revised versions.

22:18 ↗ Either one I think shows the same thing.

22:33 ↗ >> Yeah. So that that's what I'm talking

22:34 ↗ about right there.

22:36 ↗ >> You see the red on the end there? It's

22:38 ↗ considerably brighter than the other red

22:40 ↗ down below.

22:41 ↗ >> I believe based on the material key that

22:44 ↗ it's all supposed to be the deep red.

22:46 ↗ >> Okay. So that that would it would be

22:49 ↗ more like the ones down below in the

22:51 ↗ residence. Is that true?

22:53 ↗ >> That is my understanding.

22:55 ↗ >> Okay, good. Want to check that we're

22:56 ↗ within the Oldtown Chroma range of 14 or

23:00 ↗ below. That that isn't a brighter color

23:03 ↗ than chroma 14. Is that right?

23:05 ↗ >> Correct. It's the deeper red, not not as

23:07 ↗ bright color.

23:08 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay, great. And one other

23:10 ↗ question. The new canopy over the

23:12 ↗ parking area, is that the canopy that's

23:15 ↗ used in other areas of the building?

23:18 ↗ It's steel painted black underside

23:21 ↗ cedar. Is that right?

23:26 ↗ >> Sure. I would have to pull it up if you

23:28 ↗ know what

23:30 ↗ >> it would be a metal roof. I don't know

23:32 ↗ that we thought about the underside

23:35 ↗ being sopheted, but it would be a steel

23:39 ↗ corrugated style.

23:40 ↗ >> Okay, good. So, that's what I was

23:42 ↗ wondering if we're going to have that

23:44 ↗ over parking. Is wood an acceptable

23:47 ↗ ceiling for a new parking area?

23:51 ↗ >> U the the let's see, the entire canopy

23:54 ↗ is steel.

23:55 ↗ >> Okay.

23:55 ↗ >> Structurally and roofing material.

23:58 ↗ >> Okay. So, it doesn't have cedar under it

24:00 ↗ the way it was described somewhere else

24:02 ↗ in the plans. I forget where that was.

24:03 ↗ >> I guess I couldn't answer that

24:05 ↗ specifically um without looking.

24:09 ↗ >> I believe the entryway the the entryway

24:12 ↗ canopy has a cedar in it.

24:13 ↗ >> Right. I don't

24:15 ↗ >> remember seeing that with the retail

24:17 ↗ canopy.

24:19 ↗ >> I also thought it was just steel.

24:32 ↗ Did you see in the plan set that it's

24:34 ↗ >> No, I didn't see the material of the new

24:36 ↗ one. That's why I wondered if they were

24:37 ↗ the same as the other canopy that was

24:40 ↗ over the front, you know, part of the

24:42 ↗ >> Oh, I see. on this kind of wood canopy

24:44 ↗ that's on the entryway.

24:45 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

24:46 ↗ >> That wasn't my understanding that that

24:48 ↗ was the intent for the parking.

24:50 ↗ >> Yeah, that's not the intent for the

24:52 ↗ parking canopy. It would be uh anodized

24:55 ↗ dark black or dark dark brown.

24:57 ↗ >> Good. That that answers the concern.

24:59 ↗ Yeah that's

24:59 ↗ >> Yeah, structurally and and you know and

25:02 ↗ and roofing material all

25:04 ↗ >> good. And where would that canopy drain?

25:07 ↗ Just want to make sure it's not draining

25:08 ↗ on a front street side.

25:09 ↗ >> Yeah, it'll be guttered.

25:10 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay.

25:11 ↗ >> Yeah.

25:13 ↗ >> Thank you.

25:16 ↗ >> Yeah, that's all I have.

25:19 ↗ >> Any other questions from the commission?

25:22 ↗ I just want to make a comment if that's

25:24 ↗ okay. Um, I think this is fantastic. I

25:27 ↗ truly appreciate the applicant, the

25:30 ↗ changes that you've made to this and um,

25:34 ↗ it's a much better project and I know we

25:36 ↗ struggled before and

25:38 ↗ and I think you hit it right on the

25:40 ↗ money. So, thank you very much.

25:45 ↗ >> I would jump on that and agree

25:47 ↗ completely. Thank you staff. Thank you

25:49 ↗ applicant for going back and and

25:51 ↗ studying this at the level you did. It's

25:54 ↗ it's what I would expect to see. I think

25:56 ↗ it's going to be set the tone for Front

25:58 ↗ Street which and and it it better meets

26:01 ↗ the the Oldtown guidelines and it really

26:03 ↗ sets the tone as a gateway property in

26:06 ↗ my opinion as you're as you're moving

26:07 ↗ into the Oldtown. So, I really

26:09 ↗ appreciate you looking at it and it it

26:11 ↗ turned out great. So, I look forward to

26:13 ↗ seeing it finished.

26:16 ↗ >> Agree. Thank you for hearing what we

26:18 ↗ were trying to say. And uh the brick,

26:21 ↗ the warm brick picks up beautifully with

26:23 ↗ buildings down the the street on Front

26:25 ↗ Street a little further south. And uh

26:27 ↗ yeah, all looks very good. You broke up

26:30 ↗ what you call the the marching effect on

26:32 ↗ Holly Street there. So all those are

26:34 ↗ good. Thanks.

26:37 ↗ >> I just have to comment that your project

26:38 ↗ narrative was really clear. You could

26:41 ↗ see where it was and where you what

26:43 ↗ you're proposing and made it very easy

26:45 ↗ for me. Thank you. Any

26:50 ↗ further discussion? All right,

26:54 ↗ with the deliberations concluded, it's

26:56 ↗ time for the commission to take action

26:57 ↗ on the item before us. As Richard just

27:01 ↗ read the motion, I'm not going to reread

27:05 ↗ it. No amendments. Um, is that okay with

27:08 ↗ everyone? Okay. All in favor of the main

27:11 ↗ motion say I.

27:13 ↗ >> I.

27:15 ↗ All oppose say no.

27:19 ↗ The motion is approved.

27:22 ↗ This concludes the Front Street Town

27:24 ↗ Homes major amendment. A notice of

27:26 ↗ decision will be issued by staff within

27:27 ↗ 7 days. Thank you.

28:09 ↗ All right. Now we will move on to the

28:12 ↗ next public hearing.

28:14 ↗ This is the formal public hearing for

28:15 ↗ the well 9 PFAS treatment facility site

28:18 ↗ development permit. The purpose of this

28:20 ↗ hearing is to solicit relevant public

28:22 ↗ comment and facilitate the review,

28:24 ↗ discussion, and decision on the

28:26 ↗ application by the development

28:27 ↗ commission. This is a quasi judicial

28:29 ↗ hearing. Kristen, please proceed with

28:31 ↗ our application of fairness disclosures.

28:37 ↗ So yes, we are here tonight to hold a

28:39 ↗ public hearing on PAS the well-kn

28:42 ↗ facility. Um but first we will I think I

28:45 ↗ can we've done the quasi judicial

28:48 ↗ decisions text so I will move over that

28:50 ↗ but we do have questions for the

28:52 ↗ commissioners. So with regards to the

28:53 ↗ outcome of the proceeding will there be

28:55 ↗ any prospective employment for you or

28:57 ↗ your family as a result of the decision?

29:00 ↗ Uh, do you own or control property

29:03 ↗ within 300 ft of the subject property?

29:06 ↗ Have you had any exparte communications

29:08 ↗ regarding this project?

29:15 ↗ Do you have a personal interest

29:17 ↗ financial or otherwise in the outcome?

29:20 ↗ Does your employer have an interest

29:22 ↗ financial or otherwise in the outcome?

29:25 ↗ >> Yes. Um, I I would like to um probably I

29:30 ↗ would like to recuse myself from this

29:32 ↗ one. I work for WTDs. I'm a long-term

29:34 ↗ planner for separated conveyance. So, we

29:36 ↗ interface frequently with the sewer

29:37 ↗ districts. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?

29:43 ↗ All right. Um, do you have any familial,

29:46 ↗ social, or business relationships or

29:48 ↗ connections with any of the parties or

29:49 ↗ nonparties who have an interest in the

29:51 ↗ outcome of this decision?

29:55 ↗ Sorry, I'm trying to move something from

29:56 ↗ my screen so I can see all this. Um,

30:06 ↗ there we go. Okay. Whoops.

30:12 ↗ There we go. Um, and do you have any

30:14 ↗ special knowledge about the substantive

30:17 ↗ substantiative or the merits of the

30:18 ↗ proceeding which could would or could

30:21 ↗ cause you to prejudge the outcome?

30:25 ↗ Okay. Do you believe you can sit and

30:27 ↗ hear this matter fairly and impartially

30:29 ↗ both as to the respective positions of

30:31 ↗ the proponents and the oppon opponents

30:33 ↗ of this matter?

30:35 ↗ Okay. Um, Commissioner Stanchack, you

30:37 ↗ will be able to you won't be able to

30:39 ↗ deliberate or to vote in in this

30:42 ↗ discussion.

30:45 ↗ As for the audience, do you have does

30:47 ↗ anyone in attendance wish to challenge

30:48 ↗ the participation of any of the

30:50 ↗ commissioners based on the appearance of

30:51 ↗ fairness doctrine?

30:54 ↗ No. Okay.

30:56 ↗ Thank you.

30:59 ↗ Now I open the public hearing at 7:03

31:03 ↗ p.m. First, we'll proceed with the staff

31:06 ↗ presentation. Kristen, I'll need to

31:08 ↗ swear you in. Please state your name and

31:10 ↗ position with the city for the record.

31:12 ↗ >> Kristen Leon, planning manager.

31:14 ↗ >> Do you swear by oath or affirmation that

31:16 ↗ the testimony you are about to provide

31:17 ↗ is true?

31:18 ↗ >> Yes, I do.

31:19 ↗ >> Thank you. Please proceed. Okay.

31:25 ↗ So this is the well 9 PAS facility

31:29 ↗ treatment facility. It's located at 940

31:32 ↗ 1st Avenue Northwest Northeast. It is

31:34 ↗ loc located located in a community

31:36 ↗ facilities facilities zone and it is the

31:40 ↗ land use designation is community

31:41 ↗ facilities. It requires a level four SDP

31:45 ↗ because of the size of the site which is

31:46 ↗ over an acre.

31:49 ↗ It is a non-conforming utility. However,

31:51 ↗ they are able to expand if or um extend

31:54 ↗ it the utilities if they meet all three

31:57 ↗ of the conditions which are they won't

31:59 ↗ result in adverse consequences with

32:01 ↗ adjacent properties or persons near the

32:03 ↗ properties. It is reasonably necessary

32:06 ↗ to provide improved services in the area

32:08 ↗ and all facilities on the site must use

32:10 ↗ appropriate screening which includes

32:12 ↗ landscaping.

32:16 ↗ So they propose to demolish the existing

32:18 ↗ facility and then the new facility will

32:20 ↗ remove substances from water that is

32:23 ↗ produced from wells seven, eight and

32:25 ↗ nine and then they will house a

32:28 ↗ treatment treatment equipment,

32:29 ↗ electrical equipment, HVAC and one

32:31 ↗ bathroom.

32:34 ↗ They propose to modify the existing

32:36 ↗ on-site water manes to extend the system

32:38 ↗ that they already have, to install an

32:40 ↗ 80,000galon

32:42 ↗ backwash tank, to add landscaping and

32:45 ↗ additional frontage improvements on um 1

32:48 ↗ Avenue Northeast, and to add a new

32:50 ↗ transformer and underground. They will

32:53 ↗ underground the existing utilities that

32:55 ↗ are currently overhead.

32:59 ↗ This is a unique site and that they are

33:01 ↗ not necessarily required to meet all of

33:05 ↗ the conditions because this is not a

33:06 ↗ site that we want to be open to the

33:08 ↗ public. We don't want to invite the

33:09 ↗ public to want to look in the windows.

33:11 ↗ You don't want it to be right on the

33:12 ↗ street because you don't want people

33:14 ↗ near it. Um we want to protect this

33:16 ↗ site. So it's a little different than

33:17 ↗ everything else. However, um they are

33:19 ↗ asked to comply to the best extent

33:21 ↗ possible. And so they have they include

33:24 ↗ clear story windows and a roof. They

33:26 ↗ chose a natural palette, although they

33:28 ↗ do have pops of color. Um, they have

33:31 ↗ varied roof heights and they include

33:33 ↗ modulation. What they do not include is

33:35 ↗ weatherproofing over the entries to the

33:37 ↗ doors or the entryways.

33:40 ↗ So, deviations and conditions of note

33:42 ↗ with this project are that they are only

33:45 ↗ allowed to have this is tier 2 parking.

33:47 ↗ They are only allowed to have they have

33:48 ↗ a maximum of five spaces. They are

33:50 ↗ proposing six. So one of the conditions

33:52 ↗ is that they need to remove one of the

33:55 ↗ spaces and this would be done at

33:56 ↗ construction phase. Building design they

33:59 ↗ have not as I mentioned they have not

34:01 ↗ proposed weather protection over the

34:02 ↗ entryway. So one another condition is

34:04 ↗ that they would be required to include

34:05 ↗ that with the construction permits. And

34:08 ↗ lastly they asked for a deviation. The

34:10 ↗ deviation is to not include the 5-ft

34:13 ↗ bike lane. They are proposing to do 5ft

34:15 ↗ sidewalk 5ft landscape strip curb and

34:17 ↗ cutter and an 11oot lane. However,

34:20 ↗ because the Isiqua Preston Trail is

34:22 ↗ directly across the street, um they

34:24 ↗ don't feel the need to include a bike

34:26 ↗ lane here. And the city city approved

34:28 ↗ this one.

34:30 ↗ So, DC uh the development commission has

34:33 ↗ some options. You can either approve as

34:35 ↗ proposed as recommended by the staff,

34:37 ↗ approve with revised and or additional

34:39 ↗ conditions, or you can deny the permit.

34:42 ↗ And that's all I have. You have any

34:44 ↗ questions?

34:50 ↗ And thankfully some of these questions I

34:52 ↗ have the specialists here so the

34:55 ↗ applicants may be able to answer some

34:57 ↗ later.

34:59 ↗ >> Richard,

35:01 ↗ >> I guess this is an appropriate one on

35:03 ↗ condition four.

35:05 ↗ Um,

35:07 ↗ in in the staff report, condition four

35:10 ↗ says on-site light color temperatures

35:13 ↗ must be 4,000K.

35:16 ↗ Uh, but elsewhere in the staff report on

35:19 ↗ page 8, it says maximum color

35:22 ↗ temperature for lights on site must be

35:24 ↗ 30,000K.

35:28 ↗ >> Okay.

35:28 ↗ >> So, I'm wondering which that is. It

35:31 ↗ looks like right of way must be 4,000

35:34 ↗ but onsite

35:36 ↗ 3,000.

35:39 ↗ >> I'm gonna look. Are you able to address

35:42 ↗ that or not? Not not at this time, but

35:45 ↗ when you come up, can you address that

35:47 ↗ one?

35:47 ↗ >> Yeah.

35:48 ↗ >> Okay.

35:48 ↗ >> Okay. Good. I'll just hold that because

35:50 ↗ I have another one for the applicant on

35:52 ↗ that. Yes.

35:52 ↗ >> All right. Thank you.

35:58 ↗ >> Thank you. We'll move on to the app. Oh,

36:00 ↗ more questions.

36:04 ↗ >> I guess I guess I had one question. The

36:06 ↗ when I looked through the staff report,

36:08 ↗ the if do I have it correctly that the

36:11 ↗ conditions are on page 15, they're

36:14 ↗ listed as like footnotes.

36:16 ↗ >> They are they look like footnotes, but

36:17 ↗ those are the conditions. Yes.

36:19 ↗ >> Okay. I'm curious why the change in sort

36:21 ↗ of format of

36:22 ↗ >> this is one of those things we're trying

36:24 ↗ to fix. It was caught at the very end

36:25 ↗ and we're trying to make everything the

36:28 ↗ same now, but this one was missed.

36:29 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

36:38 ↗ >> Any other questions for staff? Okay, we

36:41 ↗ will move on to the applicants

36:43 ↗ presentation.

36:51 ↗ I have it up there.

36:56 ↗ There you go.

37:00 ↗ Maybe. There we go.

37:10 ↗ So, I will need to swear you in. Please

37:12 ↗ state your name for the record.

37:14 ↗ >> Alex Capron. Do you swear by oath or

37:17 ↗ affirmation that the testimony you're

37:18 ↗ about to provide is true?

37:20 ↗ >> I do.

37:21 ↗ >> Thank you. Please proceed.

37:22 ↗ >> All right. Uh yeah, thank you

37:24 ↗ development commission for having me

37:26 ↗ here tonight. U I am joined with a um a

37:30 ↗ big team. Um some of which are online,

37:33 ↗ some of which here in person. I have uh

37:36 ↗ Kyle Wong U engineering manager with

37:39 ↗ Seamish Plateau Water as well as Jay

37:41 ↗ Krauss, general manager here in person.

37:43 ↗ Uh, also with me tonight are uh Lynn

37:47 ↗ Stevens uh virtually. She is the uh

37:50 ↗ design lead with Brown and Caldwell as

37:52 ↗ well as uh Greg Summers with uh Wagner

37:55 ↗ Architects I believe. And then uh last

37:58 ↗ but not least, the project manager for

38:00 ↗ some Amish Plateau Water, Jim

38:02 ↗ Coningsfeld, is also in attendance

38:04 ↗ virtually. Um

38:07 ↗ and uh yeah, so I'm I'm with uh Facet.

38:10 ↗ So as as support we provided um planning

38:14 ↗ planning guidance as well as landscape

38:17 ↗ architecture and and critical areas

38:19 ↗ support for the project. So um yeah as

38:22 ↗ Kristen mentioned uh this is a a a

38:26 ↗ proposed new uh PAS treatment facility

38:29 ↗ um that is in fact colllocated with the

38:32 ↗ existing well 9 corrosion control

38:34 ↗ facility. So just wanted to make that uh

38:37 ↗ clarification. So that building um will

38:40 ↗ be retained uh but uh the site with lies

38:44 ↗ within the community facilities zone and

38:47 ↗ follows development standards for the

38:49 ↗ intensive commercial zone. Uh, the

38:52 ↗ facility will house up to eight 12-ft

38:54 ↗ diameter granule activated carbon

38:57 ↗ pressure vessels in a 5,357

39:01 ↗ square ft building with a net floor area

39:04 ↗ of 4,890

39:06 ↗ square ft. Um, yeah, here and I have the

39:11 ↗ see

39:13 ↗ if I can There we go.

39:17 ↗ So, we've got the site plan there. Um so

39:20 ↗ this is going to be an unoccupied

39:23 ↗ um unoccupied um building. So it is a

39:28 ↗ factory industrial occupancy uh with

39:31 ↗ site access limited to one or two

39:32 ↗ vehicles per week for routine operations

39:35 ↗ and maintenance and uh no increase in

39:38 ↗ current traffic over existing

39:39 ↗ conditions.

39:41 ↗ The site uh currently supports chemical

39:43 ↗ feed systems for water treatment, backup

39:46 ↗ power, and major transmission

39:48 ↗ infrastructure that blends groundwater

39:50 ↗ with regional supply and conveys it to

39:53 ↗ the district's distribution system. So,

39:56 ↗ in terms of building design, as as

39:57 ↗ Kristen mentioned, um the treatment

40:00 ↗ facility incorporates a neutral color

40:02 ↗ palette featuring gray and brown for

40:04 ↗ sighting and metal roofing, complemented

40:06 ↗ by blue and tan accent colors on the pop

40:09 ↗ out walls as shown in exhibit G. Uh the

40:12 ↗ main doors will include weather

40:14 ↗ protection as shown in the recently

40:17 ↗ submitted building permit. So this

40:19 ↗ development is classified as a minor U

40:22 ↗ utility facility under IMC 18.102.250

40:28 ↗ and the fully enclosed structure will

40:30 ↗ not exceed 40 ft in height above the exa

40:33 ↗ existing or the average existing grade.

40:36 ↗ And then architectural features include

40:38 ↗ a clear story roof with slopes of 3 and

40:41 ↗ 1 half over 12 on the south end and 1

40:44 ↗ over 12 on the north. Um and then

40:48 ↗ highlighted by an approximately 4 foot

40:50 ↗ high clear story windows and two pop

40:53 ↗ outs on both the north and south

40:55 ↗ elevations adding visual interest while

40:57 ↗ maintaining functional design. So in

41:00 ↗ terms of critical areas for this site,

41:02 ↗ the project is in a designated critical

41:04 ↗ aquifer recharge area because of the of

41:07 ↗ the district's groundwater wells are on

41:10 ↗ site. a uh man-made storm water

41:14 ↗ detention pond that is not regulated as

41:16 ↗ a wetland under IMC18.802.200

41:22 ↗ is confirmed by the US Army Corps of

41:24 ↗ Engineers and their jurisdictional

41:26 ↗ determination. There's also an off-site

41:28 ↗ stream buffer, but it is separated from

41:31 ↗ the project area by an existing paved

41:33 ↗ right of way and that does qualify as a

41:36 ↗ for a stream buffer reduction under

41:38 ↗ IMC18.82.3.

41:40 ↗ 802.330

41:42 ↗ subsection K uh rendering the buffer

41:46 ↗ inappable to the site as confirmed by

41:48 ↗ the city's third party consultant ESA.

41:51 ↗ So there are no uh regulated streams or

41:54 ↗ stream buffers directly on the project

41:56 ↗ site. In terms of uh landscape

41:59 ↗ requirements, the proposed preliminary

42:01 ↗ landscape plan uh does include uh 26

42:06 ↗ native replacement trees that will

42:07 ↗ exceed the existing tree canopy lost in

42:10 ↗ this project as a result of the PAS

42:13 ↗ treatment facility. All plant species

42:16 ↗ are selected from King County's native

42:18 ↗ plant guide and city's preferred tree

42:20 ↗ list. tree shrubs and meet uh spacing

42:24 ↗ and sizing standards under chapter

42:28 ↗ 18.606 IMC with a minimum 50% evergreen

42:32 ↗ vegetation used for required visual

42:35 ↗ screening. Uh the street trees are

42:37 ↗ selected and located in accordance with

42:39 ↗ city standards and existing site

42:42 ↗ constraints as utilities will be placed

42:44 ↗ underground and a modular wetland will

42:46 ↗ be placed in the planter strip frontage

42:49 ↗ for improved storm water filtration. And

42:51 ↗ I've got

42:54 ↗ there and then um yeah, in some we do uh

42:57 ↗ support the city's recommendation of

42:59 ↗ this site development permit. Uh yeah,

43:02 ↗ as well as the conditions of approval

43:03 ↗ listed within the city staff report. And

43:05 ↗ I do want to uh hit on that lighting

43:08 ↗ question as well. So we do acknowledge

43:11 ↗ that the site lighting requirements are

43:14 ↗ 3,000 degrees uh Kelvin. So that is a

43:18 ↗ thousand degrees under the uh typical

43:20 ↗ standard for on-site lighting

43:22 ↗ requirements. Um however, we do our or

43:26 ↗ the project team's electrical engineer

43:28 ↗ can address this um yeah slightly warmer

43:32 ↗ tone in lighting um with with a light

43:35 ↗ fixture change under the building

43:37 ↗ permit.

43:39 ↗ So yeah, with that

43:44 ↗ any uh any questions?

43:47 ↗ Wanted to follow up on the lighting

43:49 ↗ issue. So um I think in

43:54 ↗ in the project narrative

43:57 ↗ uh regarding the lighting, it says

43:59 ↗ building mounted LED lights will be

44:00 ↗ downward facing with a maximum 30k color

44:04 ↗ temperature.

44:05 ↗ What does that mean? Is that 3,000

44:07 ↗ Kelvin or is that what is the 30K is

44:10 ↗ that lumens or what does it refer to?

44:13 ↗ >> Yeah, I just in in looking at that a

44:16 ↗ little bit further. I I believe it has

44:18 ↗ to do with the the warmth and the

44:21 ↗ appearance of of lighting. Um well if

44:24 ↗ you have

44:27 ↗ >> yeah I guess my hope is that we're going

44:28 ↗ to refer use the same term for all this

44:31 ↗ uh and 3000K it seems to be the

44:34 ↗ requirement to me and uh at least staff

44:37 ↗ reports

44:39 ↗ that that uh for on-site lighting must

44:42 ↗ be 30k

44:44 ↗ uh maximum. So,

44:51 ↗ >> I guess I'm I'm confused because the

44:53 ↗ condition says 4,000.

44:55 ↗ >> Is that what you're Okay.

44:57 ↗ >> Yeah, I'm questioning that together with

44:58 ↗ the reference to the uh lay temperature

45:01 ↗ as 30K in in uh the applicant's report.

45:06 ↗ So, I'm looking for a consistent way of

45:09 ↗ referring to the lighting temperature.

45:17 ↗ Yeah. And I believe the the code um

45:20 ↗ under 18 is it 60

45:25 ↗ 61060

45:26 ↗ does mention uh yeah 3000 degrees

45:30 ↗ Kelvin. So we're fine with that.

45:31 ↗ >> Okay.

45:32 ↗ >> Um change in the condition.

45:33 ↗ >> Okay. Good. Thanks.

45:36 ↗ >> And I think we'll probably have to have

45:38 ↗ an amendment to that condition later on,

45:39 ↗ but I'll wait on that. Any

45:45 ↗ other questions for the applicant?

45:49 ↗ >> I just need to be educated a little bit

45:51 ↗ with the PAS. So the back the back wash

45:54 ↗ supply tank storage tanks, they'll be

45:58 ↗ full of PAS material. Correct.

46:03 ↗ >> No.

46:06 ↗ >> Oh yeah.

46:12 ↗ Yeah.

46:16 ↗ >> Uh, I am Kyle Wong with the Samage

46:19 ↗ Plateau Water In District.

46:24 ↗ >> Do you swear by oath or affirmation that

46:26 ↗ the testimony you're about to provide is

46:28 ↗ true?

46:28 ↗ >> Yes.

46:29 ↗ >> Thank you.

46:30 ↗ >> So, no, the backwash tank uh would just

46:32 ↗ be backwash water.

46:33 ↗ >> Oh,

46:34 ↗ >> correct.

46:35 ↗ >> Where where is the um PAS contain? you

46:38 ↗ know once you do the the cleansing or

46:40 ↗ filtering is it the activated carbon

46:42 ↗ that will have

46:44 ↗ >> we'll have the PAS

46:45 ↗ >> and then that's how is that handled when

46:47 ↗ you gather it and take it away to be

46:50 ↗ treated or or disposed of.

46:52 ↗ >> Yeah. So then the spent activated carbon

46:55 ↗ will then be um taken away like you said

46:58 ↗ and then disposed of offsite. So there

47:00 ↗ there's the only concern I the concern I

47:02 ↗ had was since there's a wetlands and and

47:06 ↗ critical areas that were not likely to

47:09 ↗ have a spill

47:11 ↗ and and I I don't know how the how you

47:14 ↗ would is it just in bags or totes that

47:16 ↗ you would take the activated the spat

47:18 ↗ activated carbon and take it away.

47:20 ↗ >> It would my understanding is it would be

47:22 ↗ trucked away in big containers.

47:25 ↗ >> Okay.

47:25 ↗ >> Yeah.

47:26 ↗ >> And the other question is how long is

47:27 ↗ construction? You do you think

47:29 ↗ >> how long is construction?

47:30 ↗ >> Yeah, a year and a half.

47:31 ↗ >> Uh it's about two years.

47:32 ↗ >> Two years.

47:36 ↗ >> Thanks.

47:41 ↗ >> Any other questions for the applicant?

47:44 ↗ >> Thank you. Oh, Richard,

47:46 ↗ >> picking up on Commissioner Kada's point.

47:48 ↗ So, sodium hydroxide is used in this

47:52 ↗ process. Is that right?

47:55 ↗ or the POS.

47:58 ↗ >> Yes,

48:00 ↗ >> that I no it's it's not

48:03 ↗ >> okay. So I I believe I saw in the

48:06 ↗ statement the chemicals used in PAS

48:08 ↗ treatment are sodium hydroxide for pH

48:10 ↗ adjustment, a sodium hypocchlorite for

48:12 ↗ disinfection and a fluoride.

48:18 ↗ Yes, I mean you are correct there but

48:21 ↗ not for the POS removal because in those

48:24 ↗ tanks it's just a granulated activated

48:27 ↗ carbon.

48:27 ↗ >> Okay, so sodium hydroxide that's a

48:29 ↗ pretty corrosive material. I I think

48:31 ↗ that's probably a hazardous material. So

48:34 ↗ similar question. How is it being

48:37 ↗ transported and transmitted around the

48:39 ↗ site?

48:42 ↗ >> I don't have the answer for you right

48:43 ↗ there. I can give I can give staff the

48:45 ↗ answers once I talk to the to our

48:48 ↗ operation staff.

48:50 ↗ >> Okay. I guess I have the same concern as

48:52 ↗ Commissioner Kada about transportation

48:55 ↗ transmission of these materials right

48:57 ↗ around the north fork of creek.

49:03 ↗ The hazardous materials are not stored

49:05 ↗ on site. Is that correct?

49:08 ↗ >> To my understanding, no.

49:11 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

49:13 ↗ So the question um related to staff on

49:16 ↗ this. So the the project is reviewed by

49:18 ↗ East Side Fire and they're they'll look

49:22 ↗ at it from a hazardous materials

49:23 ↗ management and permitting standpoint

49:26 ↗ where necessary. Is that typical as part

49:28 ↗ of the review?

49:30 ↗ >> Correct. I was just about to bring that

49:32 ↗ up is that we're looking at the site

49:34 ↗ plan itself, but it does go through

49:35 ↗ another review for construction. And

49:37 ↗ yes, fire looks at it, building looks at

49:38 ↗ it. there are all sorts of um

49:41 ↗ regulations in place that would um

49:44 ↗ manage that.

49:46 ↗ >> Thank you.

49:49 ↗ >> Any other questions?

49:52 ↗ >> All right. Thank you.

49:54 ↗ >> So, just real quick, um I just got a

49:57 ↗ word from Jim who's online that the

49:59 ↗ costics uh is trucked in is transported

50:03 ↗ via a truck.

50:09 ↗ Thank you.

50:13 ↗ Now we'll move into the public comment

50:15 ↗ portion of the hearing. Miss Jackson,

50:17 ↗ has anyone signed up to comment on this

50:18 ↗ topic?

50:20 ↗ No, they have not. And would anybody

50:22 ↗ present in person like to comment?

50:26 ↗ Okay, moving on.

50:31 ↗ Commissioners, are there any objections

50:33 ↗ to closing the public hearing? Hearing

50:37 ↗ no objections, I now close the public

50:38 ↗ hearing at 7:24 p.m.

50:45 ↗ Now it's time to move into the

50:46 ↗ deliberation portion of the meeting. But

50:48 ↗ first, we need to make a motion. Is

50:50 ↗ there a motion on the item before the

50:52 ↗ commission?

50:53 ↗ Madam Chair, I move that the development

50:55 ↗ commission approve the site development

50:57 ↗ permit for well 9 PAS treatment facility

51:01 ↗ SDP24-000015

51:06 ↗ as described and evaluated in the staff

51:08 ↗ report dated July 22, 2025

51:12 ↗ with exhibits A through T subject to the

51:15 ↗ conditions therein and as possibly

51:17 ↗ amended tonight. And I move that the

51:20 ↗ development commission direct the

51:21 ↗ community planning and development

51:23 ↗ department to prepare findings of fact

51:25 ↗ and conclusions for review and approval

51:28 ↗ by the development commission chair

51:30 ↗ affirming the development commission's

51:32 ↗ decision to approve the site development

51:34 ↗ permit for well 9 PAS treatment facility

51:37 ↗ SDP24-000015

51:41 ↗ subject to the conditions listed in the

51:43 ↗ staff report dated July 22,

51:47 ↗ 2025 with exhibit A through T subject to

51:50 ↗ the conditions that

51:54 ↗ >> second.

51:55 ↗ >> Thank you.

51:57 ↗ And now discussion.

52:00 ↗ Are there any amendments proposed?

52:05 ↗ >> Chair, I'd like to propose and uh move

52:07 ↗ an amendment uh to condition four uh to

52:11 ↗ read as follows. A lighting photometric

52:14 ↗ plan shall be provided for the project

52:16 ↗ site and right-of-way lighting. The

52:17 ↗ lighting level shall comply with chapter

52:20 ↗ 18.610 IMC outdoor lighting and provide

52:23 ↗ an adequate amount of illumination for

52:25 ↗ the intended use. Period. On-site light

52:28 ↗ color temperatures must be 3000K.

52:31 ↗ Period. Compliance with the outdoor

52:33 ↗ lighting code will be reviewed with

52:35 ↗ construction permits.

52:38 ↗ >> Is there a second for that amendment?

52:39 ↗ >> Second.

52:40 ↗ >> Thank you.

52:42 ↗ >> I have one question about the amendment.

52:44 ↗ Um, so we're we specify 3,000. Does the

52:48 ↗ code say it has to be 3,000 exactly or

52:50 ↗ no higher than 3,000?

52:56 ↗ >> Guess it's 2700.

52:57 ↗ >> It says maximum 3,000.

53:01 ↗ >> I guess we want to.

53:06 ↗ >> So I'd like to change that sentence then

53:08 ↗ in the amendment to on-site light color

53:10 ↗ temperatures must be a maximum of 3000K.

53:13 ↗ period.

53:16 ↗ >> Is there a second for that?

53:17 ↗ >> There's a second we read.

53:19 ↗ >> Second.

53:20 ↗ >> Thank you.

53:23 ↗ >> Any Madam Chair, can we handle that?

53:25 ↗ It's just a friendly amendment. Um, so

53:28 ↗ we don't have to vote on adding Max in

53:30 ↗ there.

53:31 ↗ >> Yeah.

53:35 ↗ >> Okay. Are there any further discussions

53:36 ↗ or deliberations?

53:39 ↗ Just on again on the um proposed

53:42 ↗ amendment to

53:44 ↗ item number or condition number four,

53:47 ↗ the that maximum 3,000 K would be onsite

53:53 ↗ and then it's 4,000K for offsite

53:55 ↗ lighting. Is that

53:58 ↗ correct?

54:02 ↗ >> That's the code requirement. Correct.

54:09 ↗ Is there off-site lighting proposed?

54:14 ↗ They were actually referring I think the

54:15 ↗ phrase was was right of way lighting.

54:20 ↗ >> Yeah. So the right of way lighting will

54:32 ↗ >> so we need to make sure that condition

54:34 ↗ is also clear about the offsite.

54:37 ↗ >> Well, if the code is 4,000 and the

54:40 ↗ amendment states onsite

54:43 ↗ 30,000,

54:46 ↗ will that cover it?

54:49 ↗ >> Is it with

54:51 ↗ Emily.

54:53 ↗ >> Uh, the condition just specifies that

54:55 ↗ on-site lighting color temperatures must

54:57 ↗ be 3,000, which commissioners have ch or

54:59 ↗ 4,000, which commissioners have changed

55:00 ↗ to 3,000. The rightaway lighting being

55:03 ↗ limited to 4,000 is in code. So, that

55:05 ↗ will be um you don't have to condition

55:07 ↗ it. It will be uh reviewed by us when it

55:09 ↗ comes in for construction. Thank

55:11 ↗ >> Thank you for that clarification.

55:17 ↗ >> Any further discussion?

55:22 ↗ All right. Thank you.

55:25 ↗ Um, do I need to restate the U

55:29 ↗ amendment,

55:32 ↗ >> Kristen?

55:33 ↗ >> Do I need to restate the amendment?

55:36 ↗ >> Yes, please.

55:38 ↗ >> Okay.

55:38 ↗ >> Okay. Why restate this? Clarify it.

55:41 ↗ Okay. Sure. I think this is what we've

55:42 ↗ arrived at on this one. Condition four,

55:44 ↗ a lighting phototric plan shall be

55:46 ↗ provided for the project site and

55:48 ↗ rightway lighting. The lighting level

55:50 ↗ shall comply with chapter 18.610 IMC

55:53 ↗ outdoor lighting and provide an adequate

55:55 ↗ amount of illumination for the intended

55:57 ↗ use. Period. On-site light color

56:00 ↗ temperatures must be a maximum of 3000K.

56:03 ↗ Period. Compliance with the outdoor

56:05 ↗ lighting code will be reviewed with

56:06 ↗ construction permits.

56:09 ↗ >> Thank you.

56:10 ↗ With the deliberation concluded, it's

56:12 ↗ time for the commission to take action

56:14 ↗ on the item before us.

56:16 ↗ All in favor of the main motion.

56:18 ↗ >> Madam Chair, yes. I think we'd have to

56:21 ↗ act on the amended.

56:23 ↗ >> Oh, okay.

56:24 ↗ >> Amendment first and then take on first.

56:27 ↗ >> All right. So, take action on the

56:30 ↗ amendment.

56:31 ↗ All in favor, please say I.

56:34 ↗ >> I.

56:36 ↗ >> All opposed, say no.

56:40 ↗ The amendment is approved

56:43 ↗ and now we will um

56:48 ↗ take action on the main motion. Okay.

56:52 ↗ All in favor of the main motion say I.

56:55 ↗ >> I.

56:56 ↗ >> I.

56:57 ↗ >> All oppose say no.

57:00 ↗ >> The motion is approved.

57:03 ↗ This concludes the well 9 PFAS treatment

57:06 ↗ facility site development permit. A

57:08 ↗ notice of decision will be issued by

57:10 ↗ staff within seven days.

57:16 ↗ >> Thank you,

57:17 ↗ >> Madam Chair. Real quick, just a quick

57:19 ↗ comment to the the team on this last um

57:22 ↗ application. Um really appreciated the

57:25 ↗ comprehensive information that you

57:26 ↗ provided us and the thorough discussion

57:28 ↗ in the narratives and other attachments.

57:32 ↗ So both staff and and the designer team

57:34 ↗ from uh Seamish Water and Sewer um

57:37 ↗ outstanding job. So really appreciated

57:38 ↗ that great work and and your responses

57:40 ↗ to our questions. So thank you very

57:42 ↗ much.

57:52 ↗ >> All right. Thank you. Um now on to

57:55 ↗ general business. Does staff have any uh

57:58 ↗ city council updates for the commission?

58:01 ↗ I wanted to let you know that on July

58:04 ↗ 21st the

58:07 ↗ contract between the city and King

58:09 ↗ County Housing Authority approving

58:11 ↗ deviations from the code was approved.

58:14 ↗ And so now the site development permit,

58:18 ↗ it's already been through, it's been

58:19 ↗ through one initial round of review. It

58:22 ↗ will go through another one now that the

58:23 ↗ contract has been approved. And that

58:26 ↗ will be coming to you in the future. I'm

58:29 ↗ not sure when. Um, that's the only

58:30 ↗ council amendment I have.

58:32 ↗ >> Thank you. Any other business or

58:34 ↗ announcements?

58:35 ↗ >> I just Yes. I just wanted to remind you

58:38 ↗ that on absences,

58:41 ↗ um, we're having pretty regularly

58:43 ↗ scheduled meetings right now and we will

58:45 ↗ have one on September 3rd. We will have

58:47 ↗ one likely in October, but I'm not sure

58:49 ↗ of the date yet. Um, at any rate, I'm

58:54 ↗ uh according to the rules and

58:55 ↗ regulations, I need to know at least

58:56 ↗ within 5 days prior to the meeting that

58:59 ↗ you will be absent. We all know things

59:01 ↗ come up. There are emergencies, kids get

59:03 ↗ sick, that sort of thing. Um, but I need

59:06 ↗ to know 5 days prior to the meeting if

59:08 ↗ you're not going to be here in order for

59:09 ↗ it to be excused with those exceptions,

59:12 ↗ please. Thank you.

59:14 ↗ >> Thank you. Thank you to the staff and

59:17 ↗ the applicants tonight. and members of

59:20 ↗ the public who attended. There being no

59:23 ↗ further business before the commission,

59:25 ↗ I adjourn the meeting at 7:32 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 (7)

Shore

Vice-Chair Ikeda

Commissioners Brennan

Morgan

Price

Sanford

Stanchak

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Emily Medina, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of June 11, 2025