Development Commission · Wednesday, May 6, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of November 19, 2025

packet pp.5–11

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Wednesday, November 19, 2025

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Site Development Permit Application for The Trailhead Apartments, Quasi- Judicial (A)

Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Application No.: PRJ24-00020, SDP25- Location: 1550 Newport Way NW Parcel: 2924069002 Applicant: Nicole Winn, Weber Thompson Architects Description: Site Development Permit The proposed development includes an east- Public Hearing Order: · packet pp.13–2381

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jul 21, 2025

Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

STAFF REPORT Site Development Permit File No PRJ24-00020 / SDP25-00002 May 6, 2026

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Chair & Vice Chair Elections

Action · Emily Medina, Senior Planner · packet pp.2383–2384

Open packet at p.2383 ↗

Staff report:

Community Planning & Development P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3450 issaquahwa.gov

6. REPORTS

City Council Update

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.2385

▶ Watch from 1:29:21 Open packet at p.2385 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission 2026 Schedule (subject to change)

2128 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ And will they signal?

0:03 ↗ >> Arsen, we're ready to go.

0:12 ↗ >> Okay. Good evening and welcome. Um, as

0:15 ↗ the development commission's chair and

0:16 ↗ vice chair are absent, I as the staff

0:18 ↗ liazison would like to call the May 6

0:20 ↗ city of Isiziqua Development Commission

0:22 ↗ meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. As a

0:26 ↗ reminder, we have a remote aspect to our

0:28 ↗ meetings. This means both staff and

0:30 ↗ members of the public may be

0:31 ↗ participating in the meeting remotely

0:33 ↗ via WebEx. For those attending remotely,

0:35 ↗ if you have questions or issues, please

0:37 ↗ send the host a chat message or email me

0:40 ↗ at emilymedisquawa.gov.

0:44 ↗ Excused absence for this meeting is

0:46 ↗ chair shore and vice chair Akita.

0:48 ↗ Alternate member Mayo is filling in this

0:50 ↗ evening as a regular member. Welcome,

0:52 ↗ Commissioner Mayo. Um as the

0:54 ↗ commissioner commission chair and vice

0:56 ↗ chair absent the commission members pre

0:58 ↗ present shall elect a temporary chair

1:00 ↗ who shall have full powers of the

1:02 ↗ position for this meeting only.

1:05 ↗ Please note an alternate member cannot

1:06 ↗ be selected per commission rules. First

1:09 ↗ I will take nominations for the

1:10 ↗ temporary chair. If only one person is

1:12 ↗ nominated a vote is not necessary. If

1:14 ↗ more than one person is nominated we

1:16 ↗ will put it to a vote. Uh can a

1:18 ↗ commissioner please put forth a

1:20 ↗ nomination? I put forth forth

1:23 ↗ Commissioner Morgan as uh temporary

1:26 ↗ chair for this evening's meeting.

1:28 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Brennan. Any

1:29 ↗ objections or other nominations?

1:34 ↗ Great. Hearing none, Commissioner Morgan

1:36 ↗ will be our temporary chair for this

1:37 ↗ evening and I will pass the meeting over

1:39 ↗ to him. Thank you.

1:41 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Emily. Um, first item

1:44 ↗ in business for us tonight now is

1:47 ↗ approval minutes uh to take action um on

1:51 ↗ the meeting minutes from November 19th,

1:53 ↗ 2025.

1:55 ↗ It's been a minute. Uh I hope everyone's

1:58 ↗ had an opportunity to review the

2:00 ↗ minutes. Are there any corrections to

2:02 ↗ the November 19th minutes provided in

2:04 ↗ the agenda packet?

2:06 ↗ >> Mr. Chair, um there is an amendment that

2:09 ↗ I'd like to propose here. Um

2:14 ↗ the vice chair Iikita was attendant in

2:16 ↗ attendance at the last meeting and the

2:18 ↗ minutes do not reflect that. So I'd make

2:21 ↗ a motion to amend the minutes to add uh

2:24 ↗ vice chair Aikita as commissioners that

2:26 ↗ were present.

2:28 ↗ Thank you. There a second.

2:31 ↗ >> Second.

2:33 ↗ >> Any questions, comments? Hearing none.

2:36 ↗ All in favor say I. I. I.

2:38 ↗ >> I.

2:40 ↗ Motion carries.

2:43 ↗ Now take a motion on the main.

2:48 ↗ >> Mr. Chair, I move approval of the

2:50 ↗ meeting minutes from the Wednesday,

2:53 ↗ November 19th, 2025 meeting.

2:55 ↗ >> As amended.

2:56 ↗ >> As amended.

2:57 ↗ >> Thank you. We have a second.

2:59 ↗ >> Second.

3:00 ↗ >> Thank you. All in favor?

3:03 ↗ >> I.

3:04 ↗ >> No oppos. Meetings are approved. Thank

3:07 ↗ you.

3:09 ↗ Uh, next I would like to open the floor

3:12 ↗ for any members of the public in person

3:14 ↗ or virtually who would like to make a

3:16 ↗ general comment.

3:18 ↗ There will be a public hearing later in

3:19 ↗ the meeting for those who would like to

3:21 ↗ comment on the Trail Head Apartments

3:22 ↗ project. Miss Jackson, has anyone signed

3:25 ↗ up to make general public comments?

3:28 ↗ >> No, chair, they have not.

3:29 ↗ >> Thank you.

3:33 ↗ Anyone

3:36 ↗ else from the room

3:39 ↗ like to make general comments?

3:56 ↗ Oh, my name is Geraldine Kerry and my

4:00 ↗ address is 955 17th Place Northwest

4:03 ↗ Isakqua. I've been coming to these

4:05 ↗ meetings since I moved here in 1970

4:09 ↗ 1980. So, I've been around a long time,

4:12 ↗ seen a lot of faces, and I'm here to

4:15 ↗ address um the trail heads uh building

4:19 ↗ development that is

4:22 ↗ going to be presented today. And I'm a

4:24 ↗ little bit nervous because I went on the

4:26 ↗ website and saw that there were two

4:28 ↗ buildings. So, I'm I was planning to

4:30 ↗ address the two buildings that are to be

4:33 ↗ developed. And I just now found out that

4:35 ↗ there's only one the north building

4:38 ↗ that's going to be addressed tonight.

4:41 ↗ But uh my concern is I'm really

4:45 ↗ want an input on and answers from the

4:48 ↗ city on parking. I think that's a major

4:51 ↗ issue in any development. And I think

4:54 ↗ when you have a lot of people moving in,

4:57 ↗ you need to provide parking. Not just a

4:59 ↗ place for them to live, but a place for

5:01 ↗ them to park. because if you don't

5:04 ↗ provide parking, it's going to influence

5:06 ↗ all the other people who are around in

5:09 ↗ the area. So, um I just want to make

5:13 ↗ sure and my questions are

5:17 ↗ if um the units don't have enough

5:22 ↗ parking places, where will these people

5:25 ↗ park? Will they park on the street? Will

5:27 ↗ they park on private property? and who

5:29 ↗ will enforce their parking when when um

5:33 ↗ they're using somebody else's space. My

5:37 ↗ main concern, not my main concern, but

5:39 ↗ I'm interested to know if these

5:42 ↗ um houses or apartments will have

5:45 ↗ assigned parking because if they have

5:47 ↗ assigned parking,

5:49 ↗ then it seems like um it would eliminate

5:54 ↗ some of the the confusion about where

5:56 ↗ people are going to park. But um I think

5:59 ↗ you need to seriously think about making

6:02 ↗ enough parking requirements so that the

6:05 ↗ whole neighborhood is not traumatized by

6:08 ↗ cars parking in their properties. Thank

6:10 ↗ you.

6:12 ↗ >> Thank you, Miss Carrie.

6:15 ↗ Are there any other comments from the

6:17 ↗ public?

6:19 ↗ General comments?

6:22 ↗ Hearing none, we'll move to the next

6:24 ↗ part of our meeting, which is the public

6:26 ↗ hearing. Uh for the agenda item uh it's

6:30 ↗ a preddecision open record public

6:32 ↗ hearing. The order of operation for this

6:34 ↗ hearing will be as follows. First the

6:37 ↗ purpose of the public hearing followed

6:39 ↗ by appearance of fairness disclosures.

6:43 ↗ Then we'll open the public hearing with

6:44 ↗ a staff presentation followed by an

6:47 ↗ applicant presentation.

6:50 ↗ Then open the floor for public comment.

6:52 ↗ Opportunity for rebuttal by applica by

6:55 ↗ applicant. Then staff will close the

6:57 ↗ public hearing. The commission will

7:00 ↗ deliberate and then take action

7:02 ↗ including motions, amendments,

7:04 ↗ discussion, and votes. Uh we'll then

7:06 ↗ conclude the agenda item on the quasi

7:08 ↗ judicial permit. If for any reason the

7:11 ↗ hearing cannot be completed this

7:12 ↗ evening, it may be continued to a

7:15 ↗ specified date.

7:17 ↗ The purpose of this public meeting is a

7:20 ↗ formal public hearing for the proposed

7:22 ↗ site development permit for trail head

7:24 ↗ apartments. The purpose of this hearing

7:26 ↗ is to solicit uh relevant public

7:28 ↗ comment, facilitate the review,

7:30 ↗ discussion, and decision on the

7:32 ↗ application by the development

7:33 ↗ commission. This is a quasi judicial

7:36 ↗ hearing.

7:38 ↗ Emily, please proceed with our

7:40 ↗ appearance of fairness doctrine.

7:45 ↗ >> Thank you, Chair Morgan.

7:53 ↗ Um, all right. So, I'm going to go

7:55 ↗ through a couple slides and if the

7:56 ↗ commissioners um want to ask a question

7:58 ↗ could speak into your microphone, make

8:01 ↗ sure it's on to affirm um or deny the

8:05 ↗ questions. So, quasi judicial decisions

8:08 ↗ context um requires proceedings to be

8:10 ↗ fair in fact in appearance. Exparte

8:12 ↗ contacts are prohibited. Um, and the

8:15 ↗ question to ask yourself would is, would

8:16 ↗ a disinterested person knowing the

8:18 ↗ totality of a decision maker's personal

8:20 ↗ interest in a matter be reasonably

8:22 ↗ justified in thinking that partiality

8:24 ↗ may exist? Decision makers who have

8:26 ↗ personal interest, prejudgment of

8:28 ↗ issues, or partiality are disqualified

8:30 ↗ from the proceedings.

8:38 ↗ Okay.

8:40 ↗ All right. Questions for the

8:41 ↗ commissioners. With regards to the

8:43 ↗ outcome of this proceeding, do you have

8:45 ↗ a personal interest financial or

8:47 ↗ otherwise in the outcome?

8:50 ↗ >> No.

8:53 ↗ >> Does your employer have an interest

8:55 ↗ financial or otherwise in the outcome?

8:57 ↗ >> No.

8:59 ↗ >> Do you have any familial, social, or

9:01 ↗ business relationships or connections

9:03 ↗ with any of the parties or nonparties

9:05 ↗ who have an interest in the outcome?

9:07 ↗ >> No.

9:07 ↗ >> No. Do you have any special knowledge

9:09 ↗ about the substantive or the merits of

9:11 ↗ this proceeding which would or could

9:13 ↗ cause you to prejudge the outcome?

9:15 ↗ >> No.

9:16 ↗ >> No.

9:20 ↗ >> Will there be any prospective employment

9:22 ↗ for you or your family as a result of

9:24 ↗ the decision?

9:25 ↗ >> No.

9:26 ↗ >> Do you own or control property within

9:28 ↗ 300 ft of the subject property?

9:31 ↗ >> No.

9:32 ↗ >> Have you had any exparte communications

9:34 ↗ regarding this project?

9:37 ↗ >> No.

9:40 ↗ Do do you believe you can sit and hear

9:43 ↗ this matter fairly and impartially both

9:45 ↗ as to the respective positions of the

9:47 ↗ proponents and the opponents of this

9:49 ↗ matter?

9:51 ↗ >> Yes.

9:53 ↗ >> Questions for the audience. Does anyone

9:55 ↗ in attendance wish to challenge the

9:57 ↗ participation of any commissioner based

9:58 ↗ on the parents of fairness doctrine?

10:02 ↗ I see none.

10:06 ↗ All right, I will pass it off.

10:16 ↗ >> Hello. Uh, my name is Abby Weber. Um, I

10:19 ↗ am a senior planner with BHC

10:21 ↗ Consultants. Um I my company has been

10:23 ↗ providing consulting services to

10:30 ↗ just as a note we're opening the public

10:32 ↗ hearing at 6:40 p.m.

10:36 ↗ Oh,

10:41 ↗ next page. Thank you, Abby. Um

10:47 ↗ Abby, I'll need to swear you in. Please

10:48 ↗ state your name and position with the

10:50 ↗ city for the record.

10:52 ↗ >> Abby Weber, uh, planning consultant.

10:55 ↗ >> Do you swear by oath or affirmation that

10:57 ↗ the testimony you're about to provide is

10:59 ↗ true?

10:59 ↗ >> I do.

11:01 ↗ >> Thank you. Please proceed with your

11:02 ↗ presentation.

11:03 ↗ >> All right. Um, thank you. So, again, my

11:06 ↗ name is Abby Weber. I'm a planning

11:07 ↗ consultant working for the city of

11:09 ↗ Isiqua. I have been the primary planner

11:11 ↗ assigned to this project. Um, and I've

11:13 ↗ been working with the city for um, a

11:15 ↗ little over two years, I believe.

11:23 ↗ Oh, okay. Um, so, uh, the subject of

11:27 ↗ this public hearing this evening is, uh,

11:29 ↗ the Trail Head Apartments project. Um,

11:33 ↗ the site is located at 1467 Northwest

11:36 ↗ Maple Street. It is in the central, uh,

11:39 ↗ central Isiquest sub area in the urban

11:42 ↗ core zone or UC zone. The land use

11:45 ↗ designation is mixed use. Um there is an

11:49 ↗ existing type 2 green necklace trail

11:51 ↗ connection to the north of the site uh

11:53 ↗ called the Maple Juniper Trail. Um and

11:56 ↗ then a half block to the south of the

11:58 ↗ site, there is a type one connection um

12:00 ↗ that is planned along the north side of

12:02 ↗ Newport uh way northwest. Um and then

12:05 ↗ there's the existing Tibets Valley Park

12:07 ↗ located um half block to the south

12:09 ↗ across Newport Way.

12:15 ↗ So, the proposed development is of a um

12:18 ↗ eight-story mixeduse affordable housing

12:20 ↗ project. Um it contains 157 dwelling

12:23 ↗ units. Um one co-living suite with five

12:26 ↗ sleeping units. Um an approximately

12:28 ↗ 10,000 square foot opportunity center.

12:31 ↗ 162 total parking spaces. Um two

12:34 ↗ pedestrian passages along the um uh west

12:39 ↗ edge of the building along the south

12:42 ↗ edge of the building. So the site plan

12:43 ↗ that you are seeing on the screen now uh

12:45 ↗ north is actually oriented to the to the

12:47 ↗ left of the screen.

12:50 ↗ um a new public street is proposed um

12:52 ↗ that will result from a 30 and a half

12:55 ↗ foot um public dedication along the

12:58 ↗ eastern edge of the site. So that will

12:59 ↗ be called um 14th Avenue Northwest. Um

13:02 ↗ the project includes water, sewer, storm

13:04 ↗ water and frontage improvements um and

13:06 ↗ also wetland enhancements. Um and the

13:09 ↗ project also includes um approval of

13:11 ↗ three um deviations from public work

13:14 ↗ standards and we'll talk more about

13:15 ↗ those on a later slide.

13:23 ↗ Uh so this project began um with a

13:27 ↗ memorandum of understanding between the

13:29 ↗ city and King County housing uh housing

13:32 ↗ authority um in 2022. Um so this uh

13:36 ↗ memorandum of understanding outlined um

13:38 ↗ specific items for um development of the

13:41 ↗ site. So that included uh levels of

13:43 ↗ affordability and um a space for a

13:45 ↗ city-owned health center. Um, so that's

13:47 ↗ the opportunity center. Um, so, uh,

13:50 ↗ since then, um, uh, KCHA or the King

13:53 ↗ County Housing Authority identified, um,

13:55 ↗ several code requirements that were

13:56 ↗ prohibitive to development of the site

13:59 ↗ and state law actually authorizes, um,

14:02 ↗ cities to wave parts of their, um, land

14:04 ↗ use code um, for housing authority

14:07 ↗ buildings. Um so on uh in July of 2025,

14:11 ↗ the city um council approved um a

14:14 ↗ housing cooperation agreement and that

14:16 ↗ was included as exhibit A um to the

14:18 ↗ staff report. And so that uh agreement

14:21 ↗ waved or changed um eight code

14:23 ↗ requirements that apply to this project.

14:25 ↗ And so those are referred to also

14:27 ↗ referred to as deviations um throughout

14:30 ↗ the staff report.

14:34 ↗ So, um, these are the eight different

14:36 ↗ deviations that were granted. Um,

14:38 ↗ they're referred to as 1 through eight,

14:40 ↗ um, throughout the staff report, um, and

14:42 ↗ my presentation. Um, the first one

14:43 ↗ waved, um, a requirement for a fifth

14:46 ↗ fifth floor step back. Um, the second

14:48 ↗ one, um, combined, um, the requirement

14:51 ↗ for common and private outdoor amenity

14:52 ↗ space. Uh, the third one waved the 40%

14:56 ↗ ground level transparency requirement,

14:58 ↗ um, along certain facades. Uh the fourth

15:01 ↗ one allowed um the applicant to

15:03 ↗ substitute the evergreen sustainable

15:05 ↗ standards um in place of the lead

15:08 ↗ platinum standards that the city code

15:09 ↗ requires. Uh the fifth one waved um the

15:13 ↗ requirement for um uh retail to wrap the

15:17 ↗ structured uh parking garage. Uh the

15:20 ↗ sixth one waved tree retention

15:22 ↗ requirements. The seventh one reduced um

15:25 ↗ required transparency for facades um

15:28 ↗ facing natural areas. And the eighth one

15:30 ↗ allowed um uh bike storage facil uh the

15:34 ↗ bike storage room to face the natural

15:36 ↗ area with um limited transparency.

15:42 ↗ Uh so as I mentioned this is a 100%

15:44 ↗ affordable housing project at or below

15:46 ↗ 80% area medium income. Um that's AMI.

15:50 ↗ Um this project is well as a mixeduse

15:53 ↗ project in the UC zone. Um this uh

15:56 ↗ project is subject to the occlusionary

15:59 ↗ zoning requirements and they have

16:01 ↗ selected option one um which requires

16:03 ↗ 12.5% affordable housing at or below 60%

16:07 ↗ AMI. Um so of the total units 20 of them

16:12 ↗ will be um at or below 60% AMI. Uh so

16:16 ↗ because the project is 100% affordable

16:19 ↗ um they um are allowed to take advantage

16:21 ↗ of the um central Isiqua development

16:25 ↗ bonus program um and so they're allowed

16:28 ↗ to exceed the base F and the base height

16:30 ↗ limits. So F is increasing from uh 3.0 0

16:35 ↗ to 4.12 um and the maximum is 5 and then

16:39 ↗ the height limit is increasing from the

16:41 ↗ base height limit of um 60 ft up to 83.5

16:46 ↗ um and the maximum is 125.

16:51 ↗ Oh, and I just want to point out so this

16:53 ↗ table here is um u showing the the

16:57 ↗ city's 2044 um uh housing needs by

17:00 ↗ income bracket. So this project will

17:02 ↗ fall help the city achieve those housing

17:04 ↗ goals. Um and it'll fall so if you see

17:07 ↗ there's the the 50 to 80 AMI range. Um

17:11 ↗ so it'll help the city meet that need

17:13 ↗ for 460 units.

17:20 ↗ Um so during the course of review this

17:22 ↗ the site was reconfigured. So in those

17:25 ↗ initial application materials um you and

17:28 ↗ then throughout the plan set you may see

17:31 ↗ um that it may appear that the project

17:33 ↗ site is twice as large. So the initial

17:35 ↗ application actually included two

17:37 ↗ buildings. Um and then uh during the

17:40 ↗ course of review the applicant reduced

17:42 ↗ the size of the site uh roughly in half.

17:45 ↗ Um so the north building is the

17:47 ↗ affordable housing project. Uh the south

17:49 ↗ building will be a market rate project

17:50 ↗ and that will be developed under a

17:52 ↗ future permit. Um so um the applicant

17:56 ↗ has chosen to shortplat the site

17:57 ↗ creating two new lots. Um that shortplat

18:01 ↗ application has recently been submitted

18:02 ↗ and is under review by the city. Um and

18:06 ↗ uh condition number one on the staff

18:08 ↗ report requires um short plat u that the

18:12 ↗ short plat must be recorded prior to

18:13 ↗ issuance of a building or construction

18:15 ↗ permit. Um and then there's also going

18:17 ↗ to be a um public plaza covenant that

18:20 ↗ spans the center line between the north

18:22 ↗ and the south building um roughly

18:25 ↗ building face to building phase. And so

18:26 ↗ that will require um uh public access

18:30 ↗ and in development of that public plaza

18:31 ↗ between the two buildings.

18:37 ↗ Uh so we will jump into building and um

18:41 ↗ site design. Uh so there is a wetland

18:44 ↗ along the um western edge of the site.

18:47 ↗ So that wetland will be enhanced for um

18:50 ↗ environmental storm water um and passive

18:53 ↗ enjoyment. Um the building will be

18:55 ↗ oriented um to the wetland. Um and

18:57 ↗ deviation number seven allows for uh

19:00 ↗ reduced openings um on the facade facing

19:03 ↗ that natural area. So, the code requires

19:06 ↗ um 50%

19:08 ↗ um uh uh doors and windows on a facade

19:12 ↗ facing the natural area, but the

19:13 ↗ deviation allows for um only um 20% um

19:18 ↗ of the wall to be made up of doors and

19:19 ↗ windows. Um but so while the deviation

19:22 ↗ allows 20%, 21% is actually proposed.

19:26 ↗ The entries of the building are designed

19:28 ↗ to be distinct um and oriented towards

19:31 ↗ transportation facilities. Um

19:33 ↗ connections to green necklace amenities

19:35 ↗ are proposed. Um pedestrian amenities,

19:38 ↗ weather protection and special paving is

19:41 ↗ provided. Uh there are no blank walls

19:44 ↗ longer than 30 ft.

19:46 ↗ Um deviation number eight um allows will

19:51 ↗ allow bicycle storage areas um with

19:55 ↗ limited transparency um on exterior

19:58 ↗ walls facing the wetland. And so this is

20:00 ↗ in response to a code requirement uh

20:02 ↗ that prohibits uh any uh activities or

20:06 ↗ building uses that um would appear to

20:09 ↗ close off the building from natural

20:10 ↗ areas. So um bicycle storage falls in

20:13 ↗ that category. So there will be um some

20:15 ↗ transparency but um the bicycle storage

20:19 ↗ area is allowed for a maximum width of

20:21 ↗ 65 ft um on that facade.

20:25 ↗ uh deviation. Um so there will be uh so

20:29 ↗ deviation number three grants relief

20:31 ↗ from the 40% transparency requirement um

20:34 ↗ on the east facade along 14th Avenue and

20:36 ↗ then the south facade along the east

20:40 ↗ west passage. Um but the project will

20:42 ↗ comply with transparency requirements by

20:44 ↗ providing um about 62% transparency on

20:47 ↗ the north facade and 41% on the west

20:49 ↗ facade.

20:51 ↗ Um and then again deviation number four

20:54 ↗ um will allow the applicant to

20:56 ↗ substitute those evergreen sustainable

20:57 ↗ development standards um in place of the

20:59 ↗ lead platinum program. And those um

21:02 ↗ evergreen sustainable development

21:04 ↗ standards were actually developed um for

21:06 ↗ application to affordable housing

21:08 ↗ projects.

21:10 ↗ And I also just want to point out that

21:12 ↗ um condition number five um will require

21:14 ↗ the project to meet um rooftop material

21:18 ↗ requirements. um

21:20 ↗ that is um analyzed in the building

21:24 ↗ design section as well.

21:28 ↗ Uh so since the project is located in

21:31 ↗ the central ISUqua sub area, the central

21:35 ↗ isqua design and architectural standards

21:37 ↗ apply. So these standards supersede um

21:40 ↗ other design standards. Um these

21:42 ↗ standards also require throughblock

21:44 ↗ passages. Um so these are provided so

21:47 ↗ two throughblock passages are provided

21:49 ↗ on site. The the north south oriented

21:52 ↗ passage between the wetland and the

21:53 ↗ building and then the east west oriented

21:56 ↗ passage that will be on the south side

21:58 ↗ of the building and then additional

22:00 ↗ connectivity is created by the new

22:03 ↗ street with sidewalk improvements along

22:05 ↗ the eastern edge of the site.

22:08 ↗ The project has selected the Northwest

22:10 ↗ contemporary style standards. Um they

22:14 ↗ are meeting the massing requirements by

22:16 ↗ providing a simple base um with a

22:19 ↗ cornice treatment um and a C-shaped

22:21 ↗ building at the upper levels. Um they're

22:24 ↗ um complying with scale requirements by

22:26 ↗ providing vertical articulation and

22:28 ↗ vertical emphasis in the design of the

22:30 ↗ facades. Um deviation number one will

22:34 ↗ allow the project um to deviate from

22:37 ↗ those uh upper level stepback

22:40 ↗ requirements above the fifth floor.

22:44 ↗ Um they are providing at least 75% brick

22:48 ↗ or simulated wood materials. They're

22:51 ↗ providing variation in window types. Uh

22:54 ↗ they're providing a flat roof which

22:55 ↗ which is not a dominant design feature.

22:59 ↗ um and materials are provided in natural

23:01 ↗ tones.

23:08 ↗ 162 total parking spaces are provided um

23:11 ↗ for the development. Um 120 are required

23:15 ↗ for the residential use and 123 are

23:17 ↗ proposed. 39 are required for the

23:21 ↗ opportunity center use and 39 are

23:23 ↗ proposed. Uh six motorcycle spaces are

23:26 ↗ required and six are proposed. and um

23:29 ↗ their vehicular parking is meeting will

23:31 ↗ be meeting EV standards.

23:33 ↗ So the parking area is shown um in

23:35 ↗ yellow on this graphic. Um so the

23:38 ↗ project requires 11 short-term um

23:41 ↗ bicycle parking spaces and 12 are

23:43 ↗ proposed um and requires 161 long-term

23:46 ↗ spaces but 162 are proposed. Um so

23:50 ↗ short-term bicycle parking spaces um

23:52 ↗ they are required to be located within

23:54 ↗ 50 ft um of the primary entrance. Uh

23:57 ↗ because uh two of those 11 spaces are

24:01 ↗ actually required for the opportunity

24:03 ↗ center. Um staff recommends a condition

24:06 ↗ that um two of the spaces be located

24:08 ↗ within be moved to be relocated within

24:11 ↗ um 50 ft of that opportunity center

24:13 ↗ entrance. Um so if you're looking at

24:15 ↗ this slide, I've highlighted the um

24:17 ↗ long-term parking area in blue. That's

24:20 ↗ internal storage. And then in green in

24:22 ↗ the lower right uh left corner, that's

24:24 ↗ where the short-term bike parking is

24:26 ↗ located near the primary residential

24:28 ↗ entrance. So two of those um spaces um

24:31 ↗ we recommend that they're relocated

24:32 ↗ within 50 ft of that um opportunity

24:35 ↗ center entrance.

24:37 ↗ Uh so two loading spaces are required

24:40 ↗ and proposed. Um those are highlighted

24:42 ↗ in orange in the upper right corner um

24:45 ↗ of the graphic. and staff recommends a

24:47 ↗ condition that um signage be required uh

24:50 ↗ for hours of operation per code.

24:53 ↗ Um and then again I want to refer you to

24:56 ↗ dev deviation sorry this is a typo on

24:59 ↗ the screen deviation number five

25:00 ↗ actually um grants relief um from the

25:03 ↗ requirement that commercial or

25:04 ↗ residential uses um wrap the parking

25:07 ↗ structure. So, this requirement is met

25:10 ↗ along Maple Street. Um, but relief is

25:13 ↗ granted along 14th Avenue.

25:21 ↗ So, on to trees and landscaping.

25:24 ↗ All right. So, um tree the tree

25:27 ↗ retention requirement is 25%. Um but the

25:31 ↗ um housing cooper cooperation agreement

25:34 ↗ um granted relief from waved that

25:36 ↗ requirement. Um the canopy coverage

25:39 ↗ requirement is 25% uh but 47% is

25:42 ↗ proposed. Um so I wanted to point out

25:44 ↗ that uh 9,456

25:48 ↗ ft of existing canopy is included in um

25:51 ↗ that canopy coverage calculation and the

25:54 ↗ rest will be met with replacement trees

25:56 ↗ on site.

25:58 ↗ Um, condition number 13, um, in the

26:00 ↗ staff report, uh, uh, requires that the

26:04 ↗ applicant submit a tree plan that

26:05 ↗ complies with the code and tree

26:07 ↗ protection guidelines in the arborous

26:08 ↗ report.

26:11 ↗ Um, in regards to landscaping, um, so

26:14 ↗ the, um, landscaping meets the

26:16 ↗ diversity, size, and spacing standards.

26:19 ↗ Um, native plantings are proposed

26:21 ↗ between the building and the wetland. Um

26:23 ↗ and then the ground level landscaping

26:25 ↗ areas uh meet minimum um dimensional

26:28 ↗ requirements of 100 square feet and at

26:29 ↗ least five feet wide.

26:37 ↗ Um so the

26:40 ↗ um common um outdoor amenity space

26:42 ↗ requirement was modified by deviation

26:44 ↗ number two. Um so this required um this

26:49 ↗ combined the requirement for um common

26:52 ↗ and private outdoor amenity areas

26:54 ↗ resulting in um a total requirement of a

26:58 ↗ 148 square ft. So it can be met by any

27:00 ↗ combination of common and private

27:01 ↗ amenity space. Uh so the proposed

27:03 ↗ development um requires

27:06 ↗ 23,784

27:08 ↗ square ft and they are exceeding this

27:11 ↗ requirement with 29,729

27:14 ↗ square ft.

27:16 ↗ um 30% of um the amenity space must be

27:20 ↗ landscaped and they are um proposing a

27:22 ↗ total of um they're landscaping 34% of

27:26 ↗ the total um amenity area.

27:30 ↗ 158 seats are required and 165 are

27:33 ↗ proposed. Um wayfinding signage is

27:36 ↗ provided um as required by code and

27:38 ↗ they're loc providing in three locations

27:41 ↗ um where those pedestrian passages

27:43 ↗ intersect in the southwest corner and

27:46 ↗ then where they meet the streets on both

27:48 ↗ the north um and the eastern edges of

27:52 ↗ the site. Um and the project complies

27:55 ↗ with the rooftop and playcape um amenity

27:58 ↗ space requirements. Um the

28:00 ↗ non-residential use results in a

28:02 ↗ requirement of um 400 square feet of

28:05 ↗ community space. Um and this BA staff

28:08 ↗ recommends uh a condition that this

28:10 ↗ space be um required to comply with the

28:13 ↗ plaza requirements. So that's um

28:15 ↗ conditions eight and nine. So condition

28:17 ↗ number eight um will require further

28:20 ↗ development of the design of the space

28:21 ↗ to accommodate year-round use. Um and

28:24 ↗ they could do this by incorporating a

28:26 ↗ pergola, a gazebo, or another form of

28:27 ↗ weather protection. And then condition

28:30 ↗ number nine um uh requests that they

28:33 ↗ update the landscape plan to show that

28:35 ↗ at least 25% um but not more than 40% of

28:38 ↗ the open space is landscaped with trees,

28:41 ↗ ground cover or other vegetation and

28:42 ↗ then incorporate root bar uh root

28:44 ↗ barriers for all trees within the plaza.

28:47 ↗ Um and again um pedest the pedestrian

28:51 ↗ passages provide connections to green

28:53 ↗ necklace amenities.

29:01 ↗ So uh lighting is largely reviewed with

29:04 ↗ the um construction permit. Um the city

29:08 ↗ uses a third party consultant to ensure

29:10 ↗ that the development complies with um

29:12 ↗ performance um methods and other

29:15 ↗ technical lighting standards. So at this

29:17 ↗ um stage of review, the lighting

29:18 ↗ consultant reviewed four um design

29:21 ↗ related lighting lighting regulations.

29:24 ↗ Uh amenity areas were found to be

29:26 ↗ uniformly lit with pedestrian scale

29:27 ↗ fixtures. Primary entrances are

29:30 ↗ highlighted by lighting. Um and um the

29:33 ↗ lighting consultant did include some um

29:35 ↗ comments for further development on the

29:37 ↗ lighting plan and the cut sheets. Um so

29:39 ↗ staff recommends a con condition number

29:41 ↗ 10 that will require these comments to

29:43 ↗ be resolved at the time of construction

29:45 ↗ permitting.

29:51 ↗ Um, so as I mentioned before, there's a

29:53 ↗ uh wetland along the western edge of the

29:56 ↗ site. This is a category 4 wetland that

29:59 ↗ requires a 50-ft buffer. Um, trail and

30:03 ↗ storm water facilities are allowed in

30:05 ↗ the outer 25% of that buffer.

30:08 ↗ Um as proposed um split rail fencing is

30:11 ↗ proposed along the wetland boundary and

30:14 ↗ that will um reduce human uh disturbance

30:17 ↗ of the wetland. Um there'll be no

30:19 ↗ lighting or noise impacts. Um and

30:22 ↗ wetland enhancement will um occur in

30:25 ↗ accordance with the mitigation plan. Um

30:27 ↗ so condition number 11 will require

30:29 ↗ compliance with the mitigation plan.

30:32 ↗ Um the site is also located within a

30:36 ↗ class 3 critical aquifer recharge area.

30:39 ↗ Uh this means that a phase one ESA was

30:42 ↗ required during review. Um this uh study

30:45 ↗ indicated there was a potential for an

30:46 ↗ underground storage tank on site. Um so

30:49 ↗ condition number 12 in the staff report

30:52 ↗ um requires removal and notification of

30:54 ↗ the city um if it is discovered.

31:02 ↗ So um the project included three

31:06 ↗ deviation requests from public works

31:08 ↗ standards. Um so there was um there was

31:11 ↗ a request from a a street standards

31:13 ↗ deviation request from core street um

31:16 ↗ requirements. Um and this was approved.

31:19 ↗ Um so this modifies the um half street

31:21 ↗ section by um sorry of 14th north 14th

31:25 ↗ street northwest by removing the bike

31:27 ↗ lane um parking lane and buffer along

31:29 ↗ the project site and allowing the

31:31 ↗ sidewalk to be reduced from 8t to 5t. Um

31:35 ↗ while providing the multi-use trail on

31:37 ↗ the west side of the development. Um so

31:39 ↗ this again was approved by the uh city

31:42 ↗ staff. Um the second request was um so a

31:46 ↗ street another street standards

31:47 ↗ deviation request from to allow a curb

31:50 ↗ bulb along northwest Maple Street. This

31:53 ↗ was approved. So this allowed um

31:55 ↗ construction of a 23- foot long curb

31:58 ↗ bulb um along Maple Street um which is

32:01 ↗ an arterial roadway. So, this curveball

32:04 ↗ will align with the city standards for

32:06 ↗ on street parallel parking. Um, but it's

32:08 ↗ being added to support um the unique

32:11 ↗ needs um of the residents um and pick

32:14 ↗ off and drop off access uh for

32:15 ↗ specialized uh transit vehicles.

32:19 ↗ Um and then deviation number three um

32:22 ↗ was a deviation request from water

32:24 ↗ standards to allow a dead-end water man.

32:27 ↗ Um and so this the city has um included

32:34 ↗ uh sorry so um city staff is inclined to

32:39 ↗ approve this request um subject to the

32:41 ↗ resolution of staff comments that are

32:43 ↗ included on um exhibit AA. So condition

32:46 ↗ number 14 um requires that the applicant

32:50 ↗ satisfy those comments in order to um

32:53 ↗ gain approval of that deviation.

33:02 ↗ Um so the uh site is in planned action

33:06 ↗ area 2 of the central Isiqua sub area

33:09 ↗ plan EI environmental impact statement.

33:12 ↗ Um so it is subject to planned action

33:14 ↗ ordinance number uh 2665.

33:18 ↗ Um a planned action determination was

33:21 ↗ issued on um April 20th, 2026.

33:26 ↗ Um and so this found that no further um

33:28 ↗ seer review was required because it was

33:30 ↗ meeting the requirements of that EIS and

33:33 ↗ planned action.

33:35 ↗ Um so this determination did not include

33:37 ↗ a public comment period but notice of

33:39 ↗ application

33:41 ↗ um notice of the SEIPA application did

33:43 ↗ um in September late September 2025. So

33:47 ↗ public comments were received at that

33:48 ↗ time. Um these comments pertain to

33:51 ↗ traffic, parking circulation, ground

33:53 ↗ floor commercial use, um the effects of

33:56 ↗ the project on neighboring properties

33:57 ↗ and um the overall neighborhood dynamic

33:59 ↗ and design elements like balconies. Um

34:02 ↗ so these public comments are all

34:04 ↗ compiled and included as exhibit E. Um

34:06 ↗ and the applicant provided a written

34:08 ↗ response to the public comments which is

34:10 ↗ included as exhibit FF.

34:12 ↗ A community meeting was also held on

34:15 ↗ November 5th, 2025.

34:17 ↗ Um comments at that meeting pertain to

34:20 ↗ parking capacity

34:22 ↗ um versus demand balconies for

34:25 ↗ affordable units. Uh lack of stepbacks

34:27 ↗ for the facade where the project is um

34:30 ↗ sorry where the project is questioning

34:31 ↗ where the project was in the development

34:33 ↗ process utilities um and then um the

34:36 ↗ rightway dedication. And so these um

34:40 ↗ public comments were addressed uh by the

34:42 ↗ applicant team at the time of the

34:44 ↗ meeting and staff summarize uh the

34:46 ↗ public comments and the applicant's

34:48 ↗ response in the community meeting

34:50 ↗ summary memo which is included as

34:52 ↗ exhibit GG.

34:57 ↗ Um so staff recommendation is to um

35:01 ↗ approve um the project subject to

35:03 ↗ conditions 1 through 14 in the report.

35:06 ↗ Um

35:07 ↗ uh after

35:10 ↗ eventually you'll be asked to um approve

35:12 ↗ as proposed, approve with modified

35:14 ↗ conditions or deny the project. Uh and

35:17 ↗ we would now like to open it up to

35:18 ↗ questions.

35:20 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Miss Weber, for the

35:22 ↗ especially for the very extremely

35:24 ↗ detailed uh staff presentation in the

35:27 ↗ package. Uh any questions from the

35:30 ↗ commission on the staff's presentation?

35:35 ↗ Well, I have probably three layered

35:37 ↗ around the deviations. Is this does the

35:39 ↗ staff also recommend that we accept the

35:42 ↗ deviations?

35:43 ↗ >> You said the conditions, but are the

35:45 ↗ >> the do you are you referring to the

35:47 ↗ public works deviations or to the

35:49 ↗ housing

35:50 ↗ >> the housing authority zoning?

35:52 ↗ >> Um, so those are already approved.

35:54 ↗ >> Oh, they are. So that's that's baked.

35:56 ↗ Okay, that was really my question.

35:57 ↗ >> So that's essentially those are the code

35:59 ↗ requirements that apply to this project.

36:00 ↗ >> Okay. Uh and then so part two, the the

36:03 ↗ market uh rate housing that's phase two,

36:06 ↗ will it also have those uh deviations

36:09 ↗ pre-approved?

36:10 ↗ >> I may need to defer to city staff.

36:15 ↗ >> Some but not all of the deviations were

36:17 ↗ approved by council.

36:18 ↗ >> Okay.

36:18 ↗ >> For the market rate.

36:20 ↗ >> And then I guess last, what drives the

36:22 ↗ request for those deviations? Is it to

36:24 ↗ maximize density, maximize units, or

36:26 ↗ reduce cost? Both. Something else. So

36:28 ↗ I'm I the applicant can answer better

36:30 ↗ than me, but a lot of it is driven by

36:31 ↗ cost.

36:32 ↗ >> Okay.

36:32 ↗ >> Yes.

36:33 ↗ >> All right. Thank you.

36:38 ↗ >> Any other questions for the staff based

36:41 ↗ on their presentation?

36:46 ↗ >> Brendan.

36:47 ↗ >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. Just a couple related

36:49 ↗ to um one the permit process for the the

36:54 ↗ building the south building that would

36:55 ↗ require a separate uh SDP and building

36:59 ↗ permit etc. So that would be a

37:01 ↗ standalone project that most likely

37:03 ↗ would become in front of the commission

37:04 ↗ at a later date. No time frame set on

37:07 ↗ when that redevelopment might happen or

37:09 ↗ that development might happen.

37:10 ↗ >> We need to defer to the applicant.

37:13 ↗ >> Yeah. And I and I should um introduce

37:14 ↗ myself to I guess I'm Kristen Leon, the

37:16 ↗ planning manager. And no, we've been in

37:19 ↗ discussions with them. I know that

37:20 ↗ they've started design, but I don't

37:22 ↗ believe they own the property yet. And

37:24 ↗ so, no, there is no timeline set up for

37:26 ↗ that.

37:27 ↗ >> They don't.

37:28 ↗ >> And the the applicant is not here for

37:30 ↗ the south for the south building for the

37:31 ↗ market rate.

37:32 ↗ >> Okay. So, there's separate property

37:34 ↗ owners for the two project.

37:36 ↗ >> Not yet. Right now, King County owns the

37:39 ↗ entire parcels. Is that still correct?

37:40 ↗ Yes. Right now, King County still owns

37:42 ↗ the entire parcel.

37:43 ↗ >> Okay. Um then just a follow-up question.

37:46 ↗ So, there's um some uh the plaza and

37:51 ↗ it's noted in the condition, but in the

37:54 ↗ plaza and then you've got a uh you know

37:58 ↗ multi- um purpose walkway that runs um

38:02 ↗ alongside the buildings between the

38:04 ↗ properties. there'll be covenants added

38:06 ↗ to the short plat um as a condition.

38:10 ↗ Otherwise, I'm curious about how do you

38:13 ↗ ensure that these two buildings if you

38:16 ↗ have separate property owners and it's

38:17 ↗ going to redevelop at some later date?

38:20 ↗ >> Yes.

38:20 ↗ >> Satisfy the the broader design criteria

38:22 ↗ that's trying to be satisfied with the

38:25 ↗ site layout.

38:26 ↗ >> Yes, the plaza was included in the

38:28 ↗ memorandum of understanding that was

38:30 ↗ done between the city and King County

38:31 ↗ Housing Authority, but that was with the

38:33 ↗ housing authority. So yes, um I believe

38:34 ↗ the draft plaza covenant is included in

38:37 ↗ your packets as an exhibit. It's a

38:39 ↗ draft, but it is going it will be

38:41 ↗ included and recorded with the short

38:42 ↗ plat once that is approved.

38:44 ↗ >> And then will it also address the um

38:48 ↗ multi-purpose kind of walkway that runs

38:51 ↗ from north to south through alongside

38:53 ↗ the buildings?

38:55 ↗ >> Um I'm going to have to ask the

38:57 ↗ applicant to do that one. I I believe

39:00 ↗ it's included in the short plat.

39:01 ↗ >> Okay. as an ement but

39:03 ↗ >> I can wait

39:05 ↗ >> that question.

39:06 ↗ >> Um okay that's

39:13 ↗ >> I do have a couple questions. Uh one is

39:17 ↗ condition five.

39:19 ↗ What are the rooftop requirements that

39:21 ↗ the city would be looking for

39:25 ↗ >> compared to what is there?

39:27 ↗ >> I have to go to that section of the

39:29 ↗ analysis.

39:34 ↗ Um, so I'm looking on page 12 of the

39:36 ↗ staff report. Um, there are so that's in

39:40 ↗ chapter um 18 um 602 building design

39:44 ↗ standards of the code. So there are

39:46 ↗ specific requirements that apply to uh

39:49 ↗ rooftops including um specific um

39:52 ↗ rooftop materials and that's just not a

39:55 ↗ level of detail that you typically see

39:57 ↗ at site development permit. So the

39:59 ↗ condition would just require the

40:01 ↗ applicant to demonstrate how they're

40:02 ↗ meeting those material requirements at

40:03 ↗ the time of building permit review.

40:05 ↗ >> Okay. So it wasn't something they had

40:07 ↗ there that did not meet code. We just

40:10 ↗ don't know what this area.

40:11 ↗ >> Yeah. Yep.

40:12 ↗ >> Great. Okay. Thank you. Um and then uh

40:15 ↗ can you talk about 14th Street Northwest

40:19 ↗ and a couple things a half street

40:22 ↗ improvements

40:23 ↗ and is it a 30 foot 30 and 1/2 ft

40:27 ↗ rideway dedication on this parcel and

40:31 ↗ will it require another 30 feet on the

40:34 ↗ joining parcel to the east at some point

40:37 ↗ or will the 30t be

40:38 ↗ >> le the applicant to speak to this? Yes.

40:42 ↗ When the other parcel comes in, it will

40:43 ↗ be required to build the other half of

40:45 ↗ the rideway

40:47 ↗ >> to the to the east to to the east. Yeah.

40:49 ↗ The other half of 14th Avenue Northwest.

40:52 ↗ >> So the road that would be built would be

40:54 ↗ half of a road,

40:55 ↗ >> right? So the one that's going to be

40:57 ↗ built will will be two-way. And so it'll

40:59 ↗ have two, I believe, 10 or 11 foot

41:01 ↗ lanes. When it comes when the full road

41:04 ↗ is extended out, then it will also

41:07 ↗ include parking and bike lanes on both

41:09 ↗ sides as well as the two drive lanes.

41:11 ↗ >> Okay. That's why I was wondering it

41:13 ↗ would have become just an alley, but

41:14 ↗ when it expands, it has to be done both

41:18 ↗ ways, including by this owner.

41:20 ↗ >> Correct.

41:21 ↗ >> We'll have to make those improvements.

41:22 ↗ >> Yeah. And really, this will include

41:24 ↗ mostly striping. So, it'll Yeah. I think

41:26 ↗ I think that the at that the future um

41:30 ↗ person the future developer to the east

41:33 ↗ will then do the restriping and finish

41:34 ↗ out the road

41:35 ↗ >> and and this parcel would require

41:37 ↗ sidewalks to be put in then

41:40 ↗ >> this part this one is having sidewalks

41:42 ↗ put in.

41:43 ↗ >> Oh, it is.

41:44 ↗ >> Yes, they're just going to be reduced to

41:45 ↗ five feet and they will remain five

41:47 ↗ feet.

41:47 ↗ >> Okay.

41:49 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

41:53 ↗ Hear no other questions for the staff.

41:55 ↗ Um, do the development team, applicant

41:58 ↗ team want to make any comments or just

42:02 ↗ we understand maybe just open to

42:04 ↗ questions.

42:12 ↗ >> Okay. So,

42:15 ↗ >> I just had a tangential question.

42:18 ↗ Typically these dwelling units, what's

42:20 ↗ the occupancy of each of those expected

42:24 ↗ approximately? Can you touch on those

42:26 ↗ mix of studio one and twobedroom units?

42:30 ↗ >> Are there maximum occupancy rates per

42:33 ↗ units or

42:39 ↗ >> well they go they go anywhere from

42:41 ↗ studios to three bedrooms. So, you know,

42:43 ↗ if you have it I mean I don't I don't

42:45 ↗ think there is a maximum occupancy rate.

42:47 ↗ We don't have that um in the city

42:51 ↗ >> just from King County doesn't

42:53 ↗ >> okay

42:53 ↗ >> they don't

42:55 ↗ >> limit

43:04 ↗ >> I'm [clears throat] Dan Landis vice

43:05 ↗ president of development at King County

43:07 ↗ Housing Authority and just I I'm not

43:09 ↗ sure if you mean what what's our uh

43:13 ↗ usually how full are our buildings so we

43:16 ↗ all across our portfolio of about 13,000

43:18 ↗ units were 97% occupied. So we imagine a

43:22 ↗ new building like this will run close to

43:24 ↗ 100.

43:26 ↗ >> But but per like if you had a

43:27 ↗ threebedroom or whatever it is, there is

43:30 ↗ no cap as far as how many people can

43:31 ↗ live in.

43:31 ↗ >> Well, how many people? We do have um

43:34 ↗ occupancy standards. Yeah. That that are

43:36 ↗ I mean that our own occupancy standards

43:39 ↗ and uh I don't know what they are off

43:41 ↗ the top of my head. I think it's two

43:42 ↗ people per bedroom max. Um although

43:46 ↗ that's it's unusual in three bedrooms

43:48 ↗ that we get get to that level.

43:52 ↗ >> Thank you.

43:57 ↗ >> Other questions from

44:00 ↗ commission?

44:02 ↗ >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I do it's it is related

44:04 ↗ to the plaza. Again, I'm still kind of

44:05 ↗ grappling with how that's going to all

44:07 ↗ work. So, you're designing and this is

44:10 ↗ probably to the applicant design team.

44:12 ↗ You're designing half of the plaza now

44:14 ↗ and is that design will it function as

44:17 ↗ an independent plaza for this what will

44:21 ↗ be an interim period before the south

44:23 ↗ property redevelops? Um and then how

44:26 ↗ does it you know uh join I guess in the

44:30 ↗ future in a in a kind of a compatible

44:33 ↗ design. Um, is that all part of the

44:35 ↗ covenant or is that just a cooperation

44:38 ↗ between what will be a the next property

44:40 ↗ owner? I'm not sure how that plaza

44:44 ↗ exists with the initial project and then

44:47 ↗ joins with the next project. Has that

44:50 ↗ been thought through in the design

44:52 ↗ development?

45:03 ↗ Hi, I'm Maggie Carson. I'm with Weber

45:05 ↗ Thompson. We're the design architects

45:07 ↗ and landscape architects for this

45:09 ↗ building. Um, when we started this

45:12 ↗ project, we actually started with a

45:14 ↗ master planning phase for the full

45:16 ↗ thing, both the north and the south. And

45:18 ↗ so I can say, uh, currently there is a

45:21 ↗ full design for the full plaza. um so

45:24 ↗ that the whole thing reads very

45:26 ↗ holistically as as one entity once it's

45:28 ↗ completed. But the portion that will be

45:31 ↗ built as part of the north parcel um

45:34 ↗ will be able to function fully on its

45:35 ↗ own. It connects all the way through and

45:37 ↗ provides the spaces that Abby outlined

45:39 ↗ in detail. Um and but it does have a big

45:43 ↗ picture design that mirrors that in a in

45:46 ↗ a um coordinated way with what happens

45:48 ↗ on the south parcel as well. Does that

45:51 ↗ help?

45:52 ↗ >> Yeah, I think so. I mean obviously it'll

45:54 ↗ be the interest of the property owner to

45:56 ↗ the south to try to do something that

45:58 ↗ works well in their interest. So I

46:00 ↗ understand I just wondering if you know

46:03 ↗ the thinking around what's going on with

46:05 ↗ phasing this project and having a

46:07 ↗ different property property owner come

46:09 ↗ in and take responsibility for that

46:11 ↗ south building site. So and how that's

46:13 ↗ going to integrate

46:15 ↗ >> and and some of that may be a question

46:17 ↗ for you guys in terms of what agreement

46:19 ↗ you have with Yeah. Dan can come back

46:23 ↗ up. We can tag team this.

46:26 ↗ >> So Dan Landis again. So uh earlier you

46:29 ↗ had asked um when we expect the uh

46:32 ↗ market rate developer to come in with

46:34 ↗ their SDP uh application. Um there was a

46:38 ↗ lot of uh work that we've done,

46:41 ↗ negotiations with them and with the city

46:43 ↗ uh and we finally were able to sign a

46:46 ↗ purchase agreement with them that was

46:48 ↗ executed last week and that was their

46:50 ↗ main I think obstacle to to before

46:53 ↗ starting in earnest the design to get

46:55 ↗ them to the site development permit and

46:57 ↗ the building permit after that. So, our

46:59 ↗ expectation is they will be coming in

47:02 ↗ before like within a couple of months

47:03 ↗ once they've had a chance to uh decide

47:06 ↗ uh figure out the size of their uh

47:09 ↗ building and what it is they exactly

47:10 ↗ want to build.

47:11 ↗ >> Great.

47:11 ↗ >> Um so, was that the

47:14 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you.

47:18 ↗ >> I have a question or clarification. So I

47:21 ↗ think um you mentioned in the

47:23 ↗ presentation uh the the road that will

47:27 ↗ be rebuilt but it won't have in in this

47:30 ↗ case um parking or bike lane. Um but

47:33 ↗ when the the full road is finished you

47:36 ↗ mentioned striping would come in and

47:37 ↗ that would would that include that on

47:39 ↗ this part of the um on on the half that

47:43 ↗ we're considering today

47:45 ↗ >> or no? Um, so when the

47:48 ↗ eastern half of 14th is constructed,

47:51 ↗ will that then include parking and bike

47:53 ↗ lane

47:54 ↗ >> on both?

47:55 ↗ >> Okay. So eventually there will be a bike

47:57 ↗ lane. Yes,

48:03 ↗ >> Mr. Chair, I'll throw in one more quick

48:05 ↗ question while I have the team up at the

48:07 ↗ microphone. Um, so there were obviously

48:10 ↗ the deviations were approved by the

48:12 ↗ council and you know those aren't in

48:13 ↗ front of the commission. Um, but the

48:17 ↗ question I have is so there's a a

48:19 ↗ reduction in the number of kind of uh

48:21 ↗ open windows and doors etc. And

48:23 ↗ particularly on the east side of the

48:24 ↗ building and I know the property owner

48:26 ↗ on the east side has expressed some

48:27 ↗ concern about what's this building going

48:29 ↗ to look like as it faces our property.

48:31 ↗ Can you talk a little bit about what

48:32 ↗ what you've done to soften that um face

48:35 ↗ of the building um you know to help with

48:38 ↗ the you know the blank the more blank

48:40 ↗ wall condition that we might face. Sure.

48:43 ↗ Um there we go. Um

48:47 ↗ yeah, you know, this is a unique

48:49 ↗ situation in that there is no alley per

48:52 ↗ se for these two buildings and so there

48:55 ↗ are back of house sort of functions that

48:57 ↗ need a home um which include loading and

49:00 ↗ trash and garage entries and things of

49:02 ↗ that nature. Um and and that's part of

49:05 ↗ what we presented back to the city

49:06 ↗ council when we looked into those

49:08 ↗ deviations, but all with the

49:10 ↗ understanding that um you know, we do

49:13 ↗ want this to still feel like a

49:15 ↗ pedestrian friendly street. We want um

49:18 ↗ people in the city of Isiqua to feel

49:19 ↗ comfortable walking up and down it. We

49:21 ↗ don't want it to feel like an alley,

49:23 ↗ right? Um so we are including higherend

49:26 ↗ materials along that facade. We have

49:28 ↗ brick down at the base in several

49:29 ↗ portions so that it maintains a similar

49:32 ↗ aesthetic to what you're seeing around

49:33 ↗ the rest of the pedestrian experience at

49:35 ↗ the base of the building. Um there are

49:38 ↗ decorative screens in locations where we

49:40 ↗ have more utilitarian functions so that

49:42 ↗ there's some artistic elements. The

49:45 ↗ decorative screens are a perforated

49:47 ↗ metal that have um a water splashing

49:50 ↗ sort of pattern on them. We've got uh

49:52 ↗ locations where we've included artwork

49:54 ↗ on columns and things like that. lots

49:56 ↗ and lots of details that add to the

49:58 ↗ pedestrian experience. Um there is still

50:01 ↗ canopy coverage wherever uh we were able

50:03 ↗ to put it in place. Um so not at the

50:06 ↗ garage entry because we don't want

50:07 ↗ trucks to run into it of course, but um

50:10 ↗ you know anywhere that it it was able to

50:12 ↗ be included, we included overhead

50:14 ↗ weather protection and things like that.

50:17 ↗ >> Thank you.

50:18 ↗ >> Yeah.

50:21 ↗ >> Just one quick thing I would add. Uh the

50:23 ↗ issue with the relatively high

50:26 ↗ transparency requirements facing a

50:28 ↗ natural area is

50:30 ↗ >> uh energy code requirements. It we we

50:32 ↗ just can't do both. And so that was the

50:36 ↗ main driver in wanting to uh decrease

50:38 ↗ the amount of uh fenestration on on

50:42 ↗ those facades.

50:43 ↗ >> Yeah, that's that is a good

50:45 ↗ clarification. Um that was a big part of

50:46 ↗ what we talked about with the city

50:48 ↗ council for the other facade, not that

50:49 ↗ facing 14th Street, but facing the

50:51 ↗ wetlands. Um, in the natural context

50:54 ↗ zone, the glazing percentage that was

50:56 ↗ requested in the zoning code is outside

50:59 ↗ of what the energy code would allow. Um,

51:02 ↗ in in general,

51:04 ↗ >> something the city might need to take a

51:06 ↗ look at in the future. [laughter]

51:07 ↗ >> A little tug of war on the technical

51:09 ↗ stuff. Uh, one more question. We had a

51:11 ↗ speaker earlier who was obviously

51:12 ↗ expressing some concerns about adequacy

51:15 ↗ of parking and, you know, potential

51:17 ↗ overflow into the neighborhoods, etc.

51:19 ↗ And one of her question was whether

51:22 ↗ parking is assigned with the uh rental

51:26 ↗ or lease agreements or whether it's open

51:28 ↗ parking for residents.

51:31 ↗ >> So um I'm not sure that that policy has

51:34 ↗ been uh decided on yet. Um I I think

51:38 ↗ we're concerned about parking for our

51:39 ↗ residents as well and our ability to to

51:42 ↗ lease up the units. That's why we didn't

51:44 ↗ ask for any deviations on the parking

51:46 ↗ from what what was required and sort of

51:49 ↗ slightly overbuilt it. Um but uh we are

51:53 ↗ aware of the issues and I think we're

51:55 ↗ we're looking into various um strategies

51:58 ↗ that might help us make parking less of

51:59 ↗ an issue for the neighborhood

52:01 ↗ >> and Pratt and uh proximity to the

52:04 ↗ transit center is definitely a benefit.

52:06 ↗ >> A plus.

52:08 ↗ Yeah, proximity to the transit center is

52:10 ↗ definitely a plus. And as Dan just

52:12 ↗ alluded to, um because this is an

52:14 ↗ affordable housing project, there were

52:17 ↗ um reductions allowed in the code that

52:18 ↗ we didn't take advantage of. So

52:20 ↗ technically speaking, we are over

52:21 ↗ building um per our use as an affordable

52:24 ↗ housing.

52:27 ↗ >> That's all I have.

52:40 ↗ Chair Morgan, will you turn on your mic?

52:42 ↗ >> Sorry. Thank you. Uh I think it's on the

52:44 ↗ south side. Um the blank wall, there's

52:48 ↗ there are two blank walls that have

52:50 ↗ treatments. I think on the south side um

52:55 ↗ those two and in one of the sets of

52:58 ↗ plans it said art mural or planting and

53:02 ↗ others said art mural. And I think the

53:04 ↗ staff report says art mural. So, and I

53:07 ↗ don't think planting unless it's a

53:10 ↗ trellis built into the building would

53:12 ↗ meet that requirement. So, can you

53:14 ↗ discuss

53:16 ↗ what what will go on those walls?

53:18 ↗ >> I believe the intention is for two large

53:20 ↗ murals in those spaces. Um, we went back

53:23 ↗ and forth a little bit with the city on

53:24 ↗ would a large scale trellis be better

53:27 ↗ for a portion of that. Um, but I believe

53:30 ↗ where we've landed, we ended up adding

53:31 ↗ the brick pilasters that you see on the

53:33 ↗ screen now. Um, and then those two

53:36 ↗ outlined rectangles are intended to be

53:38 ↗ um, art murals at this point. Yeah.

53:41 ↗ >> And then art murals is an interesting

53:43 ↗ topic.

53:44 ↗ >> Um, so is there a an approval

53:48 ↗ requirement from the city on what can go

53:51 ↗ onto an art mural?

53:57 ↗ >> Yes. The art murals would run through

53:59 ↗ our arts commission.

54:01 ↗ >> Okay. There'll be a a artist chosen and

54:05 ↗ approved by the commission.

54:06 ↗ >> I don't know if an artist will be

54:07 ↗ chosen, but the artwork would go through

54:09 ↗ the commission. Would be

54:10 ↗ >> I will have to talk to the chair and

54:12 ↗ find out how that works.

54:13 ↗ >> Okay.

54:13 ↗ >> And there would be hopefully a

54:14 ↗ preference for a local artist. We would

54:16 ↗ hope.

54:17 ↗ >> Of course.

54:18 ↗ >> Yes.

54:18 ↗ >> Okay.

54:19 ↗ >> I imagine that's your preference, too.

54:21 ↗ [laughter]

54:22 ↗ >> Yeah. We have we have not done anything

54:24 ↗ as far as choosing an artist or or even

54:27 ↗ a look that we would like there, but

54:28 ↗ we're open to things like trying to find

54:32 ↗ a local artist.

54:33 ↗ >> Yeah, we have a great arts commission.

54:35 ↗ So, yeah, great to bring them in. Um the

54:40 ↗ cornis um is it possible? I think it's

54:44 ↗ in this set of plans and I think it's

54:48 ↗ A3.05N 905N.

54:51 ↗ That shows some of the detail of

54:55 ↗ the cornness.

55:00 ↗ And

55:02 ↗ so the

55:07 ↗ Yeah. So the requirement for a cornice

55:09 ↗ is

55:12 ↗ in the northwest contemporary style

55:13 ↗ cornises or similar elements must be

55:16 ↗ welldetailed and of significant

55:18 ↗ proportions height and depth that create

55:21 ↗ visual interest and shadow lines. And I

55:24 ↗ couldn't find

55:26 ↗ I found a drawing I think at 7 point AB

55:30 ↗ but I couldn't find something that

55:33 ↗ talked about what those dimensions were

55:35 ↗ for that gray cornice at the top. But to

55:39 ↗ me, it didn't seem to look like it's

55:44 ↗ welldetailed, of significant

55:46 ↗ proportions, height and depth that

55:47 ↗ create visual interest, especially given

55:50 ↗ that that's 183 84 feet from ground

55:54 ↗ level. Um, so could you talk about that

55:57 ↗ and how do we meet that requirement

55:59 ↗ because I think that's part of our

56:00 ↗ tripartite

56:02 ↗ requirement for the building. Um I

56:04 ↗ believe the lower cornis is part of the

56:06 ↗ tri part the tripartid but um it you are

56:10 ↗ totally right. You've got the code there

56:11 ↗ right in front of you about it needing

56:12 ↗ to be significant in proportions. Um we

56:15 ↗ do have details that outline how it will

56:18 ↗ be constructed and give dimensions to

56:20 ↗ the height and the setback and the canal

56:22 ↗ lever of the cornice itself. I'm not

56:25 ↗ sure if they're in the package that we

56:27 ↗ have here.

56:29 ↗ >> A it would be a detail from the A8

56:32 ↗ series. Um,

56:35 ↗ I think though the rendering at the

56:37 ↗ maybe the beginning might do a better

56:39 ↗ job because I I'll admit that when you

56:41 ↗ look at it on this screen right here and

56:43 ↗ you're only seeing a little sliver of

56:45 ↗ it, it's hard to picture does that

56:47 ↗ actually cast much of a shadow or

56:49 ↗ anything like that. But the rendering on

56:50 ↗ the front does a good job

56:52 ↗ >> on the cover sheet of the G sheet.

56:54 ↗ >> Yeah.

56:54 ↗ >> Okay. So that's I might need your help

56:56 ↗ to find a different

57:01 ↗ >> Is it back?

57:03 ↗ Okay.

57:11 ↗ >> Yeah. And somewhere we do have a

57:13 ↗ physical materials board too that can

57:15 ↗ show you the actual

57:18 ↗ uh the actual color of that cornice

57:21 ↗ compared comparatively. So um the

57:25 ↗ cornice in question there is at that

57:29 ↗ green portion. Here we go.

57:44 ↗ up against the green and up against the

57:46 ↗ white there. Um, which will help with

57:48 ↗ its distinction.

57:49 ↗ >> Is is the is the corners in this drawing

57:53 ↗ is the corners we looked at on the other

57:56 ↗ plan. It looked fairly small compared to

57:59 ↗ that wall.

58:01 ↗ >> And and here we're seeing shadows from

58:04 ↗ those cornises on the left and right

58:06 ↗ onto the green below.

58:08 ↗ >> Yes.

58:08 ↗ >> So are those different than the cornice

58:10 ↗ we saw in

58:11 ↗ >> No, that is that cornice

58:14 ↗ that this is modeled directly from the

58:16 ↗ thing that the drawings are cut from. So

58:18 ↗ it's it's the exact same thing.

58:21 ↗ >> Yeah.

58:23 ↗ It just seemed like if we if we can go

58:24 ↗ back to the other

58:27 ↗ dimension when you show that wall and

58:29 ↗ this and the size of that cornice in the

58:31 ↗ drawing, it's hard to imagine it could

58:33 ↗ create that much shadow.

58:35 ↗ >> It does.

58:38 ↗ >> Um, which which is that in the detail

58:41 ↗ set?

58:42 ↗ >> Okay. There's there's no

58:44 ↗ >> I think

58:46 ↗ >> it probably will. I can say there's no

58:48 ↗ additional Photoshop on that rendering.

58:49 ↗ It's It's the model of the building in

58:51 ↗ Revit with the sun hitting it.

58:53 ↗ [laughter]

58:54 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

58:55 ↗ >> Which specific sheet?

59:00 ↗ >> No, the detail was 7B,

59:02 ↗ but that might be

59:04 ↗ >> there'll be an eight detail or from the

59:06 ↗ eight series that shows like the framing

59:08 ↗ and the dimensions of it.

59:09 ↗ >> Do you know what she

59:10 ↗ >> I don't off top of my head.

59:14 ↗ >> Oh, that level three.

59:16 ↗ >> That's one of them. That's at the brick.

59:19 ↗ Um, so it won't be one at the brick.

59:21 ↗ It'll be one that is has

59:26 ↗ >> When I was looking through, I saw level

59:27 ↗ three and level four cornises.

59:30 ↗ >> Oh, here.

59:31 ↗ >> There you go.

59:32 ↗ >> Oh, level four.

59:33 ↗ >> Isn't that uh

59:34 ↗ >> here? Cornet standing seam route.

59:37 ↗ >> Oh, nope. That's level four. Keep going.

59:41 ↗ >> Me, [clears throat] too. That also says

59:43 ↗ level four. We'd be looking for

59:44 ↗ something that says, is it that one

59:47 ↗ right there? Level four. Oh, wait. I

59:50 ↗ think you maybe just passed it right

59:51 ↗ there. Does that say

59:53 ↗ >> No, that says four.

59:54 ↗ >> They all say level four.

59:58 ↗ That one say on the far side there.

1:00:02 ↗ >> I think it was one of those ones up

1:00:04 ↗ above. I think we've passed it.

1:00:11 ↗ >> I I can do that.

1:01:07 ↗ It is similar in shape to the one at

1:01:09 ↗ level four, but it's not exactly the

1:01:11 ↗ same.

1:01:26 ↗ I'm not seeing

1:01:55 ↗ that one.

1:01:57 ↗ It is very similar to this.

1:02:05 ↗ Oh yeah, it's very similar to this one

1:02:07 ↗ here. Um I actually think it's slightly

1:02:09 ↗ bigger, but this shows that we're out an

1:02:11 ↗ inch and a half, which is the dimension

1:02:14 ↗ of a um nominal or it's the actual

1:02:18 ↗ dimension of a nominal piece of lumber,

1:02:20 ↗ which is part of what's dictating that

1:02:22 ↗ plus another inch and a half out. So

1:02:24 ↗ we've got two steps. So you're getting a

1:02:25 ↗ total of three inches projection um and

1:02:28 ↗ a height of 2, four, and 9. Um what is

1:02:33 ↗ that? 13 15 feet or 15 inches tall plus

1:02:37 ↗ the little bit of slope there. Um, and

1:02:39 ↗ it should be very similar to these guys

1:02:42 ↗ here,

1:02:44 ↗ although I'm not seeing it in our set.

1:02:47 ↗ So, so it could be a extends out 3 in

1:02:53 ↗ 83 feet above ground.

1:02:59 ↗ I don't know. I'm not an architect. It

1:03:01 ↗ just doesn't sound like that's much of a

1:03:04 ↗ a

1:03:06 ↗ welldetailed significant proportions of

1:03:08 ↗ height and depth that create visual

1:03:10 ↗ interest and shadow lines.

1:03:12 ↗ Um I guess the question would be

1:03:16 ↗ can you make a better cornness?

1:03:19 ↗ >> We could look at making it bigger. Um

1:03:21 ↗ there are limitations at some point uh

1:03:23 ↗ from a structural standpoint of putting

1:03:25 ↗ more weight on the top of the parapit

1:03:28 ↗ making the parapit want to tip out. We

1:03:30 ↗ don't want to end up in territory where

1:03:32 ↗ you need to add steel to support the

1:03:33 ↗ parapit because of the weight of the

1:03:35 ↗ cornice,

1:03:36 ↗ >> right?

1:03:36 ↗ >> Um

1:03:37 ↗ >> but we could we could certainly

1:03:39 ↗ >> we are

1:03:42 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:03:46 ↗ >> I can say that most buildings of this

1:03:48 ↗ height have a coping coping at the top

1:03:52 ↗ that is between four and six inches and

1:03:53 ↗ sticks off about a half an inch. Um so

1:03:56 ↗ when you compare it to that this is

1:03:58 ↗ pretty substantial.

1:03:59 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think just with the um

1:04:02 ↗ central area plan and the design

1:04:04 ↗ standards written around the tripartite

1:04:07 ↗ design and and the cornice is one of the

1:04:10 ↗ ways that you get there instead of um

1:04:13 ↗ other other methods. I guess the other

1:04:15 ↗ possibility is can it be more ornate

1:04:17 ↗ than just stamped metal? Um is there

1:04:21 ↗ something else? And I don't know if

1:04:22 ↗ other commissioners concerned about it,

1:04:24 ↗ but part of this is our central area

1:04:26 ↗ plan. These design standards, we're sort

1:04:28 ↗ of learning them as we go, too. So,

1:04:31 ↗ every time we approve something, it's

1:04:33 ↗ setting some standards like this.

1:04:36 ↗ >> Um,

1:04:39 ↗ I don't know that it's worth necessarily

1:04:41 ↗ a motion or amendment, but other

1:04:44 ↗ commissioners, any feelings about what

1:04:46 ↗ you've seen?

1:04:48 ↗ No concerns.

1:04:52 ↗ I will say that it doesn't concern me.

1:04:59 ↗ >> Just a thought on this. I I uh agree

1:05:02 ↗ that a more significant,

1:05:04 ↗ you know, um visual um attraction of the

1:05:08 ↗ top of a building makes it more

1:05:10 ↗ interesting from a skyline or from a

1:05:12 ↗ distance. You're right. This is 80 plus

1:05:15 ↗ feet high. Um, but in this particular

1:05:18 ↗ instance, I'm not quite sure what we

1:05:21 ↗ would do

1:05:23 ↗ um to make it more dramatic. I think

1:05:25 ↗ it's kind of like you just said, we're

1:05:26 ↗ going to be learning from different

1:05:28 ↗ projects what works best. This provides

1:05:31 ↗ some relief. I mean, um, I don't know

1:05:33 ↗ that it creates a huge concern for me,

1:05:36 ↗ but I I I see your I definitely see your

1:05:38 ↗ point. It's something we should be

1:05:39 ↗ really paying more attention to as we go

1:05:41 ↗ through design development for other

1:05:43 ↗ projects.

1:05:47 ↗ I guess my question is what's what's

1:05:49 ↗ between the two corner massings? What is

1:05:52 ↗ that corner? That one appears to be

1:05:54 ↗ >> that one is less um as a way to help

1:05:57 ↗ emphasize the corner elements in

1:05:59 ↗ particular.

1:06:11 ↗ So I, you know, Mel, I don't know. Um

1:06:15 ↗ I I definitely hear you. I I think with

1:06:17 ↗ the lack of the fifth story set back,

1:06:19 ↗ that's unfortunate. And so now you do

1:06:20 ↗ have this really tall structure and this

1:06:22 ↗ really diminished um

1:06:25 ↗ uh cornis treatment. I I guess if it it

1:06:28 ↗ was even deeper though, does it does it

1:06:30 ↗ make more of an issue of the lack of the

1:06:32 ↗ step back almost, you know? uh is less

1:06:35 ↗ more in this case. Or could there be

1:06:38 ↗ some congruency with the corner in the

1:06:40 ↗ midspan? I don't know. I I hear you. But

1:06:45 ↗ I also I I feel like uh

1:06:49 ↗ yeah, much more is going to sort of it's

1:06:52 ↗ already out of control in my opinion. So

1:06:56 ↗ I'll leave it at that.

1:06:57 ↗ >> Okay.

1:06:59 ↗ Thank you. Uh any other questions or

1:07:01 ↗ comments?

1:07:02 ↗ I I had a question about the I think in

1:07:04 ↗ the staff report you received some

1:07:06 ↗ comments about um balconies and things

1:07:09 ↗ like that. What drove this particular

1:07:11 ↗ blocky design and why weren't balconies

1:07:13 ↗ considered?

1:07:15 ↗ >> Uh balconies were considered and that

1:07:17 ↗ was one of the things we talked with the

1:07:19 ↗ city council as part of design

1:07:21 ↗ commission or part of the um housing

1:07:24 ↗ cooperation agreement. Um there are

1:07:27 ↗ several challenges with with balconies,

1:07:29 ↗ especially with the requirement of them

1:07:31 ↗ at every unit. There's a very obvious

1:07:33 ↗ cost component for the affordable

1:07:34 ↗ housing uh developer in general. Um they

1:07:38 ↗ also frequently become an eyesore and uh

1:07:42 ↗ tenants tend to use them for storage

1:07:45 ↗ instead of for recreation. They tend to

1:07:49 ↗ um gather strollers and coolers and

1:07:52 ↗ things of that nature. And when you have

1:07:54 ↗ that at every single unit on the facade,

1:07:56 ↗ your whole facade is strollers and

1:07:58 ↗ things of that nature, um

1:08:01 ↗ they can become a little bit of a fire

1:08:03 ↗ hazard as a result of the way they get

1:08:05 ↗ used as storage, especially in

1:08:07 ↗ affordable housing. Um that requirement

1:08:11 ↗ is one of the deviations that the uh

1:08:15 ↗ city council approved for the affordable

1:08:17 ↗ building, but not for the market rate

1:08:20 ↗ building. Um and and so the market rate

1:08:23 ↗ building will have balconies and things

1:08:25 ↗ of that nature on it. I think their

1:08:28 ↗ feeling was while they understood the

1:08:30 ↗ concern for the eyesore and the storage

1:08:33 ↗ use um they also really heard the

1:08:35 ↗ concern about constructibility and cost

1:08:38 ↗ and burdening the affordable building

1:08:40 ↗ with those measures. Um, there were also

1:08:43 ↗ a couple of

1:08:45 ↗ uh city council members in particular

1:08:47 ↗ who commented that they live in

1:08:49 ↗ buildings with balconies and they never

1:08:50 ↗ use their balconies. I will say um we do

1:08:54 ↗ a lot of market rate development as well

1:08:57 ↗ and

1:08:59 ↗ it's rare a developer asks for anything

1:09:02 ↗ over 20% balconies. Um they just they

1:09:06 ↗ find that tenants aren't asking for

1:09:08 ↗ them. Um, and so even if we're building

1:09:10 ↗ something kind of high-end, our target

1:09:12 ↗ is usually around 25% because most

1:09:15 ↗ people are not actually interested in

1:09:17 ↗ having them.

1:09:24 ↗ The other question I had was with

1:09:25 ↗ regards to ventilation and um is there

1:09:30 ↗ ventilation, is there forced air, how

1:09:33 ↗ does that work in that particular

1:09:34 ↗ building?

1:09:35 ↗ >> Um, so every unit has an ERV. um which

1:09:38 ↗ is an energy recovery ventilator and it

1:09:42 ↗ brings in fresh air from the outside. It

1:09:44 ↗ uses this fancy little box that looks

1:09:46 ↗ like layers of corrugated cardboard is

1:09:49 ↗ the best way to describe it and it uses

1:09:52 ↗ those to transfer the heat uh between

1:09:56 ↗ the inside air that is exiting as part

1:09:59 ↗ of exhaust and the outside air that's

1:10:01 ↗ coming in as fresh air. So that it helps

1:10:03 ↗ with your heating and cooling bills. Um,

1:10:06 ↗ it helps from an energy use standpoint.

1:10:08 ↗ Um, but its primary purpose is to

1:10:11 ↗ provide fresh air to the unit. Um, so

1:10:13 ↗ there are no trickle vents or anything

1:10:15 ↗ like that anymore. That's all gone by

1:10:17 ↗ the wayside with the current energy

1:10:18 ↗ code. And um,

1:10:22 ↗ in terms of heating, it's

1:10:25 ↗ electric.

1:10:26 ↗ >> I would say electric resistance. Is it

1:10:28 ↗ Cove? Correct. Cove heating. Um, and in

1:10:31 ↗ terms of air conditioning, AC, uh,

1:10:34 ↗ that's not part of the current plan,

1:10:36 ↗ except that the windows, um, are able to

1:10:40 ↗ have a panel inserted that has a

1:10:42 ↗ pre-made hole so that you can have, um,

1:10:46 ↗ portable window units. Um, not the big

1:10:49 ↗ window units that go in your window, but

1:10:50 ↗ if you're familiar with the ones that I

1:10:52 ↗ like to call suitcase units, they look

1:10:53 ↗ like suitcases and they have the hose

1:10:55 ↗ that comes up. Um, so the building will

1:10:57 ↗ be prepared to be able to ser or allow

1:10:59 ↗ people to have air conditioning in that

1:11:00 ↗ way.

1:11:03 ↗ >> Hi everyone. Uh, Nicole Wyn, uh, project

1:11:06 ↗ manager on the project. I just wanted to

1:11:07 ↗ add that every room has an operable

1:11:10 ↗ window in addition to that.

1:11:12 ↗ >> Yes.

1:11:12 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:11:14 ↗ >> Just a quick question regarding the

1:11:16 ↗ retail along the ground. Um, will there

1:11:18 ↗ be any kinds of restrictions based on

1:11:19 ↗ the design that won't be permitted in

1:11:21 ↗ there?

1:11:24 ↗ not based on design but um well and to

1:11:27 ↗ clarify there there is no retail

1:11:28 ↗ proposed there's a non-residential space

1:11:30 ↗ and that will house um the opportunity

1:11:32 ↗ center which is owned will be could you

1:11:35 ↗ clarify

1:11:38 ↗ >> it will be owned by the city and it is

1:11:42 ↗ required by some of the funding that we

1:11:43 ↗ have received that it is a health and um

1:11:46 ↗ physical and mental health facility

1:11:50 ↗ >> and we talked about the parking we site

1:11:52 ↗ so the we weren't we are not sure yet or

1:11:55 ↗ we have not been informed who the tenant

1:11:57 ↗ will be by the city but we did allow

1:11:59 ↗ parking for the maximum uh usage which

1:12:02 ↗ would be a medical clinic. So uh it it

1:12:05 ↗ it is able to um handle the parking that

1:12:09 ↗ would be associated with that.

1:12:13 ↗ >> I I had a follow- on question on the

1:12:15 ↗ ventilation. So the market rate building

1:12:19 ↗ would that be the equivalent strategy to

1:12:21 ↗ be able to have window units in them or

1:12:26 ↗ >> to be determined. Um you know at this

1:12:29 ↗ point where they are in design and

1:12:30 ↗ development

1:12:32 ↗ it's unknown. Um they will be required

1:12:34 ↗ by the energy code to have an ERV. So

1:12:36 ↗ they will have that still for their

1:12:37 ↗ fresh air intake. Whether or not they

1:12:39 ↗ will opt to provide some sort of cooling

1:12:41 ↗ up to them. Yeah. They will probably

1:12:44 ↗ have electric resistance heat though if

1:12:45 ↗ I had to go.

1:12:47 ↗ >> Oh, really?

1:12:56 ↗ >> Sorry. Is that to be determined as far

1:12:58 ↗ as the heating?

1:12:58 ↗ >> Determined. Yeah.

1:13:00 ↗ >> Okay.

1:13:05 ↗ >> I do have one other question I forgot

1:13:06 ↗ about. um evergreen sustainable

1:13:10 ↗ development standards like a brief

1:13:12 ↗ synopsis of how that differs from lead.

1:13:16 ↗ >> Um Nicole might be able to speak more to

1:13:19 ↗ how it differs. Uh it was a program

1:13:22 ↗ created by Washington state specific for

1:13:25 ↗ buildings in Washington and all

1:13:27 ↗ affordable housing is required to comply

1:13:29 ↗ with it. Um and generally speaking, it's

1:13:33 ↗ not dramatically different from LEAD. It

1:13:35 ↗ it's different in in the sense that you

1:13:37 ↗ know they call things slightly

1:13:39 ↗ differently and they assign points

1:13:40 ↗ slightly differently and all of that

1:13:42 ↗ kind of nomenclature is a little

1:13:44 ↗ different here and there. Um

1:13:45 ↗ [clears throat]

1:13:46 ↗ but the overall themes of what it does

1:13:50 ↗ are are very very comparable to lead. Um

1:13:54 ↗ and in the ways that it differs it's

1:13:56 ↗ really more about being specific to the

1:13:59 ↗ needs and uses in Washington because it

1:14:01 ↗ was made specifically for Washington.

1:14:07 ↗ Uh there was a a lot of back and forth

1:14:10 ↗ with the city council uh before we

1:14:12 ↗ included that in the housing cooperation

1:14:14 ↗ agreement. And one of the things that

1:14:15 ↗ they asked us to do uh is a detailed

1:14:19 ↗ comparison of the lead platinum to the

1:14:21 ↗ the um the ESDS. And what we determined

1:14:26 ↗ is there um there was we needed to

1:14:28 ↗ choose other additional ESDS points than

1:14:31 ↗ what we had originally planned in order

1:14:33 ↗ to be roughly equivalent. Um and so we

1:14:36 ↗ did that. We're we are exceeding the

1:14:39 ↗ ESDS requirements which is 50 points. We

1:14:43 ↗ we're our project will have another 20

1:14:45 ↗ points plus we're doing things that are

1:14:48 ↗ are beyond ESDs like having rooftop

1:14:50 ↗ solar. So, um I think that we're

1:14:53 ↗ performing uh very much the same as we

1:14:56 ↗ would with LEAD. It's just that our

1:14:57 ↗ funding sources require that we we use

1:15:00 ↗ the ESDS system and so it would been uh

1:15:04 ↗ somewhat costly to try and satisfy both

1:15:06 ↗ in the same project.

1:15:08 ↗ >> Great. Thank you very much. Any other

1:15:10 ↗ questions?

1:15:11 ↗ >> Just one additional comment in that we

1:15:14 ↗ are maximizing our available rooftop

1:15:16 ↗ area with IP. So, we're definitely

1:15:19 ↗ exceeding what the minimum requirement

1:15:21 ↗ is.

1:15:22 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

1:15:25 ↗ If there are no other questions from um

1:15:28 ↗ the commission, um we'll move into the

1:15:31 ↗ public comment portion of the hearing.

1:15:34 ↗ Miss Jackson, has anyone signed up to

1:15:36 ↗ comment on this topic?

1:15:38 ↗ >> No, sir. They have not.

1:15:40 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:15:46 ↗ Those who are in person and signed up in

1:15:48 ↗ advance make comments will be called on

1:15:50 ↗ first. If you're in the room and did not

1:15:52 ↗ sign up, I'll ask for other speakers

1:15:53 ↗ before closing this portion of the

1:15:55 ↗ meeting.

1:15:57 ↗ Um, is anybody anyone of the public

1:15:59 ↗ prefer to comment?

1:16:08 ↗ Hearing none.

1:16:16 ↗ Does the applicant have any rebuttal to

1:16:18 ↗ comments? But hearing none, so I presume

1:16:20 ↗ he won't.

1:16:22 ↗ Commissioners, are there any objections

1:16:24 ↗ to closing the public hearing?

1:16:28 ↗ hearing. None. We'll close the public

1:16:29 ↗ hearing at 7:47 p.m.

1:16:40 ↗ Now, it's time to move into deliberation

1:16:42 ↗ portion of the meeting. But first, we

1:16:44 ↗ need to make a motion. Is there a motion

1:16:46 ↗ on the item before the commission?

1:16:48 ↗ >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. I

1:16:51 ↗ move that the development commission

1:16:53 ↗ approve the site development permit

1:16:54 ↗ known as the trail head apartments

1:16:57 ↗ SDP25-0000002

1:17:01 ↗ as described and evaluated in the staff

1:17:03 ↗ report dated May 6th 2026 with exhibits

1:17:07 ↗ A through JJ and I move that the

1:17:10 ↗ development commission direct the

1:17:11 ↗ community planning and development

1:17:13 ↗ department to prepare findings of fact

1:17:15 ↗ and condition or and conclusions for

1:17:17 ↗ review and approval by the development

1:17:19 ↗ commission chair

1:17:20 ↗ Affirming the development commission's

1:17:22 ↗ decision to approve the site development

1:17:24 ↗ permit known as a trail head apartments

1:17:27 ↗ SDP 25002

1:17:31 ↗ as described and evaluated in the staff

1:17:33 ↗ report dated May 6, 2026 with exhibits A

1:17:36 ↗ through JJ subject to the conditions

1:17:39 ↗ therein and as amended here tonight.

1:17:44 ↗ There

1:17:44 ↗ >> a second.

1:17:45 ↗ >> I second the motion.

1:17:47 ↗ >> It's been moved and seconded.

1:17:50 ↗ Is there any commission discussion?

1:17:55 ↗ >> I have concerns about the AC units

1:17:58 ↗ actually, just the aesthetics of it, you

1:18:01 ↗ know, and I don't know if there's

1:18:02 ↗ anything we could do about that. I mean,

1:18:04 ↗ there was comments about, you know, the

1:18:08 ↗ balconies becoming

1:18:10 ↗ in um development, you know, planned

1:18:13 ↗ developments. We usually have

1:18:14 ↗ restrictions on what can be put in the

1:18:16 ↗ wall units. So, I think that could

1:18:19 ↗ quickly become an isore. Um,

1:18:23 ↗ so I'm I'm concerned about that. Just

1:18:24 ↗ the aesthetics of that.

1:18:26 ↗ >> I think the AC units are ones that will

1:18:28 ↗ go into the apartment. They'll be inside

1:18:31 ↗ the apartment, but then there's the hose

1:18:32 ↗ that um so basically from the outside

1:18:35 ↗ you'd see a little circle. That is the

1:18:37 ↗ hose that takes out a wall. I thought

1:18:41 ↗ you said was like a little

1:18:42 ↗ >> I think she's talking about an insert

1:18:44 ↗ that goes into the window and it'll

1:18:46 ↗ >> Can you respond?

1:18:46 ↗ >> Oh, sure. Yeah.

1:18:48 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:18:49 ↗ >> Yeah, I'm happy to elaborate. Um, so in

1:18:53 ↗ the windows, the way they're made and

1:18:55 ↗ manufactured, there's a screen panel so

1:18:57 ↗ that when you open your window, you've

1:18:58 ↗ got a a screen and bugs don't get in.

1:19:00 ↗ Um, the AC panel, all it is is that

1:19:03 ↗ screen comes out and in place is a

1:19:05 ↗ plexig plexiglass piece. So, it looks

1:19:08 ↗ transparent. It's totally transparent

1:19:10 ↗ and it has a little circle port just

1:19:12 ↗ like you're describing so that your AC

1:19:14 ↗ unit which looks like a suitcase um and

1:19:17 ↗ sits inside your unit has a little tube

1:19:19 ↗ that hooks to that hole so you won't you

1:19:22 ↗ won't be able to really see them from

1:19:23 ↗ the outside. Yeah. Yeah.

1:19:27 ↗ Thanks for clarifying that.

1:19:33 ↗ >> Other thoughts on the motion. Any

1:19:35 ↗ amendments to the motion?

1:19:42 ↗ Hearing none.

1:19:45 ↗ It's been moved to

1:19:48 ↗ approve the amendment, but I'm not going

1:19:50 ↗ to read the whole thing again since we

1:19:52 ↗ just heard it. uh and seconded.

1:19:57 ↗ All in favor say I.

1:19:59 ↗ >> I.

1:20:00 ↗ >> I.

1:20:01 ↗ >> I.

1:20:01 ↗ >> Any oppose?

1:20:03 ↗ >> Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

1:20:10 ↗ >> This concludes the site development

1:20:11 ↗ permit for the trail head apartments. A

1:20:13 ↗ notice of decision will be issued by

1:20:15 ↗ staff within 7 days.

1:20:20 ↗ And thank you very much for the

1:20:21 ↗ applicant and for Miss Weber for your

1:20:24 ↗ extremely detailed report and answers to

1:20:26 ↗ everything. Um, and we'll move to the

1:20:29 ↗ next item on the agenda.

1:20:32 ↗ Uh, the next item on the agenda was

1:20:34 ↗ going to be chair and vice chair

1:20:36 ↗ elections, but staff is going to

1:20:39 ↗ strongly recommend we postpone those

1:20:40 ↗ till our next meeting when our chair and

1:20:42 ↗ vice chair currently are present. So

1:20:45 ↗ that's all right. That's what we shall

1:20:47 ↗ do.

1:20:50 ↗ Thank you.

1:20:53 ↗ Uh, do we have city council updates?

1:20:58 ↗ >> Hi. I am I'm going to I'm going to try

1:21:01 ↗ and make this brief. So,

1:21:04 ↗ [clears throat] excuse me. So,

1:21:07 ↗ city council

1:21:10 ↗ and the mayor um would like to see more

1:21:14 ↗ development on the ground, particularly

1:21:16 ↗ housing

1:21:18 ↗ faster than we are getting it. Part of

1:21:20 ↗ this is because we need to build out our

1:21:22 ↗ regional growth center. We need the

1:21:24 ↗ housing. The region needs the housing.

1:21:26 ↗ And so we have worked with them and back

1:21:30 ↗ in March, city council approved, I

1:21:33 ↗ apologize, [clears throat]

1:21:34 ↗ approved our work plan.

1:21:37 ↗ And on the work plan are 17 items to

1:21:42 ↗ address land use code issues and

1:21:45 ↗ processing and peer review and so forth.

1:21:50 ↗ So I just want to share this list with

1:21:52 ↗ you and make you aware of it.

1:21:55 ↗ We won't be coming to development

1:21:57 ↗ commission. However, we would like to

1:21:59 ↗ hear from you. Um, so I just I want to

1:22:03 ↗ run through these kind of give you an

1:22:04 ↗ idea. We can send Emily can send you

1:22:07 ↗ this too. So you'll know when it's going

1:22:09 ↗ to council and then when it's going to

1:22:11 ↗ the planning policy commission for

1:22:13 ↗ public hearing and when we're going to

1:22:14 ↗ review it. So if you're interested in

1:22:16 ↗ coming and commenting on any of it,

1:22:18 ↗ being that you all do what you do and

1:22:20 ↗ you have to implement this, it would be

1:22:22 ↗ nice to hear from you. So we are just we

1:22:24 ↗ were put on a rather uh fast timeline.

1:22:28 ↗ So

1:22:29 ↗ um we still want your input how we can

1:22:32 ↗ get it. So I'm going to share this with

1:22:33 ↗ you.

1:22:35 ↗ Before you share it, what what was did

1:22:37 ↗ he want to go faster by what 10%. What

1:22:40 ↗ was his

1:22:40 ↗ >> pardon me?

1:22:41 ↗ >> What was his his turnaround time? It

1:22:44 ↗ takes so long to approve things. What is

1:22:46 ↗ he looking for? An incremental what is

1:22:48 ↗ it? Like

1:22:48 ↗ >> it's not that it takes too long to

1:22:50 ↗ approve things. It's just that we have

1:22:52 ↗ our central Isaacqua standards. We

1:22:54 ↗ amended the land use code. We completely

1:22:56 ↗ redid title 18 and we're still just not

1:22:58 ↗ quite seeing what we hope to see as far

1:23:02 ↗ as development goes.

1:23:04 ↗ >> We do have about,00 units that are

1:23:06 ↗ currently in the pipeline and are going

1:23:08 ↗ to start being built, but we have a lot

1:23:11 ↗ more capacity and we still have targets.

1:23:13 ↗ We have we have housing targets that

1:23:15 ↗ we're required to meet or accommodate

1:23:17 ↗ for and plan for by 2044. And so we're

1:23:21 ↗ trying to make sure the development

1:23:23 ↗ happens so that we can see those housing

1:23:26 ↗ units become a real thing.

1:23:30 ↗ >> Okay.

1:23:31 ↗ >> Okay.

1:23:37 ↗ So I've I've given this presentation

1:23:39 ↗ several times and I know that it takes a

1:23:41 ↗ while. So, I'm not going to do the whole

1:23:42 ↗ thing, but um first one is actually

1:23:44 ↗ going to public hearing. The first two

1:23:46 ↗ are going out for public hearing on May

1:23:49 ↗ 14th at the planning policy commission

1:23:51 ↗ and one of them is outdoor amenity space

1:23:53 ↗ requirements. They thought they were uh

1:23:55 ↗ diff we were and I'll tell you first of

1:23:56 ↗ all, these came from our title 18

1:23:59 ↗ updates. You may recall that we had some

1:24:00 ↗ whiteboard items that were too big to

1:24:02 ↗ address at the time and so we're going

1:24:03 ↗ to come back and visit them now. So,

1:24:05 ↗ some of these came from that. some of

1:24:07 ↗ that just when developments come through

1:24:09 ↗ staff looks at it and goes h that didn't

1:24:11 ↗ really work or you know we could we

1:24:14 ↗ could improve that so that the ideas

1:24:16 ↗ came from that. The mayor spoke with

1:24:18 ↗ several developers and we have been

1:24:20 ↗ having developer round table roundt

1:24:23 ↗ meetings and we've gotten had several

1:24:25 ↗ suggestions from them and lastly council

1:24:28 ↗ during their council retreat that they

1:24:29 ↗ have every year. They had it in January

1:24:31 ↗ also had ideas and so we looked at all

1:24:34 ↗ all of those lists said these will make

1:24:36 ↗ a difference. There are some other

1:24:38 ↗ things that will make differences as

1:24:39 ↗ well but these things can be done within

1:24:41 ↗ the next year and a half that we think

1:24:42 ↗ would make an impact. So that is what

1:24:45 ↗ the C's and D's and S's stand for.

1:24:47 ↗ council developer staff in those lists

1:24:50 ↗ and we have run these by council, we

1:24:52 ↗ have run these by developers and we've

1:24:54 ↗ gotten the okay. So, we're moving

1:24:56 ↗ forward. So first two outdoor amenity

1:24:58 ↗ space requirements. We just have they

1:25:01 ↗ were excessive and right now our

1:25:03 ↗ proposal is to only require 30% of the

1:25:06 ↗ units to have balconies 48 ft each and

1:25:10 ↗ then each unit must have 100 square ft

1:25:12 ↗ of open common amenity space.

1:25:17 ↗ Stepback requirements we're adjusting

1:25:19 ↗ those a little bit. They were

1:25:23 ↗ um a little bit excessive. we are

1:25:24 ↗ requiring more than one in some in some

1:25:27 ↗ situations. We're looking at them

1:25:28 ↗ against natural context areas where

1:25:30 ↗ maybe you don't need them because you're

1:25:32 ↗ already in the shoreline jurisdiction.

1:25:34 ↗ You already have a 35 ft height limit

1:25:35 ↗ when you're in within those

1:25:36 ↗ jurisdictions. So, we're looking at not

1:25:39 ↗ requiring those there. Self

1:25:41 ↗ self-certification of ADUs. We're really

1:25:43 ↗ looking at pre-approved plans and

1:25:44 ↗ establishing a program there. Floor area

1:25:47 ↗ ratio. We have situations where our

1:25:49 ↗ floor area ratio and our height don't

1:25:52 ↗ really mesh up. you know, you can hit

1:25:54 ↗ the max height before you can hit the

1:25:55 ↗ floor area ratio, then why are you going

1:25:57 ↗ to go up above that? We're not going to

1:25:58 ↗ get affordable housing. So, we're trying

1:26:00 ↗ to rightsize that. But at the same time,

1:26:02 ↗ we're going to look at our inclusionary

1:26:04 ↗ zoning and our development bonus

1:26:05 ↗ programs to see how we can make all of

1:26:07 ↗ those work together better. That's a big

1:26:09 ↗ one for developers. We've heard parking

1:26:12 ↗ requirements, we're just going to meet

1:26:14 ↗ the new state law requirements about a

1:26:16 ↗ year ahead of time. natural context

1:26:18 ↗ areas and transparency requirements. We

1:26:21 ↗ do agree that those the transparency

1:26:23 ↗ requirements, one, they're a little odd

1:26:25 ↗ in different places. 75% here, 40% here

1:26:28 ↗ if you're above 6 feet, 50% if you're

1:26:30 ↗ against a natural context area, kind of

1:26:32 ↗ all over the place. So, we want to

1:26:34 ↗ streamline it, but we also want to um

1:26:37 ↗ make it a little bit more realistic.

1:26:41 ↗ The allowing multif family in all

1:26:43 ↗ commercial areas is a state law. We're

1:26:45 ↗ just abiding with that.

1:26:47 ↗ architectural design standards.

1:26:50 ↗ We are going to make a little bit more

1:26:52 ↗ of a we're proposing to make more of a

1:26:54 ↗ menu situation. Right now, our code says

1:26:58 ↗ we need this and you must meet all of

1:27:00 ↗ these requirements. It's not always it's

1:27:01 ↗ not always doable. Sometimes it's

1:27:04 ↗ expensive. Sometimes it's not realistic.

1:27:06 ↗ So, we're potentially looking at a menu

1:27:08 ↗ option there. Same with variances and

1:27:10 ↗ deviations. How can we perhaps allow

1:27:14 ↗ more deviations?

1:27:17 ↗ Now, keep in mind I'm saying all this

1:27:18 ↗ stuff. We recognize because this was my

1:27:21 ↗ job with the city for ever, but there

1:27:24 ↗ are visions in place, right? We have a

1:27:26 ↗ comprehensive plan and we have a central

1:27:27 ↗ Isiqua plan and we know what we want it

1:27:29 ↗ to look like. So, our goal is to do all

1:27:31 ↗ of this within the context of here is

1:27:33 ↗ still what we're trying to achieve to

1:27:36 ↗ keep the city's vision. So, that's not

1:27:37 ↗ going away.

1:27:39 ↗ Uh peer reviews through block

1:27:41 ↗ [clears throat] connectors are sometimes

1:27:42 ↗ a little unrealistic. Peer review, we're

1:27:45 ↗ trying to figure out what needs to be

1:27:47 ↗ peer-reviewed. It gets to be costly. We

1:27:50 ↗ don't have people inhouse to do that.

1:27:52 ↗ We've discovered through central Isaqua

1:27:54 ↗ that oh gosh, look, you pulled up the

1:27:57 ↗ pavement, there's a wetland right there.

1:27:59 ↗ And our, you know, our stepbacks for

1:28:02 ↗ some of these things are 150 feet or 75

1:28:04 ↗ feet, whatever it may be, which takes

1:28:05 ↗ away a lot of development space. So,

1:28:07 ↗ we're trying to figure out a happy place

1:28:09 ↗ where we can still improve what was

1:28:12 ↗ paved previously and yet allow

1:28:14 ↗ development to occur there.

1:28:18 ↗ Let's see. Uh, working on more

1:28:22 ↗ sustainable development standards, but

1:28:23 ↗ again, a menu

1:28:25 ↗ talking about what to do with structured

1:28:27 ↗ parking around the or structured or

1:28:30 ↗ retail frontage wrap requirement. Um,

1:28:33 ↗ we're trying to figure out what to do

1:28:35 ↗ with that. We've heard that's difficult.

1:28:37 ↗ Talking about multif family tax

1:28:39 ↗ exemptions, which most cities do, it

1:28:41 ↗ would be huge for getting affordable

1:28:43 ↗ housing and development back in here,

1:28:44 ↗ especially since we require zoning with

1:28:46 ↗ our inclusionary zoning. We are looking

1:28:49 ↗ at right sizing impact fees. Admittedly,

1:28:51 ↗ ours are quite a bit higher than a few

1:28:53 ↗ other cities and the potential use of AI

1:28:56 ↗ to aid in permitting. So, those are

1:28:58 ↗ topics that are all coming through here.

1:29:00 ↗ They're outlined by Q1 through Q3. I'll

1:29:02 ↗ have Emily send you the schedule and if

1:29:04 ↗ when you look at these, please um send

1:29:07 ↗ comments and or come to meetings because

1:29:09 ↗ you all are the experts and we would

1:29:11 ↗ love to have your opinions.

1:29:16 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you.

1:29:19 ↗ Are there any other items of business or

1:29:21 ↗ announcements from staff?

1:29:23 ↗ >> Uh the last item is just the upcoming

1:29:25 ↗ schedule. As of now, not anticipating a

1:29:27 ↗ June meeting, but it looks like we might

1:29:30 ↗ be having July, maybe August for a um

1:29:33 ↗ larger PSSE substation expansion coming

1:29:36 ↗ before you guys. Um and then just a

1:29:40 ↗ couple things farther out in the

1:29:41 ↗ pipeline that we can't quite anticipate

1:29:43 ↗ yet. The second building of this one

1:29:45 ↗ will be coming in eventually. And um but

1:29:48 ↗ yeah, so as of now, it's looking like

1:29:49 ↗ just a July meeting next. and whatever

1:29:51 ↗ our next meeting is is when we will do

1:29:53 ↗ the chair and vice chair elections as

1:29:55 ↗ well.

1:29:56 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Emily.

1:29:58 ↗ Any other comments from commissioner?

1:30:02 ↗ >> I would like to make a couple comments.

1:30:04 ↗ One is um welcoming Commissioner

1:30:07 ↗ Stancheek as a regular member and u

1:30:10 ↗ thank you for serving as an alternate

1:30:11 ↗ and we're

1:30:13 ↗ very pleased to have you as a regular

1:30:15 ↗ member. Thank you. Um, and the same time

1:30:18 ↗ I would like to um, not many people in

1:30:21 ↗ the audience, but I would like to

1:30:22 ↗ especially thank uh, Richard Sanford for

1:30:25 ↗ his eight years of service on the

1:30:27 ↗ commission. And I think maybe of anybody

1:30:30 ↗ I've ever served with, the most thorough

1:30:33 ↗ reviewer of projects that came through

1:30:37 ↗ um, for somebody that was a not from a

1:30:40 ↗ development real estate background. So

1:30:43 ↗ um, thank you Richard if you're

1:30:44 ↗ listening somewhere.

1:30:46 ↗ Thank you very much.

1:30:49 ↗ [laughter]

1:30:49 ↗ >> I hope not. There be no further business

1:30:52 ↗ before the commission. I adjourn the

1:30:53 ↗ meeting at 8:02 p.m. Thank you.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.