Development Commission SPECIAL MEETING - Training · Tuesday, May 6, 2014 · City Council Digest

1. WELCOME

Sign-Up / Attendance Confirmation

2. TRAINING SESSION

The purpose of the special meeting is to provide a training session which covers roles and responsibilities, open public meetings guidelines, and other legal aspects. This training is necessary to ensure that actions of boards and commissions are consistent with state and local laws, and that members are aware of the various requirements and compliance obligations

Ted Hunter of Sound Law Center Note: Due to the format of this special

6165 segments .txt ↗

0:20 ↗ good evening ladies and gentlemen

0:21 ↗ welcome to the May 6th Urban Village

0:25 ↗ Development commission meeting lots to

0:27 ↗ cover we got a little bit uh we we

0:29 ↗ started on a different time uh hour this

0:31 ↗ this time uh we just had a uh training

0:34 ↗ session so thank you all for coming out

0:36 ↗ uh at this hour of

0:38 ↗ 8:00 uh first I'd like to obviously meet

0:41 ↗ call the meeting to order uh and before

0:43 ↗ we move on to our official business I

0:45 ↗ would like to uh welcome our two new

0:48 ↗ commission members we have two new

0:49 ↗ alternates today Anne finny and Lindsay

0:51 ↗ Comfort welcome to the commission you're

0:53 ↗ in for a ride um and uh we also have

0:56 ↗ moved two alternates up to uh permanent

0:59 ↗ positions Eric olssen and Jim kerts

1:01 ↗ thank you very much gentlemen um and

1:04 ↗ this is now your full commission uh just

1:05 ↗ to let everybody know everybody here uh

1:08 ↗ that's participating has either been

1:10 ↗ involved uh or has reviewed the entire

1:13 ↗ record uh through this process so that U

1:16 ↗ everyone is in a place to participate

1:18 ↗ tonight so thank you very much for doing

1:19 ↗ that uh this time I'd like to

1:22 ↗ go correct

1:24 ↗ yes yeah Carl was just letting me know

1:26 ↗ that alter Nets will participate but

1:28 ↗ will not be uh voting on any on any

1:31 ↗ decisions um I'd like to go ahead and go

1:34 ↗ to the approval of the meeting minutes

1:35 ↗ from April 15th uh is anybody have any

1:39 ↗ questions or edits uh of that of those

1:42 ↗ meeting

1:43 ↗ minutes yes

1:52 ↗ Eric that's what happened in real life

1:55 ↗ Eric I'm

1:57 ↗ sorry uh so let me let me find the page

2:01 ↗ and let me get back to you real quick

2:02 ↗ sorry here okay well in in uh in the

2:05 ↗ interest of time we'll go ahead if

2:07 ↗ that's

2:08 ↗ okay can we make that change a little

2:11 ↗ later or do we need to do it right now

2:12 ↗ need to do it now need to do it now okay

2:14 ↗ so no pressure Eric

2:17 ↗ meantime yeah

2:20 ↗ Scott uh I didn't recall within within

2:23 ↗ the document seeing any call outs around

2:25 ↗ uh a comment that I had made specific to

2:28 ↗ proceeding on 8 and N the call out

2:31 ↗ specific to the water

2:34 ↗ tanks is that ringing a bell no as as to

2:37 ↗ whether or not those devices being in

2:41 ↗ place prior to construction

2:46 ↗ starting so you're ask resir asking are

2:50 ↗ you asking me a question or are you I'm

2:53 ↗ curious if that is something that needs

2:55 ↗ to be called out within the meeting

2:56 ↗ minutes because that was a key question

2:58 ↗ that was raised during that session so

3:00 ↗ if if that was if you're

3:03 ↗ asking if you're stating that you feel

3:05 ↗ that a piece of um te a discussion is

3:10 ↗ not reflected in the minutes then yes

3:12 ↗ that should be reflect correct and so

3:15 ↗ could you maybe summarize that so the um

3:19 ↗ or was that the summary that was the

3:21 ↗ summary I didn't see anything called out

3:23 ↗ specific within in the documentation

3:24 ↗ that indicated that call out okay so

3:26 ↗ we'll make that amendment I found Eric's

3:28 ↗ uh uh paragraph of concern it says Olson

3:31 ↗ ask what is included the maintenance of

3:32 ↗ walls that are existent Talis slowman

3:34 ↗ replied maintenance would include

3:35 ↗ inspections as well as replacement costs

3:37 ↗ Olson noted and that's it um and that's

3:41 ↗ page uh 7 of 49 on this on this document

3:44 ↗ that I have so if we could please amend

3:47 ↗ that to finish the sentence that would

3:48 ↗ be great okay anything

3:51 ↗ else say um I don't know where do we get

3:55 ↗ that I'm not sure if he remembers do you

3:57 ↗ remember you recall what you noted Eric

4:00 ↗ okay we'll go back in the record and

4:02 ↗ amend that okay so are you

4:07 ↗ um so the the minutes you're asking the

4:12 ↗ um recording secretary to um look at the

4:16 ↗ notes or or look at the videotape or

4:19 ↗ listen to the record and complete that

4:21 ↗ sentence based on what Eric said yeah

4:24 ↗ unless Eric can give it to us now I have

4:26 ↗ no idea what that

4:27 ↗ was I don't have any idea either I just

4:30 ↗ uh caught that so could you could you

4:33 ↗ give us the page again yeah it says 7 of

4:36 ↗ 49

4:38 ↗ yeah really good I remember

4:41 ↗ that okay okay yeah it's probably it's

4:44 ↗ probably typed in it just probably got

4:45 ↗ cut off on the printing okay all right

4:47 ↗ anything

4:49 ↗ else all right let's go ahead and uh see

4:51 ↗ if there's a motion to approve the

4:52 ↗ minutes I as amended sorry as amended I

4:55 ↗ move we accept the minutes from the

4:57 ↗ April 15th 2014 meeting

5:00 ↗ motion second second motion Eric

5:03 ↗ seconded all in favor all opposed okay

5:07 ↗ unanimous pass we had one oh abstain we

5:10 ↗ have that one abstention I apologize you

5:12 ↗ were not here correct okay thank you one

5:15 ↗ exstension all right um let's see uh we

5:20 ↗ are going to have uh a lot lot of stuff

5:22 ↗ going on tonight I'm I'm going to start

5:23 ↗ with Lucy in just a moment we will have

5:25 ↗ public comment uh little bit of a a

5:27 ↗ slight change in in How We Do things

5:30 ↗ very slight but since there are a lot of

5:32 ↗ people that want to speak tonight and I

5:33 ↗ want to make sure we're getting to

5:34 ↗ everybody and through everybody uh there

5:37 ↗ is a signup sheet if you haven't already

5:38 ↗ signed up I'm going to ask that you do

5:40 ↗ so if you do not sign up U by the time I

5:42 ↗ take the clipboard we're not going to be

5:43 ↗ able to take your testimony this evening

5:45 ↗ I just want to make sure we have a lot

5:46 ↗ of enough time for everybody so I'm

5:48 ↗ going to ask that everybody please sign

5:49 ↗ up before uh I grab the clipboard and I

5:52 ↗ will give everybody one last notice to

5:54 ↗ do that before we actually go into that

5:55 ↗ so that's what we do what we will do

5:57 ↗ tonight and at this time I'm going to go

5:59 ↗ ahead and turn over to

6:01 ↗ Lucy so I just want to make sure that

6:03 ↗ everyone has met the new Commissioners

6:06 ↗ yes I went through that okay great sorry

6:08 ↗ thanks for listening and just

6:11 ↗ kidding my strength do I need to start

6:13 ↗ over uh no no so um tonight uh there are

6:18 ↗ a couple of extra copies out there if

6:20 ↗ people are interested I've handed out to

6:22 ↗ the Commissioners The decisionmaking

6:24 ↗ Matrix I just want to remind you that

6:26 ↗ this is a quasi judicial

6:30 ↗ matter which means you're acting as a

6:32 ↗ judge which means that we need to go

6:34 ↗ through the Quasi judicial checklist

6:36 ↗ this evening um you are um this is a

6:40 ↗ continuation of the public hearing from

6:42 ↗ April

6:43 ↗ 15th um the at April 15th meeting

6:47 ↗ Parcels eight and nine were um

6:50 ↗ recommended to a recommendation was made

6:52 ↗ on those to the council and um the

6:56 ↗ commission asked for a couple of items

6:59 ↗ to be brought back to them relative to

7:01 ↗ parcel 7 and that's why the public

7:04 ↗ hearing was continued so um there are

7:07 ↗ four questions I'm going to ask the

7:09 ↗ commission tonight um to confirm that um

7:13 ↗ we're um following through on appearance

7:16 ↗ of

7:17 ↗ fairness so the first one is um does the

7:20 ↗ he I'm going to read each one of these

7:22 ↗ and then I'll just ask the commission to

7:25 ↗ say yes or no just as a group um does

7:28 ↗ the decision maker have a reasonable

7:30 ↗ impartial attitude towards the

7:35 ↗ request yes okay is the dis decision

7:38 ↗ maker free from any direct or indirect

7:41 ↗ Financial benefit that would result from

7:43 ↗ approving or denying the request yes

7:47 ↗ okay um if an exp parte contact has

7:51 ↗ occurred have they been revealed at the

7:56 ↗ hearing uh we actually do have one thing

7:58 ↗ to bring up uh during the April 15th uh

8:00 ↗ public hearing on this preliminary plat

8:02 ↗ if you recall we went into there there

8:03 ↗ was a recess for a moment two recesses

8:06 ↗ and and during one of them we uh we had

8:08 ↗ a number of people come up to us and ask

8:10 ↗ us and ask us questions that we said we

8:12 ↗ could not discuss at this time but there

8:14 ↗ was a very brief M moment where the

8:17 ↗ Commissioners did discuss one piece of

8:20 ↗ it and uh went back and and spoke to

8:22 ↗ Lucy and we were informed at that time

8:24 ↗ that we cannot have that conversation uh

8:26 ↗ to ensure that UVC is in compliance with

8:28 ↗ the requirements of this proceeding um

8:31 ↗ the Commissioners who are present

8:32 ↗ declare uh the SE parte communication

8:34 ↗ now and we want to know if there's

8:36 ↗ anybody who wishes to object to

8:37 ↗ anybody's participation in this um I

8:40 ↗ recall it was well can I can I add the

8:43 ↗ discussion was essentially which way are

8:46 ↗ you guys leaning so that we had an idea

8:47 ↗ of where the discussion should go I

8:49 ↗ don't think we discussed anything

8:50 ↗ substantive of what the issues were um

8:52 ↗ that's my recollection just wanted to

8:54 ↗ add that so um is there any uh any

8:58 ↗ objection to any of the commission is

8:59 ↗ participating further on

9:05 ↗ this so seeing none so seeing none we're

9:08 ↗ going to proceed with the hearing okay

9:10 ↗ thank

9:14 ↗ you is there a fourth question oh I'm

9:17 ↗ sorry we we actually just did the fourth

9:19 ↗ question has an opportunity been given

9:21 ↗ to object to the decision makers parti

9:23 ↗ participation because of ex parte

9:25 ↗ contacts so that was the piece that we

9:27 ↗ just did okay thank you

9:30 ↗ you

9:32 ↗ may so we're discussing continuance of

9:35 ↗ uh parcel 7 in this conversation can we

9:38 ↗ reference and and discuss Parcels eight

9:41 ↗ and

9:41 ↗ nine um not only is they relate to

9:45 ↗ parcel 7 because you've already made a

9:47 ↗ recommendation on Parcels 8 and nine to

9:50 ↗ the coun so that should limit our

9:51 ↗ conversation tonight right okay thank

9:53 ↗ you good question thank

9:58 ↗ you

10:03 ↗ now Dan's going to make the presentation

10:05 ↗ Let's

10:14 ↗ see we can switch

10:22 ↗ back so along um some of the similar

10:26 ↗ lines um this evening is the

10:28 ↗ continuation of the public hearing for

10:29 ↗ the preliminary plat of Talis parcel 7

10:33 ↗ as we've said parcel 8 has already

10:35 ↗ received a recommendation today during

10:38 ↗ preparation for this evening's

10:39 ↗ continuation of the public hearing it

10:41 ↗ was discovered that the staff briefing

10:43 ↗ response memo number two was not

10:45 ↗ distributed in the packets sent to the

10:47 ↗ Commissioners the applicant and parties

10:49 ↗ of record after consultation with the

10:52 ↗ city attorney it was determined that the

10:54 ↗ memo did not contain new facts that had

10:56 ↗ not been previously presented rather it

10:59 ↗ contains staff's conclusions on

11:01 ↗ consistency of the application with the

11:03 ↗ development agreement professional

11:05 ↗ opinions of Staff regarding

11:07 ↗ modifications proposed by the applicant

11:10 ↗ and responses to public comment as such

11:13 ↗ this evening staff will provide a more

11:15 ↗ detailed presentation than usual

11:17 ↗ covering the Memo's Salient

11:19 ↗ points um therefore the continuation of

11:21 ↗ this public hearing May proceed and the

11:24 ↗ Commissioners May render a

11:25 ↗ recommendation on this permit this

11:27 ↗ evening if they choose if anyone objects

11:30 ↗ they should clearly raise this point

11:32 ↗ during the comment period and specify

11:34 ↗ the basis on which they

11:37 ↗ object

11:39 ↗ okay so now you get to see a really

11:42 ↗ detailed

11:43 ↗ presentation

11:46 ↗ so the first part of the presentation

11:49 ↗ are the modifications proposed to parcel

11:51 ↗ 7 plat responding to the UVC requests um

11:55 ↗ from the April 15th public hearing so

11:59 ↗ the first um modification is related to

12:02 ↗ the Western buffer and Reservoir um the

12:05 ↗ applicant has proposed the uh

12:07 ↗ modification to the plat um that was

12:10 ↗ removing the existing pair of Tanks

12:12 ↗ adjacent to parcel 8 and relocating that

12:16 ↗ pair of Tanks adjacent to parcel 7 and

12:20 ↗ um removing the road out of the buffer

12:24 ↗ by parcel 7 the purpose of the western

12:28 ↗ um 50 50 foot buffer is to avoid

12:31 ↗ residential impacts to the buffer um uh

12:35 ↗ on the park excuse me and vice versa

12:37 ↗ that is concerns that trees might fall

12:40 ↗ from Cougar Mountain wildlands Park onto

12:43 ↗ homes if they were closer than 50 ft or

12:46 ↗ that activities on Residential

12:48 ↗ Properties could impact the park

12:52 ↗ unoccupied structures such as a water

12:54 ↗ tower um were considered acceptable the

12:58 ↗ devel velopment agreement specifies that

13:00 ↗ there needs to be a vegetated buffer not

13:03 ↗ a native or protected

13:05 ↗ buffer um The Proposal uh creates less

13:10 ↗ impact than the existing situation in

13:12 ↗ that the road that serves the existing

13:15 ↗ two tanks is being removed from the

13:18 ↗ buffer um they will rate the current

13:21 ↗ tank location to seamlessly transition

13:23 ↗ to Cougar Mountain Wildland Park um this

13:26 ↗ is consistent with an amm

13:30 ↗ 0412 EV that was approved in 2004 and uh

13:35 ↗ was supporting correspondence from 2000

13:37 ↗ and

13:39 ↗ 2004 So to that end the applicant had

13:43 ↗ proposed two conditions those are both

13:45 ↗ shown at the bottom of the screen with

13:49 ↗ their concurrence we revised those

13:51 ↗ conditions to the two shown at the top

13:53 ↗ of the screen um and I will read those

13:56 ↗ into the record so the first new

13:59 ↗ condition says prior to acceptance of

14:01 ↗ the second 9116 tank and Reservoir

14:04 ↗ Access Road the 752 Reservoir and access

14:08 ↗ road shall be removed from the 50ft wide

14:10 ↗ Westerly buffer following remover

14:13 ↗ removal of the reservoir and Road

14:15 ↗ Disturbed areas shall be restored with

14:17 ↗ an appropriate native pallet of ground

14:19 ↗ cover shrubs and trees including

14:22 ↗ Evergreens the restoration plan shall be

14:24 ↗ permitted and performance bond posted

14:27 ↗ prior to final plat for either parcel 7

14:29 ↗ or eight whichever comes first the

14:32 ↗ landscape restoration work shall be

14:34 ↗ completed that is installed inspected

14:36 ↗ and maintenance Bond posted prior to

14:38 ↗ acceptance of the second new 9116 tank

14:41 ↗ which is the one by parcel

14:44 ↗ 7 the second condition um which also has

14:48 ↗ been um accepted by the applicant is

14:51 ↗ that the 916 Reservoir Access Road shall

14:55 ↗ be outside the 50-ft buffer walls are

14:58 ↗ grading may occur within the buffer but

15:00 ↗ shall be restored with an appropriate

15:01 ↗ native pallet of ground cover shrubs and

15:04 ↗ trees including Evergreens as determined

15:06 ↗ by the designated official the tanks May

15:09 ↗ remain within the Westerly buffer as

15:11 ↗ approximately shown in the applicant's

15:13 ↗ proposal of April 30th

15:15 ↗ 2014 the reservoir site footprint shall

15:18 ↗ be minimized while maintaining necessary

15:20 ↗ functionality as determined by the

15:22 ↗ designated

15:26 ↗ official so before I move on I want to

15:28 ↗ give the commission an opportunity to

15:30 ↗ ask questions Michael Lucy just so I

15:34 ↗ understand this we are going to tear

15:35 ↗ down functioning water towers and

15:38 ↗ replace them in a different location on

15:40 ↗ the

15:40 ↗ property so we are relocating them um

15:45 ↗ and there is a

15:48 ↗ um so this may be where I want to pull

15:51 ↗ Dan in but as I understand it the net

15:54 ↗ cost is um equivalent or less than

15:57 ↗ building new tanks

15:59 ↗ and the city prefers not to have four

16:01 ↗ tanks to

16:04 ↗ maintain Dan is giving a thumbs up just

16:06 ↗ so you

16:08 ↗ know so how okay two

16:12 ↗ questions so they're not going to be

16:14 ↗ torn now they're just moved right so

16:16 ↗ which okay thank you and then total

16:18 ↗ footprint of the

16:19 ↗ site that they're going to be moved to

16:21 ↗ will that be let me let me ask you

16:23 ↗ another question first um total water

16:26 ↗ capacity the way I read the plan before

16:27 ↗ there were going to be four water towers

16:30 ↗ how are we going to make up that extra

16:32 ↗ water capacity by H by only having two

16:34 ↗ towers now so um the reason and and

16:39 ↗ again I'm teetering on my knowledge here

16:42 ↗ but my understanding is that the reason

16:44 ↗ that we needed four tanks was based on

16:46 ↗ the pressure zones and not the volume of

16:50 ↗ water so that they are able so by moving

16:54 ↗ the two tanks into the higher pressure

16:56 ↗ Zone they are then able to serve all the

17:00 ↗ homes Dan is confirming that with

17:02 ↗ another

17:03 ↗ th you guys get more information than I

17:06 ↗ do and was there any look at the actual

17:08 ↗ number of

17:11 ↗ um well I guess this is going to result

17:13 ↗ in less footprint of actual property

17:15 ↗ that is

17:17 ↗ developed this will result in um less

17:22 ↗ shall we say impervious area within the

17:25 ↗ 50 Foot

17:26 ↗ buffer okay okay Eric did you have

17:30 ↗ something uh no he he de answered that I

17:33 ↗ just want to make sure it was the exact

17:34 ↗ same tanks that are going to be

17:36 ↗ relocated okay so they're going to be

17:38 ↗ recycled okay okay very sustainable any

17:41 ↗ other

17:43 ↗ questions no okay thank you

17:46 ↗ okay um and then I just wanted to point

17:49 ↗ out that um if there were walls um that

17:53 ↗ were located in the buffer um that they

17:58 ↗ had to be constructed in such a way as

18:01 ↗ to allow full revation of the buffer

18:05 ↗ this is an existing condition which we

18:06 ↗ talked about last time we're not

18:08 ↗ proposing any changes but I just wanted

18:10 ↗ to bring it to your

18:11 ↗ attention um Jeff is it Michael's asking

18:15 ↗ do you care so I have one more question

18:17 ↗ sure these tanks that are are they're

18:20 ↗ currently in

18:21 ↗ use where's the water supply going to

18:24 ↗ come from while they're being moved so

18:26 ↗ they're own they're going to be taken

18:27 ↗ out of service one at a time

18:30 ↗ okay that's why the condition is related

18:33 ↗ to the second tank being in place um so

18:36 ↗ because they can only be taken out one

18:37 ↗ at a

18:44 ↗ time can I ask a quick question um

18:47 ↗ previously this required

18:50 ↗ um a modification um that was the 2004

18:55 ↗ so now what happens with that property

19:00 ↗ that you know the water towers were

19:02 ↗ previously on what's going to happen to

19:03 ↗ that that's the one that's going to be

19:05 ↗ fully revegetated

19:08 ↗ okay and Lucy just one notation on your

19:11 ↗ staff recommendation uh just for clarity

19:14 ↗ this is a a quazi judicial process

19:18 ↗ tonight yes and you're saying their

19:21 ↗ revised conditions as part overall

19:23 ↗ recommendation to city council to

19:25 ↗ approve the preliminary plant are we

19:27 ↗ approving that no so your

19:30 ↗ recommendation could be to approve to

19:33 ↗ deny you so what I we're making a

19:36 ↗ recommendation to you on what your

19:38 ↗ recommendation should be I see okay it's

19:41 ↗ a recommendation to a

19:43 ↗ recommendation thank you for clarifying

19:46 ↗ thank

19:48 ↗ you

19:51 ↗ okay so the second modification that the

19:54 ↗ applicants proposed is to reduce the

19:56 ↗ eastern wall in parcel 7 by

19:58 ↗ approximately 10 ft so that its height

20:01 ↗ is between 29 and 39 ft so I've just I

20:05 ↗ grabbed their um nice little graphic and

20:08 ↗ added um this

20:10 ↗ yellow uh uh line right here to just

20:14 ↗ illustrate which wall we're speaking of

20:17 ↗ you said 29 and 39 it says 20 and 39

20:19 ↗ just to be clear thank you for listening

20:21 ↗ thank

20:24 ↗ you so our recommendation is to again

20:28 ↗ accept um the revi uh accept the revised

20:32 ↗ conditions as part of an overall

20:33 ↗ recommendation to the council to approve

20:35 ↗ the plat um the uh applicants proposed

20:40 ↗ condition is at the bottom again ours is

20:42 ↗ just above it they have seen that and

20:44 ↗ they are um have said that they're fine

20:47 ↗ with it which um is to revise the

20:49 ↗ eastern wall design and height in parcel

20:52 ↗ 7 to be no more than 39 ft this will be

20:55 ↗ reviewed with permits which include the

20:57 ↗ wall design

21:03 ↗ any questions Scott so just a quick just

21:06 ↗ a quick clarifying question um can you

21:09 ↗ direct with the mouse other walls that

21:11 ↗ are of that elevation within the current

21:14 ↗ area so um if if you'll um indulge me

21:18 ↗ I'm going to talk about that a little

21:20 ↗ bit more um when we go through some of

21:22 ↗ the public comments that we um received

21:24 ↗ so I'd like to wait I'll have a little

21:26 ↗ bit bigger version and I think they'll

21:27 ↗ talk about it as well that's great thank

21:29 ↗ you so then I just wanted to notate when

21:32 ↗ I reviewed this uh graph or picture uh

21:37 ↗ that was very enlightening to see the

21:40 ↗ existing walls in Talis much of which I

21:44 ↗ I would say

21:47 ↗ uh would people would not be aware of

21:51 ↗ and so I appreciate that thank you

21:53 ↗ you're

21:57 ↗ welcome

21:58 ↗ um and then the last modification that

22:01 ↗ we proposed um is not from the

22:04 ↗ applicants but is uh followup to

22:07 ↗ something that we talked about when we

22:09 ↗ were considering all three Parcels being

22:11 ↗ recommended to council last time so

22:13 ↗ staff has attempted to capture the um

22:16 ↗ discussion that came up last time so um

22:20 ↗ again it's um a recommendation to add

22:22 ↗ the following condition as part of your

22:24 ↗ recommendation to council and the new

22:26 ↗ condition is um the Northern end of Road

22:29 ↗ a will terminate as a driveway to the

22:31 ↗ northernmost house currently lot 17 the

22:34 ↗ RightWay May extend to the northern

22:37 ↗ property line but no extension of Road a

22:39 ↗ will incur occur until such time as the

22:42 ↗ city council has made a decision that

22:44 ↗ would support such

22:46 ↗ extension this will be reviewed with the

22:48 ↗ final plat and with the site work permit

22:50 ↗ which includes roads so um here's parcel

22:53 ↗ 7 on the left um I've done a blow up of

22:56 ↗ this area right here this is Road a um

23:00 ↗ you can see that the plat um currently

23:02 ↗ just has a driveway and not a road

23:04 ↗ coming to the um northern property line

23:08 ↗ um but if the applicant chose they could

23:12 ↗ extend the right of way to that Northern

23:15 ↗ property

23:18 ↗ line yeah go ahead Carl um Eide fire and

23:22 ↗ rescue Etc I think we've talked about

23:24 ↗ this before but can you address that

23:26 ↗ please so um East Side fire and rescue

23:28 ↗ has reviewed all the plat and we've

23:31 ↗ talked to them several times um where

23:34 ↗ there are these dead ends um such as

23:37 ↗ here or um the area that we're looking

23:40 ↗ at right now they would um use this to

23:42 ↗ back into and turn around or back

23:45 ↗ straight out and turn and go out that

23:47 ↗ way so it's it's um I talk about this a

23:50 ↗ little bit more but the idea is that

23:52 ↗ where there are dead ends the um

23:54 ↗ required fire turnaround has been

23:56 ↗ embedded into the street system

23:59 ↗ and I'm sorry go ahead so it's in the

24:01 ↗ street system but not the Terminus is

24:03 ↗ what you're

24:07 ↗ saying I'm calling the Terminus where it

24:09 ↗ stops at the driveway right well right

24:12 ↗ this it it's um the the turnaround are

24:15 ↗ these three pieces here as opposed to

24:17 ↗ the driveway itself thank you and and

24:20 ↗ these are two-way roads correct all of

24:23 ↗ them okay everything's to okay thank

24:26 ↗ you

24:38 ↗ okay so this so the road width is

24:40 ↗ standard Road

24:42 ↗ width in some

24:44 ↗ cases

24:46 ↗ um parallel parking on street parking

24:49 ↗ may have been removed or sidewalk may

24:50 ↗ have been removed from one side but

24:52 ↗ otherwise the widths are standard the

24:55 ↗ travel lanes are standard width I guess

24:57 ↗ the

25:00 ↗ okay okay so now I'm moving into the

25:03 ↗ second part um which is responses to

25:06 ↗ public comment that had been received

25:07 ↗ since the April 15th um public segment

25:11 ↗ of the public

25:13 ↗ hearing um so there was one uh um email

25:18 ↗ that we received on um the wall behind

25:21 ↗ Fred Meer um and that um based

25:25 ↗ on the city's

25:28 ↗ either the I think it's the estimates

25:30 ↗ that the city e either received or

25:32 ↗ developed

25:34 ↗ to sorry to maintain and replace that

25:37 ↗ wall that that indicated that these

25:39 ↗ walls were

25:41 ↗ um unreasonably expensive um

25:46 ↗ and the um evaluation of that wall that

25:50 ↗ I received was that it was um designed

25:54 ↗ reviewed permitted constructed and

25:55 ↗ inspected in King County to King County

25:59 ↗ standards um while that area was in

26:02 ↗ unincorporated King County and it was

26:04 ↗ subsequently annexed to the city of

26:06 ↗ issaqua after it was built and

26:09 ↗ accepted the County's design and reviews

26:12 ↗ process is not the same as the cities

26:16 ↗ and um that wall configuration would not

26:19 ↗ have been um approved in the city and

26:22 ↗ therefore we have no concerns that or

26:24 ↗ think that we do not think it's relevant

26:26 ↗ to these walls because because it would

26:28 ↗ not be allowed to be constructed so are

26:31 ↗ you saying that the

26:32 ↗ city's process and permit process and uh

26:37 ↗ design and review process would be more

26:39 ↗ stringent than what king County's

26:43 ↗ was is Dan showing a thumbs up I think

26:47 ↗ Dan fell asleep

26:49 ↗ no he's saying no he would not be more

26:53 ↗ stringent just

26:56 ↗ different P can I ask a followup

27:02 ↗ question can you

27:05 ↗ speak Dan if you say something will we

27:07 ↗ hear you Dan you're on the big screen

27:09 ↗ can you hear me yes

27:12 ↗ yes um some of the audio is syncopated

27:15 ↗ so I didn't hear all of the questions so

27:16 ↗ if you could repeat the question I could

27:18 ↗ probably respond better sure what I was

27:20 ↗ asking was uh we're referencing the wall

27:23 ↗ behind Fred Meyer and that it was all

27:25 ↗ permitted and reviewed and accepted by

27:27 ↗ County but it would not have been if it

27:29 ↗ had been um submitted in city of isqua

27:32 ↗ so my question is is are isqua's

27:35 ↗ processes and permit reviews more

27:37 ↗ stringent than what king counties were

27:40 ↗ um so I mean just the fact that we that

27:44 ↗ isqua wouldn't permit it I don't know

27:46 ↗ what that means

27:48 ↗ exactly um I think that stringent is

27:51 ↗ probably not the right word because I'm

27:53 ↗ sure there are many people at King

27:54 ↗ County that would say their processes

27:56 ↗ are just as stringent and thoughtful and

28:02 ↗ um reliable as ours are I think a better

28:04 ↗ word is different and in this particular

28:07 ↗ case that wall would not have been

28:09 ↗ constructed in that

28:11 ↗ configuration um in the county process

28:14 ↗ so I think stringent is a bad word only

28:17 ↗ because of the connotations not related

28:19 ↗ to this particular discussion but I

28:21 ↗ think the um impression that you're

28:24 ↗ trying to leave by using that word um

28:26 ↗ Jeff is the correct one so just to lay

28:30 ↗ the concerns of probably both the

28:31 ↗ commission and the public um uh I don't

28:36 ↗ know how to best to word this I

28:39 ↗ guess the I don't know I I don't want to

28:42 ↗ put King County in a bad place but um

28:46 ↗ you you wouldn't see you don't expect to

28:47 ↗ see the same kinds of concerns you have

28:49 ↗ on that wall behind Fred Meyer in the

28:51 ↗ city of esqua because we'd have a

28:53 ↗ different

28:54 ↗ process

28:55 ↗ yes okay

28:58 ↗ all right yes Eric uh so my my question

29:02 ↗ would be when was that wall built and

29:04 ↗ have the both King County

29:07 ↗ regulations uh changed since then or

29:09 ↗ should I say improved since the building

29:12 ↗ of that wall to where that wall would

29:15 ↗ not be built that way

29:19 ↗ today I can't answer that Eric I'm not

29:22 ↗ familiar with King County's codes and

29:24 ↗ processes I can say that that wall would

29:27 ↗ not be duplicated in Talis today okay

29:30 ↗ very good thank you

29:32 ↗ Dan any

29:34 ↗ followup questions or anything

29:38 ↗ Shantel just uh can you remind me at all

29:41 ↗ that that uh you don't know I don't know

29:44 ↗ but is it's at least 20 fet I would

29:47 ↗ think probably more than that I would

29:50 ↗ think more than

29:56 ↗ that

29:58 ↗ um the second

30:00 ↗ uh bundle of questions or comments were

30:03 ↗ around maintenance and replacement cost

30:05 ↗ and the burden on the um homeowners

30:08 ↗ association um staff response is that

30:12 ↗ you that the scale and height um the

30:14 ↗ scale of the height and design of this

30:16 ↗ wall has been reduced it is now

30:18 ↗ comparable to many other walls at Tallis

30:22 ↗ uh and that if the HOA discovers that

30:24 ↗ these walls have a greater expense

30:27 ↗ associated with maintaining them that um

30:30 ↗ they have tools that would allow them to

30:32 ↗ assess at a higher rate the homeowners

30:35 ↗ that benefit from them and um that

30:41 ↗ uh the uh and that's a tool that they

30:44 ↗ have anywhere currently um if if a

30:47 ↗ certain feature that benefits a certain

30:49 ↗ group of homeowners um results in higher

30:53 ↗ maintenance um or operation costs they

30:55 ↗ have the ability to um issue a sir

31:03 ↗ charge

31:05 ↗ okay so grading and walls um this is

31:08 ↗ where I'm going to spend most of my time

31:11 ↗ um the comments uh were that the site

31:14 ↗ doesn't respond to the topography the

31:16 ↗ walls are too tall um this is

31:18 ↗ inconsistent with the development

31:21 ↗ agreement so I want to start by what

31:24 ↗ does the development agreement say and

31:25 ↗ these um are taken out of appendices A

31:28 ↗ and B which are the goals and guidelines

31:30 ↗ for Talis um first of all um the

31:33 ↗ development agreement acknowledges some

31:34 ↗ of the site challenges um that um it

31:38 ↗ contains mountainous terrain and it has

31:40 ↗ the Topography of Cougar Mountain and

31:42 ↗ second that it directs a balanced

31:45 ↗ approach um in that you balance the

31:47 ↗ considerations for example of topography

31:50 ↗ with building placement um that

31:52 ↗ vegetation and topography are both

31:55 ↗ dominant characteristics of the

31:56 ↗ community and part of the reason that I

31:58 ↗ mentioned this and I think the applicant

32:00 ↗ will touch on this um more in their

32:03 ↗ presentation that um there was a

32:05 ↗ conscious Choice by the applicant to not

32:07 ↗ clear the open space between um parcel 6

32:12 ↗ which is down here and um the proposed

32:16 ↗ area for parcel 7 to maintain the

32:18 ↗ existing budget in here and um so the

32:22 ↗ walls and uh grading within parcel 7 is

32:26 ↗ partly a result of

32:28 ↗ that um in trying to balance a number of

32:32 ↗ aspects and and I also want to point out

32:34 ↗ that there are some standards that are

32:36 ↗ dictating some of the constraints that

32:37 ↗ you see on regrading and

32:39 ↗ design and one of those is Road grades

32:42 ↗ and um

32:43 ↗ Ada so if you look at the roads um

32:47 ↗ leading up to and in this parcel um the

32:53 ↗ colors show up more or less the ones

32:54 ↗ that are in Red so um leading up to the

32:57 ↗ plat um leading up to the reservoir and

33:02 ↗ um this uh kind of little Back Road

33:05 ↗ connector um those are all 15% that's

33:08 ↗ the maximum that's allowed 12% is is the

33:11 ↗ actual maximum but you're allowed to for

33:14 ↗ short distances exceed

33:17 ↗ 15% um the other uh element that drove

33:21 ↗ uh this plat was the intersection that

33:23 ↗ is circled in yellow here um trying to

33:27 ↗ meet um American with Disabilities Act

33:29 ↗ for um um

33:32 ↗ wheelchair ramps and connections across

33:35 ↗ this intersection pretty much drove

33:37 ↗ every single um grade in the plat so um

33:41 ↗ if if you have any questions about that

33:43 ↗ I'm going to ask you to ask the

33:44 ↗ applicant I'm just eval I I know that

33:46 ↗ about this plat but I can't tell you a

33:48 ↗ lot about um exactly how that was um

33:53 ↗ some of the different things they tried

33:55 ↗ around that okay

33:58 ↗ okay so um I guess this isn't really

34:02 ↗ much bigger uh but this is that graphic

34:06 ↗ um that uh the applicant

34:09 ↗ prepared um they're identifying that the

34:12 ↗ wall in yellow would be limited to a

34:15 ↗ maximum of 39 ft um that does not mean

34:17 ↗ that the whole wall would be 39 ft but

34:20 ↗ that there are some portions of it that

34:21 ↗ would reach 39 ft um there are uh at

34:25 ↗ least two walls in Talis that a similar

34:27 ↗ height and this is just by me observed

34:30 ↗ looking at the drawing they provided um

34:32 ↗ the walls below between Copper Ridge and

34:36 ↗ Timber Ridge um along here and then some

34:39 ↗ of the entry walls along here and and I

34:42 ↗ think Eric makes a good point I called

34:44 ↗ them invisible walls I think one of the

34:46 ↗ challenges is that a lot of the walls in

34:49 ↗ Talis are below homes and behind trees

34:52 ↗ and that unless you're on a trail um you

34:54 ↗ may not actually see them so so the

34:57 ↗ graphic um does highlight how many walls

34:59 ↗ have been used

35:02 ↗ to create um tales that exists

35:09 ↗ now so I also wanted to point out some

35:12 ↗ of the things um uh the parts of the

35:16 ↗ development agreement that talk about

35:18 ↗ walls these are some that I selected um

35:21 ↗ and I point these out because they're

35:23 ↗ both in the um guidelines in appendix B

35:26 ↗ around residential

35:28 ↗ neighborhoods um and uh chapter six

35:32 ↗ around fences and walls um that

35:35 ↗ acknowledge that um there will be retain

35:38 ↗ that there that retaining walls were

35:40 ↗ anticipated I guess to say um so that in

35:43 ↗ the more mountainous development areas

35:46 ↗ um homes are nestled in and step up the

35:48 ↗ topography retaining walls um are used

35:51 ↗ to accommodate grade

35:52 ↗ changes um and then in chapter six it

35:56 ↗ discusses that the very beginning of

35:57 ↗ that chapter um that uh walls will be

36:00 ↗ used to provide retaining functions and

36:03 ↗ that we practical they will be

36:06 ↗ terrorist um so the conclusion staff

36:09 ↗ reach is that walls are an acceptable

36:11 ↗ tool to allow construction of

36:12 ↗ development parcels and that the

36:15 ↗ proposed walls are uh as modified are

36:17 ↗ within the range of existing Talis

36:23 ↗ walls any questions Carl couple quick

36:26 ↗ ones

36:28 ↗ um I think you said this and I might

36:30 ↗ have been taking notes so how many um

36:32 ↗ walls are of similar height within Talis

36:33 ↗ already so I identified two um there may

36:37 ↗ be more and that would be a good

36:38 ↗ question for the applicant who did the

36:39 ↗ original did the base analysis all right

36:43 ↗ thanks Scott for pointing some out to me

36:45 ↗ so that helps thanks and I'll wait for

36:46 ↗ the applicant as well and the applicant

36:48 ↗ can respond to this as well um how much

36:51 ↗ of that eastern wall would be of that

36:52 ↗ Max height you said the entire thing is

36:54 ↗ so I'd be Keen to understand how much of

36:56 ↗ it is

36:57 ↗ up to the max okay and I'll wait thank

36:59 ↗ you thank you

37:01 ↗ Shantel follow up to that um it didn't

37:05 ↗ look like any of those walls were so as

37:08 ↗ close to the

37:10 ↗ houses as the the one that is being

37:13 ↗ built here is is there I I would

37:16 ↗ actually disagree with that Shantal um

37:18 ↗ if you I'm not sure it's as a parent but

37:21 ↗ in Copper Ridge the homes are so that's

37:24 ↗ one of the really tall

37:25 ↗ ones

37:27 ↗ thank

37:31 ↗ you okay

37:34 ↗ okay

37:36 ↗ um then I wanted to move on to

37:41 ↗ grading um these are selections from

37:44 ↗ both appendix a goals and B uh

37:49 ↗ guidelines

37:51 ↗ sorry um Mountain Village character is

37:54 ↗ under goal number one so that's right up

37:56 ↗ from front

37:58 ↗ um and it says um that the Urban Village

38:01 ↗ will be adapted to reflect the

38:02 ↗ mountainous terrain um and that um this

38:06 ↗ means development that conforms to the

38:08 ↗ Topography of Cougar Mountain

38:11 ↗ um and that has designs that respond to

38:15 ↗ the

38:15 ↗ topography uh and then I wanted to

38:18 ↗ provide the words along the bottom those

38:20 ↗ are all um quotes um conforms stepping

38:25 ↗ Nest nestled blend respond so that I

38:29 ↗ think is setting sort of the framework

38:31 ↗ for what do we expect from the

38:35 ↗ grading so I don't know whether um this

38:38 ↗ crazy graphic will make sense to you but

38:40 ↗ here's what I did I looked at the um

38:45 ↗ grades on the various Lots now most

38:49 ↗ almost every single one of these Lots

38:51 ↗ has a big step in the middle so there

38:54 ↗ and there and there so that

38:58 ↗ means that you know each lot is like

39:00 ↗ this and if you look at those lots what

39:03 ↗ you generally see what I did was try and

39:05 ↗ bundle them so if if that part of the

39:08 ↗ lot was in the 720s meaning between 720

39:12 ↗ and 729 it was colored as a

39:15 ↗ 720 so um what I see in this is that we

39:19 ↗ start down here at 720 then we have um

39:23 ↗ and here is 720 then we have a row of

39:25 ↗ 730s so we're going up 10t at a time

39:29 ↗ basically um then

39:31 ↗ 740s 750s 760

39:36 ↗ 770 70 780s going across here 790s and

39:42 ↗ then up to the

39:43 ↗ 800s so I think what we see what this

39:47 ↗ graphic demonstrates to me is that for

39:49 ↗ instance along this Edge it's stepping

39:52 ↗ up about 40 ft that from here to here

39:56 ↗ we're stepping up 80 ft and that

39:59 ↗ essentially around this kind of um

40:01 ↗ intersection that I was saying was such

40:03 ↗ a challenge the whole project is

40:06 ↗ stepping up and pivoting around the

40:10 ↗ hill and so um I think that's important

40:15 ↗ because um when we look at this in plan

40:18 ↗ it's easy to read it as a

40:20 ↗ two-dimensional um sort of flat plane

40:23 ↗ but when you look at it in a more um in

40:26 ↗ two Dimensions but trying to express the

40:28 ↗ three three dimensions of it I think you

40:30 ↗ see that it does step up and respond to

40:33 ↗ the topography more than is initially

40:36 ↗ apparent lots of hands

40:41 ↗ him this reflect the change that's made

40:45 ↗ that's a great Point Tim I do not have a

40:47 ↗ new plan so this is the U this is the

40:50 ↗ original plan that you have looked at at

40:53 ↗ the last two meetings and ever every

40:56 ↗ graphic that I've used in this section

40:58 ↗ on grading and walls is from the

41:00 ↗ original submitt so um I did not get a

41:04 ↗ new plan that showed um how that 10ft

41:09 ↗ reduction along this Edge um is

41:12 ↗ reflected although I do believe it was

41:15 ↗ um it wasn't at one end or the other it

41:18 ↗ was kind of in the middle I think well

41:20 ↗ and and my understanding was that almost

41:22 ↗ all of the change in the Wall height was

41:25 ↗ going to be contained in those lots 1

41:27 ↗ through 16 that were right along the

41:29 ↗ wall and it wasn't to my understanding

41:31 ↗ going to extend beyond the street so

41:35 ↗ that means that those which now had a a

41:37 ↗ 10- foot change in grade from the wall

41:40 ↗ to the street we now going to have about

41:42 ↗ a 20 foot change and I don't I don't see

41:45 ↗ that as an issue necessarily they were

41:47 ↗ talking about a housing plan that would

41:50 ↗ be adaptable to that so so what I would

41:53 ↗ recommend is because I haven't seen a

41:55 ↗ grading plan plan and and you're asking

41:57 ↗ a question about this graphic from the

41:59 ↗ original I would recommend that you ask

42:01 ↗ the applicant how this um illustration

42:03 ↗ might be revised as a result okay okay

42:08 ↗ someone else had their hand yes

42:12 ↗ Michael Lucy maybe this question could

42:14 ↗ wait for the applicant but is this going

42:16 ↗ to be um a net import or export or just

42:20 ↗ a zero of fill and back fill for this

42:23 ↗ grading plan so that would be a question

42:25 ↗ for the applicant that's not something

42:27 ↗ we usually see until construction

42:30 ↗ permits

42:33 ↗ an just to be clear is there just the

42:36 ↗ one wall at the bottom of the graphic

42:39 ↗ that we're looking at or are there more

42:41 ↗ walls there that just not seeing so

42:44 ↗ there are more walls those walls um are

42:48 ↗ either Terrace or are in like up to for

42:52 ↗ instance there's a wall uh like right

42:55 ↗ here or right here that I think is about

42:58 ↗ 20 or 25 ft um I'm you may need to ask

43:02 ↗ the applicant for the specific Heights

43:04 ↗ because I don't know if I'll remember

43:05 ↗ them

43:09 ↗ all well I'm I'm looking at these so see

43:13 ↗ these bubbles that are along here those

43:16 ↗ give you the heights of the wall and

43:19 ↗ what I'm seeing without being able to

43:20 ↗ really read the details this is a single

43:22 ↗ digit and then a decimal point and then

43:25 ↗ a fraction so I my understanding of this

43:29 ↗ wall is for instance that it's sorry the

43:32 ↗ mouse keeps going to sleep these are um

43:34 ↗ relatively low these are more in the

43:36 ↗ double digits as I said up to about

43:43 ↗ 25 okay

43:46 ↗ okay so this again is a graphic that the

43:49 ↗ applicant provided with the first subal

43:51 ↗ um and what I've done is kind of finagle

43:54 ↗ it um the um this is again the old wall

43:59 ↗ this shows 42 feet and we um they have

44:02 ↗ committed to reducing that to 39 feet um

44:04 ↗ this is a section that was taken with

44:06 ↗ the original plat proposal through about

44:10 ↗ here and um what I've done is just used

44:14 ↗ a um the house that was shown here and

44:17 ↗ continued it up the hill to approximate

44:20 ↗ how the houses stepped up

44:23 ↗ between the wall and and the uh East

44:27 ↗ Western most street so I apologize I

44:30 ↗ keep turning the map um for um

44:33 ↗ convenience so um North it would be over

44:38 ↗ here and so um I what this Graphics

44:42 ↗ shows is that and then these are the

44:44 ↗ elevations so um this area here is at

44:47 ↗ elevation 759 then here is

44:51 ↗ 770 780 786 cuz there's a little wall

44:55 ↗ right here

44:56 ↗ and then up to 798 so that's heading

44:59 ↗ east right yes left to right sorry West

45:03 ↗ left to right so what's the elevation of

45:05 ↗ the street was it shangra La I think on

45:08 ↗ the east side of the lower end of the

45:10 ↗ slope all the way down here yeah I don't

45:13 ↗ know that I'm sorry I mean I I estimated

45:17 ↗ that I made a I did a graphic estimation

45:21 ↗ this is you know if this is so I don't

45:23 ↗ know how accurate this is 540 I believe

45:27 ↗ okay so there's a significant amount of

45:31 ↗ topography and and um landscape if you

45:35 ↗ will or trees and so forth between the

45:38 ↗ road and the wall right but uh here's

45:41 ↗ the thing where this car is right here

45:43 ↗ that's not shanger La way that's the

45:45 ↗ back of Rose Crest where's I don't know

45:48 ↗ Rose um um oh

45:51 ↗ mire

45:53 ↗ um so this SE

45:57 ↗ was cut um you know about starting about

45:59 ↗ here and going up uh and we're at the

46:03 ↗ back of this project mire Ryan says okay

46:07 ↗ and there is topography between there

46:09 ↗ and shanga way because you can see there

46:12 ↗ are two walls so um what they're showing

46:16 ↗ there doesn't even take you all the way

46:17 ↗ down to shangra right okay so what's the

46:20 ↗ distance between that road and the

46:24 ↗ wall

46:26 ↗ from east to west from east to west

46:29 ↗ correct and I mean if you were just cut

46:31 ↗ it straight across so you're saying from

46:34 ↗ here to the wall yep

46:37 ↗ exactly Mike's doing his calculation

46:41 ↗ 3 he's goingon to do a good job hey

46:44 ↗ let's congratulate Mike he just had his

46:45 ↗ first baby so the reason that I'm

46:47 ↗ leading this meeting instead of mik he's

46:49 ↗ gonna be a good dad with homework he's

46:50 ↗ been gone the last two weeks on

46:51 ↗ fraternity

46:54 ↗ leave so can I see exactly where are you

46:57 ↗ trying the

47:02 ↗ distance 11 so it's coming down to

47:08 ↗ here so are you doing it from the wall

47:11 ↗ yeah from the

47:13 ↗ wall so maybe

47:16 ↗ 325

47:20 ↗ yeah so we're estimating that it's about

47:23 ↗ you know given that we think we know

47:24 ↗ what the section was cut about 300 to

47:28 ↗ 325 ft

47:30 ↗ from from

47:32 ↗ here to

47:34 ↗ here so

47:37 ↗ Lucy again this is probably a question

47:39 ↗ for the applicant but you know as I look

47:41 ↗ at it in this cross-section I wonder why

47:43 ↗ there's no terracing

47:46 ↗ opportunity so when you have a wall uh

47:49 ↗ um and and I I think they may be able to

47:51 ↗ speak to that better than I do but when

47:53 ↗ you have a a a slope that's this

47:56 ↗ steep then you would have to um if you

48:00 ↗ wanted to slow you know make this more

48:04 ↗ gentle you would have to uh have walls

48:08 ↗ that were quite

48:09 ↗ tall to catch up with the grade going

48:12 ↗ down

48:14 ↗ here because essentially you would be

48:17 ↗ pushing everything out further into here

48:21 ↗ to make it more

48:24 ↗ gentle

48:27 ↗ so you'd either be taking out some of

48:28 ↗ the open space or potentially building

48:31 ↗ similar walls

48:34 ↗ okay okay thanks for that information

48:39 ↗ any questions

48:42 ↗ okay so in thinking about this a little

48:45 ↗ more I I think the thing that struck me

48:48 ↗ is that it's not grading or walls that

48:51 ↗ in this circumstance it's grading and

48:53 ↗ walls to to respond respond to the

48:56 ↗ mountainous terrain and that the purpose

48:58 ↗ of the wall that was put in wasn't to

49:00 ↗ create a flat site it was to um in

49:05 ↗ conjunction with stepped grading to

49:08 ↗ create a site that was buildable where

49:11 ↗ buildable area was allowed and I think

49:13 ↗ that's an important thing to remember is

49:15 ↗ and we'll I'll talk about this a little

49:17 ↗ bit more but about 70 to 75% of the site

49:22 ↗ has been preserved and there was about

49:24 ↗ 25% of of the site that was allowed to

49:27 ↗ be developed and where that was allowed

49:29 ↗ to be developed they were allowed to um

49:33 ↗ clear 100% if they chose can you repeat

49:35 ↗ that one more time

49:38 ↗ slowly um because I think it's a very

49:40 ↗ important Point yes can I wait till I

49:42 ↗ get to the slide that shows it better

49:44 ↗ you may and but if if I could just go

49:46 ↗ back to that slide for one second the

49:48 ↗ the drawing so I just want to be clear

49:49 ↗ here so so can I say one thing about

49:52 ↗ this slide this is a cartoon okay I like

49:55 ↗ cartoon

49:56 ↗ okay I relate really well to cartoons so

49:59 ↗ that's fine um it's not anime

50:01 ↗ unfortunately just to be clear then um

50:04 ↗ so the the

50:08 ↗ wall and I maybe forgive me if I'm sort

50:12 ↗ of assuming something here but correct

50:14 ↗ me if I'm wrong the wall whether the

50:16 ↗ height is 25t 35t or 42t whatever will

50:21 ↗ likely not be

50:22 ↗ visible because of the the slope and the

50:26 ↗ topography and the landscape and all of

50:28 ↗ that from either the road or the homes

50:31 ↗ down

50:33 ↗ below truly not that visible um is that

50:37 ↗ a true statement yes the one place that

50:39 ↗ it will be most visible is from the

50:42 ↗ trail MH down at the bottom and we've

50:45 ↗ added a condition that um landscape

50:49 ↗ especially some evergreen trees need to

50:51 ↗ be provided along between the trail and

50:54 ↗ the wall I recall that and there's some

50:55 ↗ other conditions around the design of

50:57 ↗ the wall okay so okay thank you and

51:02 ↗ obviously those conditions will not

51:05 ↗ impede maintenance or inspection of the

51:08 ↗ walls uh

51:14 ↗ okay so roads um there were some

51:17 ↗ comments about uh concerns around there

51:19 ↗ being only one Road in and out of Talis

51:22 ↗ um and then specifically related to the

51:24 ↗ plat that the roads were too narrow for

51:26 ↗ emergency access or school buses there

51:28 ↗ were dead end roads which would

51:31 ↗ interfere with emergency access that

51:33 ↗ dead end roads weren't consistent with

51:35 ↗ the plat and that there wasn't a proper

51:37 ↗ connection to the main road so um I'm

51:40 ↗ going to take these kind of one and a

51:41 ↗ time um there is it's true that due to

51:44 ↗ the Topography of Talis the uh sort of

51:47 ↗ the steepness um along sr900 that there

51:51 ↗ is only one everyday uh connection in

51:54 ↗ and out out of the project um but that

51:57 ↗ isn't the only Connection in and out of

51:59 ↗ the project there are a couple of others

52:01 ↗ and for instance uh James Bush Road um

52:05 ↗ in an Em which is currently now only

52:07 ↗ available for emergency um vehicle use

52:11 ↗ um if there was something catastrophic

52:13 ↗ that happened to Talis Drive James Bush

52:16 ↗ Road for instance could be used um to

52:18 ↗ accommodate emergency um access even by

52:22 ↗ residents um the access and standards

52:26 ↗ were reviewed at the time the

52:28 ↗ development agreement was adopted by

52:30 ↗ Eastside fire and rescue the isqua

52:32 ↗ police department and Public Works

52:34 ↗ engineering um they agreed to the

52:37 ↗ standards and thought they were

52:39 ↗ acceptable um and the uh fire

52:43 ↗ turnarounds for instance that we

52:45 ↗ mentioned earlier there is a standard

52:47 ↗ for fire turnarounds and they are not so

52:50 ↗ terribly visible because we do try and

52:52 ↗ embed them into the overall Road design

52:54 ↗ so they don't show up um school buses do

52:58 ↗ not want school district is not asking

53:00 ↗ to access every single Road um there may

53:03 ↗ be roads where residents would like

53:05 ↗ school buses to access um the school

53:08 ↗ district would love really wide roads um

53:10 ↗ that is not what we build in the urban

53:13 ↗ Villages for a number of reasons but we

53:16 ↗ do work with the school district every

53:18 ↗ year to discuss what um areas they want

53:21 ↗ to access where they want to have school

53:23 ↗ bus stops where they would like to be

53:24 ↗ and work to accommodate their

53:27 ↗ needs um and finally dead end roads not

53:30 ↗ finally actually just finally for this

53:31 ↗ slide dead end roads are generally

53:34 ↗ avoided in any of the urban Villages

53:37 ↗ however sometimes due to topography

53:39 ↗ critical areas or the edge of a project

53:42 ↗ it's not possible to avoid a dead end

53:44 ↗ Road um and uh this project has

53:49 ↗ topography and critical areas and is on

53:52 ↗ the edge of the project um and in fact

53:54 ↗ the guidelines in the development

53:56 ↗ agreement anticipated um that that may

53:59 ↗ happen and provided us with um Direction

54:02 ↗ on how to handle them and when and where

54:04 ↗ to consider using

54:07 ↗ them Eric I just want to reiterate uh I

54:11 ↗ think we had a matter of record I asked

54:14 ↗ Dan a question last time about traffic

54:18 ↗ and uh the initial study was with this

54:21 ↗ whole area built out and so this

54:25 ↗ additional um homes uh will not impact

54:29 ↗ the traffic as far as needing an

54:31 ↗ additional study right and I'll provide

54:34 ↗ a little more information about that

54:36 ↗ coming up because um that came that has

54:38 ↗ come up in public comment as

54:42 ↗ well um then about the connection to the

54:46 ↗ main road um what I'm showing here is

54:49 ↗ the colored image on the left is um a

54:54 ↗ clip um a snapshot from the original

54:57 ↗ plan that was included with the adoption

54:59 ↗ of the development agreement um kind of

55:02 ↗ preliminarily showing how different

55:04 ↗ areas might be accessed um and then the

55:08 ↗ black and white um image on the right is

55:12 ↗ what is propo what either existing roads

55:15 ↗ or um roads that are proposed within

55:18 ↗ this plat and I think you can see that

55:20 ↗ generally speaking the configuration is

55:22 ↗ quite similar and anticipated that this

55:25 ↗ would be the kind of connection that

55:26 ↗ would be provided to Talis

55:30 ↗ Drive

55:32 ↗ okay so traffic good call Eric um so the

55:37 ↗ comment was that the traffic analysis is

55:39 ↗ no longer AA uh is valid and that

55:42 ↗ there's too much traffic in Talis

55:43 ↗ already so I think what we have to do is

55:45 ↗ start with one of the basic building

55:47 ↗ blocks of the development agreement

55:49 ↗ which was how much allowable development

55:51 ↗ was um evaluated as part of um the

55:55 ↗ original um when the agreement was

55:57 ↗ adopted so what the agreement had would

56:00 ↗ was that there would be

56:01 ↗ 1735 dwelling units 800,000 Square ft of

56:06 ↗ commercial and 50,000 Square ft of

56:09 ↗ retail so what's been built so far

56:12 ↗ although um for those of you like Jeff

56:15 ↗ who've been around forever um uh you'll

56:20 ↗ be surprised at some of these numbers

56:21 ↗ because um things there are land use

56:24 ↗ permits that have been improved but not

56:25 ↗ built so I'm trying to reflect built

56:28 ↗ things um less than 1,400 dwelling units

56:32 ↗ have been built um not even quite the

56:36 ↗ whole 300,000 Square ft of commercial

56:38 ↗ has been built and no retail has been

56:40 ↗ built we're anticipating some re retail

56:43 ↗ later this year um but generally that's

56:46 ↗ been one of the hardest um because uh

56:49 ↗ there isn't a frontage on

56:51 ↗ sr900 um so it's been really a challenge

56:53 ↗ for the projects that have proposed um

56:56 ↗ retail to um get

57:00 ↗ funding um so these numbers the the

57:05 ↗ original uh ones up here at the

57:08 ↗ top um are the ones that were used in

57:10 ↗ the environmental impact statement and

57:13 ↗ uh the traffic study that went with that

57:15 ↗ at the time that the development

57:16 ↗ agreement was adopted so we're

57:19 ↗ significantly under the um total impact

57:24 ↗ that was evaluated for this project um

57:28 ↗ in terms of the traffic study the

57:30 ↗ environment the entitlement and uh

57:32 ↗ traffic capacity are closely linked and

57:35 ↗ they were coordinated um in the

57:37 ↗ agreement uh or the the agreement and

57:40 ↗ the road Network were coordinated um

57:43 ↗ between each other and the proposal that

57:45 ↗ we see is consistent um with the

57:48 ↗ agreement with the traffic and the road

57:50 ↗ Network that were originally included in

57:52 ↗ the development

57:53 ↗ agreement Michael um Lucy when we do a

57:58 ↗ traffic prediction like this and we have

58:00 ↗ commercial in uh

58:03 ↗ residential I I've heard discussion that

58:06 ↗ often commercial will offset trips

58:09 ↗ because the assumption is that people

58:10 ↗ will live where they work because

58:12 ↗ there's no retail or commercial built

58:13 ↗ out here has that affected the initial

58:15 ↗ traffic prediction that was

58:17 ↗ made so I'm going to um flip to my

58:21 ↗ computer off oh

58:25 ↗ lost I've

58:52 ↗ had intern connection okay maybe we can

58:56 ↗ just do it by speaker phone

59:02 ↗ possibly go ahead and speak

59:06 ↗ Dan Dan can you hear me I can hear you

59:10 ↗ so um there's a question I I don't know

59:13 ↗ if you heard Michael Beard's question

59:15 ↗ regarding um traffic and that you know

59:18 ↗ the original assumptions and traffic

59:20 ↗ studies often are about um commercial

59:24 ↗ and retail offsetting each other because

59:26 ↗ people living where they work could you

59:29 ↗ um could could you speak to where if we

59:32 ↗ have not built um

59:35 ↗ commercial well other than Timber Ridge

59:37 ↗ um commercial

59:40 ↗ um we have not built any retail how that

59:44 ↗ impacts the validity of the traffic

59:47 ↗ study um in this particular case it

59:49 ↗ doesn't impact the validity there wasn't

59:52 ↗ a large commute trip reduction or

59:55 ↗ captured trip allowance in the original

59:58 ↗ development and the um residential that

1:00:02 ↗ has not been built and the commercial

1:00:04 ↗ that has not been built more than

1:00:06 ↗ compensates for any of the credits that

1:00:08 ↗ were given in the original

1:00:12 ↗ analysis do you need a translation of

1:00:14 ↗ that Michael can I help yeah so think

1:00:16 ↗ about it it's not an offset it's a um

1:00:19 ↗ it's a reduction so so if you added the

1:00:22 ↗ residential trips and the non-resident

1:00:24 ↗ IAL trips together there's actually a

1:00:27 ↗ reduction because of the internalization

1:00:29 ↗ that's

1:00:31 ↗ given to the to the mixed use project so

1:00:35 ↗ because the commercial is not there yet

1:00:36 ↗ Michael those trips aren't actually on

1:00:39 ↗ the street grid so there's not there's

1:00:42 ↗ not a problem if it doesn't happen if it

1:00:45 ↗ does happen then you get a you basically

1:00:49 ↗ get a a benefit for the Mixed use

1:00:51 ↗ happening all within one area does that

1:00:53 ↗ make sense I can understand that that's

1:00:55 ↗ kind of at odds with the Urban Village

1:00:57 ↗ concept as I understand it with reduced

1:01:00 ↗ trips and a walkable Urban Village so

1:01:04 ↗ think about it you so you're mixing your

1:01:06 ↗ your things together a little bit so

1:01:09 ↗ from a traffic analysis standpoint

1:01:11 ↗ that's the environmental review that's

1:01:12 ↗ done and that's to make sure that

1:01:14 ↗ there's no unmitigated impacts the goals

1:01:18 ↗ for a mixed use walkable Community is is

1:01:21 ↗ they they share the same benefits but

1:01:23 ↗ they're different

1:01:26 ↗ okay

1:01:30 ↗ yeah yes I'm sorry okay thank you any

1:01:34 ↗ other

1:01:36 ↗ questions no thank

1:01:38 ↗ you so density there was a concern that

1:01:41 ↗ parcel 7 was at the top of the density

1:01:44 ↗ range and thus the proposal was

1:01:47 ↗ inappropriate um Talis is developed with

1:01:51 ↗ uh each parcel is assigned low middle or

1:01:55 ↗ high density category um parcel 7 is

1:01:59 ↗ assigned a um low category of 3 to 12

1:02:02 ↗ dwelling units um per acre uh which

1:02:06 ↗ would translate into 34 to 137 Lots

1:02:10 ↗ what's proposed is 56 Lots which is in

1:02:13 ↗ the middle um unless there is um some

1:02:16 ↗ other aspect of the development

1:02:19 ↗ agreement that it is in conflict with

1:02:22 ↗ the um uh applicant gets to

1:02:28 ↗ decide and then I was just noting here

1:02:31 ↗ that um along with uh things like

1:02:34 ↗ density um compliance with circulation

1:02:37 ↗ such as roads walks and trails

1:02:39 ↗ Recreation utilities and critical areas

1:02:42 ↗ were evaluated in the staff report and

1:02:46 ↗ The Proposal complies with those

1:02:52 ↗ standards okay

1:02:55 ↗ um there was a concern that um the

1:02:58 ↗ development of these Parcels would cause

1:03:00 ↗ a huge scar um the photo on the left is

1:03:03 ↗ from 2006 um and it shows that the area

1:03:09 ↗ was cleared about 10 years ago um and uh

1:03:14 ↗ that uh few additional trees will need

1:03:16 ↗ to be cut as part of this project but I

1:03:19 ↗ do want to point out um that the

1:03:21 ↗ applicant does have the right to remove

1:03:23 ↗ 100% of the treat and I'll speak to that

1:03:25 ↗ in a little more detail with the next

1:03:30 ↗ item so um there was a concern that um

1:03:34 ↗ there wasn't sufficient open space being

1:03:36 ↗ provided so I wanted to kind of run

1:03:38 ↗ through the basic assumptions that are

1:03:40 ↗ in the development agreement about how

1:03:42 ↗ Talis would be set up the project

1:03:45 ↗ contains

1:03:46 ↗ 627 Acres total so the protected area

1:03:50 ↗ south of tibits Creek which is so here's

1:03:53 ↗ um the the West Fork of tibits Creek all

1:03:56 ↗ this sort of um dark green color um is

1:04:01 ↗ protected Acres that's 388 Acres about

1:04:05 ↗ 62% of the site um

1:04:08 ↗ was right off the bat protected and um

1:04:12 ↗ unless there are Hazard trees there

1:04:13 ↗ won't be any activities down

1:04:16 ↗ there then north of that Creek um there

1:04:19 ↗ was an assumption about um how much open

1:04:23 ↗ space would be created based on critical

1:04:26 ↗ areas because even though they're

1:04:29 ↗ allowed to develop any developable area

1:04:32 ↗ north of the creek that did not allow

1:04:35 ↗ them to develop um what we call critical

1:04:37 ↗ areas which would be things like

1:04:38 ↗ wetlands and streams um so you see some

1:04:42 ↗ of these um this is again that original

1:04:45 ↗ plan this this one over here is the

1:04:47 ↗ original plan that was in the original

1:04:50 ↗ um when in the development agreement

1:04:52 ↗ when it was adopted and you can see some

1:04:53 ↗ of the creeks and wetlands in this sort

1:04:55 ↗ of um light kind of aqua

1:04:58 ↗ color and um but you can see also so

1:05:02 ↗ this is um the 2012 aial I believe um or

1:05:08 ↗ no actually this is still the 2006 I use

1:05:10 ↗ that because the it's was taken in the

1:05:12 ↗ summer and everything's brighter green

1:05:13 ↗ and it's a lot easier to tell what has

1:05:15 ↗ trees and what doesn't

1:05:17 ↗ um you can see that for instance in the

1:05:20 ↗ Northern areas of Talis um there's an

1:05:23 ↗ open space that runs through here and

1:05:25 ↗ through here um there's some areas uh in

1:05:28 ↗ the middle there and this area was shown

1:05:31 ↗ as being completely developed so there

1:05:34 ↗ are some areas that the applicants um

1:05:36 ↗ over the years have voluntarily set up

1:05:39 ↗ as open space um and that been that

1:05:42 ↗ would not receive further

1:05:45 ↗ development so your total protected

1:05:48 ↗ space um or op and open space is about

1:05:52 ↗ 460 Acres the the reason I say about is

1:05:55 ↗ the 388 was definite but because um any

1:05:59 ↗ developable area north of the creek

1:06:03 ↗ could be developed it was an estimate at

1:06:05 ↗ the time because all those critical

1:06:06 ↗ areas were going to be further evaluated

1:06:09 ↗ with each development

1:06:10 ↗ permit um but there was an estimate that

1:06:13 ↗ would be about 150 acres um of land that

1:06:17 ↗ could be developed that would be about

1:06:20 ↗ 24% of the total acres and on that

1:06:23 ↗ develop vable land all um trees could be

1:06:27 ↗ removed okay thank you so just to

1:06:31 ↗ reiterate uh and this is probably more

1:06:33 ↗ for the benefit of those that were not

1:06:34 ↗ involved in the development agreement

1:06:36 ↗ earlier and I I recall a lot of this

1:06:39 ↗ conversation is that Talis is more than

1:06:42 ↗ just what we all recognize as the

1:06:44 ↗ current housing and Commercial and so

1:06:47 ↗ forth it there was a conscious decision

1:06:50 ↗ and this is benefit for the commission

1:06:52 ↗ as well I think there's a conscious

1:06:53 ↗ decision to protect a large number a

1:06:57 ↗ large amount of property in order to get

1:07:00 ↗ the density and the activity on this

1:07:02 ↗ 24ish percent uh in the Talis community

1:07:06 ↗ so I just think it's an important thing

1:07:08 ↗ to keep in mind it may not change your

1:07:10 ↗ thinking or your feeling about how much

1:07:12 ↗ stuff is right near you or where you

1:07:14 ↗ live but it's important to understand

1:07:16 ↗ the larger context I think right I mean

1:07:18 ↗ essentially it is a cluster development

1:07:21 ↗ um they're cluster clustering a higher

1:07:24 ↗ level of density onto the developable

1:07:27 ↗ acres north of the creek to set aside um

1:07:30 ↗ hundreds of Acres elsewhere in the

1:07:32 ↗ project and I just want to second that

1:07:35 ↗ as well and this is a very clarifying

1:07:39 ↗ and revealing that uh of the

1:07:43 ↗ 627 uh development

1:07:46 ↗ Acres 73% essentially are preserved 73%

1:07:51 ↗ of that development is preserved

1:07:54 ↗ right I think that's a very in a very

1:07:56 ↗ good point thank you Lucy you're welcome

1:07:58 ↗ so some of it is preserved as uh Native

1:08:02 ↗ growth protection area some of it is

1:08:04 ↗ preserved as critical areas and some of

1:08:06 ↗ it is set aside as open space the other

1:08:08 ↗ thing I think that's important to note

1:08:10 ↗ here and this is true for a lot of the

1:08:11 ↗ stuff that we look at is in a lot of

1:08:14 ↗ cases the developer has a lot of choices

1:08:15 ↗ to make and um and often times as as

1:08:19 ↗ we're actually seeing here while it may

1:08:20 ↗ not feel like it they've actually made

1:08:21 ↗ the decision to not either clear as much

1:08:24 ↗ as they could have or develop as much as

1:08:26 ↗ they could have even though it does

1:08:27 ↗ sometimes feel like they're doing more

1:08:28 ↗ than you think they should and I I say

1:08:31 ↗ that out loud partially just to remind

1:08:33 ↗ myself sometimes because the developer

1:08:35 ↗ also has rights and there's a

1:08:36 ↗ development agreement in place that you

1:08:38 ↗ know is in writing that's been approved

1:08:41 ↗ so yes Michel sorry Lucy Lucy who

1:08:46 ↗ actually owns that property that's uh

1:08:48 ↗ south of tibit Creek currently I believe

1:08:51 ↗ the city owns

1:08:52 ↗ it

1:08:57 ↗ okay I I understand what everybody's

1:08:59 ↗ saying um at the same time I I think

1:09:02 ↗ it's there's also an argument to be made

1:09:06 ↗ uh for open space versus for instance

1:09:09 ↗ tdrs and I think a lot of times the open

1:09:12 ↗ space needs to be accessible and so to

1:09:15 ↗ me uh what would be a valuable

1:09:18 ↗ calculation I I doubt you're going to be

1:09:19 ↗ able to come up with this real quickly

1:09:21 ↗ but how much of that open space is

1:09:24 ↗ actually

1:09:25 ↗ accessible um you know a lot of times in

1:09:28 ↗ clustering obviously there needs to be

1:09:30 ↗ improvements made so that people can

1:09:31 ↗ access the open space etc etc um so yes

1:09:37 ↗ I do see you know 388 Acres uh being

1:09:41 ↗ provided for open space is a terrific

1:09:43 ↗ thing uh I just wonder how much of that

1:09:45 ↗ is

1:09:46 ↗ accessible so I I think that um I have a

1:09:50 ↗ couple thoughts Jim one is that there is

1:09:53 ↗ an extensive network of trails I think

1:09:56 ↗ that's a real high value of people

1:09:58 ↗ who've chosen to live at Talis and the

1:10:00 ↗ original Master developer who isn't

1:10:02 ↗ involved anymore um built a lot of

1:10:04 ↗ trails and many of the builders who have

1:10:07 ↗ developed neighborhoods have added to

1:10:10 ↗ those now obviously mostly what I'm

1:10:13 ↗ referring to are trails north of tibits

1:10:15 ↗ Creek however there are um several well

1:10:19 ↗ well-known um Trails South of Tippets

1:10:21 ↗ Creek for instance coming out of um 11

1:10:25 ↗ here there's the be Ridge Trail that

1:10:27 ↗ comes out and I think heads off to the

1:10:30 ↗ West um but as I was um as many people

1:10:33 ↗ in the audience tonight will verify I

1:10:35 ↗ was reminded that we're not just um

1:10:38 ↗ setting aside the protected area for

1:10:40 ↗ humans um but there was also a high

1:10:42 ↗ value placed on the advantages for

1:10:45 ↗ wildlife so um it it's actually a

1:10:48 ↗ balancing act between making it

1:10:49 ↗ accessible to humans and then also

1:10:52 ↗ setting some of it aside as area that um

1:10:56 ↗ Wildlife who have existed in the area

1:10:58 ↗ can continue to use and I I do believe

1:11:02 ↗ uh Lucy if you can confirm there's also

1:11:04 ↗ a trail that goes from the be Ridge

1:11:07 ↗ Trail to sr900 as well I believe you're

1:11:10 ↗ right I I don't have

1:11:12 ↗ that my experts are confirming okay

1:11:15 ↗ Shantel

1:11:17 ↗ so um this area is permanently protected

1:11:21 ↗ yes and that's in addition to

1:11:24 ↗ this was a 4:1 5 to1 so I don't think it

1:11:28 ↗ it mirrored the 4:1 program so it

1:11:30 ↗ mirrored it so so this is part of the

1:11:33 ↗ four the 73% is the 4 to1 so this was

1:11:37 ↗ not in King County so it was not it was

1:11:39 ↗ not a requirement but the city was

1:11:42 ↗ working along the same framework um

1:11:44 ↗ voluntarily then right okay Eric just to

1:11:48 ↗ to clarify the developer uh owned all

1:11:52 ↗ this land and then handed that land over

1:11:55 ↗ to the city of isqua the preserved land

1:11:58 ↗ is that

1:11:59 ↗ correct okay okay thank you

1:12:04 ↗ okay so there were some concerns about

1:12:08 ↗ um drainage at um Mountain Air and

1:12:11 ↗ alante um I just had this little map uh

1:12:15 ↗ that showed where that is so the parcel

1:12:17 ↗ sevs up here alante is down here in

1:12:21 ↗ Mountain Air um

1:12:24 ↗ I think the important thing to say is

1:12:26 ↗ that generally speaking um the alant the

1:12:30 ↗ drainage in alante and mountainaire are

1:12:32 ↗ not part of this plat they aren't under

1:12:35 ↗ review and those particular um drainage

1:12:39 ↗ techniques are not proposed in

1:12:41 ↗ association with PL this plat so that's

1:12:43 ↗ really a separate um topic from review

1:12:46 ↗ of this

1:12:47 ↗ plat Jeff yes go ahead Michael Lucy I

1:12:50 ↗ just did want to take a little exception

1:12:52 ↗ to to to what we're discussing here

1:12:55 ↗ because uh this was presented to the

1:12:58 ↗ commission and the public by the

1:13:00 ↗ applicant as a reason for why the the

1:13:03 ↗ future walls were work and I I believe

1:13:05 ↗ the statement was there have been no

1:13:07 ↗ drainage issues in Talis so basically

1:13:09 ↗ you can trust our design um and I think

1:13:13 ↗ the fact that there have been drainage

1:13:16 ↗ issues in the past is applicable to this

1:13:19 ↗ application right here so I understand

1:13:22 ↗ it's a different uh it may be a

1:13:24 ↗ different technique but I do think the

1:13:25 ↗ historical relevance to this developer

1:13:28 ↗ building walls and having them fail is

1:13:31 ↗ applicable to this project I'm not sure

1:13:33 ↗ I I think you're going to have to ask

1:13:34 ↗ the applicant this but I'm not sure how

1:13:37 ↗ many of those walls they would have

1:13:39 ↗ built or have designed I mean this is

1:13:43 ↗ the fourth Master developer that we've

1:13:46 ↗ had uh and so there has been a series of

1:13:51 ↗ people who have designed and built walls

1:13:54 ↗ uh or Drainage Systems um as part of the

1:13:57 ↗ project so I I mean I I your point is

1:14:00 ↗ taken and I be glad you can if you see

1:14:03 ↗ Dan and he cares to add to it um I'm

1:14:06 ↗ happy to let him uh provide more

1:14:10 ↗ information but I do think it's

1:14:11 ↗ important to say that that this isn't

1:14:13 ↗ necessarily the same group that has

1:14:16 ↗ built other were they representing

1:14:18 ↗ themselves as the HOA at that point in

1:14:20 ↗ time or the developer when they said

1:14:21 ↗ that

1:14:22 ↗ statement

1:14:23 ↗ I don't know because I'm I'm not

1:14:25 ↗ remembering the exact moment when that

1:14:27 ↗ was

1:14:29 ↗ made at the very least you know I I

1:14:32 ↗ would like to understand from the

1:14:33 ↗ applicant when they come up that they

1:14:35 ↗ have at least uh are aware of and

1:14:38 ↗ understand maybe what has failed in the

1:14:40 ↗ past and that they're taking steps to to

1:14:44 ↗ uh mitigate that or avoid that again um

1:14:46 ↗ not not again sorry if they weren't

1:14:48 ↗ involved in the building of it but at

1:14:49 ↗ least to understand it so that it

1:14:51 ↗ doesn't happen again in the property

1:14:53 ↗ right I think it's important to keep

1:14:54 ↗ that conversation in the context of

1:14:56 ↗ what's proposed in this particular plat

1:14:58 ↗ agreed that's what I'm saying though is

1:14:59 ↗ to understand that it's the same

1:15:01 ↗ topography it's the same land it's the

1:15:03 ↗ same you know neighborhood and so forth

1:15:05 ↗ generally I think it's just important

1:15:07 ↗ that they that it's recognized as we've

1:15:09 ↗ done with other parts parts of the

1:15:11 ↗ community whether it's Highland or Talis

1:15:13 ↗ understanding previous concerns can help

1:15:16 ↗ mitigate or

1:15:18 ↗ improve current or future building sure

1:15:20 ↗ so does does Dan indicate that would

1:15:23 ↗ like to comment he gave a thumbs up

1:15:26 ↗ thank you

1:15:27 ↗ Dan I don't

1:15:30 ↗ either all right an did you have

1:15:32 ↗ something yes with the walls that are

1:15:34 ↗ proposed in parcel 7 do we have any uh

1:15:38 ↗ historic uh references that we can make

1:15:42 ↗ elsewhere regarding drainage and you

1:15:46 ↗ know the you know regarding these issues

1:15:49 ↗ with this type of wall That's proposed

1:15:51 ↗ for parcel 7 have there been ISS issues

1:15:53 ↗ have there been uh any precedents uh for

1:15:57 ↗ problems what have we seen in that

1:15:59 ↗ regard so Dan can you speak to that did

1:16:01 ↗ you hear that I did can you hear me yes

1:16:06 ↗ yes um probably the best example of that

1:16:10 ↗ wall that we have direct experience with

1:16:13 ↗ are the walls on Highlands Drive in

1:16:15 ↗ isaco Highlands the largest walls as you

1:16:18 ↗ exit the freeway and move up into the

1:16:20 ↗ project um those are mechanically stable

1:16:23 ↗ I Earth walls with the technique that's

1:16:26 ↗ most likely proposed in parcel 7 and I

1:16:30 ↗ think it's probably safe to say that

1:16:31 ↗ those walls as a type are the most

1:16:35 ↗ common walls that are being built today

1:16:38 ↗ and that's because they are a really

1:16:40 ↗ extraordinary combination of stability

1:16:44 ↗ and Longevity and so um they're probably

1:16:49 ↗ the um best option we have to minimize

1:16:52 ↗ long-term cost and minimize impacts on

1:16:54 ↗ the

1:16:57 ↗ community thank you Dan are they the

1:16:59 ↗ same kind of walls that stretch back in

1:17:02 ↗ uh along the the the top of the

1:17:05 ↗ wall

1:17:07 ↗ yes

1:17:10 ↗ and what is the expected stability uh

1:17:15 ↗ lifespan of these

1:17:18 ↗ walls um that's probably a question

1:17:21 ↗ that's better left for the applicant

1:17:24 ↗ um but these walls are generally made

1:17:26 ↗ out of uh sandwiching a grid between

1:17:29 ↗ layers of soil and the grid is very

1:17:31 ↗ often a polyethylene or a polypropylene

1:17:34 ↗ product that's the same thing that our

1:17:35 ↗ milk cartons are made out of that we're

1:17:37 ↗ worried about not decomposing in

1:17:39 ↗ landfills for 10,000 years so I'm

1:17:43 ↗ suspecting that the material the grid

1:17:45 ↗ material itself is going to be there for

1:17:46 ↗ a very very long time

1:17:50 ↗ um did I switch no

1:17:53 ↗ so Lucy just so let me just add that um

1:17:57 ↗ there were some materials that the

1:17:59 ↗ applicant provided um with them and so I

1:18:02 ↗ I just like I think Dan's right that

1:18:05 ↗ they would probably be best able to

1:18:07 ↗ respond um to those question you want to

1:18:09 ↗ hold your question or you want to ask

1:18:11 ↗ that's exactly where I was going it's uh

1:18:12 ↗ referenced on page Pages 43 41 I'm sorry

1:18:17 ↗ 44 thank you thanks okay okay let's move

1:18:21 ↗ on so um we received a comment asking

1:18:25 ↗ the um that the plat move Lots away from

1:18:29 ↗ the edge of the western buffer so for

1:18:31 ↗ instance lot here here here those kinds

1:18:35 ↗ of lots be moved away um the purpose of

1:18:38 ↗ the western buffer was to as I said

1:18:41 ↗ earlier um prevent impacts from the

1:18:43 ↗ residences on the park and from the park

1:18:46 ↗ on the

1:18:47 ↗ residences um parcel 10 has um a similar

1:18:52 ↗ configuration and has been in place

1:18:54 ↗ probably a good eight years and um we

1:18:57 ↗ haven't um had any problems and and we

1:19:01 ↗ feel that this is essentially a buffer

1:19:02 ↗ to a buffer um and that the agreement

1:19:05 ↗ was 50

1:19:07 ↗ feet questions

1:19:09 ↗ oh sorry uh there was a question uh

1:19:13 ↗ comment about providing signage

1:19:15 ↗ prohibiting bikes on Fourth path Trails

1:19:19 ↗ not to change the standard but to um

1:19:22 ↗ just sign it because they aren't allowed

1:19:24 ↗ um there's a construction condition that

1:19:28 ↗ um directs us to do um Trail find way

1:19:31 ↗ finding signage um in order to assist

1:19:33 ↗ users and we would consider that a

1:19:35 ↗ subset of that um existing

1:19:41 ↗ condition Eric I I just want to really

1:19:43 ↗ clarify quickly uh so uh and the trails

1:19:47 ↗ that we're talking about are trails that

1:19:49 ↗ that go across this development and

1:19:51 ↗ obviously will not extend into to uh

1:19:53 ↗ Cougar Mountain trail system right

1:19:56 ↗ Cougar Mountain has is in King County

1:19:58 ↗ and they have their own trail standards

1:20:01 ↗ and allowed users and um that would I

1:20:05 ↗ mean that actually touches on a matter

1:20:07 ↗ that came up there was a request to

1:20:09 ↗ allow horses to use the trails within

1:20:11 ↗ Talis because they're allowed to use the

1:20:13 ↗ trails within um cougar uh Wildland Park

1:20:18 ↗ and um the city does not feel that

1:20:22 ↗ that's

1:20:23 ↗ appropriate ending up in streets and um

1:20:26 ↗ we also you know the development

1:20:28 ↗ agreement is a contract between the

1:20:30 ↗ master developer and the city and it

1:20:34 ↗ would be have to be a joint agreement to

1:20:36 ↗ make that change and at this time the

1:20:38 ↗ city um doesn't feel it's a request that

1:20:41 ↗ they would like to make so um fits into

1:20:45 ↗ that same point you're

1:20:48 ↗ making um access easements uh the county

1:20:51 ↗ asked for some access access easements

1:20:53 ↗ to and through the water um Reservoir

1:20:56 ↗ sites basically we're just saying this

1:20:58 ↗ plat isn't the place the city is going

1:21:00 ↗ to have the rights to access those and

1:21:02 ↗ it's really a negotiation between the

1:21:04 ↗ county and the city based on Gates and

1:21:07 ↗ keys and all kinds of stuff none of us

1:21:09 ↗ are interested

1:21:11 ↗ in um then there was a whole series of

1:21:15 ↗ things that came up that are essentially

1:21:17 ↗ outside of the preliminary plat and I'm

1:21:20 ↗ just going to kind of quickly go through

1:21:22 ↗ these let me know if you have questions

1:21:24 ↗ one was the annexation um there is a

1:21:27 ↗ request the city has received a request

1:21:29 ↗ um and without really much detail yet um

1:21:33 ↗ to Annex the property north of this plat

1:21:36 ↗ that is in King County so this plat um

1:21:39 ↗ does not in any way predispose the

1:21:42 ↗ council in terms of how they are going

1:21:44 ↗ to make that decision that is a um

1:21:47 ↗ Council process uh the annexation

1:21:50 ↗ involves meetings with the um planning

1:21:54 ↗ policy commission PPC and then uh with

1:21:57 ↗ the council it would also if this

1:22:00 ↗ property was going to be brought into

1:22:02 ↗ Talis require a major modification of

1:22:05 ↗ the development agreement which would

1:22:07 ↗ also have to go through council at the

1:22:10 ↗ same time as the

1:22:11 ↗ annexation um and uh what we ask is that

1:22:15 ↗ if people are interested in being a part

1:22:18 ↗ of that process and being aware of the

1:22:22 ↗ different meetings and opportunities to

1:22:25 ↗ speak and comment on it that they should

1:22:27 ↗ contact Trish heinanen um her telephone

1:22:30 ↗ number is on the screen um and she can

1:22:32 ↗ make them a party of record and the city

1:22:34 ↗ will contact them as those meetings

1:22:37 ↗ occur second comment was about design of

1:22:40 ↗ homes being concerned about how the

1:22:42 ↗ homes would be designed and and look um

1:22:46 ↗ a plat is subdividing property for sale

1:22:49 ↗ Andor construction um and though the

1:22:51 ↗ layout of the Lots has some implications

1:22:54 ↗ for the character of the neighborhood

1:22:56 ↗ the actual design of the homes is a

1:22:58 ↗ separate process

1:23:00 ↗ primarily um the responsibility of the

1:23:03 ↗ Architectural Review Committee so um

1:23:06 ↗ that's really outside the realm of the

1:23:08 ↗ plat there were some concerns around the

1:23:11 ↗ master developer how things had been

1:23:13 ↗ maintained how things had been built um

1:23:16 ↗ that really needs to be addressed

1:23:17 ↗ directly through the master developer

1:23:19 ↗ those elements are not part of the plat

1:23:22 ↗ um and they could also um uh use the HOA

1:23:26 ↗ to make those comments uh there was some

1:23:29 ↗ concern about a power line north of

1:23:31 ↗ Talis um that it should be placed

1:23:34 ↗ underground um things that are outside

1:23:37 ↗ of the um

1:23:39 ↗ plat uh which um are not part of which

1:23:43 ↗ are either outside the plat or even

1:23:44 ↗ outside of Talis unless they were

1:23:46 ↗ specifically identified as required

1:23:49 ↗ elements of the development agreement

1:23:51 ↗ the the plat and the um actions in Talis

1:23:55 ↗ can't address those um people we also

1:23:58 ↗ received comments that real estate

1:24:00 ↗ agents had um given misleading

1:24:02 ↗ statements or that the marketing

1:24:03 ↗ materials they received were Incorrect

1:24:06 ↗ and you know this is something the city

1:24:08 ↗ always really regrets hearing about we

1:24:10 ↗ really encourage any buyer to come to

1:24:12 ↗ the city and talk to us we're happy to

1:24:14 ↗ tell you what is and is not allowed on

1:24:17 ↗ on property um but we um don't get to

1:24:21 ↗ review the marketing or real estate

1:24:23 ↗ agents materials before their use so um

1:24:25 ↗ we we don't really have any control over

1:24:28 ↗ that

1:24:29 ↗ unfortunately um there were some

1:24:31 ↗ comments about um The View preservation

1:24:34 ↗ regulations that have been adopted in

1:24:36 ↗ the removal of trees um those are um the

1:24:39 ↗ homeowner association uh regulations and

1:24:43 ↗ processes um the city looked at those

1:24:45 ↗ for conflicts with the development

1:24:47 ↗ agreement and but otherwise we were not

1:24:49 ↗ involved in the approve approval or um

1:24:54 ↗ objection to those regulations because

1:24:57 ↗ they're really A Private Matter between

1:24:59 ↗ Property Owners although at this time we

1:25:01 ↗ understand that the removal of trees uh

1:25:04 ↗ associated with that has been

1:25:06 ↗ stopped so I I have more of these but

1:25:09 ↗ before I go on to the next page I wanted

1:25:10 ↗ to make sure see if there are any

1:25:11 ↗ questions about the ones on this slide

1:25:15 ↗ I'll have a comment when you're finished

1:25:16 ↗ with the list oh

1:25:18 ↗ okay um there were some questions about

1:25:20 ↗ comprehensive plans for schools um uh

1:25:23 ↗ again that that really isn't part of the

1:25:25 ↗ plat the city does work with the school

1:25:28 ↗ district uh we coordinate together

1:25:30 ↗ although uh the school district really

1:25:32 ↗ is the primary planner um and driver and

1:25:35 ↗ they have demographers to anticipate

1:25:37 ↗ where growth will take place and what

1:25:39 ↗ kind of facilities they need where um it

1:25:42 ↗ also should be noted that um however

1:25:44 ↗ that um the plat every home in the plat

1:25:47 ↗ will have to pay an impact fee um those

1:25:49 ↗ impact fees are established by the

1:25:51 ↗ school district and are adjusted each

1:25:53 ↗ year based on um what they think a

1:25:56 ↗ single family home or a multif family

1:25:58 ↗ unit should have to pay um to support

1:26:02 ↗ building the appropriate fac facilities

1:26:05 ↗ um and although no school sites were um

1:26:08 ↗ included in the Talis development the

1:26:10 ↗ city is working with the city to try and

1:26:13 ↗ identify some additional sites for um

1:26:15 ↗ future

1:26:16 ↗ facilities I've already really talked

1:26:18 ↗ about the equestrian issue um that this

1:26:21 ↗ is really outside the development

1:26:23 ↗ agreement because it would be a change

1:26:24 ↗ in rules um there was also a comment

1:26:28 ↗ about uh from the county that they're

1:26:29 ↗ looking at some of the steep slope

1:26:31 ↗ Hazard standards and changing them um I

1:26:35 ↗ mean the the most superficial answer is

1:26:37 ↗ that again to change standards we would

1:26:39 ↗ have to um work with the master

1:26:41 ↗ developer but I think a more important

1:26:43 ↗ point is to say that um because there

1:26:47 ↗ are some steep areas uh involved with

1:26:49 ↗ this uh this property there were um

1:26:53 ↗ steep uh CR geotechnical studies that

1:26:56 ↗ were performed with the plat they

1:26:58 ↗ required a double peer review which

1:26:59 ↗ means it was sent out to two more

1:27:01 ↗ geotechnical Engineers to review the

1:27:03 ↗ conclus the information conclusions

1:27:06 ↗ conditions Etc so in effect there is a

1:27:08 ↗ localized evaluation of slopes and

1:27:11 ↗ identification of site specific needs um

1:27:13 ↗ related to this um property and then um

1:27:17 ↗ subsequent to the memo I just wanted to

1:27:19 ↗ point out again that Parcels 8 and nine

1:27:21 ↗ have already been sent to the Council

1:27:22 ↗ and so they're not a part of this um we

1:27:25 ↗ also um received some additional

1:27:27 ↗ comments around the hours of

1:27:29 ↗ construction noise um and some specific

1:27:32 ↗ designs related to the constructions

1:27:35 ↗ that really is again not part of the

1:27:37 ↗ plat there are City standards or

1:27:39 ↗ development agreement standards around

1:27:41 ↗ hours of construction noise limits um

1:27:44 ↗ Etc and those would be addressed at that

1:27:46 ↗ time okay thank you for that so just for

1:27:50 ↗ everybody's uh benefit I guess uh um

1:27:52 ↗ while many of these or all of these in

1:27:55 ↗ some cases are hot button issues for a

1:27:57 ↗ lot of you and they're you know totally

1:28:00 ↗ valid and relevant to what you do and

1:28:01 ↗ where you live and so forth I think it's

1:28:04 ↗ just important to to just remind

1:28:06 ↗ everybody that you know she's putting

1:28:07 ↗ this up here for a reason we don't have

1:28:09 ↗ any purview over that we can't discuss

1:28:11 ↗ it we can't make any decisions on it we

1:28:13 ↗ can't open up any further discussions on

1:28:15 ↗ it certainly tonight we're not going to

1:28:17 ↗ be ruling on any of that stuff we're

1:28:18 ↗ getting into any of that discussion I'd

1:28:20 ↗ like to ask that when we do get to

1:28:22 ↗ public comment section that you do not

1:28:25 ↗ address these we're running we are

1:28:26 ↗ running out of time um and I encourage

1:28:29 ↗ you to to address the appropriate uh

1:28:31 ↗ parties for any of these things that are

1:28:33 ↗ of concern to you and I you know I

1:28:35 ↗ completely support the processes

1:28:37 ↗ processes that are in place to do so but

1:28:39 ↗ tonight is not the the time and here is

1:28:42 ↗ not the place to address these issues so

1:28:45 ↗ I'd appreciate that kind of support

1:28:46 ↗ thank

1:28:47 ↗ you so that concludes my not very brief

1:28:51 ↗ summary of the memory memo and if there

1:28:54 ↗ aren't any other questions then I would

1:28:56 ↗ turn um the presentation over to the

1:28:58 ↗ applicant okay before we do that any

1:29:00 ↗ questions Eric well I have a question I

1:29:02 ↗ just have to say that the work that you

1:29:05 ↗ and your staff put in to formulate all

1:29:07 ↗ these responses which is the most that

1:29:10 ↗ we've ever had that I can recall and I

1:29:13 ↗ think great work it's really been

1:29:14 ↗ enlightening and informing I hope the

1:29:17 ↗ public sees that as well and uh and I

1:29:20 ↗ just want to say thanks for your work

1:29:23 ↗ thanks thank you um have two other

1:29:25 ↗ comments one is just to follow up on

1:29:27 ↗ this I also want to make it clear that

1:29:28 ↗ it's not that we don't think these are

1:29:29 ↗ important we just can't discuss them so

1:29:32 ↗ whether whe whether we think they're

1:29:33 ↗ important or not is irrelevant tonight

1:29:35 ↗ so I just want to make that clear

1:29:36 ↗ because I know that they are to some

1:29:37 ↗ people certainly the other part uh is

1:29:40 ↗ that just before we go to the applicant

1:29:42 ↗ I'm going to ask that if you plan on

1:29:44 ↗ speaking tonight once again I'm going to

1:29:45 ↗ have you fill out that form uh you have

1:29:48 ↗ to go to the second page now because

1:29:49 ↗ we're ready beyond the first page um and

1:29:51 ↗ and uh and I'll be retrieving the

1:29:54 ↗ clipboard um at the end of the

1:29:56 ↗ applicant's presentation if you haven't

1:29:58 ↗ signed up I'm not I'm not going to allow

1:29:59 ↗ you to speak tonight so please do so

1:30:01 ↗ thank

1:30:04 ↗ you computer this one yeah yeah okay so

1:30:09 ↗ if if you need a comment from

1:30:11 ↗ Dan uh this one laptop you're on PC got

1:30:15 ↗ it

1:30:19 ↗ okay so if commission members if you

1:30:21 ↗ want to get a drink of water maybe take

1:30:23 ↗ a quick break it's probably just take me

1:30:25 ↗ couple of minutes I don't want to take

1:30:27 ↗ your chair there Jeff no thank you so

1:30:29 ↗ we'll take a three minute recess is that

1:30:31 ↗ enough or okay three minute recess

1:30:36 ↗ thanks just trying to get the cookies

1:30:39 ↗ all dive in there

1:30:50 ↗ Scott

1:36:37 ↗ my yes people are watching

1:36:42 ↗ CH

1:36:45 ↗ okay all right thank you commission

1:36:48 ↗ members uh thank you public for being

1:36:50 ↗ here so far this evening with us my name

1:36:52 ↗ is Ryan Coleman I'm with tri Associates

1:36:54 ↗ representing the applicant uh and from

1:36:57 ↗ the applicant we also have Darren Pew

1:36:59 ↗ with Talis Management

1:37:01 ↗ Services um looks like we lost

1:37:05 ↗ Dan Dan Hayes was here earlier uh he had

1:37:08 ↗ some other things to attend to but we

1:37:09 ↗ also have Jeff Cox and Tom Matt uh with

1:37:13 ↗ tri Associates Ted sheeper with Tara um

1:37:17 ↗ and and he'll be able to address some of

1:37:20 ↗ the the wall design issues that were

1:37:21 ↗ brought up but real briefly I'm going to

1:37:25 ↗ try and keep it brief but I don't want

1:37:26 ↗ to leave anybody in the dust give you

1:37:28 ↗ guys time ask some questions um I'm

1:37:31 ↗ going to go through some slides I did

1:37:33 ↗ hand out uh the images that I that I'm

1:37:36 ↗ providing up here there's some images uh

1:37:38 ↗ for anybody in the public that wants

1:37:39 ↗ them as well they're the same as what

1:37:41 ↗ I'm projecting on the screen I just find

1:37:43 ↗ it sometimes it's easier to have them

1:37:45 ↗ you can look a little more closely at

1:37:46 ↗ them and the screen's not the greatest

1:37:49 ↗ um no offense

1:37:52 ↗ so what I want to review is uh the

1:37:54 ↗ Western buffer and reservoirs Lucy has

1:37:57 ↗ covered some of this so I'm just going

1:37:58 ↗ to kind of address some of the questions

1:38:00 ↗ that I heard uh topography review of

1:38:03 ↗ parcel 7 talk a little bit about the

1:38:05 ↗ wall design why we arrived at the design

1:38:08 ↗ that we did for this plat is there have

1:38:10 ↗ been commission questions and and public

1:38:12 ↗ comment related to that and then um give

1:38:15 ↗ you a little bit more detail about uh

1:38:17 ↗ what it means and how we how we arrived

1:38:19 ↗ how we were able to reduce the Wall

1:38:21 ↗ height the eastern wall height of parcel

1:38:23 ↗ 7 by 10

1:38:25 ↗ ft uh so this is basically what the the

1:38:29 ↗ redesigned Reservoir sites will look

1:38:32 ↗ like um and this is just a snippet of

1:38:34 ↗ the site plan that is in your packets

1:38:36 ↗ and we'll be up here a little bit later

1:38:39 ↗ but as the condition has been read and

1:38:41 ↗ as we've agreed to this is the area of

1:38:44 ↗ the 752 Reservoir pad and access road

1:38:48 ↗ that will be removed uh the the tanks

1:38:51 ↗ will be repurposed for the 916

1:38:53 ↗ reservoirs

1:38:55 ↗ here the road will be removed those

1:38:57 ↗ areas will be

1:38:58 ↗ revegetated and in

1:39:01 ↗ exchange the 916 access road is outside

1:39:04 ↗ the buffer here um it did require a

1:39:07 ↗ little bit more wall a little bit more

1:39:09 ↗ Wall height um but we felt that was

1:39:12 ↗ probably an appropriate tradeoff to

1:39:14 ↗ retain that vegetative buffer uh and you

1:39:17 ↗ can kind of kind of do an eyeball check

1:39:19 ↗ the area of 19 16 Reservoir um access

1:39:23 ↗ area because they need some access for

1:39:25 ↗ equipment and trucks and and whatnot the

1:39:28 ↗ reservoirs itself is um uh a third to

1:39:32 ↗ probably half of what the revegetated

1:39:35 ↗ area or what the 752 Reservoir and

1:39:38 ↗ access road was so as as was allowed as

1:39:42 ↗ Lucy pointed out as was allowed through

1:39:43 ↗ the amm the road on the reservoir um

1:39:48 ↗ removing the 752 Road and Reservoir and

1:39:52 ↗ having just the 916 tanks there's

1:39:54 ↗ actually a net gain of vegetative buffer

1:39:58 ↗ um and one other thing that's probably

1:40:01 ↗ important to point out is that by having

1:40:04 ↗ these tanks here it allows them to be

1:40:06 ↗ screened on at least three sides by by

1:40:10 ↗ native vegetation as opposed to if they

1:40:12 ↗ were um brought out to outside the

1:40:16 ↗ buffer they would be much more exposed

1:40:18 ↗ much more visible and they would also be

1:40:20 ↗ um at least 20 feet taller so they would

1:40:22 ↗ have a a greater visual

1:40:26 ↗ impact any

1:40:28 ↗ questions comments

1:40:31 ↗ okay uh so I want to walk through some

1:40:34 ↗ of the some of the similar conditions

1:40:38 ↗ that there are in Talis um and Lucy

1:40:41 ↗ talked about this a little bit as well

1:40:43 ↗ there are standards that we have to

1:40:45 ↗ apply um but more than that you know in

1:40:48 ↗ the very beginning of the of the

1:40:50 ↗ development agreement and I wrote about

1:40:51 ↗ this in my memo as well when when we're

1:40:54 ↗ approaching when a developer is

1:40:56 ↗ approaching a design and when City staff

1:40:58 ↗ and even the commission is approaching

1:40:59 ↗ their review it's not just standards and

1:41:03 ↗ it's not just goals and it's not just

1:41:05 ↗ guidelines but you have to balance kind

1:41:06 ↗ of all three of those things and that's

1:41:09 ↗ what we've done our very best to do with

1:41:11 ↗ this application we appreciate the

1:41:13 ↗ public process it has challenged us a

1:41:15 ↗ little bit um and we have we've done

1:41:18 ↗ what we can to respond to those and and

1:41:21 ↗ what we're presenting tonight is that

1:41:23 ↗ but we also feel it's appropriate to

1:41:25 ↗ bring into context what has been done

1:41:27 ↗ elsewhere in Talis um and we've talked

1:41:30 ↗ about how the development Nestles into

1:41:33 ↗ the hillside how it responds to

1:41:34 ↗ topography and terrain and here are some

1:41:37 ↗ examples Talis drive as you're driving

1:41:40 ↗ down it you might think it feels kind of

1:41:42 ↗ flat but it's not it's it's pretty steep

1:41:44 ↗ it's on average 8 to 12% and the 12%

1:41:48 ↗ grade is right at the max um with

1:41:50 ↗ without having to go into the um or ask

1:41:53 ↗ for the allowance of going up to a 15%

1:41:57 ↗ grade for a very limited

1:42:00 ↗ length uh this is in the uh the alante

1:42:04 ↗ neighborhood um this is lingering

1:42:06 ↗ Pine and this is a section of Road

1:42:09 ↗ that's at 15% and here you can see how

1:42:11 ↗ the homes have been designed to respond

1:42:14 ↗ to that terrain it's not by any means a

1:42:17 ↗ flat neighborhood Wilderness Peak

1:42:20 ↗ sometimes referred to as Talis 5D

1:42:22 ↗ similar situation where this section of

1:42:24 ↗ Road here is about 10% and then it gets

1:42:28 ↗ a little bit steeper down to 14% And

1:42:29 ↗ then kind of levels levels out again to

1:42:32 ↗ an 8 to 10% Road

1:42:35 ↗ grade uh few more examples we've got uh

1:42:38 ↗ the beage drive entry into Trey Aris and

1:42:42 ↗ that again is approaching the maximum

1:42:44 ↗ 12% grade and

1:42:47 ↗ then the uh The Bridges Community um

1:42:51 ↗ Parcels 10 11 and 12 just south of the

1:42:55 ↗ parcel 7 application is is a fairly

1:42:58 ↗ steep neighborhood um much of it at the

1:43:00 ↗ 12% and and again a few portions of it

1:43:03 ↗ uh going up to that 15% uh top threshold

1:43:07 ↗ for short portions where it's

1:43:10 ↗ allowed so I guess showing those images

1:43:14 ↗ I hopes kind of gives a little bit of

1:43:16 ↗ context to the commission and shows how

1:43:19 ↗ other areas of Tal have responded to

1:43:21 ↗ terrain have balanced uh the goals and

1:43:24 ↗ the guidelines and the standards um and

1:43:27 ↗ have and at least in in our opinion and

1:43:30 ↗ I think staff would agree have uh have

1:43:33 ↗ achieved and delivered that vision of a

1:43:35 ↗ Talis a Mountainside Village Urban

1:43:39 ↗ Village so this excuse me if something

1:43:43 ↗ happens when I get up here I get all

1:43:44 ↗ choked

1:43:46 ↗ up this image is similar to the one that

1:43:49 ↗ Lucy did um um but I will point out that

1:43:52 ↗ this is with the revised grading um so

1:43:56 ↗ it's it's uh Lucy's image was from the

1:43:59 ↗ original plat

1:44:01 ↗ application after the wall was revised

1:44:05 ↗ some portions of shangra La way um had

1:44:08 ↗ to get a little bit

1:44:09 ↗ steeper and and to create this Ada

1:44:13 ↗ access um uh table in the roadway here

1:44:17 ↗ which has to be at about a 2% grade um

1:44:21 ↗ caused this this section of road right

1:44:23 ↗ here to get a little bit steeper um but

1:44:27 ↗ outside of that you know we've got Road

1:44:29 ↗ grades that are between 1 to

1:44:32 ↗ 4% 15% coming up here on Drive C

1:44:37 ↗ accessing the Eastern portion of parcel

1:44:40 ↗ 7 um

1:44:42 ↗ 14.9 to 4 a half% so the the road is

1:44:46 ↗ again it's not a flat pad it's it's

1:44:49 ↗ responding to Terrain we're trying to

1:44:52 ↗ balance the road grades and um and even

1:44:55 ↗ balance cut and fill and that was a

1:44:57 ↗ question that was raised and I'll come

1:44:59 ↗ to that in just a little bit you can see

1:45:02 ↗ there are some section lines through

1:45:03 ↗ here we did provide some

1:45:06 ↗ sections

1:45:07 ↗ um but I want to talk a little bit more

1:45:10 ↗ about topography parcel 7 uh it does it

1:45:13 ↗ does slope

1:45:14 ↗ significantly um from west to east

1:45:16 ↗ there's about 20 uh I'm sorry about 160

1:45:20 ↗ F feet of grade change from where the

1:45:22 ↗ reservoirs are to about where the bottom

1:45:26 ↗ portion of the wall is um I've talked

1:45:29 ↗ about standards how we're limited and

1:45:31 ↗ how much we can you know we can't just

1:45:33 ↗ build a 20% road so that we don't have

1:45:35 ↗ to do a bunch of grading so we don't

1:45:37 ↗ have to do walls um it's just not an

1:45:40 ↗ option that we have in our Arsenal um

1:45:42 ↗ I've shown you some of the similar

1:45:43 ↗ grades in Talis and again what we what

1:45:47 ↗ we feel we've proposed and even with

1:45:49 ↗ these revisions that we are uh and and

1:45:52 ↗ staff has responded to this as well that

1:45:54 ↗ we're compliant with the development

1:45:57 ↗ agreement you've seen this image as well

1:46:01 ↗ um one question was where are some

1:46:03 ↗ similarly tall walls

1:46:06 ↗ um uh Trey RIS parcel 5c uh they get up

1:46:10 ↗ to about 27 ft here um 5D they have

1:46:14 ↗ portions up to 31 ft and these are again

1:46:17 ↗ are are directly supporting homes um um

1:46:21 ↗ there are some as well in

1:46:24 ↗ um I forget the name of this uh uh

1:46:28 ↗ Ascent thank you um this is parcel

1:46:31 ↗ forign Ascent that's up to 29 ft we've

1:46:34 ↗ got Wall Systems and and when we think

1:46:37 ↗ of a wall system these are some of these

1:46:39 ↗ walls they were able to be terrorists

1:46:41 ↗ because they weren't fighting a a

1:46:44 ↗ falling uh grade condition so they were

1:46:46 ↗ able to uh terce but it's still 40 feet

1:46:49 ↗ of wall here at the entry as well as

1:46:52 ↗ here at the bottom of Timber Ridge and

1:46:56 ↗ we've got some SE we've got some

1:46:57 ↗ sections through some of these

1:46:58 ↗ neighborhoods as

1:46:59 ↗ well um but what's what's interesting is

1:47:03 ↗ that some of these walls some of these

1:47:06 ↗ tall walls um some people have probably

1:47:08 ↗ never even seen or even knew that they

1:47:10 ↗ were there and this one actually um I'm

1:47:14 ↗ wondering how many of you know or may

1:47:16 ↗ know where this

1:47:18 ↗ is wilderness

1:47:22 ↗ uh

1:47:24 ↗ one yeah that's true yeah this one is

1:47:26 ↗ below Wilderness Peak this is shanga

1:47:29 ↗ there's a little key map right here

1:47:31 ↗ here's Talis drive you come up you turn

1:47:33 ↗ right shanga way here's as scent here's

1:47:37 ↗ Rose Crest um this is about 26 feet tall

1:47:41 ↗ there is an arch Culvert there's a

1:47:43 ↗ stream that flows through it this road

1:47:45 ↗ has been in

1:47:47 ↗ place a dozen years at least uh same

1:47:51 ↗ with Wilderness Peak here is a section

1:47:53 ↗ of a 31 ft wall this is a very similar

1:47:56 ↗ condition that you would find at the

1:47:57 ↗ bottom of the the eastern wall of parcel

1:47:59 ↗ 7 um it will be a a a stone-faced kind

1:48:04 ↗ of wall it won't be a keystone faced

1:48:06 ↗ like this is but it will have a a

1:48:08 ↗ concrete masonry unit armoring the wall

1:48:11 ↗ face I'll have Ted talk a little bit

1:48:13 ↗ more about that

1:48:15 ↗ design there will be a trail at the

1:48:17 ↗ bottom um we have designed it so that

1:48:19 ↗ there will be some intervening landscape

1:48:21 ↗ between the trail and the wall to soften

1:48:24 ↗ the visual appearance but this is very

1:48:27 ↗ similar to what you would see at the

1:48:29 ↗ bottom of parcel 7one and I think what's

1:48:30 ↗ important is that you can see the

1:48:32 ↗ existing

1:48:33 ↗ vegetation really does a pretty decent

1:48:36 ↗ job of screening

1:48:38 ↗ it uh I can zoom into these a little bit

1:48:42 ↗ more and I will just because they're

1:48:44 ↗ kind of interesting um this is Timber

1:48:47 ↗ Ridge um also sometimes referred to as

1:48:50 ↗ Parcels 162 and 3 in Talis it's um so

1:48:55 ↗ you go up Talis Drive turn left on shyar

1:48:57 ↗ way it's the two and three story um town

1:49:01 ↗ homes on your left or on the on the east

1:49:04 ↗ side of

1:49:04 ↗ shyar

1:49:07 ↗ not I'm sorry Copper Ridge I should read

1:49:10 ↗ my own slides that's a good clue thank

1:49:13 ↗ you um so you can see here there there

1:49:16 ↗ as well was a fair amount of grade that

1:49:19 ↗ uh that copper r was taking up and they

1:49:21 ↗ did it again through a series of

1:49:23 ↗ stepping grade through the building

1:49:26 ↗ through walls and in this situation they

1:49:29 ↗ were able to Terrace this is a 40ft wall

1:49:31 ↗ section here they were able to Terrace

1:49:33 ↗ it but I think what's important to note

1:49:35 ↗ is that when they were coming down here

1:49:36 ↗ at the bottom of their partial boundary

1:49:39 ↗ they weren't chasing a 40% slope they

1:49:41 ↗ were able to bench that out fairly

1:49:43 ↗ easily on on onto what is now the uh the

1:49:46 ↗ LCS or the Timber Ridge uh portion of

1:49:49 ↗ Talis

1:49:52 ↗ and uh similarly here Wilderness Peak uh

1:49:55 ↗ a lot of terrain taken up through homes

1:49:58 ↗ um as well as the wall at the bottom and

1:50:01 ↗ again here we've we've got a pretty good

1:50:03 ↗ representation of what the eastern wall

1:50:05 ↗ of parcel 7 would be doing um it uh

1:50:09 ↗ provides um uh the building the building

1:50:12 ↗ site for parcel 7 um and they were able

1:50:15 ↗ to minimize Wall height with some

1:50:17 ↗ terring but again it's primarily

1:50:19 ↗ screened with existing

1:50:28 ↗ vegetation this is the uh um I just

1:50:31 ↗ wanted

1:50:32 ↗ to uh kind of give Contex in this is

1:50:35 ↗ this is one of the site sections we'll

1:50:37 ↗ spend a little bit more time on this is

1:50:38 ↗ parcel 7 um but here again you can see

1:50:42 ↗ how the terrain is pretty consistent all

1:50:45 ↗ the way down and we have done our best

1:50:49 ↗ uh to take up durin through some grading

1:50:52 ↗ some walls through the buildings uh

1:50:55 ↗ again the the topic tonight has been

1:50:58 ↗ this this taller wall here at the

1:50:59 ↗ Eastern portion of parcel

1:51:02 ↗ 7 um and how we were able to reduce the

1:51:06 ↗ visual height of the wall was by

1:51:09 ↗ bringing this trail head up a little bit

1:51:11 ↗ we put a Rockery at the bottom so we

1:51:13 ↗ kind of lifted the topography there we

1:51:17 ↗ uh are filling against it and land

1:51:20 ↗ scaping part of it but again this is a

1:51:23 ↗ very accurate representation of the

1:51:25 ↗ existing

1:51:26 ↗ vegetation um going down to Mountain Air

1:51:29 ↗ that will help screen the visual impact

1:51:31 ↗ of that

1:51:34 ↗ wall and we did a very scientific study

1:51:37 ↗ uh I bought balloons at the uh Party

1:51:39 ↗ Store four of them four 16inch balloons

1:51:43 ↗ um I actually had to use an arrow to

1:51:45 ↗ show you they're right here they're

1:51:48 ↗ Orange um but I was was standing I had

1:51:51 ↗ uh I took someone from our office and I

1:51:53 ↗ had her stand right right about here

1:51:55 ↗ right about where this this wall would

1:51:57 ↗ be floated those balloons 40 ft in the

1:51:59 ↗ air and I walked down the hill I

1:52:02 ↗ couldn't quite get down to the trail

1:52:04 ↗ because it got pretty steep going down

1:52:06 ↗ there um but basically I was standing

1:52:09 ↗ here looking back up through the

1:52:12 ↗ trees and what you can see this blue

1:52:15 ↗ line is approximating where the top of

1:52:17 ↗ that wall would be um but you can see if

1:52:20 ↗ you were farther down that Hill that

1:52:23 ↗ vegetation would be screening it and

1:52:25 ↗ similarly what I tried to do was walk

1:52:27 ↗ back up the hill get about to where the

1:52:30 ↗ level of that wall would be so that you

1:52:32 ↗ could see the existing vegetation behind

1:52:35 ↗ it that will remain uh will be there to

1:52:37 ↗ help screen

1:52:42 ↗ it so Ryan I'm sorry we have a question

1:52:45 ↗ from Scott

1:52:46 ↗ here thank you can you go back one slide

1:52:48 ↗ please I'm just curious in regards to um

1:52:54 ↗ is there another example of a hill

1:52:58 ↗ Hillside uh constructed in this manner

1:53:01 ↗ with the span of Earth from the upper

1:53:03 ↗ retaining wall to the lower section

1:53:05 ↗ within Talis

1:53:08 ↗ today that would be representative of

1:53:10 ↗ what we're talking about

1:53:13 ↗ here like in 5D I'm sorry Wilderness

1:53:17 ↗ Peak so we're saying that wilderness

1:53:20 ↗ Peak is a a similar example to

1:53:23 ↗ what Thee the the next slide would

1:53:26 ↗ translate to could you maybe just to

1:53:29 ↗ make sure we're saying the same thing

1:53:31 ↗ can you say in what ways you're asking

1:53:32 ↗ if it's similar yeah go ahead and jump

1:53:34 ↗ over to the to the next slide so the

1:53:37 ↗ distance of that upper retaining wall

1:53:40 ↗ to think it says

1:53:42 ↗ too to the lower that that span of Earth

1:53:47 ↗ sorry Talis mire oh this right here yeah

1:53:50 ↗ so from here to that point to here yeah

1:53:54 ↗ it's about 300 ft 300 ft so your your

1:53:56 ↗ previous slide is representative or

1:53:58 ↗ similar to that

1:54:01 ↗ span um and where I'm going with that is

1:54:04 ↗ I'm just curious in regards to that

1:54:05 ↗ distance of slope with that grade

1:54:08 ↗ associated with that tall of a wall

1:54:11 ↗ placement I'm just curious looking for

1:54:13 ↗ similar examples of what's in place

1:54:17 ↗ today I guess I'm having trying

1:54:26 ↗ to I think what what he's saying is in

1:54:29 ↗ the pre in the previous slide you're

1:54:31 ↗ saying there's 300 ft of vegetation

1:54:33 ↗ before you hit the wall and he I think

1:54:36 ↗ if if I'm correct he's asking in

1:54:40 ↗ 5D is that same distance if you go to

1:54:43 ↗ the previous Slide the distance on the

1:54:45 ↗ far right of the vegetation how many

1:54:48 ↗ feet is that

1:54:50 ↗ before you go to a road or something

1:54:52 ↗ it's uh quite a bit actually let me uh

1:54:55 ↗ not sure why this got so big hang on um

1:54:58 ↗ so that wall is here that section that

1:55:02 ↗ we took was right through Wilderness

1:55:04 ↗ Peak here and

1:55:06 ↗ so my guess is that it's um probably

1:55:10 ↗ about 500 ft to

1:55:14 ↗ sr900

1:55:15 ↗ maybe 300 ft to the

1:55:18 ↗ pond

1:55:20 ↗ you mentioned Timber Ridge so that that

1:55:22 ↗ wasn't representative of Timber Ridge

1:55:24 ↗ then is that

1:55:25 ↗ correct it was actually Copper Ridge

1:55:27 ↗ coer coer Ridge oh

1:55:30 ↗ yeah perfect that's exactly what I was

1:55:32 ↗ trying to do okay thank you all right

1:55:34 ↗ Jeff go ahead Michael Ryan I have a a

1:55:38 ↗ question for you can you go to the that

1:55:40 ↗ right there

1:55:41 ↗ um if I understood this you said that

1:55:44 ↗ the bottom portion of the large wall in

1:55:46 ↗ question will be backfilled with with

1:55:49 ↗ soil so is it going to still be a 48

1:55:53 ↗ whatever foot tall wall but the bottom

1:55:55 ↗ portion of will be buried

1:55:57 ↗ now I I'll have Ted I don't know if he's

1:56:01 ↗ got an idea of of how big that footing

1:56:04 ↗ would be um but you wouldn't see it it

1:56:07 ↗ would be underground so we're not I

1:56:09 ↗ guess my question is is the total

1:56:12 ↗ elevation of the wall being reduced or

1:56:14 ↗ are we just going to bury the bottom

1:56:16 ↗ portion of it to make the exposed

1:56:17 ↗ portion less visible other words is the

1:56:20 ↗ exposed portion is as high as 49 ft at

1:56:22 ↗ its highest point righted Sorry

1:56:29 ↗ 39 the O the overall height has been

1:56:32 ↗ reduced by primarily changing the

1:56:35 ↗ grading and we also moved the wall we

1:56:37 ↗ changed the configuration of the wall so

1:56:38 ↗ we cut the angle and we moov the wall

1:56:41 ↗ back into the hillside

1:56:45 ↗ um at the at more at the beginning where

1:56:47 ↗ it makes the bend and so instead of

1:56:50 ↗ instead of it uh coming out and being a

1:56:52 ↗ little bit longer we cut it at a farther

1:56:54 ↗ angle to both add some modulation but

1:56:57 ↗ that also cut it back into the hillside

1:57:00 ↗ um which reduced the particularly that

1:57:02 ↗ we were concerned about the highest

1:57:04 ↗ point again the whole wall was not 48 or

1:57:06 ↗ 49 ft we had a high point in the middle

1:57:09 ↗ so by cutting that wall back and

1:57:11 ↗ changing the angle of that wall we were

1:57:12 ↗ able to move that wall back and then at

1:57:15 ↗ the at the end where uh right here

1:57:20 ↗ uh so at one point the Wall came out to

1:57:22 ↗ this point to right out here and kind of

1:57:26 ↗ followed the trail and we actually

1:57:29 ↗ pulled it back quite a bit which is what

1:57:32 ↗ Darren's saying to move it to move it

1:57:34 ↗ back because we had extra room back in

1:57:36 ↗ here in lots and so we pulled the wall

1:57:38 ↗ back up the hill to be able to shorten

1:57:41 ↗ that High Point um and then also raised

1:57:44 ↗ the grade at the bottom supporting that

1:57:47 ↗ so we could shorten that whole length L

1:57:49 ↗ of it to be to be at that 39 ft or below

1:57:52 ↗ okay so is the is the top ele is the top

1:57:55 ↗ of that wall approximately similar an

1:57:57 ↗ elevation to what was proposed

1:57:58 ↗ beforehand um approximately okay all

1:58:02 ↗ right thank

1:58:03 ↗ you yes

1:58:04 ↗ Tim uh so I understand what you're doing

1:58:08 ↗ with the wall and I'm kind of curious as

1:58:11 ↗ to what happened with the grade of

1:58:13 ↗ shangra La where you said you increased

1:58:15 ↗ the grade from having to do that how how

1:58:17 ↗ does that how does that

1:58:20 ↗ compute where where does the where did

1:58:23 ↗ you lose it if you didn't change

1:58:25 ↗ anything about the grade of those lots

1:58:27 ↗ where did the shangra LA change its

1:58:29 ↗ grade so instead of the the original

1:58:33 ↗ design if I had Lucy slide up here this

1:58:37 ↗ road was a much more consistent about

1:58:40 ↗ 11% basically from here to about here so

1:58:45 ↗ it looked like this and what we did is

1:58:48 ↗ we steepened this ption portion and then

1:58:50 ↗ flatten this portion out okay and then

1:58:52 ↗ and then steepened it again

1:58:54 ↗ so this table in order to make this kind

1:58:57 ↗ of a flat tabletop this elevation didn't

1:58:59 ↗ change but this section got a little bit

1:59:02 ↗ steeper so that we could get up and and

1:59:05 ↗ flatten that out is the street in the

1:59:07 ↗ same spot where it was yeah so you've

1:59:10 ↗ made those lots one through five or six

1:59:14 ↗ a little bit smaller than what they were

1:59:15 ↗ before the street didn't move no the

1:59:18 ↗ Lots the Lots themselves are a little

1:59:20 ↗ bit shallower than they were before the

1:59:22 ↗ Lots again we shifted the wall over to

1:59:24 ↗ get the hill to shorten the wall and the

1:59:27 ↗ dimension of the Lots here got shorter

1:59:30 ↗ or the Lots got smaller uh to

1:59:32 ↗ accommodate that thank

1:59:35 ↗ you Michael has another question Ryan

1:59:38 ↗ earlier you said something about that

1:59:39 ↗ being an ada8 table is that is this the

1:59:42 ↗ only ada8 table that we see in the whole

1:59:44 ↗ development and I'm curious why we have

1:59:45 ↗ one here is Dan still on

1:59:51 ↗ well

1:59:53 ↗ he's

1:59:56 ↗ right what was the question I'm sorry it

1:59:58 ↗ was about responding okay sounds like

2:00:00 ↗ maybe Darren can respond to the Ada to

2:00:02 ↗ the Ada within Talis and specifically

2:00:05 ↗ this Development question just seven

2:00:08 ↗ yeah because that's all we can talk

2:00:09 ↗ about but I remember I remember earlier

2:00:10 ↗ we asked are there any Ada parking or

2:00:13 ↗ sidewalks and it was no but then I see

2:00:15 ↗ one here but the sidewalk you still have

2:00:18 ↗ the 88

2:00:19 ↗ uh access ramp issues and this is this

2:00:22 ↗ is a Citywide issue it's a Statewide

2:00:24 ↗ issue it's big way bigger than Talis but

2:00:27 ↗ it it is getting significant attention

2:00:29 ↗ throughout the city and throughout all

2:00:31 ↗ communities and so um very

2:00:35 ↗ specifically uh matter of fact that all

2:00:37 ↗ of the grades in the plat changed based

2:00:40 ↗ on the Ada ramp design requirements to

2:00:42 ↗ meet that and one of the very stringent

2:00:45 ↗ requirements that that Dan specifically

2:00:48 ↗ has said is they're going to come out

2:00:50 ↗ and check your ramps and if they don't

2:00:51 ↗ meet the spec they're coming out and so

2:00:54 ↗ we spend a lot of time with the grading

2:00:56 ↗ just kind of why you're hearing that and

2:00:58 ↗ adjusting even as far back down as the

2:01:02 ↗ intersection of eight and the access

2:01:04 ↗ road coming up the hill so that's really

2:01:06 ↗ why you're hearing a lot of that is

2:01:08 ↗ because it's very new to current current

2:01:10 ↗ standards and and a current I know it's

2:01:12 ↗ a pretty big within the city as far as

2:01:15 ↗ Citywide so but every every intersection

2:01:18 ↗ meets requirement I think why we're

2:01:20 ↗ hearing it here is because this was such

2:01:21 ↗ an unusual spot in in is that correct

2:01:25 ↗ just anything any place you have steep

2:01:28 ↗ grades yeah and you're trying to make a

2:01:30 ↗ flat Ada ramp be it becomes extremely

2:01:33 ↗ difficult just conflicts there right the

2:01:34 ↗ reason we heard about it here is because

2:01:36 ↗ that was a very difficult section

2:01:37 ↗ correct but the but it's elsewhere

2:01:40 ↗ through anywhere you have an

2:01:41 ↗ intersection there's the Ada requirement

2:01:44 ↗ satisfied okay thanks did you want to

2:01:46 ↗ ask Dan something

2:01:48 ↗ um did did that address the answer okay

2:01:52 ↗ we're okay okay

2:01:59 ↗ thanks I don't know why I did

2:02:02 ↗ this

2:02:04 ↗ okay so just real briefly um we talked a

2:02:09 ↗ little bit about trying to balance the

2:02:11 ↗ goals the guidelines and the standards

2:02:14 ↗ and one of the things that Lucy had

2:02:16 ↗ mentioned uh was that that an option

2:02:19 ↗ that was considered early on um was

2:02:22 ↗ instead of having a tall wall was that

2:02:25 ↗ we could actually come in here and uh

2:02:28 ↗ engineer a slope design as opposed to

2:02:31 ↗ the wall and saving the vegetation so

2:02:33 ↗ this this gray area represents where

2:02:36 ↗ vegetation could have been

2:02:38 ↗ removed and the result of that would

2:02:42 ↗ instead of a wall with vegetation would

2:02:45 ↗ have just been a an engineered slope um

2:02:48 ↗ it's about uh a one and a qu to one it's

2:02:51 ↗ taking up um roughly um 80 feet of grade

2:02:57 ↗ over 100 foot

2:02:59 ↗ distance

2:03:01 ↗ um but what we decided was that wasn't

2:03:04 ↗ what we wanted to do we didn't feel that

2:03:06 ↗ conformed to the development agreement

2:03:07 ↗ it wasn't in the best interest of the

2:03:09 ↗ community so again what we've what we've

2:03:13 ↗ gone back uh We've redesigned it we've

2:03:16 ↗ looked at how we can reduce that uh that

2:03:19 ↗ Wall height reduce the visual impact and

2:03:22 ↗ um I've talked a little bit about the

2:03:24 ↗ section but again you know paral 7 is um

2:03:28 ↗ we feel is conforming to the grades and

2:03:32 ↗ um the wall has been reduced as we've

2:03:35 ↗ talked about a little bit so these are

2:03:36 ↗ just some more sections on that Ryan can

2:03:40 ↗ you make any comments or can anybody

2:03:42 ↗ make any comments about the graded slope

2:03:44 ↗ alternative versus the wall in terms of

2:03:47 ↗ structural stability

2:03:49 ↗ it would go through the same kind of

2:03:51 ↗ review as a wall would um because it's

2:03:54 ↗ it's a it would be considered a

2:03:56 ↗ mechanical unit um it would go through a

2:03:59 ↗ similar critical area study and a

2:04:01 ↗ geotechnical study peer

2:04:05 ↗ review it' be held to the same kind of

2:04:07 ↗ standard as a wall question go ahead Co

2:04:11 ↗ so then you can Ryan can you give a

2:04:12 ↗ couple bullets of why you guys didn't

2:04:15 ↗ choose it and why you said it didn't

2:04:17 ↗ conform to the way you interpreted the

2:04:18 ↗ dev agreement well as Lucy pointed out

2:04:21 ↗ before one of one of the goals of of

2:04:25 ↗ Talis is to retain areas of vegetated

2:04:28 ↗ open space and although this could have

2:04:31 ↗ been one uh one area where we chose well

2:04:34 ↗ we're retaining some areas um it just

2:04:37 ↗ didn't

2:04:38 ↗ feel in keeping with the spirit of the

2:04:41 ↗ development agreement and uh would would

2:04:45 ↗ have a greater

2:04:47 ↗ cost um I'll I'll speak a little bit to

2:04:50 ↗ some of our decision- making although

2:04:52 ↗ those are great comments um the the

2:04:57 ↗ slope um quite frankly is probably less

2:05:00 ↗ money than the wall um but it does

2:05:02 ↗ create greater clearing we're opening up

2:05:05 ↗ a lot more space um the trails down

2:05:08 ↗ there we didn't really feel like it was

2:05:10 ↗ going to be

2:05:11 ↗ um

2:05:13 ↗ acceptable primarily you know tree

2:05:15 ↗ cutting is not really a popular thing in

2:05:18 ↗ in t or anywhere within isqua and it it

2:05:21 ↗ just seemed inherent to us to just go

2:05:22 ↗ ahead and put the wall in you know

2:05:24 ↗ looking at at that as an alternative

2:05:26 ↗ you're going to clear all those trees

2:05:28 ↗ and really open that Hillside up which

2:05:30 ↗ is not going to be pretty you get into

2:05:32 ↗ the tree cutting issues we probably felt

2:05:34 ↗ that was going to be a bigger deal than

2:05:35 ↗ we thought the wall was going to be at

2:05:36 ↗ the end of the day even though the

2:05:38 ↗ Wall's probably more expensive than than

2:05:40 ↗ doing the engineered slope so Darren

2:05:42 ↗ could I just clarify one point it you

2:05:45 ↗ not only clear that slope but at and I

2:05:48 ↗ just cuz

2:05:49 ↗ um uh people may not have the decoder

2:05:52 ↗ ring for what Ryan was saying which is

2:05:55 ↗ that it's an armored slope which means

2:05:57 ↗ it would never be planted it would be

2:05:59 ↗ have a kind of surface treatment that uh

2:06:02 ↗ would maybe appear Like a Rock but it

2:06:05 ↗ would not it's not that it's cleared and

2:06:07 ↗ then replanted it's cleared and treated

2:06:10 ↗ as if it's almost like a Wallace is that

2:06:12 ↗ correct likely um you know we we worked

2:06:17 ↗ with Ted a little bit on what whether it

2:06:18 ↗ was feasible or not um again we really

2:06:22 ↗ looked at the tree cutting issue and the

2:06:24 ↗ clearing issue is being a bigger

2:06:27 ↗ detriment more know from public comment

2:06:29 ↗ if nothing else um as you know being one

2:06:32 ↗ of those taboo things you don't want to

2:06:34 ↗ do in Talis has cut down trees and and

2:06:36 ↗ again from from our perspective we just

2:06:38 ↗ kind of inherently went to you put a

2:06:40 ↗ wall in you don't have to clear all that

2:06:42 ↗ you save all the tree cutting seemed

2:06:44 ↗ like a good idea at the

2:06:47 ↗ time it's still a good idea

2:06:51 ↗ but

2:06:56 ↗ thanks any other questions that's I mean

2:06:59 ↗ that pretty much covers what I wanted to

2:07:02 ↗ cover again we talked about the grading

2:07:04 ↗ and the and um the modulation of parcel

2:07:07 ↗ 7 through the

2:07:08 ↗ site um but I do want to kind of briefly

2:07:12 ↗ cap everything like I said we've reduced

2:07:14 ↗ the Wall height in the eastern wall

2:07:16 ↗ height of parcel 7 by at least 10 feet

2:07:19 ↗ by doing that we're retaining a lot of

2:07:21 ↗ vegetation uh the existing vegetation

2:07:24 ↗ that's there which is a a mixture of

2:07:26 ↗ deciduous and uh conifers would provide

2:07:30 ↗ some

2:07:31 ↗ screening um we're going to have Ted

2:07:34 ↗ talk a little bit about some of the

2:07:35 ↗ additional information that we gave the

2:07:37 ↗ commission attached to the packet uh

2:07:40 ↗ regarding wall design life of the wall

2:07:42 ↗ maintenance of the wall um and then

2:07:44 ↗ again at the very beginning I talked

2:07:46 ↗ about the uh the redesign design of the

2:07:49 ↗ 916 reservoirs on the road um so at this

2:07:53 ↗ point I'll have Ted come up and uh

2:07:56 ↗ actually BR I'd like to start that okay

2:07:59 ↗ come up thank you Ryan for all of that

2:08:01 ↗ information appreciate

2:08:06 ↗ it also talk about balancing of

2:08:14 ↗ export so uh Ryan was mentioning there

2:08:18 ↗ was a question question about uh import

2:08:20 ↗ export balance um we're uh in partiel 7

2:08:24 ↗ we're we're pretty much at a balance uh

2:08:27 ↗ some of the material will come down we

2:08:29 ↗ do have some unsuitable material that's

2:08:31 ↗ been identified through the soils report

2:08:34 ↗ uh within parcel 9 kind of in the in the

2:08:37 ↗ draw in in parcel 9 that needs to be

2:08:40 ↗ excavated out and removed and so

2:08:41 ↗ there'll be some material that'll be put

2:08:43 ↗ back in there so it'll be some export uh

2:08:46 ↗ certainly from the site obvious

2:08:48 ↗ obviously clearing debris vegetation

2:08:51 ↗ will be exported off the site that

2:08:53 ↗ anything that's not ground those kinds

2:08:54 ↗ of things uh import would be likely

2:08:57 ↗ limited to uh import back fill needed

2:09:00 ↗ for the walls things of that nature but

2:09:02 ↗ that's a limited quantity so generally

2:09:05 ↗ we're trying to balance and we don't

2:09:06 ↗ want to uh export large amounts of

2:09:09 ↗ material it's not cost

2:09:11 ↗ effective um so I think that was one

2:09:14 ↗ question

2:09:16 ↗ um wall design

2:09:19 ↗ uh was a question that that was started

2:09:21 ↗ last week and I know Carolyn with um uh

2:09:24 ↗ Tara I think was uh maybe caught a

2:09:28 ↗ little bit off guard with the question

2:09:29 ↗ and wasn't prepared to answer that and

2:09:31 ↗ so I've gone back and and I'll had have

2:09:34 ↗ Ted speak to the the geot technical

2:09:37 ↗ component of the design but we've gone

2:09:39 ↗ back and talked to and the materials

2:09:40 ↗ that I provided in the in the package uh

2:09:43 ↗ were kind of the summary components of

2:09:45 ↗ that but basically the the wall compon

2:09:48 ↗ components that are used in conjunction

2:09:50 ↗ with the geotechnical design are tested

2:09:53 ↗ and are used at a design life of 114

2:09:56 ↗ years and the 114 years if you looked at

2:10:02 ↗ at what we wrote in the memo in addition

2:10:04 ↗ to that

2:10:05 ↗ information um at 114 years and why they

2:10:10 ↗ use

2:10:11 ↗ 114 is beyond me um can't answer that

2:10:14 ↗ question uh wash dot uses typically

2:10:19 ↗ either 75 years or 100 years uh they

2:10:22 ↗ tested theirs at 114 years um again I

2:10:26 ↗ don't know why that is but that's the

2:10:28 ↗ specifics of it um but the basis of that

2:10:31 ↗ testing is that at 114 years based on

2:10:35 ↗ the degradation of the material it still

2:10:38 ↗ exceeds the original design requirement

2:10:41 ↗ at the day at day one

2:10:44 ↗ so at 114 years it the material still

2:10:48 ↗ exceeds the design requirement for

2:10:50 ↗ today's design at the original uh

2:10:53 ↗ installation of the wall so that doesn't

2:10:55 ↗ mean the wall just collapses at 114

2:10:58 ↗ years um it's still there the facing is

2:11:01 ↗ made out of concrete um I think the

2:11:04 ↗ discussion from Dan was that it is made

2:11:06 ↗ out of uh uh a geow woven polyethylene

2:11:10 ↗ or or plastic material that I don't know

2:11:13 ↗ anybody knows what the life of it is but

2:11:15 ↗ they only test it to 114 years um um

2:11:20 ↗ so I put in my in the memo that we wrote

2:11:23 ↗ just using a 1.5 safety Factor you're

2:11:26 ↗ looking at something in 150 to 165 years

2:11:30 ↗ if you talk to the manufacturers and

2:11:32 ↗ anybody that's familiar with the

2:11:33 ↗ concrete of the product they can't tell

2:11:35 ↗ you how long it may or may not last they

2:11:37 ↗ can tell you they'll guarantee it'll

2:11:38 ↗ last at least 115 years um so that's

2:11:41 ↗ kind of the basis of the information

2:11:43 ↗ that we have so I I just wonder if you

2:11:46 ↗ could just uh briefly speak on on I

2:11:49 ↗ thought that uh previously we were to

2:11:51 ↗ understand the life of the wall was 50

2:11:53 ↗ years so now we're hearing 14 if I'm

2:11:57 ↗ correct so if you can just speak on that

2:11:59 ↗ yes again I Carolyn with terara

2:12:02 ↗ Associates who was here to speak on some

2:12:04 ↗ of the geotechnical issues off the cuff

2:12:06 ↗ was asked what she thought the life of

2:12:08 ↗ the wall was and without benefit of any

2:12:12 ↗ technical data um not maybe not her

2:12:15 ↗ expertise on that technical data she

2:12:17 ↗ responded with 50 years um either way

2:12:20 ↗ I'll still be on the commission so no

2:12:23 ↗ there's no question that's what she said

2:12:25 ↗ and she was kind of you know I was

2:12:27 ↗ standing here and she's like um 50 years

2:12:31 ↗ so we've subsequently gone back because

2:12:34 ↗ there were some concerns about that

2:12:36 ↗ lifespan and wanted to get the technical

2:12:38 ↗ data that supported what the actual

2:12:40 ↗ design was um how long will the walls

2:12:43 ↗ last nobody can tell you um they've been

2:12:47 ↗ they they they've really been using this

2:12:49 ↗ mechanical uh stabilized Earth system

2:12:51 ↗ for about 50 plus years there are walls

2:12:54 ↗ that have been in existence that long

2:12:56 ↗ that that are functioning fine and

2:12:58 ↗ that's as much as anybody can tell you

2:13:01 ↗ there's concrete block stone masonry

2:13:03 ↗ buildings that are 200 300 years old you

2:13:07 ↗ know when does the facing start to

2:13:09 ↗ degrade you know all of those are

2:13:11 ↗ questions I'm not sure anybody can

2:13:13 ↗ answer but I think certainly something

2:13:15 ↗ in excess of 115 years which is is

2:13:18 ↗ probably going to exceed the life of

2:13:19 ↗ most of the homes that are going to be

2:13:20 ↗ there well I I appreciate that answer it

2:13:23 ↗ is tough to or yeah we're going to go

2:13:27 ↗ with questioning so understand the you

2:13:29 ↗ know I think the technical data supports

2:13:32 ↗ that you know they're they're confident

2:13:33 ↗ that that material is going to be at the

2:13:35 ↗ design strength at 115 years and

2:13:38 ↗ Beyond thank you um so Tad anything I'm

2:13:44 ↗ sorry Darren we have one other question

2:13:46 ↗ I'm sorry go ahead so I just wanted to

2:13:47 ↗ tag h on to uh Eric's call out there

2:13:50 ↗ that and I very much appreciate you

2:13:52 ↗ providing the supporting details Pages

2:13:54 ↗ uh 43 through 45 in support of that call

2:13:59 ↗ out and the the adjustment of what was

2:14:02 ↗ 50 to 114 I think it's valuable

2:14:04 ↗ information so thank you there's uh I I

2:14:07 ↗ saved you the other probably 20 pages of

2:14:10 ↗ of that technical memo which I'm sure

2:14:13 ↗ you didn't want to read and I didn't

2:14:15 ↗ understand either but that that

2:14:17 ↗ basically covered the the the substant

2:14:19 ↗ portion of it

2:14:21 ↗ um so wall wall maintenance um I guess

2:14:25 ↗ I'll skip ahead and we'll save Ted for

2:14:27 ↗ last um we you know there there's also

2:14:29 ↗ been a significant amount of concern

2:14:32 ↗ with wall maintenance wall maintenance

2:14:34 ↗ cost I think this the life cycle and

2:14:37 ↗ design information helps speak to some

2:14:40 ↗ of that um I also provided uh a copy of

2:14:43 ↗ the uh Golder wall report or summary of

2:14:46 ↗ the Golder wall report that's been done

2:14:48 ↗ uh there have been wall reports done on

2:14:50 ↗ all of the Walls Within Talis since the

2:14:52 ↗ Inception uh primarily on an

2:14:54 ↗ approximately an annual basis sometimes

2:14:56 ↗ they've gone one and a half to two years

2:14:59 ↗ but pretty consistent since all of those

2:15:01 ↗ walls have been built I think from the

2:15:03 ↗ summary that you saw maintenance has

2:15:05 ↗ been um really limited to cleaning of

2:15:08 ↗ the drains um uh in in the drainage

2:15:11 ↗ systems that are installed as part of

2:15:13 ↗ the walls um sapling removals uh things

2:15:16 ↗ of that nature uh there's been no uh

2:15:19 ↗ indication of any um structural issues

2:15:22 ↗ with any of the walls um at at any of

2:15:25 ↗ the heights um currently I will say that

2:15:28 ↗ those walls that are that that are in

2:15:31 ↗ Talis currently are a a masonry unit

2:15:33 ↗ wall which are uh we're looking at a

2:15:37 ↗ concrete face wall which actually has a

2:15:39 ↗ higher design strength than the masonry

2:15:41 ↗ units so we would expect less issues

2:15:44 ↗ with the wall that we're proposing than

2:15:47 ↗ maybe expect expected with a standard

2:15:48 ↗ masonry unit uh primarily because

2:15:50 ↗ they're a little more porous than a

2:15:52 ↗ concrete face

2:15:54 ↗ um I just want to say I appreciate that

2:15:57 ↗ report because uh it really adds a lot

2:16:00 ↗ of clarity uh initially when I heard

2:16:02 ↗ maintenance uh I really had a lot of

2:16:04 ↗ concerns with that but seeing these

2:16:07 ↗ reports seeing how the walls are doing

2:16:09 ↗ and seeing how little maintenance uh has

2:16:11 ↗ been required uh I think it's a lot of

2:16:14 ↗ good information for the public for the

2:16:16 ↗ residents of talsa I appreciate that

2:16:18 ↗ thank you um in addition to that I also

2:16:21 ↗ looked at and of course I managed the

2:16:23 ↗ HOA for approximately 5 years before we

2:16:25 ↗ turned it over from 2007

2:16:28 ↗ to 2011 I think when we turned it over

2:16:31 ↗ to the residence um and in that time we

2:16:34 ↗ spent probably around 5,000 or so

2:16:37 ↗ dollars a year in some of that

2:16:38 ↗ maintenance that you're seeing there

2:16:39 ↗ with just drain cleaning most of that

2:16:41 ↗ incorporated within just the landscape

2:16:43 ↗ maintenance contract it's not a specific

2:16:45 ↗ something specific that somebody comes

2:16:47 ↗ out and does um you know there are some

2:16:50 ↗ cleaning recommendations which I think

2:16:51 ↗ you've seen in some of the uh photos

2:16:54 ↗ where you just get some of that uh

2:16:55 ↗ phosphorus which is inherent to the

2:16:57 ↗ masonry units uh that white bleaching

2:16:59 ↗ that kind of bleaches out potentially

2:17:02 ↗ that's really some of the cleaning

2:17:03 ↗ aspects that they're talking about that

2:17:04 ↗ are you know quote optional it's kind of

2:17:07 ↗ more of an aesthetic thing than it is a

2:17:09 ↗ structural uh issue but those are things

2:17:11 ↗ that they recommend you know people

2:17:13 ↗ consider um I did review the current HOA

2:17:17 ↗ bud budet for

2:17:18 ↗ 2014 uh again no wall maintenance uh for

2:17:22 ↗ 2013 other than the standard Landscaping

2:17:25 ↗ Maintenance that I um have have

2:17:27 ↗ indicated uh was expended or is

2:17:30 ↗ anticipated going forward

2:17:33 ↗ um on that basis uh then we also looked

2:17:37 ↗ at longer term issues um some you know

2:17:40 ↗ concerns about what kind of Burden are

2:17:42 ↗ we potentially placing on residents and

2:17:44 ↗ and replacement costs um I did speak

2:17:47 ↗ speak to in the memo um uh

2:17:52 ↗ obviously really the only um full

2:17:56 ↗ replacement of that wall is likely to be

2:17:58 ↗ some kind of catastrophic event which

2:18:00 ↗ would be generally covered under an

2:18:02 ↗ insurance issue um you know an earth God

2:18:06 ↗ forbid an earthquake right something of

2:18:08 ↗ that nature that would be of such

2:18:09 ↗ magnitude that it it's not a maintenance

2:18:12 ↗ issue um other maintenance issues again

2:18:15 ↗ if we assume um that something happens

2:18:18 ↗ to the face and the face and the

2:18:20 ↗ concrete face degrades options for

2:18:23 ↗ repair of that include um uh drilling

2:18:27 ↗ back into the Earth mechanically

2:18:29 ↗ stabilized Earth uh through the face

2:18:32 ↗ adding some uh additional um reinforcing

2:18:36 ↗ probably a mesh potentially some rebar

2:18:39 ↗ uh and then covering that with a shot

2:18:41 ↗ creete face which would be similar to

2:18:43 ↗ some of the other walls that we've seen

2:18:44 ↗ within Talis the full Granite um thing

2:18:47 ↗ things of that nature just to to reface

2:18:49 ↗ that and and fix that component of it um

2:18:53 ↗ I I put in an estimate of that I got

2:18:55 ↗ from the people who do the shot creete

2:18:57 ↗ based on the square footage of that

2:18:59 ↗ large wall at about 400 to 50 to

2:19:03 ↗ $600,000 um for a a full repair of the

2:19:07 ↗ facing of that entire wall um that's

2:19:11 ↗ about equivalent to what the cost of

2:19:13 ↗ that particular wall is I've I've made a

2:19:15 ↗ couple of statements I said all the

2:19:17 ↗ walls which include some of the faux

2:19:19 ↗ granate other walls that the U uh soil

2:19:23 ↗ nail walls in the cut areas as opposed

2:19:26 ↗ to the fill walls they're a little bit

2:19:28 ↗ more expensive because of the

2:19:29 ↗ architectural facing so that adds to

2:19:32 ↗ that cost but that particular wall is

2:19:35 ↗ about $600 to $700,000 for the we call

2:19:39 ↗ it the big wall what kind of the wall in

2:19:42 ↗ question um if you look at that wall on

2:19:48 ↗ uh just the

2:19:50 ↗ lifespan well let's look at it a

2:19:52 ↗ different way we take the entire 200 2.5

2:19:55 ↗ million uh for which includes 7 eight

2:19:58 ↗ and N all three of those Parcels uh for

2:20:02 ↗ the walls and we assume that in 114

2:20:04 ↗ years they failed and we had to replace

2:20:07 ↗ them and this is in today's dollars so

2:20:10 ↗ we're not accounting for inflation and

2:20:12 ↗ uh those kinds of issues but um that

2:20:15 ↗ $2.5 million um

2:20:18 ↗ divided by the approximately 1500 homes

2:20:22 ↗ within Talis over 114 years equates to

2:20:27 ↗ approximately $1 13 to $15 per year per

2:20:31 ↗ home as a reserve for an entire

2:20:34 ↗ replacement of those Wall Systems in

2:20:36 ↗ addition to that with regard to the

2:20:39 ↗ overall Walls Within Talis we're

2:20:42 ↗ proposing uh approximately 60,000 Square

2:20:45 ↗ ft of total wall um that one the the big

2:20:49 ↗ wall is about half of that

2:20:54 ↗ um that 60,000 ft uh that if you go back

2:20:57 ↗ to the wall and I had Triad go back

2:20:59 ↗ through their designs and they've

2:21:01 ↗ completed most of the designs of all the

2:21:03 ↗ walls uh and do a calculation of the

2:21:05 ↗ existing walls there's approximately

2:21:07 ↗ 270,000 Square ft of existing Walls

2:21:10 ↗ Within Talis

2:21:12 ↗ today we're adding approximately 60 to

2:21:15 ↗ that if you if you add add those

2:21:17 ↗ together and divide by the total units

2:21:20 ↗ including the 153 that we're proposing

2:21:23 ↗ we are increasing the average by about

2:21:26 ↗ 8% per unit per housing unit

2:21:31 ↗ so um proportionately we are adding a

2:21:35 ↗ little bit more wall area B than is what

2:21:38 ↗ currently exists within Talis uh again

2:21:41 ↗ though the calculation on though the um

2:21:45 ↗ Reserve required on an annual basis

2:21:47 ↗ would be about $133 to15 if you had to

2:21:50 ↗ replace them all in 114 years and that's

2:21:54 ↗ kind of worst case scenario so I think

2:21:57 ↗ although I know people are concerned

2:21:58 ↗ about that burden I think the the the

2:22:02 ↗ math kind of bears out that based on the

2:22:05 ↗ life of the actual life of the wall

2:22:07 ↗ repair costs and actuality of having to

2:22:10 ↗ replace all of them the the burdens

2:22:12 ↗ probably fairly small on on an annual

2:22:15 ↗ basis um so with that let Ted answer any

2:22:18 ↗ other questions and I'd like um Ted to

2:22:21 ↗ also address Michael your question about

2:22:24 ↗ the uh the one particular slide issue or

2:22:28 ↗ or it's not even a slide I won't even

2:22:30 ↗ call it a slide issue but um drainage

2:22:34 ↗ issue uh that you requested

2:22:40 ↗ okay good job

2:22:42 ↗ Darren you looking for a job uh Ted

2:22:46 ↗ sheeper uh Terror Associates uh uh

2:22:49 ↗ shepher S as in Sam c h p p r address

2:22:54 ↗ 12525 Willows Road Kirkland Washington

2:22:59 ↗ um I guess I just to defend my young

2:23:02 ↗ engineer who said the life uh designed

2:23:04 ↗ the life of the walls 50 years as a as a

2:23:07 ↗ as a young student as civil engineers

2:23:08 ↗ were taught uh you know design life for

2:23:11 ↗ Civil Works are typically in the 50 to

2:23:13 ↗ 100 Year range so and and it is just

2:23:16 ↗ that as design life it's it's it's it's

2:23:19 ↗ actually what you say that uh you design

2:23:21 ↗ the structure so that at the end of the

2:23:23 ↗ design life you better go look at it to

2:23:25 ↗ make sure it's still in good shape if

2:23:26 ↗ it's still in good shape move on um it's

2:23:29 ↗ some similar to like you know the the

2:23:31 ↗ Egyptian pyramids right they've been

2:23:33 ↗ around for thousands of years the the

2:23:36 ↗ materials that are used in this

2:23:37 ↗ construction they mechanically

2:23:38 ↗ stabilized Earth walls there's no steel

2:23:41 ↗ component steel is very corrosive uh

2:23:45 ↗ degrades and and when it corrodes it

2:23:48 ↗ fails uh these are polypropylene

2:23:51 ↗ highdensity

2:23:52 ↗ polypropylene reinforcing grids and

2:23:55 ↗ concrete uh and it's it's it's designed

2:23:58 ↗ to work with the Earth they're very

2:24:00 ↗ stable Wall Systems uh in fact in uh

2:24:03 ↗ seismic design uh they're shown to be

2:24:06 ↗ and have proven to be much more stable

2:24:08 ↗ than conventional cast and place walls

2:24:11 ↗ are um simply because they work with the

2:24:13 ↗ Earth uh and uh and reinforce the Earth

2:24:17 ↗ in providing the stability so anyway

2:24:19 ↗ enough on that so if there there's any

2:24:22 ↗ other questions on wall

2:24:25 ↗ design um the other uh I guess issue

2:24:28 ↗ that was brought to my attention is a is

2:24:30 ↗ a uh is a slide that occurred I believe

2:24:32 ↗ in

2:24:33 ↗ 2010 uh on the Talis 7 uh parcel uh on a

2:24:38 ↗ slopes Down Below on the T Talis parcel

2:24:41 ↗ think it's on the slopes down below

2:24:42 ↗ where where the wall is going to be

2:24:44 ↗ constructed I'll point this out so there

2:24:47 ↗ there was a drainage issue that occurred

2:24:49 ↗ and I think the YouTube video that's

2:24:50 ↗ been um famously uh quoted and will

2:24:55 ↗ haunt me for the rest of my life uh we

2:24:58 ↗ did have in in the area below of above

2:25:01 ↗ lingering Pine uh above 6B uh a

2:25:06 ↗ subsurface drainage issue that occurred

2:25:09 ↗ that uh Bas have to stand the microphone

2:25:12 ↗ I'm sorry so a subsurface drainage um

2:25:15 ↗ event where water was coming outside of

2:25:17 ↗ the Hill it caused uh mud to basically

2:25:21 ↗ flow with that drainage and um overflow

2:25:25 ↗ mud into two lots

2:25:28 ↗ um into okay in the mouse thank you into

2:25:31 ↗ two lots uh down below over top of the

2:25:35 ↗ of the walls that are there so there's

2:25:36 ↗ two existing walls that are Terrace

2:25:38 ↗ there uh the walls themselves were uh

2:25:42 ↗ undamaged uh was simply um the mud that

2:25:45 ↗ did flow over the top of of them into

2:25:47 ↗ the backyards um and then we've had Ted

2:25:50 ↗ subsequently look at that so I'll have

2:25:52 ↗ him address that further I just want to

2:25:54 ↗ give you some context as to where that

2:25:58 ↗ occurred uh yeah basically that slide is

2:26:01 ↗ would be referred to as a subterraneum

2:26:02 ↗ blowout um really wasn't so much of a

2:26:05 ↗ slide other than an uh an erosion

2:26:08 ↗ feature you know if the surface water

2:26:10 ↗ runs off over the crest of the slope

2:26:11 ↗ it's uncontrolled it erods the slope

2:26:13 ↗ from the top down and all that material

2:26:15 ↗ just deposits down below what happened

2:26:17 ↗ here is that is uh infiltrated water

2:26:20 ↗ from up on top you know Gathering uh

2:26:23 ↗ below the surface built up some um

2:26:26 ↗ pressure behind the face of the slope

2:26:29 ↗ and it blew that particular portion of

2:26:31 ↗ the slope out it was a fairly small area

2:26:33 ↗ that was impacted if I recall looking at

2:26:35 ↗ it was maybe 10 to 15 ft in height AC

2:26:37 ↗ crosswise it was maybe on the order of

2:26:39 ↗ 20 ft or so um the material slid out on

2:26:45 ↗ the flatter portion of the slope and

2:26:46 ↗ then the water continued to run the the

2:26:48 ↗ the size of the of the seep if you will

2:26:51 ↗ where the water was running out was

2:26:52 ↗ probably on the order of maybe 8 to 12

2:26:54 ↗ Ines in diameter and it was just flowing

2:26:57 ↗ water out of there that water continued

2:26:58 ↗ to flow for a couple days afterwards and

2:27:01 ↗ then it finally just diminished when the

2:27:03 ↗ when the supplyer reservoir water that

2:27:05 ↗ was captured behind the the hillside was

2:27:08 ↗ was deplenish the storage was gone it

2:27:10 ↗ ran out and it stopped um yes Eric well

2:27:14 ↗ so so in some ways semantics for Layman

2:27:18 ↗ you know whether it's a blowout or a

2:27:21 ↗ slide uh you know it was a issue of

2:27:24 ↗ concern and so I think what uh we'd like

2:27:28 ↗ to see maybe addressed is how will that

2:27:31 ↗ uh be avoided in the future by this

2:27:34 ↗ development or is that something that

2:27:37 ↗ would be considered in this development

2:27:39 ↗ oh ABS absolutely it wouldn't have

2:27:41 ↗ occurred if the development had been

2:27:42 ↗ there okay because basically all the uh

2:27:45 ↗ precipitation is captured by the storm

2:27:47 ↗ drainage system and that is then carried

2:27:49 ↗ away and discharged in a controlled

2:27:51 ↗ manner uh here we have the open space up

2:27:54 ↗ on top precipitation just continue to

2:27:55 ↗ fall over this entire area portions of

2:27:58 ↗ that ran off did get captured by the

2:28:00 ↗ temporary system that's in place but we

2:28:02 ↗ still have quite a bit of water that can

2:28:04 ↗ enter the Surface by infiltration and

2:28:06 ↗ gather below and it did that over a

2:28:08 ↗ number of years um with the development

2:28:10 ↗ you know impervious surfaces uh it

2:28:13 ↗ captures that and controls it so you

2:28:14 ↗ don't have that same amount of

2:28:15 ↗ precipitation getting into the ground

2:28:17 ↗ um that blowout you basically is wasn't

2:28:20 ↗ an impact to the overall global

2:28:22 ↗ stability of the slope it was a

2:28:23 ↗ localized area um and like I said if the

2:28:26 ↗ development had been there it wouldn't

2:28:27 ↗ have occurred thank you for that

2:28:30 ↗ appr all right thank you any other

2:28:32 ↗ questions for

2:28:33 ↗ Ted or Darren or Ryan thank you okay

2:28:38 ↗ thank you very much all right at this

2:28:40 ↗ time I think we're going to move to the

2:28:42 ↗ public comment portion one last chance

2:28:45 ↗ to sign up I'm going to retrieve the uh

2:28:47 ↗ clipboard here if you haven't signed up

2:28:49 ↗ um I'm going to ask that you don't speak

2:28:51 ↗ tonight uh we would like to get through

2:28:53 ↗ this and again please remember the

2:28:54 ↗ topics that we can and cannot address

2:28:56 ↗ this evening um and in the interest of

2:28:59 ↗ time I'd like to ask everybody to keep

2:29:01 ↗ their comments to three minutes if you

2:29:02 ↗ can um but we want to we want to hear

2:29:05 ↗ you so uh do what you got to do

2:29:11 ↗ so I'm going to go grab the clipboard

2:29:15 ↗ here

2:29:26 ↗ all right when you uh when your name is

2:29:27 ↗ called if you could please go to the

2:29:29 ↗ microphone um give us your name and

2:29:32 ↗ address and uh share your comments uh it

2:29:35 ↗ is important that you um address the

2:29:38 ↗ microphone directly so we can get

2:29:39 ↗ everything on record and if I butcher

2:29:41 ↗ your name I apologize in advance I'll do

2:29:45 ↗ my best

2:29:49 ↗ so let's go ahead and start are we ready

2:29:50 ↗ Lucy and

2:29:52 ↗ team I was just trying to get a plan up

2:29:55 ↗ there in Cas anybody wanted to point we

2:29:57 ↗ get stars all right uh Miss lford lford

2:30:01 ↗ is that

2:30:02 ↗ right the floor is

2:30:11 ↗ yours so my name is my name is Cynthia

2:30:14 ↗ leford I live at 24 08 Northwest Harmony

2:30:19 ↗ way and

2:30:21 ↗ um uh Lucy did a really good job in

2:30:24 ↗ pointing out some of the things in the

2:30:27 ↗ um uh development plan we are uh a

2:30:31 ↗ Mountain Village character we reflect

2:30:33 ↗ the elements of Cougar Mountain and this

2:30:36 ↗ means that we need to adapt to the

2:30:39 ↗ physical characteristics of the land uh

2:30:41 ↗ the location of the buildings should be

2:30:43 ↗ considered the natural elements of the

2:30:45 ↗ St stepping up hills sides and taking

2:30:47 ↗ views and lighting to account so now the

2:30:49 ↗ develop Bears plans it's 800t long wall

2:30:53 ↗ uh 38 Max but maybe smaller uh to me

2:30:57 ↗ that's flattening out cougar um we could

2:31:00 ↗ see that it's 15% grade to get up there

2:31:02 ↗ but it's only a 1% as you get up there

2:31:06 ↗ so we are flattening out Cougar Mountain

2:31:09 ↗ with this um with this wall um I know we

2:31:14 ↗ have a lot of people that uh be seeing

2:31:16 ↗ this wall we're going to sell it as View

2:31:18 ↗ Property I I really like that he had

2:31:21 ↗ this with all the tall trees but those

2:31:23 ↗ trees um are either going to be short or

2:31:26 ↗ we're going to have a conflict like we

2:31:27 ↗ have now with people wanting views um

2:31:30 ↗ we're going to see the wall we're going

2:31:31 ↗ to see the homes from all over isqua and

2:31:34 ↗ that's not really what um talis's uh

2:31:38 ↗ character is about I would like to see

2:31:42 ↗ maybe not so much of a wall but less

2:31:45 ↗ homes put up there and a little bit more

2:31:47 ↗ of to forming to the to the terrain that

2:31:51 ↗ we have currently uh we have a lot of

2:31:53 ↗ smaller walls we talked about smaller

2:31:55 ↗ walls and T towers and I'm surprised at

2:31:57 ↗ how many homeowners living uh have

2:31:59 ↗ drainage problems isol gets about 20

2:32:01 ↗ inches more rain than biew and Cougar

2:32:03 ↗ mount we get slightly more even as we

2:32:05 ↗ come up from 900 up to the top of the

2:32:07 ↗ bridges it's always raining far far more

2:32:11 ↗ so um we have a lot of drainage problems

2:32:15 ↗ and people already having problems with

2:32:17 ↗ their homes now and so for the developer

2:32:20 ↗ to say well that problem wouldn't occur

2:32:23 ↗ if the buildings were there um gee I'd

2:32:26 ↗ like to look 30 years into the future

2:32:28 ↗ and see if you know we look back and

2:32:30 ↗ that's true because today we are having

2:32:32 ↗ problems and we have um the development

2:32:35 ↗ already

2:32:37 ↗ there uh the roads now we do have a

2:32:42 ↗ maximum of 12% and I looked at every

2:32:45 ↗ single one of the roads except for an

2:32:46 ↗ alley an alley can be at 15% but it can

2:32:49 ↗ only be 18 ft wide and Lucy is right

2:32:52 ↗ that in section 7 I found a modification

2:32:55 ↗ purpose and intent of an administrative

2:32:57 ↗ modification of Standards is to provide

2:32:59 ↗ flexibility to modify standards for site

2:33:02 ↗ conditions Traffic Safety critical area

2:33:05 ↗ protection or to further the vision

2:33:08 ↗ established in dependencies A and B of

2:33:09 ↗ the agreement that means making it more

2:33:12 ↗ of a mountain Village character so the

2:33:15 ↗ modification

2:33:16 ↗ was and she had it up here the road

2:33:19 ↗ grade may increase to a maximum of 15%

2:33:22 ↗ slope for a maximum of 600 ft well it

2:33:26 ↗ states that the purpose for that

2:33:27 ↗ modification is to avoid excessive sight

2:33:30 ↗ grading not just to put in a walled area

2:33:33 ↗ and flatten it out on

2:33:37 ↗ top uh culd aexs were versus the dead

2:33:41 ↗ end you know love this every time I come

2:33:44 ↗ it's a dead end and then it's going to

2:33:45 ↗ be a hammerhead and now it's going to be

2:33:46 ↗ somebody's driveway until the developers

2:33:49 ↗ stated that um we're going to have this

2:33:51 ↗ Dead End Road um we're going to have the

2:33:53 ↗ fire truck turnaround and the Hammerhead

2:33:56 ↗ it clearly states that a hammerhead

2:33:59 ↗ turnaround allows access to limited

2:34:01 ↗ number of residents the entry is only 20

2:34:03 ↗ ft wide and allows for parking on one

2:34:05 ↗ side what it says is that when a culd

2:34:09 ↗ toac is necessary and in this case this

2:34:12 ↗ is a culd DEC it should be a CLD DEC not

2:34:14 ↗ just a dead end Road not just a really

2:34:18 ↗ wide Road a going into somebody's

2:34:20 ↗ driveway so that later on we can use it

2:34:23 ↗ for something else the effect of the

2:34:25 ↗ dead end should be minimized by

2:34:27 ↗ providing an amenity at the end of the

2:34:29 ↗ culdesac such as a pocket park a

2:34:32 ↗ Viewpoint or a

2:34:34 ↗ home so in this case we've got an

2:34:37 ↗ apparent men amenity at the end of this

2:34:39 ↗ culdesac which appears to be 49 acre

2:34:42 ↗ Housing

2:34:44 ↗ Development so in conclusion I feel that

2:34:47 ↗ this development although it looks like

2:34:49 ↗ it's tried hard but it's not really

2:34:51 ↗ maintaining the community character um

2:34:55 ↗ I'd like to see less homes a little bit

2:34:57 ↗ more up and down I love the the picture

2:34:59 ↗ of the bridges um if that's a 15% grade

2:35:02 ↗ most of us stay in when it snows and

2:35:04 ↗ when there's ice on the road so they've

2:35:06 ↗ got this one road that's coming out at

2:35:09 ↗ 15% all the way from this handicap area

2:35:12 ↗ all the way down and then our road is

2:35:14 ↗ steep also we have a lot of accidents

2:35:17 ↗ and for one way of getting everybody off

2:35:20 ↗ that Hill seems a little bit too uh

2:35:23 ↗ steep so we've got the um uh 800t wall

2:35:28 ↗ flattening out the goog moment the um

2:35:30 ↗ the lack of a cold a sack they've got

2:35:33 ↗ this dead end Street um I'm very worried

2:35:37 ↗ um about the future drainage problems

2:35:40 ↗ and the walls themselves um a lot of it

2:35:43 ↗ is that whether the city wants it or not

2:35:47 ↗ they're going to be the ones with the

2:35:48 ↗ Deep Pockets and they're going to be the

2:35:49 ↗ ones reliable for anything that happens

2:35:53 ↗ and um I feel the parcel needs to be uh

2:35:57 ↗ redesigned fewer homes higher step UPS

2:36:01 ↗ no dead end roads and I really would

2:36:03 ↗ love that those 100 foot conniver trees

2:36:07 ↗ are not cut down because they are

2:36:09 ↗ absolutely beautiful and I know that

2:36:11 ↗ Lucy keeps saying that you can cut down

2:36:13 ↗ all the trees but those are out standing

2:36:17 ↗ thank you thank you Miss

2:36:19 ↗ leford uh Bruce

2:36:25 ↗ Bailey hi Bruce Bailey I am um a member

2:36:29 ↗ of the TR board and so I'm coming here

2:36:32 ↗ tonight to uh speak on behalf of the

2:36:36 ↗ board

2:36:38 ↗ um we heard

2:36:40 ↗ concerns at our last board meeting can

2:36:43 ↗ you just tell me board is yeah the Talis

2:36:46 ↗ residential Association it's a

2:36:47 ↗ homeowners board for for Talis I I also

2:36:50 ↗ live in Talis um can you please identify

2:36:52 ↗ your address for the record yes 2247

2:36:55 ↗ Northwest Boulder way thank

2:36:57 ↗ you so um our

2:37:00 ↗ last uh HOA meeting we had good

2:37:03 ↗ attendance there we had uh and as you

2:37:06 ↗ know we can we can make some noise about

2:37:08 ↗ some things in Talis um so we had some

2:37:11 ↗ good attendance there one of the

2:37:14 ↗ presentations we saw was about partiel 7

2:37:18 ↗ and I was also at the last meeting and

2:37:20 ↗ the the concerns about partial 7 were

2:37:23 ↗ concerns that that that you all had last

2:37:26 ↗ time I was here okay you brought up some

2:37:28 ↗ great some great uh some great points we

2:37:31 ↗ talked about maintenance uh you talked

2:37:34 ↗ about boy that's a great idea if you can

2:37:35 ↗ move the wall down that much in 10

2:37:37 ↗ minutes let's see what you can do in

2:37:39 ↗ three weeks I remember what was said we

2:37:41 ↗ talked about

2:37:42 ↗ modifications um so uh the Talis HOA TR

2:37:48 ↗ which is the Talis residential

2:37:49 ↗ Association shares those concerns and so

2:37:52 ↗ you know I come here as their Ambassador

2:37:55 ↗ tonight there's not one of us on that

2:37:57 ↗ board that doesn't have a concern but I

2:37:59 ↗ also want you to know there's not one of

2:38:00 ↗ us on that board that is

2:38:02 ↗ anti-development not one of us if it was

2:38:05 ↗ our land we wouldd want to develop it

2:38:07 ↗ too we're sorry that you bought some

2:38:09 ↗ land on a 40% grade though you know and

2:38:12 ↗ it and it's tough to uh to develop we

2:38:14 ↗ understand that so I just want to

2:38:16 ↗ outline to you what some of the concerns

2:38:19 ↗ were at those at those meetings because

2:38:21 ↗ we think you should hear them so first

2:38:23 ↗ of all the first concern that comes up

2:38:25 ↗ is the encroachment of the 50-foot

2:38:26 ↗ buffer zone which separates Talis

2:38:28 ↗ Community from the adjacent

2:38:31 ↗ Parkland and while there has been

2:38:34 ↗ modifications made that's a concern

2:38:37 ↗ because the development agreement calls

2:38:39 ↗ for nothing to be in there I believe it

2:38:42 ↗ says except for a water crossing now we

2:38:45 ↗ have

2:38:46 ↗ walls or roads and water towers we don't

2:38:49 ↗ get it where I come from we call that an

2:38:51 ↗ end run so uh the next one is the

2:38:54 ↗ proposed construction of the 800t

2:38:57 ↗ wall

2:38:59 ↗ and and and the cost of it the civil

2:39:02 ↗ engineering of it and I applaud

2:39:04 ↗ everybody here for their great

2:39:06 ↗ presentations of of all the other walls

2:39:08 ↗ in the neighborhood and in the community

2:39:10 ↗ there but you know none of those walls

2:39:12 ↗ are on a 40% grade so we think this

2:39:15 ↗ one's very unique we think the civil

2:39:17 ↗ engineering of this one is is unique and

2:39:20 ↗ and it needs to be addressed differently

2:39:22 ↗ those those other walls are very

2:39:24 ↗ different okay uh the cost of the wall

2:39:28 ↗ who's going to bear the cost so we heard

2:39:31 ↗ the the residents loud and clear you

2:39:33 ↗ know they don't want they don't want

2:39:34 ↗ responsibility for it you know what the

2:39:36 ↗ board doesn't either we we applaud you

2:39:39 ↗ know the scientific studies that have

2:39:41 ↗ gone behind this and how Stout and

2:39:43 ↗ stable and solid this was wall is going

2:39:46 ↗ to be we only wish you would have built

2:39:47 ↗ our

2:39:48 ↗ Fountain okay so we invite anybody to

2:39:52 ↗ come over and put your toes in it if it

2:39:54 ↗ had water in it you know the insurance

2:39:57 ↗ policy H doesn't cover it

2:40:00 ↗ so we're at odds with that so we have

2:40:03 ↗ some real concerns here to say we have

2:40:04 ↗ trepidation is an understatement we're

2:40:07 ↗ Beyond trepidation we're scared you know

2:40:10 ↗ there is water issues there we've talked

2:40:12 ↗ to people above us on Cougar Mountain

2:40:15 ↗ and and you know these water things

2:40:17 ↗ occur all the time you know there

2:40:18 ↗ there's instability up there they don't

2:40:20 ↗ know why there's a development going on

2:40:22 ↗ on a 40% grade now I've walked the 40%

2:40:26 ↗ grade that's called the surprise Creek

2:40:27 ↗ Trail I've walked where all those

2:40:29 ↗ properties are I've walked down to where

2:40:31 ↗ the Bedrock was was found you can't

2:40:34 ↗ stand there it it's steep okay that's

2:40:37 ↗ you you you know that I don't know if

2:40:39 ↗ you know what the the degree of

2:40:41 ↗ steepness is in ski slopes it's not 40°

2:40:44 ↗ they call those like triple Black

2:40:45 ↗ Diamond okay

2:40:48 ↗ so that's a steep area we have real

2:40:51 ↗ concerns with that and I understand

2:40:53 ↗ who's going to own the retaining walls

2:40:55 ↗ we don't want to we don't want to be

2:40:58 ↗ responsible for that we want to be on

2:41:00 ↗ the record for knowing that

2:41:03 ↗ um we really want you to think know that

2:41:06 ↗ we feel like parcel 7 although we're

2:41:11 ↗ behind you know development just doesn't

2:41:15 ↗ do it in the spirit of the

2:41:17 ↗ community it just doesn't it doesn't fit

2:41:20 ↗ the bill it needs to go back to the

2:41:21 ↗ drawing board um we're back to the

2:41:25 ↗ proposal of dead end streets now in a

2:41:28 ↗ steepness of grades while the

2:41:30 ↗ illustrations were great we had lots of

2:41:32 ↗ illustrations throughout the community

2:41:35 ↗ of 15% grades and 12% grades and I know

2:41:39 ↗ what it's like I ride a bike you know

2:41:41 ↗ I've ridden up Talis drive from the

2:41:44 ↗ bottom to the top three times this week

2:41:46 ↗ that's a steep grade okay I get it you

2:41:50 ↗ know now start adding that above the

2:41:53 ↗ tree line there I used to live in San

2:41:55 ↗ Francisco you get a few more you've got

2:41:57 ↗ hidde Street that's what the cable car

2:41:59 ↗ goes up they have stairs that go up that

2:42:01 ↗ you know dead end streets those

2:42:05 ↗ illustrations where all those grades

2:42:06 ↗ were weren't dead end streets okay you

2:42:10 ↗ know I was coming up Talis the other day

2:42:12 ↗ we had a moving van they can't get

2:42:14 ↗ around t tal it's tough okay so they're

2:42:17 ↗ parked the wrong way on Talis because

2:42:21 ↗ they can't turn around okay so we're

2:42:25 ↗ we're about M making modifications culde

2:42:28 ↗ saacs makes sense to me because a car

2:42:30 ↗ can go down to the end of a culdesac and

2:42:33 ↗ turn around an emergency vehicle can go

2:42:35 ↗ down to the end of a culdesac and turn

2:42:38 ↗ around you can't really go into

2:42:39 ↗ someone's driveway you know it's an

2:42:44 ↗ emergency

2:42:45 ↗ you know I don't want to wait for the

2:42:47 ↗ fire truck to go over here and then back

2:42:50 ↗ up into here and then turn around and go

2:42:53 ↗ over to here it just doesn't work for me

2:42:56 ↗ my house is burning you know we've got

2:42:59 ↗ we've got we've got things happening it

2:43:02 ↗ just doesn't make sense okay you know

2:43:04 ↗ there's there's something else going on

2:43:06 ↗ with a dead end into someone's driveway

2:43:08 ↗ I I I

2:43:10 ↗ think I do

2:43:13 ↗ um so at the end of all this we I think

2:43:18 ↗ we've done a

2:43:20 ↗ good scientific study of the traffic

2:43:23 ↗ deal I don't get it you know 150 homes

2:43:27 ↗ and and you know a couple of cars per

2:43:30 ↗ garage I think it's going to increase

2:43:32 ↗ traffic you know so as it sits right now

2:43:37 ↗ we we or we're I'm supposed to pass the

2:43:39 ↗ Hat by the way for the fountain you know

2:43:42 ↗ we're looking for 100 grand to get that

2:43:44 ↗ thing back up up and running you know

2:43:46 ↗ and we have a we have an insurance

2:43:48 ↗ policy by that we have these things that

2:43:50 ↗ are supposed to be moving forward to to

2:43:52 ↗ collect it you know what they get there

2:43:54 ↗ and we don't have the money for it so

2:43:56 ↗ our our deal is is at this point in time

2:43:58 ↗ we don't want to take on the

2:44:00 ↗ responsibility of of a 800 foot wall

2:44:03 ↗ that that's maybe 39 ft tall and uh God

2:44:08 ↗ knows what it's going to cost to to

2:44:10 ↗ maintain it it's just it's scary for us

2:44:12 ↗ so at this point in time we don't want

2:44:15 ↗ those responsibilities and I'm

2:44:17 ↗ reflecting this as the voice of the

2:44:19 ↗ people that have come to us and

2:44:21 ↗ expressed that I wish more could come

2:44:23 ↗ here tonight and express that too but I

2:44:27 ↗ think we'd be here pretty late so I I

2:44:30 ↗ agreed to do that for us all and do that

2:44:32 ↗ for the my fellow board members as well

2:44:34 ↗ so I thank you for the time that you've

2:44:36 ↗ given me thank you and if I just remind

2:44:38 ↗ everybody please keep the conversation

2:44:40 ↗ ger main to the topics at hand this

2:44:42 ↗ evening uh and if you can keep your

2:44:44 ↗ comments to at 3 minutes I obviously I

2:44:46 ↗ don't want to stop you we've been over 7

2:44:47 ↗ minutes per person so far and uh yeah

2:44:50 ↗ we'd like to keep it moving if we can so

2:44:53 ↗ uh let's bring up uh Scott feffer thank

2:44:56 ↗ you pronounced it

2:45:00 ↗ correct hi my name is Scott feffer I

2:45:02 ↗ reside at

2:45:04 ↗ 2444 Northwest Stony Creek Drive uh

2:45:06 ↗ within Talis um I'll keep my comment

2:45:11 ↗ short I won't go to my five-page script

2:45:14 ↗ uh considering we had a two and a halfe

2:45:16 ↗ 2 and a half hour presentation that

2:45:18 ↗ basically did not change my mind about

2:45:20 ↗ my opposition to a lot of what's going

2:45:22 ↗ on uh I do agree completely what has

2:45:25 ↗ been stated by Bruce and Cynthia so far

2:45:29 ↗ um I I think that the only point that

2:45:32 ↗ they haven't brought up is um certainly

2:45:35 ↗ safety concerns I have with shanger lawe

2:45:38 ↗ um the 15% grade along shanga combined

2:45:42 ↗ with the uh the sharp radius of the

2:45:46 ↗ roadway around the water tower area in

2:45:48 ↗ particular is definitely a safety uh

2:45:51 ↗ Hazard adding these developments and the

2:45:55 ↗ potential for the additional acreage to

2:45:57 ↗ the north to that roadway in my opinion

2:46:01 ↗ is very bad planning and I am an

2:46:02 ↗ architect that has uh worked for 30

2:46:05 ↗ years designing uh developments and I

2:46:08 ↗ spent 15 years negotiating development

2:46:10 ↗ agreements with uh with school districts

2:46:13 ↗ and developers so I have a little bit of

2:46:15 ↗ understanding what's going on um but

2:46:18 ↗ there's real safety concern it is very

2:46:20 ↗ slick I leave in the winter 4:00 in the

2:46:22 ↗ morning to go to the airport all the

2:46:24 ↗ time I beat the deicing truck and it's

2:46:27 ↗ very uh precarious situation getting to

2:46:30 ↗ the bottom of the hill uh adding all the

2:46:32 ↗ additional traffic to that uh I think is

2:46:35 ↗ problematic and needs to be uh

2:46:37 ↗ considered uh greatly I think that uh

2:46:40 ↗ engineering of the roadways should be

2:46:42 ↗ looked at a little bit differently and

2:46:44 ↗ and the steepness should be um either

2:46:47 ↗ cut down or uh find another way to

2:46:50 ↗ address uh the development uh and

2:46:53 ↗ certainly need to reduce the uh

2:46:55 ↗ sharpness of the radius um because when

2:46:57 ↗ you combine the two together uh going

2:47:00 ↗ downhill uh out of control and having to

2:47:03 ↗ make a turn at the same time is not uh

2:47:06 ↗ not an easy way to get to the bottom of

2:47:08 ↗ the hill so from there uh I yield the

2:47:10 ↗ floor thank you very much thank you sir

2:47:13 ↗ uh Karen Porterfield

2:47:24 ↗ Karen Porterfield 2498 Northwest Stony

2:47:27 ↗ Creek Drive well this has been an

2:47:30 ↗ educational evening I will have to say

2:47:32 ↗ but I find it a little bit ironic on the

2:47:35 ↗ day we get the announcement in the paper

2:47:37 ↗ that um May 10th we are celebrating 226

2:47:41 ↗ more acres for squa mountain and the

2:47:44 ↗ opening of of more Trails on Tiger

2:47:46 ↗ Mountain that we are talking about an

2:47:49 ↗ 800t wall on Cougar Mountain find that

2:47:53 ↗ very concerning I'd like to start and

2:47:55 ↗ I'm addressing my remarks to the

2:47:58 ↗ official uh published um responses that

2:48:01 ↗ the staff did from our last meeting i'

2:48:04 ↗ like to start with um the first quote

2:48:06 ↗ retaining walls are necessary in this

2:48:09 ↗ parcel to create buildable pads for the

2:48:12 ↗ buildings well I'd like to Echo what was

2:48:14 ↗ said earlier

2:48:15 ↗ the topography has not changed this was

2:48:18 ↗ not a surprise to the Builder they knew

2:48:20 ↗ what they were getting into when they

2:48:22 ↗ chose to buy this piece of land now I

2:48:25 ↗ say this as somebody who's developed

2:48:27 ↗ multif family housing in Washington

2:48:29 ↗ Idaho and Montana so I too am not

2:48:32 ↗ against development but I appreciate the

2:48:35 ↗ appropriate

2:48:36 ↗ development the next remark is the

2:48:40 ↗ comment this wall is unlikely to be seen

2:48:43 ↗ offsite well for all of us who live in

2:48:45 ↗ Talis we're onsite and so it's a little

2:48:49 ↗ disingenuous to say that if you're

2:48:52 ↗ offsite it's okay we live with it and we

2:48:55 ↗ will see this every single day next

2:48:58 ↗ remark the preliminary plat states that

2:49:01 ↗ walls will be owned and maintained by

2:49:04 ↗ Talis homeowners

2:49:05 ↗ association I think Bruce said it very

2:49:08 ↗ well um but I would also like to point

2:49:10 ↗ out two things you may not be aware of

2:49:13 ↗ um as part of the HOA agreement as it

2:49:15 ↗ was uh developed perhaps by the owner

2:49:18 ↗ who um has so happily said he was in

2:49:21 ↗ control of it for many years commercial

2:49:25 ↗ um costs are capped at 4% increase a

2:49:29 ↗ year so when we are looking at this wall

2:49:33 ↗ or these walls we have to build a

2:49:36 ↗ reserve as somebody who's done risk

2:49:38 ↗ management we're looking at between 60

2:49:40 ↗ and probably 70% of all replacement will

2:49:43 ↗ have to go into Reserve majority of that

2:49:47 ↗ burden falls on the homeowners it does

2:49:50 ↗ not fall on the commercial so please

2:49:52 ↗ keep that in mind next quote um making

2:49:57 ↗ efficient use of the land well there's a

2:50:00 ↗ difference between effective and

2:50:03 ↗ efficient effective says we are

2:50:05 ↗ following the Topography of the land as

2:50:08 ↗ laid out in the initial agreement

2:50:11 ↗ between the developers the community the

2:50:13 ↗ city and the

2:50:16 ↗ environmentalists efficient for this

2:50:18 ↗ particular Builder is to put up a big

2:50:20 ↗ wall and have flat space on top because

2:50:23 ↗ that's easy and cheap to build so big

2:50:27 ↗ difference between effective and

2:50:29 ↗ efficient uh next line This Means

2:50:32 ↗ development confirms to the Topography

2:50:34 ↗ of Cougar Mountain I am not quite sure

2:50:38 ↗ how building now a 39 or let us

2:50:41 ↗ translate it four story wall confirms to

2:50:45 ↗ the Topography of Cougar Mountain and

2:50:47 ↗ for those of us who live in the bridges

2:50:49 ↗ and yes I have walked up from the bottom

2:50:51 ↗ of the hill up to my house that's a big

2:50:54 ↗ slope um we confirm to the topography

2:50:57 ↗ and we get good exercise whenever we

2:50:59 ↗ take the dogs out um the next one I'd

2:51:03 ↗ like to remark on this challenge of open

2:51:05 ↗ space has been met at Talis by

2:51:07 ↗ dedicating approximately 73% of the land

2:51:11 ↗ as open space this is an opinion of the

2:51:14 ↗ staff

2:51:17 ↗ only like to go back two more pages as I

2:51:19 ↗ wrap up my comments um wall design

2:51:22 ↗ considerations a few additional thoughts

2:51:25 ↗ tall walls form an effective separation

2:51:28 ↗ from development and Wildlife well as

2:51:31 ↗ somebody who has worked in

2:51:33 ↗ Alaska I am not concerned by a few

2:51:35 ↗ bunnies or some deer and in all the

2:51:38 ↗ years I've lived there I've seen one sad

2:51:40 ↗ and rather mangy coyote so to tell tell

2:51:44 ↗ us that these tall walls are being put

2:51:46 ↗ here for our safety or for the safety of

2:51:49 ↗ the wildlife seems a bit disingenuous in

2:51:53 ↗ trying to say this is why this wall is

2:51:55 ↗ good I bring up these comments because

2:51:58 ↗ what I find troubling is I'm wondering

2:52:02 ↗ as the staff has put this together if

2:52:05 ↗ they see themselves as an advocate for

2:52:07 ↗ the best for the city and the residents

2:52:10 ↗ of the city or if they see themselves as

2:52:12 ↗ an advocate for development and support

2:52:15 ↗ of this

2:52:17 ↗ Builder I'm asking the question I don't

2:52:20 ↗ know the answer but I would like you to

2:52:22 ↗ keep it in mind from the 2 and 1 half

2:52:25 ↗ hours that we had between the Builder

2:52:27 ↗ and the city and the can you please keep

2:52:30 ↗ your comments to 3 minutes or less for

2:52:33 ↗ everybody who has come here tonight it

2:52:35 ↗ again does not feel that there's been a

2:52:37 ↗ strong balance between all the different

2:52:40 ↗ needs thank you thank

2:52:43 ↗ you for the record I'm just asking if

2:52:45 ↗ you can keep it to three minutes you

2:52:46 ↗ don't have to but in the interest of

2:52:49 ↗ time it's just the courtesy I want you

2:52:51 ↗ to say what you have to say but that's

2:52:54 ↗ all uh Ken conis

2:53:00 ↗ Mark Ken Kix Mark 5713 285th Avenue

2:53:04 ↗ Southeast in isqua I was going to refer

2:53:07 ↗ to an earlier slide that showed the open

2:53:09 ↗ space and give you a little more history

2:53:11 ↗ about how that happened because there's

2:53:12 ↗ a story there that I don't think people

2:53:15 ↗ know that you need to know how did you

2:53:17 ↗ get that 73 Acres of 73% of open space

2:53:22 ↗ land everything south of Tibbits Creek

2:53:25 ↗ the developers did not want to give that

2:53:29 ↗ believe me they wanted 15 million for

2:53:31 ↗ that and we tried a lot of ways to find

2:53:34 ↗ 15 million from the city state parks

2:53:36 ↗ King County Parks the trade-off was this

2:53:39 ↗ is why you now have 800,000 square feet

2:53:42 ↗ of office space in Talis the only way to

2:53:45 ↗ get that 73% of open space was to give

2:53:50 ↗ the developer an additional 800,000 ft

2:53:53 ↗ of office that made it economically

2:53:55 ↗ viable in addition they agreed to create

2:53:59 ↗ a net Improvement in Downstream water

2:54:01 ↗ quality because a law at the time said

2:54:03 ↗ you can discharge 50% of the phosphorus

2:54:06 ↗ from your development site right into

2:54:09 ↗ the creek and right into Lake samamish

2:54:11 ↗ would have which would have created big

2:54:12 ↗ alga blooms and killed the lake

2:54:15 ↗ this developer agreed to create a net

2:54:17 ↗ Improvement through their drainage

2:54:19 ↗ systems and by restoring the biano mine

2:54:22 ↗ coal Coal Mine site so there's a lot of

2:54:25 ↗ stuff like that you all need to

2:54:27 ↗ understand that gets us to where we are

2:54:31 ↗ I'm very proud of what happened with

2:54:33 ↗ Talis we still are building out what was

2:54:36 ↗ agreed to so now let me focus in on my

2:54:39 ↗ area of concern which was the 50-ft

2:54:41 ↗ buffer and you heard me speak to that

2:54:42 ↗ two weeks ago I also o believe you got a

2:54:45 ↗ copy of the letter I wrote in 2000 on

2:54:48 ↗ mountains to sound Greenway letterhead

2:54:50 ↗ which referred to the earlier 752 tank I

2:54:54 ↗ disagree with what was said by Lucy in

2:54:56 ↗ the city's position that it's okay to

2:54:59 ↗ put water tanks in the 50-ft buffer

2:55:01 ↗ because it's not a residential impact no

2:55:04 ↗ paragraph

2:55:06 ↗ 4.3.2 is very clear in the development

2:55:09 ↗ agreement and says the only exceptions

2:55:12 ↗ in the buffer are Trail or utility

2:55:16 ↗ Crossings not water tanks not facilities

2:55:19 ↗ not roads not retaining walls no

2:55:22 ↗ exceptions so why was an exception made

2:55:24 ↗ in 2000 because if you look at the

2:55:27 ↗ letter I wrote it's very clear in

2:55:30 ↗ documenting that there were identified

2:55:33 ↗ public benefits to making an exception

2:55:36 ↗ to locate those water tanks in the

2:55:38 ↗ buffer and save additional trees uh

2:55:41 ↗ reduce the clearing footprint and have

2:55:44 ↗ greater public benefits by allowing that

2:55:47 ↗ one exception that however does not open

2:55:50 ↗ up the rest of the buffer to be used for

2:55:52 ↗ whatever anybody wants that's where we

2:55:54 ↗ got a problem

2:55:56 ↗ so that's why I was so opposed two weeks

2:55:59 ↗ ago to the entire idea of a road two new

2:56:02 ↗ water tanks and retaining walls in the

2:56:05 ↗ buffer the new proposal to remove the

2:56:08 ↗ old tanks put them on a lesser

2:56:10 ↗ footprint is in my mind not a bad

2:56:14 ↗ uh option to to take I would support

2:56:17 ↗ that however I want to be on record and

2:56:20 ↗ urge you all to watch us very closely no

2:56:23 ↗ other intrusions of any sort are allowed

2:56:26 ↗ in the 50-foot buffer under any

2:56:29 ↗ conditions unless it's a trail or

2:56:31 ↗ utility Crossing or unless there is some

2:56:35 ↗ other public process to create an

2:56:37 ↗ exception due to the overriding public

2:56:40 ↗ benefits thank you thank you very much

2:56:45 ↗ uh Miss Valerie

2:56:52 ↗ feffer my name is Valerie feffer I live

2:56:55 ↗ at 2444 Northwest stoning Creekway in

2:56:59 ↗ the bridges of Talis and I'm here in

2:57:01 ↗ support of my friends and my neighbors

2:57:03 ↗ and I 100% agree with everything they've

2:57:05 ↗ said and I would just like to reiterate

2:57:07 ↗ some more personal

2:57:09 ↗ concerns um some background my husband

2:57:11 ↗ and I moved here about three years ago

2:57:14 ↗ we raised our children in the midwest I

2:57:16 ↗ grew up in the Southeast and if you know

2:57:18 ↗ anything about real estate you can

2:57:19 ↗ certainly get twice the house for half

2:57:22 ↗ the price there so to move here and to

2:57:24 ↗ make the decision to buy a home here was

2:57:27 ↗ a huge impact especially as we're

2:57:30 ↗ nearing and over 50 years old looking

2:57:33 ↗ into retirement so it was a big

2:57:36 ↗ investment we looked for two years we

2:57:38 ↗ rented um and then decided to build a

2:57:41 ↗ home in the

2:57:43 ↗ bridges because we're empty nesters and

2:57:45 ↗ our children are grown and almost gone

2:57:48 ↗ they keep coming back but

2:57:50 ↗ um it was a good fit I'm a teacher I

2:57:54 ↗ wanted a unique uh neighborhood I didn't

2:57:57 ↗ want swing sets in every backyard I

2:58:00 ↗ wanted a smaller home with privacy with

2:58:03 ↗ uh views and we found that a year ago we

2:58:06 ↗ found

2:58:07 ↗ that a couple of weeks ago on my spring

2:58:09 ↗ break I woke up to chainsaws because of

2:58:12 ↗ miscommunication 100 trees were cut down

2:58:15 ↗ in my backyard I'm sorry we made a

2:58:19 ↗ mistake we've reached a compromise I'm

2:58:21 ↗ I've trying to move on from that but now

2:58:24 ↗ I'm going to have an 800t wall in my

2:58:26 ↗ front yard so this is something I paid

2:58:30 ↗ twice as much for half the

2:58:32 ↗ house I have a hole in my backyard I

2:58:35 ↗ have a thousand plus headlights coming

2:58:38 ↗ twice a day up and down that Hill into

2:58:42 ↗ my bedroom window into my neighbor's

2:58:44 ↗ bedroom window into my dining room

2:58:46 ↗ window I feel like a dog at my dining

2:58:48 ↗ room table Counting Cars now it's like

2:58:51 ↗ and so now I'm going to be watching um

2:58:54 ↗ cars go up the hill watching U for the

2:58:57 ↗ next couple years watching a wall be

2:58:59 ↗ built um all the noise the construction

2:59:02 ↗ I'm not happy I'm very

2:59:04 ↗ concerned um our dues have increased

2:59:08 ↗ 250% we've lived in this home less than

2:59:11 ↗ a year and a half and our dues of

2:59:14 ↗ already increased

2:59:15 ↗ 250% um like I said you know 5 to 10

2:59:19 ↗ years from

2:59:21 ↗ retirement that that does something to

2:59:23 ↗ the

2:59:25 ↗ budget I would just like it seems like I

2:59:28 ↗ hear a lot of I'm sorry I

2:59:33 ↗ think we've done our

2:59:36 ↗ best probably most likely safe to say

2:59:41 ↗ I'm not

2:59:42 ↗ sure it's not not very

2:59:45 ↗ comforting I know my neighbors agree

2:59:47 ↗ with me or we wouldn't be here um rather

2:59:50 ↗ than social hours in our living room

2:59:52 ↗ this is our social hour and we are

2:59:54 ↗ committed and we will stay

2:59:58 ↗ committed in

3:00:01 ↗ conclusion some days I wake up and I

3:00:03 ↗ think I'm ready to sell I'm ready to

3:00:04 ↗ sell go to Florida go to Mexico go

3:00:07 ↗ anywhere just get

3:00:10 ↗ away but

3:00:12 ↗ um

3:00:15 ↗ I hope that the city can restore my

3:00:18 ↗ faith restore my neighbor's faith and I

3:00:21 ↗ hope that we can reach to a mutual

3:00:24 ↗ agreement and compromise thank

3:00:26 ↗ you thank you Miss Feer Lisa

3:00:37 ↗ milowski good evening or shall I say

3:00:40 ↗ good night to the

3:00:41 ↗ commission um I think since our last

3:00:44 ↗ meeting I have sent a letter to the city

3:00:46 ↗ council outlining some of my concerns

3:00:48 ↗ I've hope you've seen that okay um so

3:00:51 ↗ some of those concerns have been

3:00:53 ↗ addressed tonight thank you very much to

3:00:55 ↗ the staff and to uh the applicant for

3:00:58 ↗ addressing that I really do appreciate

3:01:01 ↗ that the one concern that is not being

3:01:04 ↗ addressed uh to my satisfaction is the

3:01:06 ↗ failure to recognize potential flooding

3:01:08 ↗ and landside Landslide risks um I think

3:01:12 ↗ we've all seen the YouTube video

3:01:14 ↗ um and I've also mentioned the uh

3:01:16 ↗ flooding that was in the back of alante

3:01:19 ↗ and that was in December of

3:01:21 ↗ 2007 um that was still when the

3:01:23 ↗ developer was doing the maintenance on

3:01:25 ↗ the drainage behind alante I'll also

3:01:27 ↗ remind you of um so that's still an

3:01:30 ↗ issue and in the documents that I've

3:01:33 ↗ received um this is page 32 of

3:01:37 ↗ 49 there's the statement in accordance

3:01:40 ↗ with Section 240 C5 steep slope hazard

3:01:43 ↗ areas

3:01:44 ↗ alterations this is in the tals

3:01:47 ↗ development agreement I believe a quote

3:01:49 ↗ the designated official may allow

3:01:51 ↗ alterations and elimination of steep

3:01:53 ↗ slopes through approved grading

3:01:55 ↗ activities provided that slope stability

3:01:58 ↗ is maintained or

3:02:00 ↗ enhanced the design requirements are

3:02:03 ↗ required so that the alterations result

3:02:05 ↗ in a slope that is maintained or

3:02:08 ↗ enhanced and are included in the

3:02:10 ↗ critical area study that has been

3:02:12 ↗ approved by the City file number STP

3:02:17 ↗ 14001 approved on March 24th

3:02:23 ↗ 2014 so I've been talking about flooding

3:02:26 ↗ since the April 1st

3:02:28 ↗ meeting this study was done on March

3:02:33 ↗ 24th why was I not told when I first

3:02:36 ↗ started talking about flooding that I

3:02:38 ↗ could still appeal at that point within

3:02:40 ↗ the 14 day

3:02:42 ↗ window and I have just received this uh

3:02:46 ↗ critical area study today and it's 130

3:02:49 ↗ some pages so I haven't been able to

3:02:51 ↗ thoroughly go through it and I will try

3:02:52 ↗ to do my best to do that but my question

3:02:55 ↗ is were Professional Engineers and the

3:02:57 ↗ city officials that approve this

3:02:58 ↗ critical area study aware of the actual

3:03:01 ↗ Landslide INF fiding occurrences in

3:03:04 ↗ Talis when they approved it now there's

3:03:06 ↗ a difference between models and

3:03:08 ↗ simulations from an engineering

3:03:10 ↗ perspective and actual real life

3:03:12 ↗ situations

3:03:14 ↗ models and simulations predict and they

3:03:16 ↗ give us ideas of what will happen when

3:03:18 ↗ we don't have the situation to examine

3:03:21 ↗ they do not replace the actual situation

3:03:24 ↗ and the actual occurrences that happen

3:03:26 ↗ they're just predictions and models they

3:03:28 ↗ never account for everything that the

3:03:30 ↗ real life situation will account for

3:03:33 ↗ this is true in this case this is true

3:03:35 ↗ in whenever we're making predictions

3:03:37 ↗ about wall performance and slope

3:03:39 ↗ stability and this is true in traffic

3:03:41 ↗ models these are all things that are

3:03:43 ↗ predictions and simulations so you have

3:03:45 ↗ to believe us residents even though we

3:03:47 ↗ have to advocate for ourselves here when

3:03:50 ↗ we say there are problems because we

3:03:52 ↗ know the actual real life situation

3:03:55 ↗ they're presenting models and

3:03:56 ↗ simulations and

3:03:58 ↗ guesses not real life stuff we are

3:04:01 ↗ telling you that and I'm telling you

3:04:03 ↗ that there's been flooding and mudslides

3:04:04 ↗ since up um I've been saying that since

3:04:07 ↗ April 1st and there was a time at which

3:04:11 ↗ an appeal could have been applied where

3:04:13 ↗ that approval of the critical area study

3:04:15 ↗ could have been examined again and now

3:04:17 ↗ it has not been done so now I want to

3:04:19 ↗ know now what do I do now who do I go to

3:04:22 ↗ to say how are we going to deal with

3:04:23 ↗ this flooding and Landslide risk so I'm

3:04:26 ↗ still wound up about

3:04:28 ↗ that there have been this is on page

3:04:31 ↗ nine of one of the many documents

3:04:33 ↗ emailed to me I'm sorry I don't know

3:04:35 ↗ which one but there have been drainage

3:04:36 ↗ issues associated with mountainer and

3:04:38 ↗ Aliante neighborhoods which have

3:04:40 ↗ resulted in slides this is a concern for

3:04:42 ↗ paral 7 and the staff I think this is

3:04:45 ↗ their recommendation the drainage lines

3:04:48 ↗ mentioned are not within the plat and

3:04:50 ↗ this aren't under purview of this permit

3:04:53 ↗ also this drainage technique is not

3:04:54 ↗ proposed under the plant currently under

3:04:56 ↗ review and thus is not an issue with

3:04:58 ↗ this

3:04:59 ↗ permit okay I interpret this to mean

3:05:02 ↗ that there are no drainage lines above

3:05:05 ↗ or west of mountain a yaas no wonder we

3:05:09 ↗ have flooding no wonder we have

3:05:11 ↗ mudslides wow

3:05:14 ↗ we have no

3:05:15 ↗ drainage okay not good something has to

3:05:18 ↗ be done to resolve that we're going to

3:05:20 ↗ develop on top of that those are exactly

3:05:22 ↗ the concerns I outlined in the letter to

3:05:24 ↗ the city council and I'm more concerned

3:05:26 ↗ now now I'm more eager to go over that

3:05:29 ↗ uh critical area

3:05:34 ↗ study okay this is on a different little

3:05:37 ↗ bit different subject here um okay so on

3:05:40 ↗ page 39 of the 49 page document

3:05:44 ↗ the the applicant explains the need for

3:05:46 ↗ large retaining wall because of the

3:05:47 ↗ grade changes in the predominantly this

3:05:49 ↗ is mostly in the north south

3:05:51 ↗ direction of the uh Main Road through

3:05:55 ↗ p7 there is no written evidence that the

3:05:57 ↗ applicant is committing to taking

3:05:59 ↗ upgrade in the predominantly West East

3:06:04 ↗ Direction okay via home designs such as

3:06:08 ↗ daylight basements we talk about

3:06:09 ↗ daylight basements and they're shown in

3:06:12 ↗ the the Graphics or the drawings that we

3:06:14 ↗ see but there is never any written

3:06:17 ↗ statement that they will do daylight

3:06:19 ↗ basements so um I would like to see the

3:06:21 ↗ UVC

3:06:23 ↗ require or will the applicant State the

3:06:26 ↗ applicant I believe has been very

3:06:27 ↗ cooperative and is doing their best will

3:06:29 ↗ they state that 100% of the homes in p7

3:06:32 ↗ will be daylight basements or double

3:06:34 ↗ daylight basements to take up this

3:06:39 ↗ grade so I think that's all I wanted to

3:06:42 ↗ say I'm eager to go through the critical

3:06:44 ↗ area study and I would love to hear what

3:06:46 ↗ I can do to help us not get into trouble

3:06:49 ↗ with flooding and Landslide risk uh for

3:06:53 ↗ those sites thank you thank

3:06:55 ↗ you uh Miss Julie

3:07:08 ↗ Clark my name is Julie Clark I reside at

3:07:11 ↗ 915 be Ridge Court Northwest in Talis I

3:07:16 ↗ haven't prepared notes in advance so I'm

3:07:19 ↗ just scribbling things as people have

3:07:21 ↗ been speaking this evening but I am

3:07:23 ↗ concerned about a couple of areas that I

3:07:25 ↗ will talk about and then one is the wall

3:07:27 ↗ I know there's been a lot of discussion

3:07:29 ↗ but the cost for our HOA is um going to

3:07:34 ↗ be extremely high if we need to replace

3:07:35 ↗ this wall or when we do I know they are

3:07:38 ↗ saying 114 years but the reality is um

3:07:43 ↗ if the wall goes out it's probably going

3:07:46 ↗ to be more of an issue I'm guessing than

3:07:48 ↗ just this concrete

3:07:51 ↗ plastic device that's holding back the

3:07:54 ↗ wall there's probably going to be more

3:07:56 ↗ damage done than just a wall giving out

3:07:58 ↗ there will be homes affected there will

3:08:00 ↗ be lives

3:08:01 ↗ affected um just as in the mudslide

3:08:06 ↗ which was considered a

3:08:08 ↗ small

3:08:10 ↗ blowout um that really impacted at least

3:08:13 ↗ two famili family lives it may have only

3:08:16 ↗ occurred in two backyards but it really

3:08:18 ↗ had a significant impact on their lives

3:08:21 ↗ as this flooding in alante would have

3:08:24 ↗ had impact on other people's lives as

3:08:27 ↗ well um I I heard that they're planning

3:08:30 ↗ to plant trees at the base of this large

3:08:33 ↗ wall and as other people have mentioned

3:08:36 ↗ about tree cutting for view

3:08:39 ↗ preservation um at some point the people

3:08:42 ↗ who live in in these homes will want to

3:08:44 ↗ have their views restored as they've

3:08:47 ↗ paid great sums of money for the view

3:08:50 ↗ that they are purchasing with their home

3:08:52 ↗ and um so I don't know how you can avoid

3:08:56 ↗ that if you're going to have trees

3:08:58 ↗ growing how you can restrict the height

3:09:00 ↗ on those and cover the wall at the same

3:09:04 ↗ time

3:09:06 ↗ um we talked about four different Master

3:09:09 ↗ developers with different walls

3:09:11 ↗ throughout Talis we've talked about the

3:09:14 ↗ re this wall over behind Home Depot and

3:09:18 ↗ how the construction of that wouldn't

3:09:20 ↗ have occurred today in isqua if that was

3:09:23 ↗ a part of isqua but the reality is

3:09:26 ↗ technology changes and with the

3:09:27 ↗ technology changes we always think we're

3:09:29 ↗ in we're inventing something new and

3:09:32 ↗ stronger and better than before but

3:09:34 ↗ things still fail even with this new

3:09:38 ↗ information and on the

3:09:40 ↗ roads

3:09:41 ↗ um with the elevation of these roads on

3:09:45 ↗ garbage day on bus days when well the

3:09:48 ↗ school buses if they come up here they

3:09:50 ↗ may not since it's a deadend road these

3:09:53 ↗ children will have to walk all the way

3:09:54 ↗ down to perhaps Talis drive and shangra

3:09:58 ↗ LA to catch a bus but

3:10:01 ↗ um on narrow roads I can tell you it's

3:10:06 ↗ challenging on garbage day for cars to

3:10:09 ↗ come to go in different directions so if

3:10:12 ↗ you have a Street that's not a one-way

3:10:14 ↗ Street you've got a garbage truck coming

3:10:16 ↗ you've got two vehicles trying to pass

3:10:18 ↗ this garbage truck one from behind and

3:10:19 ↗ one from the front it's it can be very

3:10:22 ↗ challenging and so um something needs to

3:10:25 ↗ be addressed on that and then having

3:10:27 ↗ these very steep

3:10:30 ↗ hills um inclines of 15% 12 to 15% it it

3:10:35 ↗ will be challenging along with the

3:10:36 ↗ narrow roads as well as for um emergency

3:10:40 ↗ vehicles and I do want to point out out

3:10:43 ↗ that I've heard that there are other

3:10:45 ↗ options for getting in and out of Talis

3:10:47 ↗ but the only two that have been

3:10:49 ↗ mentioned or that I've seen and writing

3:10:51 ↗ or heard um this evening are Talis drive

3:10:55 ↗ and James Bush Road and in an

3:10:58 ↗ emergency uh people will be driving

3:11:00 ↗ across people's yards to get down James

3:11:03 ↗ Bush Road as it has the ballards in

3:11:05 ↗ place so um if that's too steep of a

3:11:08 ↗ road for people to use on a regular

3:11:10 ↗ basis I think it will be a challenge um

3:11:13 ↗ in an emergency as

3:11:15 ↗ well um and I would be curious to know

3:11:18 ↗ what this other option is for getting

3:11:20 ↗ out of

3:11:23 ↗ Talis thank you thank

3:11:26 ↗ you uh Paul Boon next up thank

3:11:33 ↗ you I'm Paul Boon I live at uh 655

3:11:38 ↗ Wilderness Peak Drive corner of shangra

3:11:41 ↗ La way and Wilderness Peak Drive and the

3:11:45 ↗ old model home built in O in uh

3:11:48 ↗ O2 advertised in Alaska Airlines

3:11:52 ↗ magazine you can see the picture of the

3:11:54 ↗ house it's it's nice to live there and

3:11:56 ↗ I'm going to quote three slides uh one

3:12:00 ↗ slide said uh underneath the wall

3:12:04 ↗ undisturbed vegetated

3:12:06 ↗ slope another slide said existing

3:12:09 ↗ vegetation provides screening

3:12:13 ↗ and then another slide

3:12:15 ↗ said existing vegetation to

3:12:18 ↗ remain uh among that vegetation you're

3:12:22 ↗ referring to there are some trees that

3:12:24 ↗ have been growing since World War

3:12:27 ↗ II and those are old enough I don't see

3:12:32 ↗ too many folks that old those trees um I

3:12:37 ↗ hope you really mean that they are to

3:12:39 ↗ remain that's all I have to

3:12:41 ↗ say

3:12:43 ↗ thank you very

3:12:44 ↗ much uh I know I got this wrong last

3:12:47 ↗ time so I apologize Tony lender did I

3:12:50 ↗ get it right that time CL pretty

3:12:53 ↗ close I'm just going to butcher it just

3:12:55 ↗ for fun next time just

3:12:57 ↗ kidding I'm Tony Laton I live at uh 24 I

3:13:02 ↗ said last time you said I was

3:13:04 ↗ wrong but it's recognizable so that's

3:13:07 ↗ good thanks I live at 2408 Northwest

3:13:10 ↗ Harmony Way in Phoenix no really isqua

3:13:13 ↗ just to see if

3:13:15 ↗ you're okay um one of the concerns I had

3:13:19 ↗ in look in studying uh the Topography of

3:13:22 ↗ this uh development for seven is the

3:13:24 ↗ road into the area uh

3:13:29 ↗ the uh I guess Lucy mentioned that you

3:13:32 ↗ could have 15% grade for 500 or 600 feet

3:13:37 ↗ that's not quite accurate what it what

3:13:39 ↗ it states in the development agreement

3:13:40 ↗ is you cannot exceed

3:13:43 ↗ 12% for more than 600 feet

3:13:47 ↗ so and when I looked at the maps of that

3:13:51 ↗ road going in it seems very questionable

3:13:53 ↗ whether that really is the case I know

3:13:57 ↗ it's a little preliminary perhaps but to

3:13:59 ↗ me it's a very bothersome aspect

3:14:01 ↗ especially because that's the only way

3:14:03 ↗ into to that development and so for

3:14:06 ↗ emergency vehicles and everything that's

3:14:09 ↗ a real concern the next thing that

3:14:12 ↗ bothers me is this termination it's

3:14:15 ↗ pretty clear in the development

3:14:16 ↗ agreement that there's three ways of

3:14:19 ↗ terminating at a dead end you can have a

3:14:21 ↗ hammerhead you can have a culdesac or

3:14:24 ↗ you can have a auto Court an auto Court

3:14:27 ↗ this one looks like it's close to being

3:14:29 ↗ an auto court but an auto court is has

3:14:31 ↗ to be on a private Street not a public

3:14:36 ↗ road so that is a clear violation of the

3:14:40 ↗ development agreement and I think most

3:14:42 ↗ of us kind of understand why they're

3:14:45 ↗ interested in that sort of

3:14:47 ↗ violation but I can't really mention it

3:14:51 ↗ it's interesting though it's called Road

3:14:53 ↗ a then finally uh the high walls uh

3:14:59 ↗ there's an issue of Maintenance of the

3:15:01 ↗ walls because of the steep slope that

3:15:03 ↗ they are on uh and I think uh Mr Pew

3:15:07 ↗ made a very good case for the materials

3:15:09 ↗ in the wall and and I I imagine that

3:15:13 ↗ that's probably pretty accurate the 114

3:15:16 ↗ years but there's more to it than just

3:15:19 ↗ the materials of the wall it's how well

3:15:21 ↗ the wall is anchored and the stability

3:15:23 ↗ of the slope that it's being anchored to

3:15:27 ↗ and if there anything that goes wrong in

3:15:30 ↗ that process which as homeowners we're

3:15:32 ↗ not able to really verify we don't have

3:15:34 ↗ the expertise then and and also any

3:15:38 ↗ shift in the

3:15:40 ↗ geology besides even a major earthquake

3:15:43 ↗ that could be a huge liability issue for

3:15:47 ↗ us thank you thank you Mr

3:15:53 ↗ Laton all right next up Brook

3:16:05 ↗ Sullivan first I just wanted to say I

3:16:08 ↗ know probably be on behalf of all the

3:16:09 ↗ public too thank you I I think you are

3:16:11 ↗ volunteers I actually don't really know

3:16:12 ↗ but it's late and thank you for serving

3:16:15 ↗ the community and trying to um maintain

3:16:18 ↗ the Integrity of isqua and the way it is

3:16:20 ↗ now so um really quickly I just really

3:16:23 ↗ have two comments um I just want to

3:16:25 ↗ understand why we are doing this road

3:16:27 ↗ design and what and we've talked a lot

3:16:29 ↗ about dead ends and and culde saacs and

3:16:33 ↗ and we there's a statement in here that

3:16:35 ↗ says U this plat illustrates examples

3:16:38 ↗ where it is difficult to completely

3:16:40 ↗ avoid their use but we've also seen

3:16:42 ↗ illustrations tonight of all of those

3:16:44 ↗ steep grades in Talis that exist and all

3:16:46 ↗ of those are Loops I don't I don't know

3:16:48 ↗ of a dead end in Talis as it stands

3:16:50 ↗ right now I could be I could be wrong

3:16:52 ↗ but I live on one of those steep grades

3:16:54 ↗ and it is a loop so it is still a

3:16:56 ↗ concern to me I don't necessarily

3:16:58 ↗ understand why other than obviously the

3:17:00 ↗ unstated reason that I won't talk about

3:17:03 ↗ um and probably also I'm guessing to put

3:17:06 ↗ in more homes which I don't I don't

3:17:08 ↗ think in reading it is a reason to avoid

3:17:11 ↗ a a loop looped Road or a dead or avoid

3:17:13 ↗ a denden I'm sorry um and then the other

3:17:16 ↗ thing which I don't know if it's fair

3:17:17 ↗ game but it was already talked about by

3:17:19 ↗ one of the presenters so it is on the

3:17:21 ↗ cost side and I'm I'm sure you guys

3:17:24 ↗ understand or have heard about the way

3:17:26 ↗ the HOA is structured right now and that

3:17:27 ↗ really home owners have very little

3:17:29 ↗ power little to no power right now in

3:17:31 ↗ our neighborhood um just the way the

3:17:33 ↗ Voting is structured and so I would

3:17:35 ↗ encourage this commission and the city

3:17:36 ↗ council before making decisions about

3:17:39 ↗ things that could affect our cost um to

3:17:42 ↗ to consider joining and trying to trying

3:17:45 ↗ to fix that for us so as homeowners we

3:17:47 ↗ actually can have a fair shot at voting

3:17:49 ↗ on what you know costs and stuff that we

3:17:51 ↗ will actually incur um so I'm I'm not a

3:17:54 ↗ developer or an engineer um I am an

3:17:56 ↗ accountant though and um I do think that

3:17:59 ↗ the numbers that were kind of discussed

3:18:00 ↗ of the 8% increase or $13 a resident

3:18:03 ↗ might be wrong because the number of

3:18:05 ↗ units includes a lot of people who live

3:18:08 ↗ in commercial units and those are capped

3:18:10 ↗ so I don't know the numbers cuz I

3:18:12 ↗ couldn't like jot them all down but I

3:18:14 ↗ would just encourage that if possible

3:18:15 ↗ this commission and the city council to

3:18:17 ↗ work with the HOA to try to make it more

3:18:19 ↗ Equitable really for the homeowners who

3:18:21 ↗ are bearing um the cost which could be

3:18:23 ↗ the wall but anything else that is

3:18:25 ↗ maintenance in this neighborhood that we

3:18:27 ↗ all have to do so thank you thank you uh

3:18:30 ↗ let's see is it Clifford

3:18:32 ↗ cancelosi did I get that right I didn't

3:18:36 ↗ I'll try harder next time apparently uh

3:18:40 ↗ thank you uh thank than I I will go

3:18:43 ↗ quick I do appreciate uh and uh Echo all

3:18:47 ↗ the comments from my uh my residents the

3:18:50 ↗ residents of Talis I'm I live in alante

3:18:53 ↗ at 883 Summer Hill Ridge uh and I think

3:18:55 ↗ the comment I'd like to make is um there

3:18:58 ↗ is uh now we've alluded to it on a

3:19:00 ↗ couple a couple times which is the the

3:19:03 ↗ thing that must go unnamed um but I what

3:19:06 ↗ I would urge the council to consider

3:19:08 ↗ strongly is that the the traffic uh

3:19:12 ↗ patterns that are coming off of Talis

3:19:13 ↗ today are starting to have a pretty

3:19:16 ↗ significant impact on sr900 backing

3:19:19 ↗ sr900 deeply up into May Valley uh and

3:19:22 ↗ the the combination of more traffic

3:19:25 ↗ coming off the hill through these

3:19:27 ↗ developments and through potentially uh

3:19:29 ↗ some other development that can go

3:19:31 ↗ unnamed uh at the moment um with in

3:19:34 ↗ addition to the rally property

3:19:36 ↗ developments that are going on in the

3:19:38 ↗ isqua area I think the combination of

3:19:40 ↗ all these things need to be taken into

3:19:42 ↗ consideration together and I'm not sure

3:19:44 ↗ whether we're looking at these things as

3:19:47 ↗ uh points in time or single events as

3:19:50 ↗ opposed to taking a more holistic look

3:19:52 ↗ at what these whole patterns look like

3:19:54 ↗ uh when we first put the plans together

3:19:56 ↗ about how big Talis was I'm not sure we

3:19:58 ↗ had the plans in place on how much

3:20:01 ↗ additional growth would be happening on

3:20:03 ↗ May Valley Road and also down in the in

3:20:05 ↗ the Floor of of isqua proper so I would

3:20:08 ↗ just uh urge us all to take that into

3:20:11 ↗ account thank you

3:20:12 ↗ thank you very

3:20:14 ↗ much next up uh Connie

3:20:28 ↗ Marsh I don't think I've ever seen yall

3:20:30 ↗ this late at

3:20:32 ↗ night I know my eyes are bloodshot

3:20:35 ↗ anyway uh Connie Marsh I don't live in

3:20:38 ↗ Talis I live over on squawk but I have a

3:20:41 ↗ store at 11 75 Northwest Gilman

3:20:43 ↗ Boulevard suet

3:20:44 ↗ B1

3:20:46 ↗ um I love them all what can I say uh

3:20:51 ↗ water

3:20:52 ↗ tower um I don't know if you look at the

3:20:55 ↗ language

3:20:56 ↗ on how you could even do an

3:20:58 ↗ administrative minor modification one of

3:21:00 ↗ the things is that you uh have to do a

3:21:03 ↗ little Seer review and you're supposed

3:21:05 ↗ to

3:21:06 ↗ avoid

3:21:07 ↗ impacts to the area and I keep looking

3:21:11 ↗ and saying why does it have to be in the

3:21:13 ↗ buffer why can't they put it down out of

3:21:16 ↗ the buffer and just build it a little

3:21:19 ↗ taller I think the visual impacts from

3:21:21 ↗ offside are probably going to be exactly

3:21:23 ↗ the same um I do appreciate the fact

3:21:26 ↗ that that they've gone to the effort of

3:21:29 ↗ trying to Mosey it all around just

3:21:31 ↗ saying of course even better would be

3:21:33 ↗ good uh I don't like having the

3:21:36 ↗ retaining walls still being allowed in

3:21:38 ↗ that 50ft buffer because retaining walls

3:21:41 ↗ are not a water

3:21:42 ↗ crossing um and so I don't think that

3:21:45 ↗ they're allowed in that buffer given the

3:21:47 ↗ language that is stated and then you

3:21:51 ↗ know it was the Quasi judicial

3:21:53 ↗ appearance of fairness things and so

3:21:55 ↗ fairness is in my brain and I'm not sure

3:21:57 ↗ that it's fair if the larger HOA is not

3:22:00 ↗ going to take responsibility for this

3:22:03 ↗ wall to put it on this very small number

3:22:06 ↗ of homes and I'm not even sure that

3:22:08 ↗ that's within your jurisdiction but all

3:22:11 ↗ long in these development agreements

3:22:13 ↗ when the developer has control all kinds

3:22:16 ↗ of things are shoved into the homeowners

3:22:17 ↗ association because they can be and this

3:22:20 ↗ is going to happen again and it just

3:22:23 ↗ doesn't seem fair to me because they are

3:22:26 ↗ not here to speak for their future

3:22:28 ↗ selves I'm here to speak for their

3:22:30 ↗ future selves it's not fair thanks thank

3:22:33 ↗ you

3:22:35 ↗ Connie and uh finally Mr David

3:22:40 ↗ kapler

3:22:42 ↗ he's going to sing the finale for us uh

3:22:45 ↗ David kapler 255 Southeast Andrew Street

3:22:49 ↗ um the justification for the uh the

3:22:52 ↗ amendment that allowed the uh existing

3:22:54 ↗ water towers there um was some public

3:22:58 ↗ benefit was identified and one of the

3:23:00 ↗ things in the letter that Ken wrote as

3:23:03 ↗ representating Mountain Sound Greenway

3:23:06 ↗ was to preserve a significant block of

3:23:08 ↗ mature trees on the down slope side of

3:23:10 ↗ the tank facing his isqua and I90 well I

3:23:13 ↗ was up there today to the tanks and all

3:23:17 ↗ the trees down slope of the tanks are

3:23:20 ↗ small scrub Alders that had definitely

3:23:22 ↗ come in since um you know the tanks were

3:23:25 ↗ built located there so there was no

3:23:28 ↗ significant trees left um in terms of

3:23:32 ↗ the relocation of the the

3:23:34 ↗ tanks um mixed feelings about having

3:23:38 ↗ them in the 50ft buffer they will be

3:23:40 ↗ shorter now Ryan had a slide where he

3:23:43 ↗ showed the buffering on the edge and

3:23:46 ↗ went around the backs side of the tanks

3:23:48 ↗ I'm not too worried about the tanks

3:23:49 ↗ being viewed from somebody in the

3:23:52 ↗ park um if the tanks are going to be up

3:23:55 ↗ in the back of it let's get some of that

3:23:57 ↗ buffer is significant trees out in front

3:24:00 ↗ of them because um the map is even the

3:24:03 ↗ new map which this is the old map even

3:24:06 ↗ shows more space between where the tanks

3:24:08 ↗ are and the most East Western houses so

3:24:13 ↗ I think you can talk about bigger trees

3:24:15 ↗ in front of those tanks uh that could be

3:24:17 ↗ um that buffer could be uh more than

3:24:20 ↗ just a vegetative buffer which is what

3:24:23 ↗ is talked about in the rest of the the

3:24:25 ↗ 50ft buffer important part of that

3:24:28 ↗ buffer is so when trees fall down they

3:24:30 ↗ don't land on people's houses so um what

3:24:33 ↗ goes into that buffer certainly needs to

3:24:35 ↗ be native type plants but we don't

3:24:38 ↗ really need trees that are going to end

3:24:40 ↗ up over time time being danger trees to

3:24:44 ↗ those

3:24:45 ↗ houses but we can certainly get some big

3:24:48 ↗ stuff in front of those tanks I believe

3:24:51 ↗ um color of those tanks drives me nuts

3:24:53 ↗ they're green but they're sure still

3:24:56 ↗ bright um when you see those tanks up at

3:24:58 ↗ the um samamish water and sewer has some

3:25:01 ↗ of the the ones that they have up in the

3:25:03 ↗ plateau with the the paintings on them

3:25:05 ↗ it's pretty amazing it would be a neat

3:25:08 ↗ addition

3:25:09 ↗ there um there were

3:25:12 ↗ item number 12 was the things that were

3:25:13 ↗ outside of the jurisdiction tonight but

3:25:17 ↗ there was a statement in F saying that

3:25:19 ↗ they believe that some of the treath

3:25:20 ↗ stuff going on in Talis was in

3:25:22 ↗ compliance with the development

3:25:24 ↗ agreement I disagree with that statement

3:25:27 ↗ I think that's what's been proposed in

3:25:29 ↗ some of the tree elimination other parts

3:25:30 ↗ is definitely uh not in character or

3:25:34 ↗ legal um the wall is basically going to

3:25:37 ↗ be at the same elevation so they're

3:25:40 ↗ going to hide the body bottom of it more

3:25:43 ↗ but the the part you really see is still

3:25:45 ↗ going to be up at the same

3:25:46 ↗ elevation apparently um there's going to

3:25:51 ↗ be some additional Landscaping at the

3:25:53 ↗ base of the wall but remember if they

3:25:54 ↗ have to do any work at that that's the

3:25:56 ↗ most

3:25:56 ↗ vulnerable that that vegetation could be

3:25:59 ↗ eliminated I think and I think it's been

3:26:01 ↗ kind of addressed in a condition I want

3:26:02 ↗ to make sure it's strong enough that the

3:26:04 ↗ real need is to get some encourage some

3:26:07 ↗ evergreen trees below the trail which

3:26:10 ↗ down slope and those are going to be you

3:26:12 ↗ know a long time before they're up there

3:26:15 ↗ causing any view blocks from the houses

3:26:18 ↗ on top but they will immediately start

3:26:20 ↗ helping from the view from down below

3:26:23 ↗ and especially since so many of the

3:26:24 ↗ trees are deciduous in that

3:26:27 ↗ area the dead end thing dead end streets

3:26:30 ↗ I spent a lot of time in Kahani in

3:26:33 ↗ January and February um not City wasn't

3:26:37 ↗ thrilled with me up in the colani area

3:26:39 ↗ about an election they had and and I

3:26:41 ↗ could not believe how many delivery

3:26:42 ↗ trucks were constantly during the

3:26:45 ↗ daytime going through the residential

3:26:47 ↗ areas up there and up there in khani and

3:26:50 ↗ those other plats they big wide streets

3:26:52 ↗ and there's you know but

3:26:54 ↗ um I do not like the somebody has a

3:26:57 ↗ private driveway they can park in their

3:26:59 ↗ driveway especially on that more

3:27:02 ↗ Northerly Road end I think you need to

3:27:05 ↗ have Provisions for a reasonable

3:27:08 ↗ turnaround that is a No Parking

3:27:12 ↗ uh turnaround um in that given the

3:27:15 ↗ narrow streets of parking that's going

3:27:17 ↗ to occur in the rest

3:27:20 ↗ um that's not all my concerns but um

3:27:23 ↗ some have been addressed already for

3:27:25 ↗ sure thank you thank you Mr kler okay

3:27:28 ↗ this will conclude the public comment

3:27:30 ↗ portion of the meeting uh at this time

3:27:33 ↗ we are going to have some uh some time

3:27:35 ↗ for uh staff and applicant um response

3:27:39 ↗ and and then we'll get into discussion

3:27:42 ↗ do you have questions now or do

3:27:44 ↗ you do we need a recess we do need a

3:27:47 ↗ recess okay um I I I'm going to re

3:27:51 ↗ reiterate though that um when we get to

3:27:54 ↗ our discussion point and likely I don't

3:27:56 ↗ know what kind of response they're going

3:27:57 ↗ to have we're not going to be able to

3:27:59 ↗ address views we're not going to be able

3:28:00 ↗ to address HOA we're not going to be

3:28:01 ↗ able to address uh Road standards and

3:28:04 ↗ grades if they're within compliance or

3:28:06 ↗ in compliance um home types we will not

3:28:09 ↗ be able to touch that flooding and

3:28:11 ↗ Landslide off landslides off uh off of

3:28:15 ↗ this uh plat we we also cannot discuss

3:28:21 ↗ um uh the the traffic component you know

3:28:25 ↗ it again if it's in compliance it's in

3:28:26 ↗ compliance and also the number of homes

3:28:29 ↗ so there are plenty of other things we

3:28:30 ↗ can talk about um but I just want to

3:28:32 ↗ make that very clear even if we wish we

3:28:35 ↗ could we can't because we can't affect

3:28:37 ↗ that can I ask clarification to that if

3:28:40 ↗ the traffic the drainage issues at

3:28:42 ↗ caused by the development yeah I think

3:28:45 ↗ it's if it's specific to partiel 7

3:28:48 ↗ absolutely happening outside of it yeah

3:28:51 ↗ yeah I mean if it's directly related I

3:28:52 ↗ think we can discuss it like that

3:28:55 ↗ drainage problem right there resp thank

3:28:57 ↗ you but I just want I just want to

3:28:59 ↗ remind people uh that we're not ignoring

3:29:01 ↗ those issues we just simply can't

3:29:03 ↗ address them so thank you we'll go to

3:29:05 ↗ how long do you need we are 10 minutes

3:29:08 ↗ okay so we'll see you back here tomorrow

3:29:13 ↗ 10

3:29:40 ↗ minutes

3:38:53 ↗ okay we're back

3:38:55 ↗ on uh I think I'm going to turn this

3:38:58 ↗ over to miss slowman okay so given the

3:39:03 ↗ lateness of the

3:39:04 ↗ hour um and though we've heard a lot of

3:39:08 ↗ heartfelt and um concerns from the

3:39:11 ↗ public we feel that in general our

3:39:15 ↗ initial presentation covered most of

3:39:18 ↗ these topics and instead of trying to go

3:39:21 ↗ through and um respond to all the

3:39:24 ↗ comments we've heard we'd rather respond

3:39:26 ↗ to specific questions that the

3:39:29 ↗ commission has in

3:39:32 ↗ um that you need to address that you may

3:39:35 ↗ have to reach

3:39:37 ↗ a recommendation so at this time we're

3:39:41 ↗ not going to we're not going to

3:39:42 ↗ specifically reut so that's the the

3:39:45 ↗ staff's position does the applicant feel

3:39:48 ↗ the same way or do they want to

3:39:52 ↗ respond uh yeah our our position is that

3:39:55 ↗ we feel that the proposal as stated and

3:39:57 ↗ reviewed tonight uh as well as the

3:40:00 ↗ staff's recommendation meets the uh

3:40:03 ↗ development agreement conditions and uh

3:40:07 ↗ we're again understand the cons concerns

3:40:10 ↗ but we feel we we meet the conditions of

3:40:12 ↗ development agreement okay thank you

3:40:15 ↗ we'll move now to commission discussion

3:40:17 ↗ and uh if you have any specific

3:40:19 ↗ questions for staff or applicant um

3:40:21 ↗ we'll go ahead and address those

3:40:23 ↗ directly so uh

3:40:27 ↗ the

3:40:31 ↗ didn't I'm

3:40:33 ↗ sorry I'm sorry public comment is over

3:40:36 ↗ we we can't take any further public

3:40:37 ↗ comment at this time uh it's time for

3:40:40 ↗ commission discussion and if you could

3:40:42 ↗ please just I'd like to acknowledge

3:40:44 ↗ whoever's going to speak just so that we

3:40:45 ↗ can keep this thing moving so I'll go

3:40:47 ↗ ahead and start with Eric yeah I just

3:40:49 ↗ wanted to see if uh the developer can

3:40:52 ↗ your microphone on yeah okay can give

3:40:55 ↗ some clarification as to the the reasons

3:40:59 ↗ why the water towers uh do need to be

3:41:02 ↗ put in the buffer zone

3:41:04 ↗ presumably if you could speak on

3:41:09 ↗ that

3:41:12 ↗ uh It Again part of that is City staff

3:41:15 ↗ uh they've always been contemplated

3:41:16 ↗ since 2000 the original 884 which is now

3:41:20 ↗ based on a pressure Zone 916 it's just a

3:41:22 ↗ pressure zone change uh was always

3:41:25 ↗ contemplated to be at that elevation the

3:41:27 ↗ city uh operations and maintenance

3:41:29 ↗ people wanted at the highest level to

3:41:31 ↗ get the the best service it it still has

3:41:35 ↗ to be the same height um we feel it's in

3:41:38 ↗ a better position than it is there than

3:41:39 ↗ still sticking out in front where it's

3:41:41 ↗ going to be 20 ft taller and closer to

3:41:44 ↗ the to the residences and more

3:41:50 ↗ visible

3:41:55 ↗ Jim uh just I'm actually a little bit

3:41:58 ↗ concerned about uh the walls that are in

3:42:00 ↗ the buffer and

3:42:03 ↗ um you know why is it one wall or

3:42:07 ↗ multiple

3:42:08 ↗ walls it might just be one the the

3:42:11 ↗ original proposal which I think you're

3:42:14 ↗ talking about the upper walls where

3:42:16 ↗ there's some Terrace walls in that one

3:42:18 ↗ corner of the buffer um we've already

3:42:21 ↗ made a design choice to take those out

3:42:23 ↗ of the out of the buffer I think he's

3:42:25 ↗ referring to the water tanks no I was

3:42:28 ↗ actually oh I'm sorry I

3:42:30 ↗ apologize um at this point are the are

3:42:33 ↗ the revised water towers are those the

3:42:36 ↗ only things encroaching on the buffer

3:42:39 ↗ yes

3:42:42 ↗ thank

3:42:46 ↗ you so there's one wall

3:42:48 ↗ around so supporting that the water

3:42:52 ↗ tanks there's uh a wall in the in the

3:42:56 ↗ front to make the grade change right

3:42:58 ↗ there in front of the water tank and or

3:43:00 ↗ around the perimeter of the water tank

3:43:02 ↗ just in that area and that's all in the

3:43:04 ↗ buffer or on the edge of the buffer it I

3:43:07 ↗ I couldn't tell you it may be out it may

3:43:09 ↗ be on the front edge of the buffer it'll

3:43:11 ↗ depend on where the tank is sighted

3:43:13 ↗ specifically within that 50 ft I think

3:43:16 ↗ Mr kler was you know potentially saying

3:43:18 ↗ move it back farther and it keep

3:43:20 ↗ something in the front or whether it's

3:43:21 ↗ towards the front of the buffer it could

3:43:22 ↗ be right at the front edge of the buffer

3:43:24 ↗ I don't think we've gotten that far in

3:43:26 ↗ in the design process of that okay thank

3:43:30 ↗ you and it could wrap around the edge

3:43:32 ↗ you know as it ties back in you know

3:43:34 ↗ just just to support that pad basically

3:43:36 ↗ okay just supporting the pad and the

3:43:38 ↗ only other question I have is

3:43:40 ↗ you know it seems to me that that um the

3:43:44 ↗ HOA the

3:43:45 ↗ TR is that right yeah um is pretty

3:43:48 ↗ adamant about not taking

3:43:50 ↗ on uh the walls and

3:43:54 ↗ so so the the condition as I understand

3:43:57 ↗ is written uh provides for two options

3:44:00 ↗ one is that at the hoa's discretion or

3:44:03 ↗ the TR discretion through some

3:44:06 ↗ discussion or not can determine whether

3:44:09 ↗ they accept or don't accept the walls I

3:44:11 ↗ think the city has

3:44:13 ↗ concerns that from a management

3:44:16 ↗ perspective the larger HOA should be in

3:44:20 ↗ control of that as as for for various

3:44:25 ↗ reasons um but I think the second

3:44:28 ↗ component of that of that condition is

3:44:30 ↗ that if that's not the case then a sub

3:44:33 ↗ HOA would be responsible for that and

3:44:35 ↗ there are are U precedents within Talis

3:44:38 ↗ where uh a sub another sub Association

3:44:42 ↗ is responsible for the walls within

3:44:45 ↗ their development so it can be one or

3:44:48 ↗ the other and it's at the hoa's Choice

3:44:50 ↗ per the condition the way it's written

3:44:52 ↗ is that

3:44:53 ↗ accurate okay shant sorry let me make

3:44:56 ↗ sure Jim did you get your questions

3:44:57 ↗ answered okay Shantel so related to that

3:45:00 ↗ then can you speak to the the cost of

3:45:02 ↗ that per household or would it still be

3:45:07 ↗ distributed across the all community

3:45:09 ↗ would it be just some the the only way

3:45:12 ↗ it would be distributed across the

3:45:13 ↗ entire Community is if the HOA

3:45:17 ↗ actually accepted that responsibility

3:45:21 ↗ which is again at their discretion not

3:45:23 ↗ at our discretion and if they don't what

3:45:25 ↗ happens who then the sub Association

3:45:27 ↗ would be responsible to create reserves

3:45:29 ↗ associated with the walls in each one of

3:45:31 ↗ those Parcels with the money coming from

3:45:33 ↗ where the homeowners which the old the

3:45:37 ↗ 153 that are associated with this

3:45:40 ↗ parcel seven yes okay at the same time I

3:45:42 ↗ would also request that you know if if

3:45:45 ↗ they don't want us to be if they don't

3:45:46 ↗ want to be bured with these walls then

3:45:48 ↗ you can't also ask that development to

3:45:50 ↗ be burdened with the maintenance of the

3:45:51 ↗ other walls so it's a kind of a two-way

3:45:52 ↗ street there which is more to the

3:45:54 ↗ comment of what the city's concern

3:45:56 ↗ before you walk away is it is it just

3:45:58 ↗ seven or would it be seven eight and

3:45:59 ↗ nine I'm just curious are the walls the

3:46:04 ↗ the condition I think the same condition

3:46:06 ↗ exists for 78 and N the way it's written

3:46:10 ↗ that cor okay so just to put it in

3:46:12 ↗ perspective and just and this is not a

3:46:14 ↗ statement as to a support or not support

3:46:17 ↗ of this is I think they said there are

3:46:19 ↗ there already 270 or 280,000 Square ft

3:46:23 ↗ of walls throughout Talis and this would

3:46:25 ↗ be another 60,000 Square ft of wall um

3:46:30 ↗ and presumably those other walls whether

3:46:32 ↗ it's known or not are you know the

3:46:34 ↗ burden is on the HOA at least probably

3:46:37 ↗ most of them maybe there are some sub

3:46:38 ↗ HOA concern conerns

3:46:40 ↗ but I mean it's that and Landscaping and

3:46:43 ↗ other things that that fit into that so

3:46:46 ↗ let's just keep that in mind on the

3:46:47 ↗ broader perspective so good B ugly ask

3:46:51 ↗ another question um couple people have

3:46:53 ↗ brought up um mature trees in some area

3:46:58 ↗ not sure exactly where they meant I

3:47:00 ↗ assume it was at the foot of the of the

3:47:02 ↗ wall um is is it the intention to keep

3:47:06 ↗ those trees um is that part of the areas

3:47:10 ↗ that will not be

3:47:12 ↗ cleared um I I can't speak specifically

3:47:16 ↗ I believe they were talking about this

3:47:18 ↗ area down here below which is the intent

3:47:23 ↗ that we're not going to cut any

3:47:25 ↗ additional trees in below what's shown

3:47:28 ↗ here um I I don't if you know there's

3:47:31 ↗ also an area in here that were not

3:47:33 ↗ clearing um again which is uh a buffer

3:47:37 ↗ between uh the bridges and this this

3:47:40 ↗ development so un unless it was another

3:47:42 ↗ area that I'm not aware of in in this

3:47:44 ↗ area below the the development we're not

3:47:47 ↗ intending to eliminate any trees in

3:47:50 ↗ there can we ask Mr chair if it was the

3:47:54 ↗ the area that was mention yeah I believe

3:47:58 ↗ that's the area but I don't know who I

3:47:59 ↗ can't remember who brought that based on

3:48:01 ↗ the comments and the view preservation I

3:48:04 ↗ I feel pretty confident that it's the

3:48:08 ↗ issues that they've seen

3:48:11 ↗ um that they've seen the last few weeks

3:48:14 ↗ with view preservation issues elsewhere

3:48:17 ↗ in Talis so again just to be clear I

3:48:20 ↗ think

3:48:28 ↗ they along the Shang shanger

3:48:31 ↗ Trail

3:48:32 ↗ yeah is that above shanga

3:48:35 ↗ Trail is that

3:48:38 ↗ here

3:48:40 ↗ yeah we're we're not in intending to you

3:48:44 ↗ know obviously you can see there's

3:48:45 ↗ there's a this is a water crossing

3:48:47 ↗ that's what this cut is right here uh at

3:48:50 ↗ some point through there because that's

3:48:52 ↗ where the 752 water line will connect

3:48:55 ↗ back up to the new location but we're

3:48:58 ↗ not intending to clear this I do know it

3:49:01 ↗ it's hard to tell I know there's in in

3:49:03 ↗ this 50ft buffer there's also some large

3:49:07 ↗ trees you know they're they're big

3:49:09 ↗ they're huge I I agree so no it's intent

3:49:12 ↗ not to not to touch those so let's let

3:49:14 ↗ the record show that the intent is not

3:49:16 ↗ to to clear those treed areas but let's

3:49:19 ↗ be very clear that they have the right

3:49:21 ↗ to clear those should they for whatever

3:49:24 ↗ reason change their mind or need to for

3:49:26 ↗ whatever that's it's in the development

3:49:28 ↗ agreement that they can correct Lucy

3:49:30 ↗ yeah but the record shows that they're

3:49:32 ↗ standing in front of us saying that

3:49:34 ↗ their intent is not to do that unless a

3:49:36 ↗ condition was put in place that they

3:49:37 ↗ cannot there's no condition right now

3:49:39 ↗ that says they can't right that's

3:49:43 ↗ correct all right

3:49:46 ↗ Michael uh Lucy um is there a precedent

3:49:49 ↗ for an HOA to build up a reserve fund

3:49:52 ↗ for a capital project like this I know

3:49:54 ↗ that they have to pay maintenance fees

3:49:57 ↗ but but replacement so as I understand

3:50:00 ↗ it and I am not an expert um by any

3:50:03 ↗ means I as I understand it that's a

3:50:05 ↗ state requirement of

3:50:07 ↗ HOAs that there have to be Reserve

3:50:10 ↗ studies for all the things the um HOA is

3:50:13 ↗ responsible for and um budget to replace

3:50:18 ↗ based

3:50:19 ↗ on

3:50:22 ↗ um I don't well they have to budget to

3:50:26 ↗ be prepared to replace things okay I'm

3:50:29 ↗ glad I'm out on my HOA board anymore

3:50:31 ↗ sorry Michael but but just to hop onto

3:50:33 ↗ that so that's related I had asked last

3:50:36 ↗ time about bonding and so that's when

3:50:38 ↗ the bonding

3:50:39 ↗ might come into play I don't think it

3:50:41 ↗ would be a bond a bond is

3:50:45 ↗ um like we use bonds to ensure that

3:50:48 ↗ something is built that it's completed

3:50:51 ↗ um Andor

3:50:52 ↗ maintained um it's it's actually a

3:50:55 ↗ reserve account that in in which funds

3:50:59 ↗ are accumulated in you know you make

3:51:03 ↗ certain assumptions about the lifespan

3:51:06 ↗ of the you know that a playground ground

3:51:09 ↗ is good for 15 years or 20 years and and

3:51:13 ↗ the cost of replacing it is X and

3:51:16 ↗ therefore you have to put in so much per

3:51:19 ↗ household per year to achieve that

3:51:22 ↗ um being able to replace it

3:51:26 ↗ so um it just seems once we get over you

3:51:29 ↗ know a million dollars in an HOA it

3:51:32 ↗ seems like that's a pretty complicated

3:51:34 ↗ situation to be in and so what is a

3:51:38 ↗ complicated situation an HOA having that

3:51:41 ↗ much uh Reserve M excuse me Reserve

3:51:44 ↗ money set aside it just seems like an

3:51:46 ↗ interesting situation to me um but I

3:51:48 ↗ guess that's a legal thing um my my real

3:51:51 ↗ question with this is H why were we not

3:51:55 ↗ able to or why was a um a loop put in

3:51:58 ↗ why was a loop not put in at the North

3:52:01 ↗ West corner of

3:52:03 ↗ s uh rather than a dead end and then

3:52:07 ↗ potentially putting some sort of

3:52:08 ↗ alternate foot path between Lots 32 and

3:52:11 ↗ 33 or 25 and 24 so we don't have the

3:52:14 ↗ total block length I know we're

3:52:15 ↗ concerned about block length for

3:52:17 ↗ pedestrians but seems to me we could

3:52:19 ↗ just Loop that and not have the Dead End

3:52:21 ↗ Street so I'm going to go up to the map

3:52:24 ↗ just to make sure I I'm glad you I'm

3:52:26 ↗ glad you asked that because that's

3:52:27 ↗ actually one of my questions too is why

3:52:28 ↗ couldn't that road have just become a

3:52:31 ↗ loop instead of cutting off at four or

3:52:33 ↗ five properties

3:52:36 ↗ in go around 27 to 17 I

3:52:40 ↗ think sorry 37 to

3:52:43 ↗ 17 I I'm I'm pretty sure it's a there's

3:52:46 ↗ some great issues with because we're at

3:52:48 ↗ 15% there and as we tried to any

3:52:52 ↗ anything we push it farther it starts

3:52:54 ↗ exasperating the grades and we weren't

3:52:56 ↗ able

3:52:57 ↗ to and I can't speak specifically but

3:53:00 ↗ there was a design reason why we we we

3:53:03 ↗ looked at even moving it one lot over

3:53:05 ↗ swapping lots and there was a grade and

3:53:07 ↗ design issue with the percentages

3:53:10 ↗ allowing us to do that in that

3:53:14 ↗ location there there are other um

3:53:17 ↗ just I will say that you know the the

3:53:20 ↗ loop here and the fire turnaround is was

3:53:22 ↗ reviewed by um fire and rescue and the

3:53:26 ↗ distance basically that distance is is

3:53:28 ↗ based on a maximum that is their

3:53:30 ↗ allowable distance for that um dead dead

3:53:34 ↗ end piece and there are instances in in

3:53:38 ↗ at least three three other plats within

3:53:39 ↗ Talis that have similar although

3:53:42 ↗ probably not quite that long but similar

3:53:44 ↗ deadend um driveway accesses

3:53:48 ↗ um within Talis that are similar to that

3:53:53 ↗ so I recognize this is uh an you know

3:53:55 ↗ the edge of the property which is one of

3:53:57 ↗ the one of the criteria concerns when

3:53:59 ↗ when you talk about a a stub or a dead

3:54:02 ↗ end I guess um and I also recognize that

3:54:06 ↗ this that East Side Fire and Rescue and

3:54:08 ↗ Emergency Services have approved this

3:54:11 ↗ but I also recognize that um you know I

3:54:14 ↗ we have to ask the question I have to

3:54:15 ↗ ask the

3:54:16 ↗ question you know if it can be changed

3:54:19 ↗ to be more convenient and more uh

3:54:21 ↗ practical for residents you know what

3:54:22 ↗ are the reasons why it wasn't or it

3:54:25 ↗ isn't and if the answer is the you

3:54:27 ↗ wouldn't be able to do it because of the

3:54:29 ↗ Steep roads then that's the answer but I

3:54:32 ↗ believe it was grades because we I think

3:54:34 ↗ we did look at you know it seemed like a

3:54:36 ↗ logical just to make the loop and make

3:54:38 ↗ it easy confirm that I'm I'm heing I

3:54:40 ↗ believe it was do we know the answer to

3:54:42 ↗ that Tom do you

3:54:46 ↗ recall because I mean I can't I'd hate

3:54:49 ↗ to find out that it's you know because

3:54:50 ↗ we can preserve two more Lots or three

3:54:52 ↗ more lots and you know and that's the

3:54:55 ↗ answer so just to make sure that we

3:54:57 ↗ under that we understand or that I

3:55:00 ↗ understand the question is about putting

3:55:03 ↗ the road here instead

3:55:05 ↗ yes or some configuration around there

3:55:08 ↗ so that

3:55:09 ↗ there's a loop instead of a dead end

3:55:11 ↗ okay um so this road is at

3:55:16 ↗ 15% um so it's right at the

3:55:20 ↗ maximum and

3:55:23 ↗ uh so by bringing the road this

3:55:29 ↗ way um there was a reason

3:55:37 ↗ Luc want to get Dan Dan on

3:55:41 ↗ there just ask I

3:55:45 ↗ mean where is where is Dan

3:55:48 ↗ Atlanta no

3:55:51 ↗ Atlanta amount of aor he's

3:55:55 ↗ talking that elevation right there is

3:55:58 ↗ the same all the way up there and it's a

3:55:59 ↗ Shor distance and it's over 15% that's

3:56:06 ↗ why so you want ahead and answer that

3:56:10 ↗ that says unless it's pred by grade you

3:56:13 ↗ connect it right so we can do that

3:56:17 ↗ um in looking at the grading drawings

3:56:20 ↗ and Ryan looking at the grading drawings

3:56:22 ↗ we we basically at the top edge

3:56:25 ↗ here that grade is consistent across

3:56:29 ↗ there bottom wall at the bottom of the

3:56:31 ↗ wall so if it if it went around here and

3:56:34 ↗ you have a shorter distance this grade

3:56:37 ↗ exceeds 15% because you've now got the

3:56:39 ↗ same the same grade that you have to

3:56:41 ↗ take up in a shorter distance and this

3:56:43 ↗ is already at 15% so we did try and look

3:56:46 ↗ at moving it over to shorten that even

3:56:49 ↗ flopping it in that lot but the grading

3:56:51 ↗ the grading drawing does not allow for

3:56:53 ↗ that because of the percentage Dan go

3:56:56 ↗ ahead good morning Dan it was grade

3:57:00 ↗ related all that for four words what did

3:57:03 ↗ he

3:57:05 ↗ say and you do have the same basically

3:57:07 ↗ you're carrying the same GR TR across

3:57:09 ↗ that that distance and trying to cut

3:57:11 ↗ down in a shorter amount of distance so

3:57:14 ↗ um that's precluding

3:57:16 ↗ it I'm sorry this we can't have any more

3:57:19 ↗ public comment at point so you know an

3:57:21 ↗ option is that I can draft a condition

3:57:24 ↗ that we um unless it's precluded by

3:57:27 ↗ grade that we push Drive C to the north

3:57:32 ↗ and connect at a northern point with Rod

3:57:34 ↗ a yes I would like I would like that um

3:57:37 ↗ but I'd like to extend it a little bit

3:57:38 ↗ further and understand first I'll ask

3:57:40 ↗ the question understand why a a culdesac

3:57:44 ↗ could not be put in there 100 feet

3:57:48 ↗ diameter is that a question or is that

3:57:50 ↗ an answer that's an answer um so it

3:57:53 ↗ would have to be relatively level so 100

3:57:56 ↗ foot diameter level

3:58:00 ↗ culdesac um the lots are about a 100

3:58:03 ↗ feet wide so um to do that would you'd

3:58:08 ↗ you'd lose about four

3:58:10 ↗ lots and I guess if We're

3:58:14 ↗ looping if if it is possible to Loop um

3:58:18 ↗ it seems like that's preferable to ABS

3:58:22 ↗ but I'm just trying to look at the

3:58:23 ↗ options if if a loop isn't

3:58:26 ↗ possible I also think it helps to

3:58:29 ↗ understand the reasoning behind not

3:58:31 ↗ doing it

3:58:32 ↗ agreed yeah yeah I mean I'm I'm not

3:58:35 ↗ saying this doesn't fit the letter of

3:58:36 ↗ the agreement I it does but but you know

3:58:39 ↗ I don't I don't know that personally I

3:58:41 ↗ would like it if I live there and I

3:58:42 ↗ think it could be difficult or

3:58:43 ↗ challenging but I'd like just to

3:58:45 ↗ understand what the options are right so

3:58:47 ↗ I I think I'm just

3:58:50 ↗ guessing

3:58:53 ↗ um so first of all I'm not sure you

3:58:55 ↗ could get a flat culde saac but you know

3:58:58 ↗ I think these lots are approximately 100

3:59:00 ↗ feet deep so 95 so I'm close um so you

3:59:06 ↗ know it would be something that went

3:59:09 ↗ from the middle of this lot to the

3:59:10 ↗ middle of this lot and then uh walls all

3:59:15 ↗ the way around

3:59:16 ↗ it and then uh you know so you would

3:59:20 ↗ probably

3:59:21 ↗ lose

3:59:23 ↗ um about

3:59:26 ↗ um you'd lose two to four LS so why does

3:59:29 ↗ it have to be 100 feet because right now

3:59:31 ↗ we have nothing we have go to someone's

3:59:33 ↗ driveway and turn

3:59:35 ↗ around so the standard for a culdesac

3:59:38 ↗ back is 96 ft um especially if you're

3:59:42 ↗ ask and I assume that's a fire

3:59:44 ↗ turnaround called a sack so that's um

3:59:48 ↗ the standard that's in the development

3:59:50 ↗ agreement well but we I'm I'm don't know

3:59:54 ↗ but can we ask I mean we've already said

3:59:56 ↗ that East Side Fire and Rescue is Happy

3:59:58 ↗ backing around the corner and whatnot so

3:59:59 ↗ it doesn't necessarily need to meet

4:00:01 ↗ those condition but some a way that

4:00:03 ↗ someone could do a three-point turn in

4:00:05 ↗ their car or something rather than

4:00:07 ↗ driving in their driveway just would

4:00:10 ↗ would so I I you know I'm not going to

4:00:13 ↗ make up a standard at midnight um so we

4:00:17 ↗ could we could explore that if you want

4:00:20 ↗ the condition to include exploring that

4:00:22 ↗ I just can't I can't commit to something

4:00:24 ↗ I I don't know but we're asking the

4:00:26 ↗ question for the options that's fine I

4:00:28 ↗ totally get that I have one other

4:00:29 ↗ question on the potential option too and

4:00:32 ↗ um and this isn't ideal for for lot

4:00:34 ↗ placement necessarily but uh if you took

4:00:38 ↗ if you took the bottom end of that

4:00:39 ↗ shorter Road and you shifted it uh go up

4:00:44 ↗ to the to the connection right there if

4:00:46 ↗ you took that and you shifted that up to

4:00:48 ↗ the north a little bit yeah and you just

4:00:51 ↗ ran it that way is that the same no

4:00:54 ↗ where the corner is right now on the

4:00:56 ↗ West Side yes is that the same problem

4:00:59 ↗ as if you were to Loop it around I mean

4:01:02 ↗ in in other words pivot the road right

4:01:05 ↗ to make a loop as opposed to trying to

4:01:07 ↗ create a loop all the way around the Ed

4:01:09 ↗ so um my guess is I'm guessing that um

4:01:15 ↗ making it diagonal might help some

4:01:17 ↗ because then it's longer as opposed to

4:01:19 ↗ shorter when you're trying to take up

4:01:21 ↗ more grade but I don't know if it's long

4:01:23 ↗ enough okay because that road was

4:01:24 ↗ already at 15% all right to put a pin in

4:01:27 ↗ it this Fe this meets the the letter of

4:01:29 ↗ the agreement and could and should be

4:01:33 ↗ approved as is from a technical

4:01:35 ↗ standpoint I think I'd like to request

4:01:37 ↗ and tell me if you you agree that we put

4:01:39 ↗ a condition in there that explores

4:01:41 ↗ multiple options to make this either a

4:01:42 ↗ loop road a culdesac or some variation

4:01:46 ↗ of this road to Pivot it uh to make it

4:01:49 ↗ uh less of a deadend scenario would you

4:01:51 ↗ guys agree with

4:01:53 ↗ that yes yes yes

4:01:56 ↗ okay okay I'll work on something thank

4:01:59 ↗ you very much all right Next

4:02:06 ↗ Issue anyone is this questions or is

4:02:09 ↗ this discussion both okay guys what are

4:02:11 ↗ we going to do about this

4:02:15 ↗ wall well uh so one question that I I

4:02:18 ↗ have a concern about is is I've never

4:02:21 ↗ seemed to remember having this level

4:02:23 ↗ discussions about HOA and uh what gets

4:02:27 ↗ covered by the HOA and there's also been

4:02:30 ↗ some uh various information from both

4:02:34 ↗ the developer and the HOA who you know

4:02:37 ↗ as far as vot votes and and I sort of I

4:02:40 ↗ get a sense that that is that really

4:02:42 ↗ part of our purview it's not we can't

4:02:44 ↗ discuss that at all okay so I just want

4:02:45 ↗ to have some clarity on that for the

4:02:48 ↗ public that though like I absolutely

4:02:51 ↗ share the concerns but if it falls

4:02:53 ↗ outside of our purview then it does but

4:02:56 ↗ the discussion of the wall doesn't fall

4:02:58 ↗ out of our purview so I appreciate that

4:03:00 ↗ Eric um I'll just give you my opinion I

4:03:02 ↗ suppose um I've never done that before

4:03:05 ↗ but I'll do it now is

4:03:09 ↗ honest I mean I'm always concerned about

4:03:12 ↗ uh stability and maintenance and that

4:03:14 ↗ sort of thing

4:03:16 ↗ um but that's what engineering is for

4:03:19 ↗ that's what studies are for I'm not an

4:03:21 ↗ expert in these areas um I'm pretty

4:03:23 ↗ certain that if I questioned every study

4:03:26 ↗ and everything in my neighborhood I'd

4:03:28 ↗ probably freak out too um because I just

4:03:33 ↗ don't I just don't know and we talk

4:03:34 ↗ about somebody talked about modeling

4:03:36 ↗ versus real life and I've had these

4:03:38 ↗ discussions before where I say hey on

4:03:39 ↗ paper it looks great you know that the

4:03:41 ↗ roads are this wide or that we have this

4:03:43 ↗ much parking but in real life the

4:03:45 ↗ reality is different and we learn that

4:03:47 ↗ unfortunately sometimes too late and

4:03:49 ↗ when it comes to safety of wall and you

4:03:52 ↗ know drainage and that sort of thing

4:03:54 ↗ it's that's not acceptable that said I

4:03:57 ↗ think we live in a world where you know

4:04:00 ↗ engineering and liability and all these

4:04:01 ↗ other things are not taken lightly and I

4:04:05 ↗ can't technically question this stuff in

4:04:09 ↗ a way that takes me beyond the purview

4:04:11 ↗ that we have so from a visibility

4:04:14 ↗ standpoint I don't have an issue with it

4:04:16 ↗ I think that the 300 ft between the

4:04:19 ↗ between the road or the the homes and

4:04:21 ↗ the slope and the and the wall are not

4:04:23 ↗ an issue I think by addressing the 10-

4:04:27 ↗ foot um difference is great changing the

4:04:30 ↗ we can't talk about what kind of of

4:04:31 ↗ homes are being built whether they're

4:04:32 ↗ daylight basements or otherwise that's

4:04:34 ↗ not again within our purview but the

4:04:36 ↗ fact that they're willing to make those

4:04:37 ↗ kinds of changes

4:04:38 ↗ um to to fit this I think is great I

4:04:41 ↗ don't think with visibility is an issue

4:04:42 ↗ I think there are a lot of other areas

4:04:44 ↗ where this would be it's happening now

4:04:46 ↗ and people don't really even realize

4:04:48 ↗ that it's there and if they do in fact

4:04:50 ↗ follow the conditions that are put forth

4:04:51 ↗ with screening and so forth I think it's

4:04:54 ↗ acceptable now from a again a

4:04:56 ↗ maintenance and stability question I I

4:04:59 ↗ can't get into that level of detail in

4:05:02 ↗ the role that we that we

4:05:05 ↗ play that's my opinion

4:05:11 ↗ yeah I just I I share that some of the

4:05:13 ↗ concerns about getting into the

4:05:15 ↗ technical issues on the wall I'm

4:05:18 ↗ hearkening back to my first year in

4:05:20 ↗ engineering school where they said they

4:05:22 ↗ showed us examples where it was

4:05:24 ↗ mathematically impossible to break the

4:05:25 ↗ speed of sound and then they finally

4:05:27 ↗ figured out how to do it then they could

4:05:28 ↗ do it so even our best Engineers we run

4:05:31 ↗ into issues I think we had Professional

4:05:32 ↗ Engineers who certified the Fred Meer

4:05:34 ↗ wall and then it's got issues so I I

4:05:37 ↗ just have this nagging concern over that

4:05:40 ↗ wall um in general and then putting the

4:05:42 ↗ burden again the HOA and TR is out of

4:05:45 ↗ our our purview but that it is part of a

4:05:47 ↗ larger equation to do the right thing by

4:05:50 ↗ the development agreement and everything

4:05:52 ↗ that the vision of an Urban Village and

4:05:55 ↗ the entire community and not becoming

4:05:57 ↗ those segregated pieces um the other

4:06:00 ↗ pieces and and we can come back to the

4:06:01 ↗ wall on a second I had a question on

4:06:06 ↗ um I think it was Dr Miz macowski I'm

4:06:10 ↗ mispronouncing the name because I

4:06:11 ↗ haven't seen it written the critical

4:06:13 ↗ area study that she was referring to

4:06:16 ↗ Lucy can you shed some light on what

4:06:18 ↗ that was for me

4:06:19 ↗ please so um because of the grades in

4:06:24 ↗ this area to um modify the steep

4:06:29 ↗ slope uh or just the grades in the area

4:06:34 ↗ some of which are sleep uh sleep

4:06:38 ↗ thank you Dr Freud yes hello um steep um

4:06:44 ↗ required a Geo technical

4:06:48 ↗ evaluation um and then that was

4:06:51 ↗ peer-reviewed um that study was issued

4:06:55 ↗ at the end of March and then there were

4:07:00 ↗ um and then the staff report was

4:07:04 ↗ issued a week later I think I don't have

4:07:07 ↗ exact ly all the dates in my head um I I

4:07:11 ↗ think Miss marowski is is

4:07:13 ↗ identifying a concern that um from her

4:07:18 ↗ perspective um her comments related

4:07:22 ↗ to

4:07:24 ↗ flooding

4:07:25 ↗ and the blowout as Mr Shephard refers to

4:07:30 ↗ it um should have triggered for us

4:07:35 ↗ identifying that study to her

4:07:39 ↗ um separately from reading the staff

4:07:42 ↗ report I don't I don't think that we

4:07:45 ↗ made that connection there was no intent

4:07:47 ↗ to withhold information I just don't

4:07:50 ↗ think that we um made that connection I

4:07:54 ↗ think the second piece is that within

4:07:57 ↗ the purview of the UVC in which we're

4:08:02 ↗ reviewing this plat um that is a

4:08:06 ↗ technical study

4:08:08 ↗ um which it and and you your group and

4:08:12 ↗ therefore all of us are doing a planning

4:08:15 ↗ level review it's very specific in the

4:08:17 ↗ development agreement that it's a

4:08:19 ↗ planning level review and that would be

4:08:22 ↗ outside the we we wouldn't ask or really

4:08:26 ↗ want um the Commissioners to be giving

4:08:30 ↗ us technical perspectives not trying to

4:08:33 ↗ yeah

4:08:35 ↗ absolutely hang on hang on Jim second

4:08:37 ↗ are you finished Carl yeah I go ahead

4:08:39 ↗ okay thank you sorry about that um you

4:08:44 ↗ know we're sitting here saying that the

4:08:46 ↗ the discussions regarding the uh the

4:08:49 ↗ homeowners association are not within

4:08:51 ↗ the

4:08:51 ↗ purview um but in a way I I I still

4:08:55 ↗ believe they are uh they're gerine to

4:08:56 ↗ the whole thing because uh part of part

4:09:00 ↗ of what we're discussing is character

4:09:02 ↗ and how it relates to the development

4:09:04 ↗ agreement and how it you know follows

4:09:07 ↗ through and adheres to certain uh

4:09:10 ↗ elements within the development

4:09:12 ↗ agreement and my biggest fear is that we

4:09:16 ↗ have uh a

4:09:18 ↗ wall um and it has to be supported by

4:09:22 ↗ 150 some odd homes and God forbid

4:09:26 ↗ something

4:09:27 ↗ happens uh and there's not enough money

4:09:30 ↗ to cover things and all of a sudden I I

4:09:32 ↗ think you know we have an eyesore and

4:09:34 ↗ that's not within the character of an

4:09:37 ↗ Urban Village either you know a

4:09:39 ↗ Mountainside Urban Village uh so I think

4:09:43 ↗ it is Germain and I I just wish there

4:09:45 ↗ was a way that uh we could you know come

4:09:49 ↗ to some sort of agreement between uh the

4:09:51 ↗ developer and the

4:09:53 ↗ TR uh you know the way I look at it if

4:09:56 ↗ you look at the the number of square

4:09:58 ↗ feet that each home uh is taking on for

4:10:01 ↗ wall throughout the entire development

4:10:04 ↗ uh you look at it now with the roughly

4:10:06 ↗ 1500 home homes looking at 270,000 FT

4:10:10 ↗ it's it's less than 200 square ft per

4:10:12 ↗ home uh if you look at the um the amount

4:10:16 ↗ of square footage in in wall for the new

4:10:19 ↗ homes 60,000 Square fet it's roughly

4:10:22 ↗ twice that so it's it's less than 400 it

4:10:26 ↗ just seems like there's still a way that

4:10:28 ↗ the two groups can come together and to

4:10:31 ↗ make sure that

4:10:34 ↗ um this this these walls aren't somehow

4:10:37 ↗ or

4:10:38 ↗ orphaned um and um I guess yeah I mean I

4:10:42 ↗ I hear what you're saying I

4:10:45 ↗ just I think we're speculating and and

4:10:48 ↗ stretching I mean lots of things could

4:10:50 ↗ happen with lots of

4:10:51 ↗ things I don't I don't want to be you

4:10:54 ↗ know flippant or think that things can't

4:10:57 ↗ happen but I think we could go down many

4:10:59 ↗ paths about what we think is going to

4:11:00 ↗ happen to a slope or how we think the

4:11:02 ↗ houses are going to be designed or how

4:11:03 ↗ the views are going to be or you know

4:11:06 ↗ the maintenance of um plantings and you

4:11:09 ↗ know the HOA raising their rates by 200%

4:11:12 ↗ or 250% or whatever we can't get into

4:11:15 ↗ that we you know everybody lives some

4:11:17 ↗ people live in neighborhoods that have

4:11:19 ↗ HOAs that you have some control over no

4:11:21 ↗ control over you can get involved and

4:11:23 ↗ you know like Mr Bailey has and others

4:11:25 ↗ Mr Bailey right um and I I just don't

4:11:28 ↗ know that we can go down that path as

4:11:31 ↗ much as we'd like to support or help or

4:11:33 ↗ answer or whatever it's all a big guess

4:11:36 ↗ for us and I think it'd be fairly

4:11:39 ↗ irresponsible for us to make a quasi

4:11:41 ↗ judicial decision based on that kind of

4:11:44 ↗ speculation I'm saying this is the

4:11:45 ↗ chairman of the commission as opposed to

4:11:47 ↗ my personal opinion but that that's what

4:11:49 ↗ I that's how I view it I I respect what

4:11:52 ↗ you're saying but I just don't know that

4:11:53 ↗ we can go down that path because we're

4:11:55 ↗ just guessing you know it's it's like

4:11:59 ↗ saying at the movie theater at ESO

4:12:00 ↗ Highlands we think they're going to be

4:12:01 ↗ 200 people in line instead of 45 people

4:12:03 ↗ in line therefore they need to make the

4:12:04 ↗ queue bigger we we can't decide that

4:12:07 ↗ I know it's different but I'm just

4:12:09 ↗ saying it's it's it's equally a stretch

4:12:12 ↗ so I think one one thing um I I

4:12:15 ↗ understand I think the HOA and residents

4:12:18 ↗ have done a really good job

4:12:19 ↗ communicating how strongly they feel

4:12:22 ↗ about taking all of these walls um I I I

4:12:26 ↗ would like to point out that as true as

4:12:29 ↗ that is um there has not been an

4:12:33 ↗ probably been an opportunity for the

4:12:35 ↗ applicant and the HOA to to actually sit

4:12:38 ↗ down and talk about their concerns the

4:12:41 ↗ actual costs

4:12:43 ↗ um you know there are estimates that the

4:12:47 ↗ um applicant has made um but you know

4:12:51 ↗ it's a it's a big job to try and

4:12:53 ↗ estimate all the walls versus and who

4:12:56 ↗ owns them and which ones are in the

4:12:58 ↗ total HOA and which ones are in sub HOAs

4:13:01 ↗ we've had a lot of discussion around

4:13:03 ↗ that so I'm not saying that the hoa's

4:13:06 ↗ mind will be changed it may not be and

4:13:09 ↗ and that is their right um

4:13:11 ↗ but I'm not sure that that issue has

4:13:14 ↗ been fully explored um which is kind of

4:13:16 ↗ the point Jeff's making I I also just

4:13:19 ↗ did for my own curiosity which is

4:13:22 ↗ probably dangerous um at this hour but I

4:13:25 ↗ I just said if there were 15 homes that

4:13:30 ↗ were allotted this as a as a sub HOA and

4:13:34 ↗ it was

4:13:35 ↗ $600,000 to

4:13:37 ↗ um replace or significantly repair that

4:13:41 ↗ wall and you had 114 years that's like

4:13:44 ↗ $350 a year now that's a lot of

4:13:49 ↗ money um on the other hand if that is

4:13:53 ↗ that would have to be set up by final

4:13:56 ↗ plat um whether you're in whether that

4:13:58 ↗ wall is going to the full HOA or to a

4:14:01 ↗ sub HOA which means that at the time um

4:14:05 ↗ that someone's buying a home they would

4:14:08 ↗ have the opportunity to consider that as

4:14:10 ↗ part of

4:14:12 ↗ their of the pieces they consider and it

4:14:15 ↗ may be that for that view and that

4:14:18 ↗ location

4:14:20 ↗ it's that investment is worth

4:14:24 ↗ it yes Eric um so so I understand it's

4:14:28 ↗ not our purview and I I do share some of

4:14:31 ↗ Jim's concerns uh I think it's clear uh

4:14:35 ↗ that the HOA and a lot of the res

4:14:37 ↗ residents this is just a major issue uh

4:14:40 ↗ we've seen cases in the past with other

4:14:42 ↗ developments where the developer uh and

4:14:45 ↗ residents uh did talk and come to a

4:14:48 ↗ resolution to the satisfaction of of

4:14:51 ↗ both parties and so I I guess what I'd

4:14:54 ↗ like to see is is an encouragement that

4:14:58 ↗ perhaps something like that can take

4:15:01 ↗ place it's not within our purview but I

4:15:03 ↗ like to uh State you know for record to

4:15:06 ↗ encourage a discussion with the HOA and

4:15:09 ↗ a developer to see if they can't come to

4:15:12 ↗ some sort of understanding and

4:15:15 ↗ resolution uh and that's what I'd like

4:15:17 ↗ to just pass

4:15:18 ↗ on thank you thank you Carl did you have

4:15:21 ↗ something

4:15:22 ↗ else yeah I want to know what our

4:15:24 ↗ options are to move this towards

4:15:27 ↗ conclusion because I think the energy is

4:15:29 ↗ about dying I I do want to I do want to

4:15:32 ↗ touch on a few couple other things real

4:15:34 ↗ quickly though just be I took a lot of

4:15:35 ↗ notes during the public comment and so

4:15:38 ↗ the answer is no Carl yeah right sorry

4:15:42 ↗ sorry it's late for me

4:15:44 ↗ too um somebody mentioned views and you

4:15:48 ↗ know the fact is that like probably

4:15:50 ↗ every other community views change over

4:15:53 ↗ time again I think it's it's really up

4:15:57 ↗ to the developer the the builders to

4:16:00 ↗ disclose or to share what those views

4:16:02 ↗ are going to be like so if we know trees

4:16:04 ↗ are going to be there and they're not

4:16:05 ↗ going to have a view they need to

4:16:07 ↗ understand that when they're buying the

4:16:07 ↗ home if the trees are are not fully

4:16:10 ↗ grown and and they're going to grow over

4:16:12 ↗ the year over the years people need to

4:16:14 ↗ understand that I've lived in my house

4:16:17 ↗ for 14 years now and the backyard has

4:16:19 ↗ changed quite a bit because things grow

4:16:21 ↗ including my children um so I you know I

4:16:25 ↗ don't think views again they're not part

4:16:27 ↗ of our purview but that's sort of a

4:16:29 ↗ either a buyer beware buyer understand

4:16:31 ↗ kind of situation somebody mentioned

4:16:33 ↗ open can I can I add something to that

4:16:35 ↗ so I think that the trees that would be

4:16:37 ↗ planted at the base of the wall the goal

4:16:40 ↗ would be to select trees that were

4:16:42 ↗ scaled for the wall not to goes above

4:16:46 ↗ that but I think the bigger issue that a

4:16:49 ↗ lot of these residents have experienced

4:16:51 ↗ directly is um Divergent opinions if if

4:16:56 ↗ I can call it that you know of what is

4:17:01 ↗ valued and you know trees versus view um

4:17:08 ↗ and versus privacy and um I I in in

4:17:14 ↗ stopping um in getting the HOA to stop

4:17:18 ↗ or suspend the tree removal I think that

4:17:20 ↗ there's a great opportunity to try and

4:17:24 ↗ revisit this issue for a more holistic

4:17:27 ↗ Land Management plan or Landscape

4:17:30 ↗ Management plan um

4:17:33 ↗ that may recognize the sensitivities

4:17:36 ↗ that that they that there are for all

4:17:39 ↗ the people with inal yeah I agree and

4:17:41 ↗ that that's a good point and I did hear

4:17:43 ↗ what I think was contradictory comments

4:17:46 ↗ about you know that the views are going

4:17:48 ↗ to be blocked but then I also heard you

4:17:50 ↗ know but we want the wall covered so I

4:17:53 ↗ think we we just have to understand

4:17:54 ↗ there's got to be a balance there and

4:17:56 ↗ whatever that ends up being it ends up

4:17:58 ↗ being but um then somebody mentioned the

4:18:00 ↗ open space and that 73% was an opinion I

4:18:03 ↗ don't think that was an opinion I think

4:18:04 ↗ that was a reality right they that of

4:18:07 ↗ the Talis

4:18:09 ↗ developments sorry protected protected

4:18:11 ↗ and open space so the 388 which is 60

4:18:15 ↗ some odd percent I can't remember right

4:18:16 ↗ now that has been protected from the

4:18:19 ↗ very beginning 62% is what I saw okay

4:18:22 ↗ 62% the um 71 acres in the north was an

4:18:28 ↗ estimate at the beginning because all of

4:18:31 ↗ the developable Acres could be developed

4:18:34 ↗ but there as I was trying to show in the

4:18:37 ↗ um slide that had the aerial photo and

4:18:39 ↗ the original plan there are areas that

4:18:41 ↗ have been set aside as open space that

4:18:43 ↗ weren't required to and we didn't have

4:18:46 ↗ the time and haven't done that

4:18:48 ↗ calculation because they were allowed to

4:18:51 ↗ develop the developable areas so that's

4:18:53 ↗ why we say it's approximately 73% so

4:18:56 ↗ it's safe to say between 62% and 73% of

4:18:59 ↗ the entire Talis land for whatever

4:19:02 ↗ reason I know Mr coning Mark talked

4:19:04 ↗ about this a little bit for whatever

4:19:06 ↗ reason was set aside to be protected or

4:19:08 ↗ or not developed um and was open space

4:19:11 ↗ so I just think it's still that's very

4:19:13 ↗ important because for those of you that

4:19:15 ↗ weren't involved early on you know there

4:19:17 ↗ was a trade-off and which leads me to

4:19:20 ↗ the next part and that is the number of

4:19:21 ↗ homes and

4:19:22 ↗ traffic um they're all they all fit

4:19:25 ↗ everything that we see here all fits in

4:19:28 ↗ uh within the um allowable limits and in

4:19:32 ↗ fact the homes the number of homes we're

4:19:33 ↗ talking about putting on here is

4:19:35 ↗ significantly less than what they could

4:19:36 ↗ be putting on here and so I just think

4:19:38 ↗ we need I just need to share that with

4:19:40 ↗ everybody because whether I like it or

4:19:41 ↗ not it's it's a fact and there's no

4:19:44 ↗ basis for us to to dispute that um from

4:19:47 ↗ a legal standpoint or otherwise right um

4:19:50 ↗ so I just want to make that very clear

4:19:52 ↗ as

4:19:53 ↗ well okay all right I yes that's it for

4:19:57 ↗ me yes

4:20:00 ↗ an is this on okay

4:20:04 ↗ um my concern um was regarding some of

4:20:08 ↗ the comments about flooding in existing

4:20:13 ↗ neighborhoods why that might be

4:20:16 ↗ happening uh what's the impact in

4:20:20 ↗ whether or not

4:20:21 ↗ anything like that can occur in parcel 7

4:20:25 ↗ and what mitigation has been thought

4:20:28 ↗ about for

4:20:30 ↗ that I'm going to see if we

4:20:33 ↗ can wake up Dan there Dan just see know

4:20:37 ↗ Dan's in Atlanta right now us on

4:20:39 ↗ streaming he's about 15 seconds behind

4:20:41 ↗ so he'll be talking a few seconds it

4:20:43 ↗ fits right in with Carl

4:20:47 ↗ then

4:21:00 ↗ Dan Dan are you

4:21:03 ↗ there here okay can you do you have

4:21:07 ↗ something that you could add to this

4:21:10 ↗ conversation well it's kind of difficult

4:21:12 ↗ over the phone but um basically the um

4:21:17 ↗ flooding can occur anywhere um it

4:21:20 ↗ happens throughout the city it's not a

4:21:22 ↗ good answer um on this particular

4:21:26 ↗ context but this is really not a wall or

4:21:29 ↗ a critical area issue it's a utility

4:21:31 ↗ permit issue um and we'll be looking at

4:21:35 ↗ that with the knowledge that we have of

4:21:37 ↗ the site um and the history there for

4:21:40 ↗ those kinds of issues um some of it is

4:21:43 ↗ related to the drainage systems that are

4:21:45 ↗ installed some of it are related to

4:21:47 ↗ development some of it are related to

4:21:49 ↗ just natural processes you know it's um

4:21:52 ↗ unlikely that every situation can be

4:21:55 ↗ prevented in the future as there are

4:21:57 ↗ other parts of the city that also have

4:21:58 ↗ flooding issues um in torrential RS but

4:22:03 ↗ uh it's not something that the

4:22:04 ↗ engineering staff is unaware of or treat

4:22:07 ↗ casually and with every project that we

4:22:10 ↗ do we learn and apply that knowledge to

4:22:12 ↗ the next

4:22:16 ↗ project

4:22:21 ↗ thanks thank you

4:22:23 ↗ Dan did that get your question answered

4:22:25 ↗ an okay anybody else have anything to

4:22:31 ↗ discuss Shantel so one of my concern

4:22:35 ↗ throughout this was

4:22:37 ↗ on the the the roads and the 15% grade

4:22:40 ↗ and the comments I mean we live in a

4:22:43 ↗ place where it does freeze quite quite a

4:22:46 ↗ few times over the winter um but it does

4:22:49 ↗ seem like it's definitely not unique to

4:22:52 ↗ that area that there's quite a few other

4:22:54 ↗ places in TS including the the main TS

4:22:58 ↗ drive like do do we have 15% grade on

4:23:01 ↗ tus drive or 12 12 to 15 I think it was

4:23:05 ↗ 12 based on what ran was sh so this does

4:23:08 ↗ make it a few more places but it's not a

4:23:11 ↗ unique issue so I guess it's one of

4:23:14 ↗ those that I worked through for myself

4:23:18 ↗ that um concerned me a lot concerns me

4:23:22 ↗ in terms of knowing what the impact of

4:23:25 ↗ uh living on a hill is from my own P

4:23:28 ↗ perspective and uh adding to it but it

4:23:32 ↗ is something that is not unique to that

4:23:36 ↗ area area and is uh

4:23:39 ↗ um people would be coming in with their

4:23:43 ↗ eyes wide open so yeah I think that's

4:23:45 ↗ right I mean My Eyes Wide Open yeah

4:23:47 ↗ people make a decision on where to live

4:23:49 ↗ based on many many reasons and hopefully

4:23:51 ↗ they're they're not blindsided by the

4:23:52 ↗ fact that if they live on a hill and in

4:23:54 ↗ somewhere where it snows that they could

4:23:56 ↗ be stranded or or whatever um hopefully

4:23:59 ↗ that's not the case and hopefully things

4:24:01 ↗ get deced and people don't abandon their

4:24:02 ↗ cars but the reality is they do and so

4:24:05 ↗ we just have to be conscious of that

4:24:07 ↗ cognizant of that I guess

4:24:11 ↗ um what's that yeah we do don't we I

4:24:14 ↗ also think that that's it's outside of

4:24:17 ↗ our purview to say no you need to have

4:24:19 ↗ it is I mean that be 8% there are many I

4:24:21 ↗ mean if it fits within the development

4:24:23 ↗ agreement it fits within the development

4:24:24 ↗ agreement we can't we can't argue that

4:24:26 ↗ we can we can ask for things like you

4:24:28 ↗ know options around on the turnaround

4:24:30 ↗ and so forth but if it it just because

4:24:32 ↗ we want to turnaround there if it's if

4:24:34 ↗ it takes us out of the grade we

4:24:36 ↗ you know we can't make that happen right

4:24:40 ↗ um all right what else I want to make

4:24:43 ↗ sure everybody has their concerns

4:24:47 ↗ heard now I need to address Carl's

4:24:50 ↗ question of what's next yeah option so

4:24:54 ↗ do you uh do you have that condition for

4:24:56 ↗ us can we hear that real quick or

4:25:02 ↗ here okay uh a proposed new condition

4:25:06 ↗ 32 um do you want me to put it up on the

4:25:10 ↗ that would be great thank you can do

4:25:13 ↗ that I'll read it out loud too just

4:25:15 ↗ because and as Lucy is bringing that up

4:25:18 ↗ for display our options are to vote Yes

4:25:22 ↗ No Okay so our options as I understand

4:25:25 ↗ them are to

4:25:27 ↗ approve uh the application permit

4:25:31 ↗ application um as discussed and amended

4:25:35 ↗ tonight um to

4:25:38 ↗ deny to to recommend denial of the

4:25:42 ↗ application um and I'm assuming there's

4:25:44 ↗ always the option to table this to

4:25:46 ↗ further discussion um but I'm not sure

4:25:49 ↗ what that what the impact of that is or

4:25:51 ↗ if there's if there's basis say the say

4:25:53 ↗ the options again approve uh recommend

4:25:55 ↗ approval recommend denial or I'm

4:25:59 ↗ assuming there's always the option that

4:26:00 ↗ we don't vote and table it for another

4:26:04 ↗ uh discussion but I don't know what the

4:26:05 ↗ basis of that would be so you could

4:26:08 ↗ continue it um the U the other option is

4:26:12 ↗ to send it forward without a

4:26:14 ↗ recommendation without a recommendation

4:26:15 ↗ okay all right so let's go just talk

4:26:18 ↗ about this real quick uh the proposed

4:26:19 ↗ new condition number 32 explore

4:26:21 ↗ redesigning the northern Terminus of

4:26:22 ↗ Road a to eliminate or reduce the

4:26:25 ↗ deadend portion options could include

4:26:27 ↗ moving Drive C to the North or adding a

4:26:29 ↗ c

4:26:30 ↗ toac Jeff got the pretty written one

4:26:34 ↗ that's great writing um does that

4:26:36 ↗ represent what we talked about I mean I

4:26:38 ↗ I'm assuming that the record shows that

4:26:41 ↗ you know moving luy Drive C could be can

4:26:44 ↗ I suggest maybe a non-fire turnaround

4:26:47 ↗ for the culdesac so it doesn't have to

4:26:49 ↗ be the 96 feet because I think okay I

4:26:51 ↗ think the point is they've already got a

4:26:53 ↗ three-point turnaround so it could be a

4:26:55 ↗ mini culdesac because it doesn't have to

4:26:57 ↗ meet fire service yeah I mean if they've

4:26:58 ↗ already approved the current setup then

4:27:02 ↗ putting a non-conforming culdesac in

4:27:05 ↗ there shouldn't change the fire issue

4:27:07 ↗ yeah you can just call it a c yeah

4:27:10 ↗ Co

4:27:12 ↗ cult um oh but I guess my question is

4:27:15 ↗ question sorry but moving Drive C to the

4:27:18 ↗ north I guess that does everybody

4:27:20 ↗ understand that that means either

4:27:22 ↗ literally moving it to the North or

4:27:23 ↗ pivoting it up whatever the option is I

4:27:26 ↗ don't know that we have to get so

4:27:27 ↗ prescriptive in this condition or maybe

4:27:29 ↗ we do the great thing is we have a lot

4:27:31 ↗ of videotape of tonight that's awesome

4:27:33 ↗ I'll send it to my

4:27:34 ↗ grandparents

4:27:36 ↗ um kidding no I I think we understand

4:27:39 ↗ the options and you know I didn't we're

4:27:42 ↗ not saying it has to be an

4:27:43 ↗ orthogonal connection so I big word for

4:27:46 ↗ this time night

4:27:49 ↗ warning um okay so that would be is

4:27:52 ↗ anybody have any questions on the recond

4:27:54 ↗ on the on the proposed condition 32 as

4:27:58 ↗ ju just um I mean one of the options

4:28:00 ↗ also is to somehow and and I'm I'm not

4:28:05 ↗ an engineer

4:28:06 ↗ um although I pretend to be one

4:28:08 ↗ sometimes um to eliminate the N2 to make

4:28:10 ↗ it a

4:28:12 ↗ loop if by remove by moving Drive C to

4:28:17 ↗ the north you could potentially

4:28:19 ↗ eliminate most or all of rad a and I

4:28:23 ↗ just we just don't know if that's

4:28:24 ↗ possible from a grade

4:28:26 ↗ perspective

4:28:28 ↗ right okay so I just want to ask if the

4:28:30 ↗ applicant understands what we're talking

4:28:32 ↗ about here I think so yes okay I just

4:28:34 ↗ want to be clear just I I don't want any

4:28:37 ↗ you know any ambiguity around that Scott

4:28:40 ↗ you had something else yeah just a point

4:28:43 ↗ of clarification in regards to the four

4:28:44 ↗ options that were identified so approve

4:28:46 ↗ deny table and my question being move

4:28:49 ↗ forward without recommendation what does

4:28:51 ↗ that mean and what does that translate

4:28:53 ↗ to so that means that you send it

4:28:55 ↗ forward to council without recommending

4:28:59 ↗ making a recommendation to approval to

4:29:01 ↗ approve or

4:29:02 ↗ deny you just send it forward with the I

4:29:05 ↗ conditions that you've got right now and

4:29:08 ↗ by the way it's not it's not approv or

4:29:09 ↗ tonight it's recommending approval

4:29:11 ↗ recommending that the city council

4:29:12 ↗ approves recommending that they deny

4:29:15 ↗ continuing this or sending it forth to

4:29:17 ↗ the city council to deliberate on it and

4:29:19 ↗ make their own decision with our with

4:29:23 ↗ this record in place I guess right and

4:29:25 ↗ they would they would have to review our

4:29:26 ↗ record meeting minutes and probably

4:29:29 ↗ watch this they get everything as it is

4:29:31 ↗ now um and so they and we meet with them

4:29:36 ↗ I mean we sit down with um land and

4:29:39 ↗ Shore and go through and you know what

4:29:42 ↗ were the concerns you know they're going

4:29:43 ↗ to want to know how what the history was

4:29:46 ↗ and why you made uh the recommendation

4:29:50 ↗ sorry or not that you did

4:29:53 ↗ yeah okay so before we before I ask for

4:29:57 ↗ a motion I'm going to ask for any

4:29:59 ↗ additional commentary or questions from

4:30:02 ↗ the

4:30:04 ↗ commission

4:30:07 ↗ okay so at this time I'm going to ask if

4:30:08 ↗ there's anybody willing to read the

4:30:11 ↗ motion um and then we'll do a vote

4:30:15 ↗ um if let's put it this way we'll we'll

4:30:18 ↗ read read the motion see if it gets

4:30:20 ↗ seconded if it did we'll do a vote and

4:30:22 ↗ if if I don't if we're not satisfied

4:30:24 ↗ with it then we can talk about moving

4:30:26 ↗ forward without a recommendation as a

4:30:28 ↗ reminder the I appreciate the

4:30:31 ↗ participation of the U alternates uh but

4:30:34 ↗ you will not be voting on this at this

4:30:36 ↗ point is there anybody that would like

4:30:38 ↗ to read the

4:30:41 ↗ motion no okay well that's that's a good

4:30:46 ↗ start so let me ask this question

4:30:49 ↗ is can I can I pull I can pull them

4:30:53 ↗ correct um sure okay I guess I I'm gonna

4:30:57 ↗ I'm going to go ahead and pull based on

4:30:59 ↗ the the four options that we have

4:31:01 ↗ recommend approval recommend

4:31:03 ↗ denial uh uh move it forward without a

4:31:06 ↗ recommendation or continue I'm gonna

4:31:08 ↗ pull each one of you and ask you to give

4:31:10 ↗ me your answer so we can decide how to

4:31:12 ↗ move forward

4:31:14 ↗ Eric

4:31:16 ↗ nope no questions just

4:31:20 ↗ answers person there's still

4:31:25 ↗ uh I understand we're looking at the

4:31:27 ↗ development agreement and and that this

4:31:31 ↗ Falls within most of that but I still

4:31:35 ↗ think there there's been so much back

4:31:36 ↗ and forth that at this hour I I just

4:31:39 ↗ don't have the clarity that I want to

4:31:41 ↗ make a decision what's your answer so

4:31:43 ↗ what are the choices again re if we were

4:31:47 ↗ to vote I'm going to PLL would you

4:31:49 ↗ recommend approval recommend denial

4:31:50 ↗ continue or push forward without a

4:31:53 ↗ recommendation at all to the right now I

4:31:56 ↗ I would push forward without a

4:31:57 ↗ recommendation so you'd send it to the

4:31:58 ↗ city council without a recommendation

4:32:00 ↗ Jim I do not see um that the uh

4:32:05 ↗ developer has not done everything um

4:32:09 ↗ asked according to the development

4:32:10 ↗ agreement so I would recommend approval

4:32:12 ↗ okay that was a couple double triple

4:32:15 ↗ negatives so you're you're saying that

4:32:17 ↗ you think that they fit within the the

4:32:19 ↗ the uh letter of the agreement okay

4:32:21 ↗ thank you

4:32:23 ↗ H that's an interesting way of putting

4:32:25 ↗ it given that it has not been motion is

4:32:29 ↗ not being made it's not being Su that's

4:32:31 ↗ why I'm polling right now you're not

4:32:32 ↗ actually voting that is basically Bing

4:32:36 ↗ but um no you can always change your

4:32:39 ↗ opinion I'm just trying to get an

4:32:41 ↗ understanding of where we

4:32:44 ↗ are late

4:32:47 ↗ um you know I tend to agree with with

4:32:51 ↗ him that you know I the the conditions

4:32:55 ↗ of the development agreement are

4:32:58 ↗ somewhat being met that things have been

4:33:02 ↗ moving in the right direction in terms

4:33:04 ↗ of

4:33:06 ↗ understanding the

4:33:07 ↗ concerns I still have concerns about the

4:33:10 ↗ wall the liability issues the the safety

4:33:14 ↗ of

4:33:14 ↗ it

4:33:16 ↗ but I yeah it's one wall among many

4:33:20 ↗ others in a community that's built on a

4:33:23 ↗ hillside so H I probably would say

4:33:27 ↗ approve MH okay

4:33:34 ↗ Michael I think I'm trending towards uh

4:33:36 ↗ not approving this right now okay

4:33:42 ↗ Scott

4:33:43 ↗ so in light of all the information all

4:33:45 ↗ the commentary um I still have some

4:33:48 ↗ reservations in regards to the slope and

4:33:50 ↗ of course the wall I think that's my my

4:33:53 ↗ big hang up yeah for me personally um so

4:33:58 ↗ at this time I think I would look for

4:33:59 ↗ some additional guidance and look to

4:34:01 ↗ move forward without recommendation so

4:34:03 ↗ push it forward to city council okay

4:34:08 ↗ Mr Lee I'm trying to work the microphone

4:34:11 ↗ um I think I I share the opinion that I

4:34:15 ↗ don't have a good

4:34:16 ↗ reason not to approve I'm going to do

4:34:19 ↗ one of these double negatives because I

4:34:21 ↗ think it meets all the pieces of the

4:34:22 ↗ development agreement but I don't know

4:34:24 ↗ that the applicant and the citizens have

4:34:28 ↗ had enough discussion on obviously

4:34:33 ↗ that pain point that issue specifically

4:34:37 ↗ the wall um so I'm going to recommend

4:34:39 ↗ move it forward to the council so that

4:34:41 ↗ they can have that time for discussion I

4:34:43 ↗ don't think keeping it here and

4:34:44 ↗ continuing our discussion will change it

4:34:46 ↗ okay thank you um so I I guess I'm going

4:34:50 ↗ to ask one more time if someone will

4:34:51 ↗ read the motion and I tell me if I'm

4:34:54 ↗ going out of bounds here but I'm going

4:34:57 ↗ to have somebody read the motion if

4:34:58 ↗ somebody's willing to Second it then I'd

4:34:59 ↗ like to call for a vote um approve

4:35:04 ↗ recommend approval recommend denial and

4:35:07 ↗ if there are more

4:35:09 ↗ abstentions than uh than the Quorum

4:35:12 ↗ allows then I I would look at that as um

4:35:15 ↗ a vote for moving forward with without a

4:35:18 ↗ recommendation is that fair sure sure

4:35:21 ↗ quick question I could have said

4:35:23 ↗ anything quick question Lucy um now if

4:35:26 ↗ we were to recommend or not recommend

4:35:29 ↗ does it go forward with all of our votes

4:35:33 ↗ so the council would see that there were

4:35:36 ↗ two three people

4:35:38 ↗ abstaining two against whatever the so

4:35:41 ↗ the minutes will absolutely reflect that

4:35:45 ↗ um we don't usually in the not or the

4:35:49 ↗ recommendation include that but you know

4:35:52 ↗ we could make that a part of it if

4:35:53 ↗ that's important to

4:35:56 ↗ you so there's seven of us here to move

4:35:59 ↗ forward we have to have a four yeses is

4:36:02 ↗ that correct yep okay so I just have one

4:36:04 ↗ quick question if the only way we could

4:36:07 ↗ get this added was would be to approve

4:36:09 ↗ it would this go forward with with if we

4:36:12 ↗ were to just pass it to the council

4:36:13 ↗ would this still go forward the new

4:36:15 ↗ condition we could recommend that right

4:36:18 ↗ yeah I'm I have to say I'm just having a

4:36:20 ↗ hard time hearing you guys um so could

4:36:23 ↗ you say what you said again Michael sure

4:36:26 ↗ thing

4:36:28 ↗ um my question was how do we get this

4:36:31 ↗ new condition added on here if we don't

4:36:34 ↗ adopt this approve this and we just pass

4:36:36 ↗ it forward to the council will this go

4:36:37 ↗ forward as

4:36:40 ↗ well so I I guess you can move it you

4:36:44 ↗ know we're in somewhat Uncharted

4:36:46 ↗ Territory um for me at least um so I

4:36:49 ↗ would recommend that you send it forward

4:36:52 ↗ with these conditions without a

4:36:55 ↗ recommendation so it's if that's the

4:36:58 ↗ vote that that right in following

4:37:01 ↗ Michael's scenario not what I'm

4:37:03 ↗ recommending that you actually do it's

4:37:05 ↗ still part of the ven I think yeah no I

4:37:08 ↗ think I think that's absolutely

4:37:11 ↗ fair you guys can take a vote on just to

4:37:14 ↗ add this to the staff report basically

4:37:16 ↗ so you do that separately as a

4:37:18 ↗ standalone item and then that'll stand

4:37:20 ↗ if there's a majority that support that

4:37:23 ↗ if there's not then it goes to just part

4:37:25 ↗ of the record okay thank you let's well

4:37:27 ↗ I move that way hold on time out time

4:37:30 ↗ out so the there there actually there

4:37:34 ↗ were um

4:37:36 ↗ four conditions that were added on the

4:37:38 ↗ motion those are the ones that I showed

4:37:40 ↗ tonight

4:37:42 ↗ so the new condition 28 29 30 and 31

4:37:46 ↗ that I showed would need are not part

4:37:49 ↗ they were part of the the memo that

4:37:51 ↗ never arrived okay so can we start with

4:37:54 ↗ somebody proposing that condition new

4:37:57 ↗ conditions 28 29 30 31 and 32 are added

4:38:00 ↗ to the record we'll vote on that first

4:38:03 ↗ right and then we'll go into this

4:38:05 ↗ potential motion okay I propose that

4:38:08 ↗ conditions 28 29 30 31 32 are added to

4:38:11 ↗ the vote or okay so we have we have a

4:38:14 ↗ motion do we have a second okay moot

4:38:17 ↗ motion by Michael seconded by Eric is

4:38:20 ↗ what I heard let's have uh all in favor

4:38:23 ↗ of these um conditions being added to

4:38:26 ↗ the staff report all in favor say I all

4:38:29 ↗ oppos

4:38:31 ↗ unanimous thank you all right now motion

4:38:35 ↗ for approval now I just want to say and

4:38:38 ↗ again it's late so correct me if I'm

4:38:40 ↗ wrong here

4:38:42 ↗ but if we if we vote to deny we have to

4:38:46 ↗ have some basis and understanding as to

4:38:49 ↗ why we denied it um that fits within you

4:38:52 ↗ know the sort of the legal definition of

4:38:55 ↗ of of this um development agreement as

4:38:57 ↗ to why we said no and and that's

4:39:01 ↗ particularly important for staff because

4:39:03 ↗ part of the motion the second part

4:39:05 ↗ is that we go and write findings and

4:39:08 ↗ conclusions that support the

4:39:11 ↗ recommendation so um since the materials

4:39:15 ↗ that we've prepared so far are

4:39:18 ↗ supporting approval um if if the

4:39:22 ↗ commission chooses to go another way we

4:39:24 ↗ it would just we would need to

4:39:25 ↗ understand the basis of that so we can

4:39:28 ↗ draft the findings and conclusions right

4:39:31 ↗ okay so who is brave enough to read the

4:39:34 ↗ motion and you have to read it all the

4:39:36 ↗ way through

4:39:37 ↗ Jim thank

4:39:39 ↗ you

4:39:46 ↗ wow okay uh I moved at the Urban Village

4:39:50 ↗ Development commission recommends

4:39:52 ↗ approval to the city council of the

4:39:54 ↗ Talis partial 7 preliminary plat file

4:39:56 ↗ number pp1 14-

4:40:00 ↗ 0000001 as described and evaluated in

4:40:03 ↗ the staff report dated March 25th 2014

4:40:06 ↗ and plat drawings received February 19th

4:40:09 ↗ 2014 briefing response memo dated April

4:40:13 ↗ 1st 2014 briefing response memo number

4:40:16 ↗ two dated May 2nd 2014 and subject to

4:40:20 ↗ the conditions therein and as amended

4:40:24 ↗ tonight do I now need to go through each

4:40:26 ↗ condition

4:40:27 ↗ yes new condition number 28 prior to

4:40:30 ↗ acceptance of the second 9116 tank and

4:40:33 ↗ Reservoir Access Road the 752 Reservoir

4:40:36 ↗ and access road shall be removed from

4:40:38 ↗ the 50 foot wide Westerly buffer

4:40:41 ↗ following removal of the reservoir and

4:40:42 ↗ Road Disturbed areas shall be restored

4:40:45 ↗ with an appropriate native pallet of

4:40:47 ↗ ground cover shrubs and trees including

4:40:50 ↗ Evergreens the restoration plan shall be

4:40:52 ↗ permitted and performance bond posted

4:40:54 ↗ prior to final plat for either partial

4:40:56 ↗ seven or eight whichever comes first the

4:40:59 ↗ landscape restoration work shall be

4:41:01 ↗ completed installed inspected and

4:41:03 ↗ maintenance Bond posted prior to

4:41:06 ↗ acceptance of the second new 916 tank by

4:41:09 ↗ partial 7 new condition number 29 the

4:41:12 ↗ 916 Reservoir aess Road shall be outside

4:41:15 ↗ the 50-ft buffer walls or grading may

4:41:18 ↗ occur within the buffer but shall be

4:41:20 ↗ restored with an appropriate native

4:41:21 ↗ pallet of ground cover shrubs and trees

4:41:23 ↗ including Evergreens Evergreens and as

4:41:26 ↗ determined by the designated official

4:41:29 ↗ the tanks May remain within the Westerly

4:41:31 ↗ buffer as approximately shown in The

4:41:33 ↗ applicant's Proposal of April 30 2014

4:41:37 ↗ the reservoir site footprint shall be

4:41:39 ↗ minimized while maintaining necessary

4:41:41 ↗ functionality as determined by the

4:41:43 ↗ designated official new condition number

4:41:46 ↗ 30 revised the eastern wall design and

4:41:48 ↗ height in partial 7 to be no more than

4:41:50 ↗ 39 ft this will be reviewed with permits

4:41:54 ↗ which include the wall design new

4:41:57 ↗ condition number 31 the northern End

4:41:59 ↗ Road end of Road a will terminate as a

4:42:02 ↗ driveway to the northernmost house

4:42:04 ↗ currently lot 17 the RightWay May extend

4:42:08 ↗ to the northern property line but no

4:42:10 ↗ extension of Road a will occur until

4:42:12 ↗ such time as the city council has made a

4:42:14 ↗ decision that would support such

4:42:17 ↗ extension this will be reviewed with the

4:42:19 ↗ final PL and with the site work permit

4:42:22 ↗ which includes roads new condition

4:42:25 ↗ number 32 explore redesigning the

4:42:27 ↗ northern Terminus of Road a to eliminate

4:42:30 ↗ or reduce the dead end portion options

4:42:33 ↗ could include moving Direct Drive SE to

4:42:35 ↗ the North or adding a

4:42:37 ↗ culdesac and I move that the Urban

4:42:40 ↗ Village Development commission direct

4:42:41 ↗ the development services department to

4:42:43 ↗ prepare findings of fact and conclusions

4:42:45 ↗ for review and approval by the UVC

4:42:48 ↗ chairman affirming the UV DC's decision

4:42:51 ↗ to move the Talis partial 7 preliminary

4:42:53 ↗ plat file number pp14

4:42:56 ↗ 0000001 subject to the conditions listed

4:42:59 ↗ in the staff report of March 25 2014

4:43:02 ↗ briefing response memo of April 1 2014

4:43:06 ↗ briefing response memo number two of May

4:43:09 ↗ May 2 2014 and as amended tonight okay

4:43:13 ↗ before we continue on I want to ask one

4:43:16 ↗ question condition

4:43:18 ↗ 31 is in conflict with condition 32 if

4:43:22 ↗ 30 if I'm going to make the Assumption

4:43:25 ↗ if

4:43:26 ↗ 32 uh if they're able to move the road

4:43:28 ↗ then 31 is moot no it's not because it's

4:43:31 ↗ talking about the extension of Road a as

4:43:33 ↗ oppos all the way to the north Northern

4:43:34 ↗ property line okay and so one friendly

4:43:38 ↗ Amendment there was a phrase that I

4:43:40 ↗ added up here that didn't get written

4:43:42 ↗ down there onto the end of 32 yes please

4:43:45 ↗ read that thank you okay I'm rereading

4:43:48 ↗ new condition number 32 explore

4:43:51 ↗ redesigning the northern Terminus of

4:43:53 ↗ Road a to eliminate or reduce the

4:43:56 ↗ deadend portion options include moving

4:43:58 ↗ Drive C to the North or adding a call

4:44:01 ↗ toac which doesn't meet fire service

4:44:05 ↗ standards okay so we have a motion do we

4:44:08 ↗ have a

4:44:14 ↗ second we do not have a

4:44:18 ↗ second new territory for me

4:44:22 ↗ here

4:44:24 ↗ okay so no opportunity to vote

4:44:28 ↗ then at this point I guess I'm going to

4:44:31 ↗ ask um who will then

4:44:36 ↗ support I'm going to ask two for two

4:44:38 ↗ things I'm going to ask if you're going

4:44:39 ↗ to support continuing this conversation

4:44:41 ↗ to another

4:44:43 ↗ meeting or if you prefer to um move this

4:44:47 ↗ forward uh and sorry recommend sorry

4:44:51 ↗ move this to the city council without a

4:44:53 ↗ specific

4:44:55 ↗ recommendation and which by the way I

4:44:58 ↗ want to ask a question about whether we

4:45:01 ↗ approve or uh recommend denial and it

4:45:05 ↗ goes to the city council either way is

4:45:08 ↗ there room for public comment when the

4:45:10 ↗ city council gets this no if we move

4:45:13 ↗ this to them without a recommendation is

4:45:15 ↗ there room for for public comment no

4:45:17 ↗ there's remember that one public hearing

4:45:19 ↗ that I just want to be be well we heard

4:45:22 ↗ that they didn't hear that yes so

4:45:23 ↗ there's one public hearing and um that's

4:45:26 ↗ it okay so and if we continue this there

4:45:31 ↗ very likely not another public hearing

4:45:33 ↗ is that correct

4:45:35 ↗ so um if you are if you're saying

4:45:40 ↗ continue this so that it comes back to

4:45:42 ↗ the UVC at at another meeting you would

4:45:44 ↗ need to continue the public you've

4:45:46 ↗ closed the public comment portion but

4:45:49 ↗ the public hearing is continued okay

4:45:52 ↗ it's good to

4:45:53 ↗ know all right so I'm going to ask for

4:45:56 ↗ two things I'm going to ask if you

4:45:58 ↗ prefer to continue this or to move it

4:46:01 ↗ forward without a

4:46:03 ↗ recommendation

4:46:05 ↗ okay I'm going to ask for your votes who

4:46:08 ↗ would like to continue this to another

4:46:11 ↗ date continue this hearing to another

4:46:16 ↗ date okay who would like to move this

4:46:18 ↗ forward to the city council without a

4:46:20 ↗ specific

4:46:23 ↗ recommendation I don't raise your hands

4:46:25 ↗ high

4:46:26 ↗ please okay

4:46:28 ↗ for Eric Shantel Scott and Carl and do

4:46:32 ↗ we need to qualify this the the non

4:46:35 ↗ recommendation

4:46:38 ↗ recommendation I mean do we have to give

4:46:40 ↗ a basis for it for for no

4:46:47 ↗ recommendation

4:46:52 ↗ Keith well I think that is your

4:46:54 ↗ recommendation I mean your

4:46:55 ↗ recommendation is to send it forward to

4:46:57 ↗ the city council without a position of

4:46:59 ↗ approval or denial okay so that is your

4:47:02 ↗ recommend so you have a recommendation

4:47:04 ↗ actually the majority of the full

4:47:06 ↗ members have voted to forward this

4:47:09 ↗ application to the council without a

4:47:13 ↗ specific recommendation from the

4:47:14 ↗ commission okay that's the motion that

4:47:16 ↗ you've made yes even though it wasn't

4:47:17 ↗ that formal okay should I formalize it I

4:47:20 ↗ think so so I guess what you could do is

4:47:23 ↗ then amend the motion that where it says

4:47:26 ↗ re recommends approval it the word

4:47:29 ↗ approval is substituted with move

4:47:31 ↗ forward to the council okay should he

4:47:35 ↗ reite reread that portion not the whole

4:47:40 ↗ thing um so how how about I just say

4:47:43 ↗ this for the record the commission by a

4:47:47 ↗ vote of four

4:47:49 ↗ affirmatives and three

4:47:53 ↗ extensions uh is recommending that this

4:47:58 ↗ um application moved to the city council

4:48:01 ↗ without a specific approval or denial

4:48:03 ↗ recommend Commendation and that the city

4:48:05 ↗ council take up this issue and make

4:48:08 ↗ their own determination based

4:48:10 ↗ on um their so too many words um I I

4:48:15 ↗ think what you're just saying is I mov

4:48:18 ↗ that the Urban Village Development

4:48:19 ↗ commission recommends so that's the same

4:48:22 ↗ um um

4:48:25 ↗ uh move forward this

4:48:28 ↗ application to the city

4:48:31 ↗ council um specific recommendation

4:48:34 ↗ without a specific recommendation for

4:48:37 ↗ Talis paral 7 blah blah blah I have to

4:48:40 ↗ say that I can't remember you can just

4:48:42 ↗ say what she

4:48:43 ↗ said what Lucy

4:48:46 ↗ said so we're moving this forward to the

4:48:48 ↗ city council without a specific

4:48:49 ↗ recommendation of approval or

4:48:51 ↗ denial so with that I want to thank the

4:48:55 ↗ staff and the applicant could you could

4:48:58 ↗ you actually call a vote oh sorry I need

4:49:01 ↗ to call the vote again okay yeah we that

4:49:04 ↗ so she isn't um the recording secretary

4:49:06 ↗ isn't entirely clear who voted which way

4:49:09 ↗ okay we'll do that we'll call for a vote

4:49:10 ↗ again to move this to the city council

4:49:12 ↗ without a recommendation all in favor

4:49:15 ↗ raise your

4:49:16 ↗ hand Carl Scott Shantel and

4:49:20 ↗ Eric all

4:49:23 ↗ uh yeah um so all

4:49:28 ↗ opposed any

4:49:31 ↗ extensions okay three extensions

4:49:34 ↗ did you get that Susan Carl

4:49:39 ↗ Scott I'm

4:49:41 ↗ abstaining and Michael's abstaining and

4:49:43 ↗ Sh and Jim's

4:49:45 ↗ abstaining

4:49:48 ↗ okay all right so now okay are we good

4:49:52 ↗ with that is that formal

4:49:54 ↗ enough okay now I want to thank

4:49:57 ↗ everybody for coming in providing their

4:49:58 ↗ comments I want to thank the commission

4:50:00 ↗ for their consideration I want to thank

4:50:01 ↗ the staff and the applicant for all the

4:50:03 ↗ work that theyve done I'm afraid that

4:50:06 ↗ probably nobody's satisfied and I that

4:50:09 ↗ bothers me um that's not how I like to

4:50:12 ↗ Pride over commission meetings but we

4:50:16 ↗ are where we are and that's where we are

4:50:18 ↗ so um do we need to talk about any any

4:50:21 ↗ new business we got lots of time

4:50:25 ↗ okay all right then at this time at

4:50:29 ↗ 12:52 a.m. on May

4:50:32 ↗ 7th

4:50:34 ↗ Jing this

4:50:38 ↗ meeting Stay classy San

4:51:01 ↗ Diego

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.