Development Commission · Wednesday, April 6, 2016 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Contacts About Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land use actions Staff Liaison requiring a Level 3 review. The Commission further serves as an Christopher Wright, Project advisory board to the City Council on land use actions requiring Oversight Manager council approval (Level 5 review). Email

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Meeting Minutes from March 2, 2016 Deferred to Next Meeting

▶ Watch from 2:40

Meeting Minutes from March 9, 2016

packet pp.5–13

▶ Watch from 3:00 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES March 9, 2016

Meeting Minutes from March 16, 2016

packet pp.15–24

▶ Watch from 3:19 Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES March 16, 2016

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Continuation PUBLIC HEARING: Riva

Amy Tarce, Senior Planner · packet pp.25–60

▶ Watch from 3:39 Open packet at p.25 ↗

Staff report:

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

PUBLIC HEARING: Sunrise Assisted

Peter Rosen, Environmental Planner · packet pp.61–151

▶ Watch from 6:21 Open packet at p.61 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

376 segments .txt ↗

2:12 ↗ Good evening and welcome to the April 6th meeting of the Issaquah Development Commission.

2:18 ↗ The agenda is, I hope most of you know, there was a last minute change

2:24 ↗ in the agenda, which I'll let Christopher Wright, the city staff, talk about.

2:31 ↗ And we will go on from there. So Christopher, do you want to explain what's

2:36 ↗ going on? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. As you mentioned the first item on the

2:40 ↗ agenda after the approval of minutes was to be a public hearing for the Rita

2:44 ↗ Rita Riva townhomes and that public hearing is being postponed to

2:51 ↗ a Yet to be termed date in the future As you know the Commission as

2:56 ↗ you know, we try to make sure that we have when we're working with the

2:59 ↗ applicants that we're all in the same boat and and and presenting kind of a

3:04 ↗ joint recommendation when we come to you some issues came up very late this afternoon

3:10 ↗ that we want to be able to work through with them before we come back

3:14 ↗ to you so and it was nothing real significant nothing real earth-shattering but

3:19 ↗ significant enough that like I said we want to take some time get some more

3:23 ↗ information before we come back to you so I would expect it will be back

3:28 ↗ sooner rather than later, but we don't have a date yet. Obviously we will need

3:32 ↗ to re-advertise, re-notice, re-publish once we establish that date, and we will do that.

3:39 ↗ But the other agenda item is the public hearing for Sunrise Assisted Living,

3:45 ↗ and that's what I know this group of people is here for. And so you

3:49 ↗ will be the decision makers tonight for that site development permit. And we have

3:56 ↗ Peter Rosen, a senior planner with the development services to do the presentation for staff.

4:02 ↗ And then we'll open it up for the applicant team to present as they see

4:07 ↗ fit. And then if there's any members of the public that wish to speak, they

4:11 ↗ could sign in on the sign-in sheet. And then we'll open it up for questions

4:17 ↗ from you and then ultimate decision. So those of you who have been through the

4:23 ↗ community conference, the format is pretty similar to that. The difference is that at the

4:28 ↗ conclusion of all the steps that Christopher just

4:33 ↗ underscored, there will be a formal going through basically a checklist

4:40 ↗ that will elicit the votes of each of the commission members on the Sunrise application.

4:44 ↗ All right. So with that, Commissioners, the first order of

4:50 ↗ business is the approval of minutes, and we have a number of them. So the

4:55 ↗ first one will involve the minutes from the meeting of March 2nd. That is

5:01 ↗ deferred to the next meeting, I see. So we'll go to the meeting minutes of

5:05 ↗ March 9th. Does anybody have any corrections or suggestions for that? If not,

5:14 ↗ Mr. Chair, I move we approve the minutes of the March 9th Development Commission meeting.

5:19 ↗ I second. Commission has been moved and seconded. Are there any comments, any

5:24 ↗ discussion? In that case, all those in favor of approval, as they

5:30 ↗ are, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. The minutes from

5:36 ↗ the meeting of March 9th are approved. The next is the meeting minutes from March

5:40 ↗ 16th. Are there any suggestions, changes, additions,

5:46 ↗ deletions desired by any commissioner on that? If not, may we have a motion? I'd

5:52 ↗ make a motion that we approve the March 16th minute. Second. It's been moved and

5:56 ↗ seconded. Is there any discussion? In that case, all those in favor of approval signify

6:02 ↗ by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Minutes are approved.

6:08 ↗ So we will move now to the city presentation on the public hearing for Sunrise

6:13 ↗ Assisted Living by presentation by Peter Rosen from the Environmental Center. Good evening.

6:22 ↗ Just a little background that this project was approved by the Development Commission in 2007.

6:30 ↗ I think that some of you might have been on the Development Commission at that

6:34 ↗ point. I realize you might not remember back that far though, So the

6:40 ↗ site development permits are valid for three years and it

6:45 ↗ expired because the applicant didn't submit building permits within that time. So

6:52 ↗ this proposal's been, the project's been scaled back a little bit, partly due to

6:58 ↗ some new codes that were adopted since the project was originally went through

7:07 ↗ the development commission and the new codes that apply are that the

7:13 ↗ stream buffer stream buffers that are associated with steep slopes can no longer be reduced

7:18 ↗ and there's also tree retention requirements that weren't in the code at the time.

7:26 ↗ Just a little bit on the staff report, the organization of the staff report. There's

7:30 ↗ first Part of the staff report goes through the development and

7:36 ↗ design standards, chapter 1807. There's also a section of the code that's

7:42 ↗ specific to assisted living facilities, and the staff report goes through

7:48 ↗ that, as well as sections on environmental review, access street improvements, parking,

7:53 ↗ utilities, tree retention. And then there's There's the

7:59 ↗ design criteria checklist, which are the green sheets, and I understand that that

8:05 ↗ may have inadvertently not been included in the packet, but that's Appendix A, and

8:12 ↗ I do have a copy that I'll be able to project on the screen when

8:17 ↗ we get there. There's Appendix B, which is a, there are two

8:23 ↗ administrative adjustments of standards, AASs, One is for the building setback

8:29 ↗ from the stream buffer. There's a 15 foot building setback required from the stream

8:35 ↗ buffer and there's a proposal to reduce a portion of that. And there's also an

8:39 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards for the building height, which I'll also discuss.

8:45 ↗ There's exhibits that were included with the

8:51 ↗ staff report and the staff report the architectural civil landscape plans, the building materials

8:57 ↗ board, SEPA determination, river and streams board minutes, traffic concurrency,

9:03 ↗ public comment letters were all included as exhibits. I do want to go back to

9:09 ↗ the AASs for a second here, the administrative adjustment standards. Those are administrative

9:14 ↗ decisions. Sometimes they get consolidated with the SDP permit.

9:23 ↗ But the code, per the code, it's

9:29 ↗ up to the applicant of whether it gets consolidated. And we did have an email

9:33 ↗ that the applicant requested that it not be consolidated.

9:39 ↗ So the exhibits are written for those AASs,

9:45 ↗ but the decision on those has been done administratively. So just

9:51 ↗ to clarify that. At the back of the staff report are recommended conditions and there's

9:57 ↗ basically three sections. There's the SEPA mitigation measures, SDP conditions, and then

10:03 ↗ construction conditions. So

10:09 ↗ the proposal is for a site development permit for the construction of an assisted living

10:14 ↗ facility. The new facility would include 82 units, The building's

10:20 ↗ approximately 96,500 square feet, five stories. You'll notice that

10:26 ↗ there's not a lot of parking shown on the site plan because the parking is

10:32 ↗ primarily below the building. There's 50 parking spaces below the building and there's

10:38 ↗ two surface stalls.

10:45 ↗ Site location. The

10:51 ↗ site is located on Issaquah Falls City Road, very close to the intersection with Black

10:56 ↗ Nugget Road. You'll see here that it's also at the intersection with

11:02 ↗ Black Nugget Road, it's close to Highlands Drive. Here's the Issaquah Highlands, Overdale Park.

11:09 ↗ There is a steep ravine along the east and south part of the site, which

11:14 ↗ is the North Fork of Issaquah Creek. Then

11:20 ↗ obviously there's I-90 down to the south of the

11:26 ↗ site. So the site is currently

11:32 ↗ undeveloped and heavily forested. As the figure shows,

11:38 ↗ the site has split zoning. It's multifamily medium and single family

11:44 ↗ small lot. The use is allowed in both of the zones. In terms of the

11:49 ↗ development standards, what the code states is that you use the development

11:55 ↗ standards that compose the majority of the total lot size, and so the

12:00 ↗ multifamily medium is slightly larger than the single family small lot, and so

12:07 ↗ it's those development standards of the multifamily medium zone that apply, and actually

12:13 ↗ they're very similar development standards between the two zones. Not a big difference there.

12:19 ↗ I want to point out that, again, the North Fork of Issaquah

12:25 ↗ Creek borders the east and south of the site, and so on the other side

12:30 ↗ of that wooded ravine is single-family development. I believe it's

12:35 ↗ single-family estates is the zoning. To the south of the site is Lakeside

12:41 ↗ Industries, and the zoning there is is Urban Village

12:46 ↗ Lakeside. There's a development agreement for future development of Lakeside Industries

12:52 ↗ property after the gravel mining operation phases out.

12:59 ↗ Across Issaquah Falls City Road from the site is multifamily development.

13:06 ↗ Just a couple of views. This one is a

13:12 ↗ view of the site as you're coming up Issaquah Falls City Road and this is

13:18 ↗ a view of the site as you're going down Issaquah Falls City Road. You can

13:22 ↗ see that it is currently heavily forested.

13:28 ↗ This is coming down Issaquah Falls City Road when you're north

13:34 ↗ of the intersection with Black Nugget and this is coming up Issaquah Falls City Road

13:40 ↗ and it shows the intersection of Black Nugget Road as well.

13:47 ↗ I just wanted to discuss some of the critical areas and buffers because that drives

13:52 ↗ a lot of the project in terms of the developable portion of the site. The

13:57 ↗ site is very constrained by critical areas. There's a very

14:03 ↗ steep slope area on the east portion of the property. Again, there's,

14:09 ↗ at the bottom of that ravine is the North Fork of Issaquah Creek. The North

14:13 ↗ Fork of Issaquah Creek is a class two stream with salmonids, so there's a 100

14:18 ↗ foot buffer from the North Fork. And the steep slopes,

14:26 ↗ the code requires a 50 foot buffer. That can be reduced to a minimum of

14:32 ↗ 10 feet. So on this figure, the orange line

14:38 ↗ here is the steep slope buffer, and what you could see is that in the

14:43 ↗ portion of the site to the north, the slopes are over 60%

14:50 ↗ grade, and the Geotech recommended a 20-foot buffer in that case,

14:56 ↗ and recommended a 10-foot buffer for the remaining, though in

15:01 ↗ this portion of the site it's also 20 feet. I do want to mention that

15:07 ↗ The buffer reduction in the geotechnical report went through a peer review by Golder Associates

15:13 ↗ who concurred that there wouldn't be issues with slope stability

15:19 ↗ with the steep slope buffer reduction.

15:26 ↗ Note at the south end of the site, there's an observation

15:32 ↗ deck and that projects into the steep slope reduced buffer area

15:38 ↗ so there is a SEPA condition that requires that the observation deck

15:44 ↗ doesn't encroach into the steep slope area and in the building setback area

15:50 ↗ the observation deck would have to be pretty close to

15:56 ↗ on grade in terms of 30 inches or less so that it's

16:03 ↗ not considered a structure in the building setback.

16:13 ↗ In terms of the stream buffer, that's the green line here,

16:19 ↗ and you can see the building setback is 15 feet offset from the stream buffer.

16:25 ↗ The code doesn't allow the stream buffer to be reduced wherein it's associated with steep

16:31 ↗ slopes. And as I mentioned previously, there's an

16:36 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards to reduce the building setback since the

16:42 ↗ stream buffer can't be reduced through buffer averaging or through the other provisions of the

16:47 ↗ code. That would reduce the building setback to a minimum of five feet.

16:54 ↗ And that just is in this particular area. Elsewhere, the

17:00 ↗ 15-foot building setback is met. So the reduction is approximately a third

17:06 ↗ of the linear feet of the building area.

17:12 ↗ So the total site area is 2.32 acres, but with all the

17:18 ↗ critical areas, the developable area, the site is limited to 1.09 acres. The

17:31 ↗ On the east side of the building is in the stream buffer. The

17:36 ↗ observation decks and trails are permitted use in the buffer, but they need to be

17:42 ↗ buffer averaged, and the applicant has proposed, has taken the

17:48 ↗ total area of the encroachments into the stream buffer and has added additional buffer area

17:54 ↗ to the south. And I could show that

17:59 ↗ on a separate figure in just a minute. Mr.

18:05 ↗ Chair, just a quick question. Peter, the plans we have, the site plan is

18:12 ↗ different than this? So is this a more recent version you're showing us?

18:19 ↗ There was a plan sheet for buffer averaging for the buffers that was in the

18:25 ↗ plan set, in the architectural plans. This is, what we have

18:30 ↗ is different in terms of the deck that's

18:36 ↗ shown. Okay. We did, the applicant modified

18:43 ↗ some of the plans because it wasn't entirely clear of

18:50 ↗ the 20 foot buffer at the north end of the site, so this is, and

18:54 ↗ this may be a new figure that wasn't included. in the packet and I I

18:58 ↗ use this one because it it shows more clearly the steep slope buffer where it's

19:03 ↗ 20 feet as opposed to 10 feet and it was just the clearest drawing to

19:08 ↗ highlight the the buffer line so it it um this wasn't part of this is

19:13 ↗ the more those deck areas and so forth they're the revised versions of them then

19:17 ↗ from what we have I believe that I don't think the um the

19:23 ↗ deck areas changed from what was shown on on the plans that we have. Yeah,

19:27 ↗ I think so. Like in here in the package and what's in here. I could

19:32 ↗ go to the plan sheets if you. Sure. If you go to A2. Yeah.

19:45 ↗ Okay, so. You can see that's a 90 degree angle on that.

19:54 ↗ Okay, so that compared to and it actually extends into the 40%

20:00 ↗ slope. You can see there's an angled...

20:08 ↗ It looks like to stay out of that. It may have been slightly modified. I'll

20:13 ↗ let the applicant address that. I know that... So what occurred here is that with

20:17 ↗ the SEPA review, there was a condition, as I described, that

20:24 ↗ the decks couldn't go into the steep slope area or into the steep slope reduced

20:29 ↗ buffer, the 10-foot buffer. And so the applicant may have

20:35 ↗ modified the drawing based on that condition. And Peter, that's

20:41 ↗ what we've got in our packet there. This is the illustration. This is the A2,

20:45 ↗ right? Yes, this is A2. So the difference is between the one that we have

20:51 ↗ in our packet that Commissioner Morgan pointed out. Could you just for the record here,

20:57 ↗ just run the cursor over and tell us what the differences are. So it's not

21:01 ↗ highlighted on this drawing, but this line is the 10-foot steep slope buffer, so the

21:07 ↗ difference is you could see that the observation decks

21:13 ↗ intruded not only into the steep slope buffer, but partly into the steep slope area

21:18 ↗ itself. So, I think it's been modified some

21:24 ↗ that it still goes into the, it still projects

21:30 ↗ into the steep slope

21:35 ↗ buffer some, but not as much, and it doesn't extend into the steep slope area

21:40 ↗ itself. Does that address your concern, Commissioner?

21:46 ↗ Okay. And in terms of, I wanted to,

21:54 ↗ also show that here is the buffer averaging that's shown. So

22:01 ↗ as I mentioned, trails and observation decks on grade are

22:07 ↗ allowed within stream buffers, but you need to buffer average, so you need to add

22:13 ↗ an area equal to the encroachment outside of the buffer. So

22:19 ↗ this figure shows the The patterned area is the encroachment into

22:25 ↗ the buffer, and then this is the added buffer area at a one-to-one ratio to

22:30 ↗ the encroachment.

22:45 ↗ In terms of the development standards, I mentioned that it's the multifamily medium zone that

22:50 ↗ applies because it's just slightly over 50% of the site area. So the

22:57 ↗ staff report goes through the development standards, the land use code development standards in 1807,

23:05 ↗ and the proposal meets the development standards for setbacks, for parking, for

23:11 ↗ impervious pervious surface coverage and tree retention.

23:18 ↗ I also mentioned there's a specific section on assisted living facilities criteria,

23:25 ↗ and the proposal meets that criteria as described in the staff report.

23:31 ↗ And there's also the design criteria

23:37 ↗ checklist, commonly known as the green sheets, and that was attached

23:43 ↗ as Appendix A to the staff report. and the building design and landscape

23:49 ↗ also meets that criteria. I mentioned that there's a administrative adjustment

23:55 ↗ for the building height. The code allows a 40 foot base

24:01 ↗ building height and that can be increased to 50 feet. There's

24:07 ↗ basically two provisions that have to be met or one of the two provisions have

24:12 ↗ to be met to increase the building height. from 40 to 50 feet, either the

24:17 ↗ upper stories above the base height need to be reduced by 25% or the pervious

24:22 ↗ surface area needs to be increased by 10% over the zoning

24:28 ↗ requirements. So the zone requires 50% pervious area

24:34 ↗ on this site and what's proposed is 64%. So that's how they

24:40 ↗ met the criteria for the building height. administrative adjustment.

24:50 ↗ Also, just wanted to mention in terms of the parking, the standard is that it

24:55 ↗ is one per two units and one per employee. And

25:02 ↗ so the proposal meets the parking standards. There's 52 parking spaces

25:08 ↗ provided, 50 under the building and two on the surface.

25:15 ↗ In terms of circulation, there's two access

25:20 ↗ points to the project site. An access off, the driveway

25:26 ↗ access off of Issaquah Falls City Road and a site access off of Black Nugget

25:31 ↗ Road. Both of these site accesses will be limited to right in, right

25:37 ↗ out only. That's due to the road grades to the to

25:43 ↗ speed and sight distance and on Black Nugget Road due to the proximity to the

25:49 ↗ intersection. For pedestrian circulation, there's

25:55 ↗ a crosswalk that goes across the main drive and

26:01 ↗ there's a condition in the staff report recommended condition that that crosswalk use distinct

26:07 ↗ materials like pavers, to distinguish it from the road.

26:14 ↗ So the crosswalk leads from the building entry to a sidewalk, and so

26:20 ↗ there's a sidewalk that would go to the intersection with

26:26 ↗ Black Nugget Road, and then there's sidewalk on Black Nugget Road.

26:32 ↗ There's not a sidewalk that would go to the south of this site along Issaquah

26:37 ↗ Falls City Road, and the reason for that is because the Lakeside Industries property,

26:43 ↗ which is to the south. There's not a sidewalk that's planned adjacent to the Lakeside

26:49 ↗ property, so a sidewalk to the south would not provide a connection

26:55 ↗ on this site. This figure is

27:01 ↗ pretty hard to read, so I'll probably just go to the landscape plan to show

27:05 ↗ it, but in terms of tree retention, The clouded areas

27:11 ↗ are where they are retaining the trees. The code requires 25%

27:17 ↗ of the total caliber of trees outside of critical areas and buffers to be

27:23 ↗ retained. The code also allows that to be reduced by up to 50%

27:29 ↗ and there's some specific criteria for reducing the tree retention. One of the

27:35 ↗ criteria is the modifications necessary due to the characteristics of the site, the size and

27:41 ↗ shape of the property and that meeting the tree retention would

27:46 ↗ jeopardize reasonable use of the site. As I mentioned, it's a very constrained site due

27:51 ↗ to the critical areas. The critical areas don't count toward the tree retention. And so

27:58 ↗ it meets that criteria of the site. the characteristics of the property.

28:06 ↗ Also one of the criteria is that it's necessary due to required ingress and egress.

28:12 ↗ And as we saw on this figure, the drive is connected between the two

28:18 ↗ access points and that's another reason that some of the existing trees

28:24 ↗ couldn't be retained. The applicant is proposing replacement

28:30 ↗ trees, 29 mitigation trees. Replacement trees are not required by the

28:36 ↗ code if you don't meet the retention, but they are providing 29

28:42 ↗ replacement trees, as well as in the area to the south of the building,

28:48 ↗ there'd be invasive plant removal and then enhancement with

28:54 ↗ native plants in the stream buffer.

29:02 ↗ In terms of the building design, the assisted living

29:07 ↗ facilities criteria has been met. That addresses barrier free standards. There's

29:13 ↗ community space, both indoor and outdoor community space that's required.

29:20 ↗ It meets those provisions. It meets the parking is also addressed in the assisted

29:25 ↗ living facilities criteria. as well as there's criteria in that section for building

29:31 ↗ modulation and roofline variation which are also

29:37 ↗ addressed in the green sheets in the design checklist. And the design checklist

29:42 ↗ criteria also addresses the building modulation and roofline variation

29:48 ↗ and the variation of building materials. I

29:54 ↗ do have the building materials board is an exhibit that

30:00 ↗ was included, and I could pull that up.

30:07 ↗ But I think I'll just leave the details of the building design to the applicant

30:12 ↗ to go over. There is a

30:18 ↗ condition, recommended condition, that's also addressed in the design criteria of screening

30:26 ↗ ground and rooftop mechanical equipment, so that would be reviewed with construction

30:32 ↗ plans. That's the end of what I have right

30:38 ↗ now. There aren't questions or if you want to. I think

30:44 ↗ probably what we'll do is if there are specific questions

30:50 ↗ of staff on his presentation, we'll go ahead and do it. do it now since

30:55 ↗ we don't have two meetings or two different agenda items tonight. So if you do,

31:01 ↗ we can always come back to them later on in the period where the commissioners

31:06 ↗ get to see clarification and so on. But if anybody has a question now from

31:11 ↗ Mr. Rosen, you'll be fine. MR. Yeah.

31:17 ↗ Can you talk a little bit about the frontage condition, landscaping,

31:24 ↗ what's happening there because we have a road profile there that's, if you include the

31:28 ↗ turn lanes, I think it's like six lanes wide. And we're adding another road right

31:34 ↗ adjacent to it. And so now we have a sidewalk and it looks like a

31:37 ↗ very narrow landscape strip in there. And so can you talk a little bit about

31:43 ↗ what's the condition we're going to have and what the code requirements are for that?

31:46 ↗ Yes, so there is a landscape strip that is between the

31:52 ↗ road and the sidewalk, and it's a five-foot landscape strip, which is what is required

31:57 ↗ by the code. So just five feet between the sidewalk and the roadway? And

32:02 ↗ then street trees? Let me go to the landscape plan. Might

32:09 ↗ be a better choice here.

32:24 ↗ It actually, it may be a 10, I think it's a 10-foot landscape strip. Landscape,

32:28 ↗ landscape, okay. So you have the landscape strip

32:34 ↗ between the sidewalk and the road. And what? With street trees. What

32:39 ↗ are the street tree species? Yes, so the street trees

32:47 ↗ are. They're just deciduous or conifers? They're deciduous. I'm sorry. I. All

32:53 ↗ right, that's what it was. But they're deciduous street trees. I

32:59 ↗ know I had a discussion with the landscape architect about the choice of the street

33:03 ↗ trees there. But it's a little hard. I can expand the drawing to

33:09 ↗ read it. We can get that. I'm going to go to the applicant. Are there

33:12 ↗ any other questions of Mr. Rosen? I just have a quick question. That's actually the

33:17 ↗ slide that I would have you reference, as we don't have that one in our

33:23 ↗ packet, at least I don't. So my question is, what kind of

33:28 ↗ trees are going to be replaced? So what is the

33:34 ↗ applicant using to replace the trees that are being removed? So in the...

33:43 ↗ On the east side of the building is basically all stream buffer. And so all

33:49 ↗ the plantings are required to be native species. If the question is about

33:55 ↗ the replacement trees,

34:01 ↗ these are the added mitigation trees. And so there's

34:07 ↗ vine maple and red cedar and Douglas fir. the

34:12 ↗ replacement trees. Thank you. Mr. Seiberg, do you have a

34:18 ↗ question? I do.

34:25 ↗ The steep nature of that slope is a concern, and I don't really

34:31 ↗ understand what a tight line stormwater down the steep

34:36 ↗ slope means. And exactly, are they gonna have a retention pond with a pipe going

34:42 ↗ somewhere or? Right. So there's, I could pull up the civil

34:48 ↗ plans here. There is a stormwater vault and

34:54 ↗ the discharge, there were,

35:02 ↗ so there's a stormwater vault and so there were two options. that were shown for

35:07 ↗ the discharge from the stormwater vault. One was a dispersion trench, but

35:13 ↗ given the nature of the steep slopes, and this is also a high erosion area,

35:20 ↗ there were concerns about releasing the stormwater at the top of the slope. And so

35:26 ↗ tight lining entails that it would basically be piped

35:32 ↗ down the steep slope. To where? Bottom of the slope

35:38 ↗ and then it just percolates somewhere? Well,

35:44 ↗ there's a pad where the pipe ends. And so

35:50 ↗ the details of that haven't been worked out yet. And I'll let the

35:55 ↗ applicants civil discuss that further. But

36:02 ↗ there's a SEPA condition regarding that the that the discharge be tight

36:07 ↗ lined down the slope to avoid the erosion and slope stability. I know, it's a

36:13 ↗ big paragraph in the conditions and I just wanted to kind of explain. So

36:19 ↗ the Geotech Golder Associates, the peer review, had some very

36:25 ↗ specific conditions that they recommended for the stormwater tight

36:31 ↗ line because it hadn't been designed yet. And so the conditions,

36:37 ↗ those would be reviewed with the construction permits for the timeline. Okay.

36:44 ↗ Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Rosen? The commission? All right. Thank you, sir.

36:50 ↗ We'll go now to the applicant. By the way, before we go any further,

36:56 ↗ lest I forget, if there are members of the public that do want to speak

37:00 ↗ when it comes to that segment, which is the next one, We would ask that

37:03 ↗ you sign the sheet here and give your name and your address on the

37:10 ↗ sign-in sheet that's there on the table, if you care to speak. Good evening. My

37:15 ↗ name is Todd Wyatt. I'm an attorney at Carson Knoll here in Issaquah. I represent

37:20 ↗ Sunrise in this. I want to thank the members of the commission as well as

37:24 ↗ city staff for their cooperation to date in getting this project going. Before

37:30 ↗ I make any comments, I want to introduce, we've brought a number of people here,

37:33 ↗ part of our team today, to help answer any questions you may have, and I

37:36 ↗ want to introduce them to the members of the commission. First is the Vice President

37:41 ↗ of Investments and Development at Sunrise. His name is Jerry Liang. He came out here

37:45 ↗ from Virginia to speak to you tonight. Also is James Brown from Wattenberger Architects

37:51 ↗ in Bellevue. James is the principal architect on this project. Mark Keller from Biler

37:57 ↗ Construction here in Issaquah. He's our civil engineer on this project. Kurt

38:03 ↗ Gonberg, did I pronounce it right, Kurt, is from Transpo Group in Kirkland. They did

38:08 ↗ the traffic engineering for this. Brian Beeman from Icicle Creek

38:13 ↗ Engineers was the geotech engineer on this project. And is Tom

38:19 ↗ Deming here? There's Tom. Tom Deming, he's from Habitat Technologies and did the

38:25 ↗ critical area assessments. That's the team, and we are here to answer your questions, but

38:31 ↗ before we do that, Jerry Liang is gonna speak to you for a few minutes

38:36 ↗ about Sunrise, who we are, and what kind of services Sunrise offers, and then James

38:42 ↗ Brown is going to go over with you some of the architectural details of the

38:47 ↗ project and answer those questions. Before we do that, though, I do need to make

38:51 ↗ two, because this is a quasi-judicial thing, I need to make two comments just to

38:55 ↗ get them on the administrator.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF