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

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Audience commenters (1)

Commissioner Discussion MORGAN

Recommendations & actions (11)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY SWEDBERG that minutes of the Development Commission meeting on March 9, 2016 be approved as presented.
MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY BRENNAN that minutes of the Development Commission meeting on March 16, 2016 be approved as presented.
He also referred to the recommended conditions at the end of the Staff Report.
Second, the applicant team has requested that the City review the basis of impact rates that could apply to this project.
He added that request will be made during the construction permit phase, and if the project is approved, resolving the impact fee assessment could result in a delay in starting construction.
HARRISON asked staff to comment.
MORGAN said his recollection of the previously approved application for this site was that the upper floors in the southwest corner were reduced in exchange for exceeding the zoning limits on building height.
MOVED BY BRENNAN, SECONDED BY GINTHNER that SEPA Mitigation Condition 11 on page 15 of 17 of the Staff Report be amended as follows: The applicant shall mitigate for potential impacts on public services and bicycle and…
The mitigation fees will be established and assessed by the City with issuance of building permits and the actual fee amount will be the adopted fee in effect at the time of permit issuance.
MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY BRENNAN that a new Condition 12 be added to the Construction Plan Conditions that the architectural siding elements shall be extended to within a foot of ground level in all locations.
The revised design shall be approved by City staff and the Development Commission chair.