Development Commission · Wednesday, May 19, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Staff Liaison Lucy Sloman, Land About Development Manager Created in 1983, this commission reviews all Email Lucy Sloman land use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Commission further serves as an advisory Regular Members board to the City Council on land use actions 2022 – Michael Brennan requiring council approval (Level 5 review). 2022 – Richard Sanford 2022 – Richard Sowa The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2023 – Patty Dillon Development Commission members and City 2023 – Brooke Shore Council members from discussing the merit of 2024 – Kevin Price specific land use development applications 2024 – Arthur Schulte outside of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, however, may discuss any issue with Alternate Members the City's Development Services

Officer Elections

Action · Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The Chair, or Acting Chair, can use the following script to facilitate nominations and elections of officers.

Community Conference: Firs at Talus Plat, (I) Project Location: 7303 Renton-Issaquah Rd SE File Number(s): COM21-00001, NM21

Holly Keeton, Senior Planner Leo Suver, Steve Burnstead Construction · packet pp.7–25

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

3. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on June 2, 2021

packet pp.27

2193 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ offer that we

0:03 ↗ called over the meeting starting at 7 38

0:06 ↗ and uh i'm not sure

0:10 ↗ i don't know who all's on board i think

0:13 ↗ in the past we've had to identify

0:15 ↗ regular members that were not in

0:17 ↗ attendance can you help me with that i

0:19 ↗ can't tell who might or might not be

0:21 ↗ here

0:24 ↗ so the attendees that i see are

0:28 ↗ arthur schulte regular member

0:31 ↗ john ikeda uh alternate

0:35 ↗ morgan alternate mike brennan

0:39 ↗ regular member patty dillon

0:42 ↗ regular member richard sanford regular

0:46 ↗ member

0:47 ↗ richard sowa regular member and

0:50 ↗ kevin price regular member

0:56 ↗ so the only regular member we have

0:58 ↗ absent is brooke

0:59 ↗ short commissioner schulte yes

1:03 ↗ okay so uh we are

1:07 ↗ in the process of selecting officers or

1:11 ↗ electing officers and i will uh

1:15 ↗ tell you what the process i think we

1:17 ↗ should use to elect those officers first

1:19 ↗ i'll call for nominations and

1:21 ↗ do the chair first when all the

1:23 ↗ nominations have been made i'll close

1:24 ↗ the nominations and then the member

1:27 ↗ if only one is made then that member is

1:29 ↗ considered elected

1:30 ↗ to the position by unanimous consent and

1:33 ↗ if

1:33 ↗ other or multiple nominations are made

1:35 ↗ the commission commission members are

1:37 ↗ provided an opportunity to discuss the

1:38 ↗ nominees

1:40 ↗ i'll ask the commission members to cast

1:41 ↗ votes on the nominees in the order

1:43 ↗ that they were nominated by roll call

1:45 ↗ vote mission members

1:47 ↗ may vote for only one nominee per office

1:49 ↗ and may vote for themselves

1:51 ↗ and the first commission member

1:52 ↗ receiving the majority vote is declared

1:54 ↗ the chair

1:55 ↗ and as my understanding is the majority

1:57 ↗ vote will be five

2:00 ↗ is that correct lucy

2:03 ↗ uh a majority would be four four okay

2:07 ↗ okay so let's uh let's begin that

2:10 ↗ process and i'll

2:11 ↗ open up the uh nominations for

2:14 ↗ uh the chair of the development

2:16 ↗ commission

2:18 ↗ are there other are there nominations mr

2:21 ↗ chairman this is richard sanford i do

2:22 ↗ have a nomination

2:24 ↗ okay uh but first i'd like to

2:27 ↗ acknowledge the role that uh

2:29 ↗ chairman sowa has played for us over the

2:32 ↗ last

2:33 ↗ i don't know how many terms i do know

2:35 ↗ that um

2:36 ↗ richard sell has been our chairman since

2:39 ↗ i've been a member of the commission

2:41 ↗ um i think i can speak for all of us uh

2:44 ↗ when i say that we've greatly

2:45 ↗ appreciated

2:46 ↗ the way he's led us through many many

2:48 ↗ meetings including some challenging ones

2:52 ↗ especially some ones in which he got to

2:54 ↗ play

2:55 ↗ judge as well as chairman um

2:58 ↗ and also that we've greatly appreciated

3:00 ↗ his style which has always been

3:02 ↗ respectful

3:04 ↗ and graciously inclusive

3:07 ↗ but i also feel it's time to give

3:08 ↗ richard a break and therefore tonight

3:10 ↗ i'd like to nominate

3:12 ↗ commissioner brennan for chairman

3:22 ↗ thank you are there other other

3:30 ↗ nominations

3:32 ↗ i do second uh commissioner brennan's

3:36 ↗ nomination as well and again

3:38 ↗ commissioner thank you very much for

3:39 ↗ for all you've done

3:46 ↗ well hearing no other nominations it

3:48 ↗ sounds like uh

3:52 ↗ commissioner brandon is elected by

3:56 ↗ unanimous consent as the chair of the

3:58 ↗ development commission

3:59 ↗ so i think now i can turn the meeting

4:01 ↗ over to him and let him take care of the

4:04 ↗ vice chair position so

4:07 ↗ uh first thanks commissioner sanford for

4:12 ↗ the nomination um appreciate the

4:15 ↗ vote of confidence i guess to step into

4:16 ↗ some extremely big shoes i

4:19 ↗ uh echo the comments that you made about

4:22 ↗ uh chair so um what an outstanding chair

4:26 ↗ he has been i think it is a record

4:27 ↗ number

4:28 ↗ of consecutive terms uh too from the

4:31 ↗ 10 plus maybe 15 years that i've been on

4:33 ↗ the commission so

4:34 ↗ um job absolutely well done definitely

4:38 ↗ deserves a break it is a

4:40 ↗ added burden of time for sure to do that

4:44 ↗ so i will then i guess take the

4:47 ↗ nominations will open nominations for

4:49 ↗ the vice chair are there nominations for

4:51 ↗ the vice chair

4:55 ↗ i'd like to nominate kevin price as the

4:58 ↗ vice chair

5:01 ↗ are there other nominations for the vice

5:03 ↗ chair

5:05 ↗ mr chair i would nominate richard

5:09 ↗ sanford

5:10 ↗ this is kevin price speaking

5:17 ↗ are there other nominations for the vice

5:22 ↗ chair

5:25 ↗ hearing that we'll close the nominations

5:29 ↗ um so the way the process works um as

5:32 ↗ commissioner saw i

5:33 ↗ mentioned the opportunity to

5:36 ↗ discuss each of the nominees

5:40 ↗ and then i will take in order um

5:44 ↗ the essentially a vote cast votes

5:48 ↗ if you're voting for the first nominee

5:50 ↗ you would answer by

5:51 ↗ saying aye if you want to hold your vote

5:54 ↗ for the

5:55 ↗ second nominee you would say nay on that

5:57 ↗ first nominee

5:58 ↗ and uh i for the second nominee uh so

6:01 ↗ any

6:02 ↗ uh comments um either from the uh

6:06 ↗ uh lucy yeah question um just the point

6:09 ↗ of clarification i believe

6:11 ↗ that um as is our um practice

6:14 ↗ this would be regular members um and

6:17 ↗ that are voting not all members

6:22 ↗ thank you for the clarification regular

6:24 ↗ members um so

6:25 ↗ comments um regarding the nominees

6:31 ↗ or if the nominees would like to make a

6:34 ↗ statement or comment

6:36 ↗ also can do that as well

6:43 ↗ well this is richard sanford and uh

6:45 ↗ kevin i certainly appreciate the

6:46 ↗ nomination

6:47 ↗ um i do think that you have some

6:50 ↗ seniority on the commission

6:52 ↗ and a lot of experience in the

6:54 ↗ architecture field so

6:56 ↗ i appreciate the nomination however at

6:58 ↗ this point i'm going to have to second

7:00 ↗ your nomination and i'm sure i'm gonna

7:02 ↗ vote for you in a matter of seconds

7:03 ↗ so that's all okay well i appreciate it

7:08 ↗ and uh sorry to add complications to the

7:10 ↗ process

7:11 ↗ uh i just think you would be a really

7:14 ↗ good

7:21 ↗ so commissioner um price was breaking

7:24 ↗ out there a little bit at the end but

7:25 ↗ i'm sure those were very positive

7:26 ↗ comments about

7:28 ↗ um commissioner uh stanford so um

7:31 ↗ that leaves us with a single nominee uh

7:34 ↗ so as a result of that we have

7:38 ↗ um essentially unanimous consent

7:41 ↗ um that commissioner price is now the

7:43 ↗ vice chair

7:45 ↗ so congratulations commissioner price

7:48 ↗ and

7:48 ↗ thank you um uh commissioner morgan who

7:52 ↗ served as

7:52 ↗ the is an alternate now but served as

7:55 ↗ the vice chair

7:56 ↗ um for as many years i believe as

7:59 ↗ um commissioner served as the chair

8:02 ↗ um and standing in a few times if i

8:05 ↗ remember uh not many

8:06 ↗ but uh doing an outstanding job as

8:08 ↗ serving as the

8:09 ↗ the chair when necessary for some of

8:11 ↗ those meetings so thanks

8:13 ↗ commissioner morgan outstanding job

8:15 ↗ really appreciate your leadership as

8:17 ↗ well

8:18 ↗ so uh on the agenda then we um i believe

8:21 ↗ we'll move on to the community

8:22 ↗ conference

8:23 ↗ um let me i'm a little rusty at this so

8:28 ↗ if i make procedural missteps please uh

8:31 ↗ staff and or other commissioners uh

8:33 ↗ raise your hand and let me know and this

8:35 ↗ is also in a virtual environment so

8:37 ↗ a little bit new to everybody so we'll

8:39 ↗ have to work our way through this

8:40 ↗ including

8:41 ↗ the grappling with some technology

8:42 ↗ challenges that we're having

8:44 ↗ uh so um we have the community

8:47 ↗ conference for

8:48 ↗ the furs uh at talus platt

8:51 ↗ um there is the process that we go

8:54 ↗ through for community conferences

8:56 ↗ uh very quickly which includes uh us

8:59 ↗ the presentation by staff

9:02 ↗ the applicant has an opportunity to also

9:04 ↗ uh make a presentation on their project

9:07 ↗ we would then open

9:09 ↗ for public comment or questions uh and

9:12 ↗ we're following comments or questions

9:13 ↗ from the public

9:15 ↗ um uh comments uh or questions from the

9:18 ↗ from members of the commission uh and

9:21 ↗ then

9:22 ↗ at the end any final comments that any

9:25 ↗ commissioners

9:26 ↗ commissioners would like to make about

9:27 ↗ the project uh so with that i will hand

9:30 ↗ it over

9:31 ↗ uh to miss keaton i believe who's uh

9:36 ↗ on point here is the senior planner for

9:38 ↗ this project so ms keaton

9:40 ↗ thank you so much yes to introduce

9:42 ↗ myself to everyone since this is the

9:44 ↗ first time i've gotten to meet you

9:46 ↗ my name is holly keaton i joined the

9:48 ↗ city in

9:50 ↗ mid-january this is my first public

9:52 ↗ meeting and

9:53 ↗ it's nice to be able to share it with

9:56 ↗ you

9:57 ↗ um i was hired as a senior planner here

10:00 ↗ and

10:00 ↗ with that i have been assigned to the

10:03 ↗ firs at talus

10:04 ↗ platt and so before we dive into the

10:08 ↗ presentation i am going to

10:10 ↗ just go over the basics for the the

10:13 ↗ public meeting

10:14 ↗ over webex as you can see from the last

10:17 ↗ meeting it can

10:18 ↗ get a little confusing and complicated

10:20 ↗ so i'll just reiterate

10:22 ↗ um if you're joining by computer or

10:24 ↗ smartphone

10:25 ↗ you should see a layout option button

10:28 ↗ on your screen in the upper right hand

10:30 ↗ corner you can choose your screen

10:32 ↗ there and you can adjust your view

10:35 ↗ from there you can change the view of

10:37 ↗ the speakers and the media

10:39 ↗ that's being provided as well your video

10:43 ↗ and audio are automatically turned off

10:46 ↗ when the time comes for questions and

10:48 ↗ comments

10:49 ↗ we will provide um we will unmute

10:53 ↗ you at the time and allow you to speak

10:55 ↗ um at the time of questions just so

10:57 ↗ i can clarify this right away questions

11:00 ↗ comments and concerns

11:02 ↗ can be presented if any member of the

11:04 ↗ public would like to speak

11:06 ↗ or ask questions please type the word

11:09 ↗ question or

11:10 ↗ comment in the chat box and please

11:13 ↗ direct your question

11:14 ↗ or comment to the panelist

11:18 ↗ when it is your turn you will be moved

11:21 ↗ up as a panelist and then you will be

11:24 ↗ able to

11:25 ↗ speak freely

11:29 ↗ okay

11:33 ↗ so i've already introduced myself i will

11:36 ↗ also

11:37 ↗ have the applicant take a moment

11:41 ↗ to introduce himself and his team

11:44 ↗ and so i will just ask that that

11:47 ↗ leo you introduce yourself at this time

11:51 ↗ hello my name is leo suber i'm the

11:53 ↗ president of steve bernstead

11:55 ↗ construction

11:56 ↗ and i will be representing us for this

12:00 ↗ meeting

12:03 ↗ okay

12:07 ↗ so i will give a quick presentation

12:10 ↗ and then i will hand it over to leo

12:14 ↗ and i hope that you can all see the

12:16 ↗ first slide here should say development

12:17 ↗ commission community conference

12:19 ↗ c-o-m that should be 21. i apologize

12:23 ↗ zero zero zero zero one where is it tell

12:26 ↗ us 24 lot plot can everyone see that

12:31 ↗ great we're starting off on the right

12:34 ↗ foot then

12:35 ↗ okay so let me just move on to

12:38 ↗ the second slide here i just want to

12:42 ↗ discuss

12:43 ↗ the purpose of a community conference

12:45 ↗ and the purpose of a community

12:47 ↗ conference is to ensure that the public

12:49 ↗ is engaged early on in the process

12:51 ↗ and provide kind of a big picture of the

12:54 ↗ overall proposal

12:56 ↗ and hopefully work productively together

12:58 ↗ to have a discussion

13:00 ↗ and have a bit of back and forth and

13:03 ↗ so that the applicant as well as staff

13:04 ↗ can can receive feedback on the project

13:08 ↗ and um and the proposal so far

13:12 ↗ so just to clarify there are no

13:14 ↗ decisions being made at this meeting

13:16 ↗ it's

13:16 ↗ it's simply just to get the information

13:18 ↗ out there and get the community engaged

13:20 ↗ as well as the development commission

13:24 ↗ here you see the site overview

13:27 ↗ in the red box that is the site that

13:29 ↗ we're talking about that will be the

13:31 ↗ firs at telus

13:32 ↗ parcel and around that you can see um

13:36 ↗ to the north uh we have single-family

13:40 ↗ residential

13:42 ↗ the zone is single-family suburban there

13:44 ↗ directly to the west there is a vacant

13:47 ↗ track that is zoned community facilities

13:49 ↗ open space

13:51 ↗ and just beyond that open space is telus

13:53 ↗ five single family homes

13:56 ↗ within the same zoning as the subject

13:58 ↗ sites of tonight's proposal

14:00 ↗ and to the south is a city storm want a

14:03 ↗ storm water detention facility

14:05 ↗ and the zoning there is community

14:07 ↗ facilities facility

14:10 ↗ to the east is sr 900 rent in issaquah

14:13 ↗ road southeast

14:14 ↗ and on the east side of sr 900 is single

14:18 ↗ family estate zoning

14:23 ↗ to give you a quick background of the

14:25 ↗ history of how this project has come to

14:28 ↗ be

14:29 ↗ it started out um actually it started

14:32 ↗ out years ago with an interest in doing

14:34 ↗ a flat on this property at that time i

14:37 ↗ believe that

14:38 ↗ the property owner owner's name was

14:40 ↗ emrick you may

14:41 ↗ remember that name and also to add a

14:44 ↗ little bit of clarity

14:45 ↗ the name emerick has been included in

14:47 ↗ the talus

14:49 ↗ replacement regulations and the issaquah

14:52 ↗ municipal code

14:52 ↗ chapter 1819c as one of the

14:56 ↗ um vested projects that was to continue

15:00 ↗ to move forward

15:02 ↗ so in april we received an application

15:04 ↗ for pre-application

15:06 ↗ for pre-application meeting with the

15:07 ↗ applicant at that time the city walked

15:10 ↗ through

15:12 ↗ the concepts that leo and his team

15:15 ↗ were bringing up and in february there

15:18 ↗ was a neighborhood meeting

15:20 ↗ that went over the preliminary details

15:21 ↗ of the project

15:23 ↗ and the meeting um the application was

15:26 ↗ deemed complete

15:27 ↗ in mid-april and the shortly after that

15:31 ↗ the applicant

15:32 ↗ requested the community conference

15:37 ↗ okay so the current slide that you see

15:39 ↗ up gives a little bit of detail

15:41 ↗ on critical areas the red layers

15:45 ↗ are steep slopes the pink line is

15:48 ↗ a stream and unfortunately on this view

15:51 ↗ we did not have

15:52 ↗ wetland layers available to us but there

15:55 ↗ is a wetland that is

15:59 ↗ near to renton essopa road at the

16:02 ↗ southern portion and then there is

16:03 ↗ another that moves

16:05 ↗ slightly more central into the parcel

16:08 ↗ and then there's another one that is

16:09 ↗ closer to the upland talus

16:12 ↗ development site and i'll have leo go

16:15 ↗ into that a little bit more when he does

16:16 ↗ his presentation

16:18 ↗ so the overall site here is just over

16:21 ↗ 5.7 acres

16:24 ↗ um the frontage along sr 900 is

16:27 ↗ about 300 feet and the proposal is to

16:31 ↗ provide

16:31 ↗ 24 lots for single family attached and

16:33 ↗ detached homes

16:37 ↗ so here's another view we can see of the

16:40 ↗ wetlands

16:41 ↗ i've tried to call them out there for

16:43 ↗ you in red so you can see

16:45 ↗ there is a larger one over kind of in

16:47 ↗ the south

16:48 ↗ eastern corner and another one up

16:51 ↗ in the upper lin upland telus

16:53 ↗ development area right next to the

16:55 ↗ stream

17:01 ↗ the future permitting and processing

17:02 ↗ requirements for this is

17:04 ↗ we'll go through the review for the

17:06 ↗ preliminary plat

17:07 ↗ staff will write a recommendation to the

17:09 ↗ hearing examiner

17:10 ↗ we will also be doing a sleeper review

17:13 ↗ and

17:14 ↗ after the staff recommendation is

17:16 ↗ completed that will go to the hearing

17:18 ↗ examiner and the hearing examiner will

17:20 ↗ make the final decision

17:23 ↗ at that time the applicant can bond for

17:26 ↗ construction permits to do the

17:28 ↗ improvements on the site

17:30 ↗ and then also apply for final plant

17:37 ↗ some general development standards i

17:39 ↗ presented here

17:40 ↗ will be what we look at when we actually

17:42 ↗ look at the construction permits i

17:43 ↗ wanted to provide this just kind of as a

17:45 ↗ little bit of

17:47 ↗ context for when we're at that stage in

17:49 ↗ the review

17:51 ↗ um you can see that the maximum height

17:53 ↗ for the structures will be 45 feet

17:56 ↗ front yard setback will be 5 feet

17:59 ↗ as well as the rear setback the side

18:02 ↗ setbacks

18:03 ↗ are allowed to be zero feet for attached

18:05 ↗ tubes

18:07 ↗ and then the critical area buffers on

18:08 ↗ this site will range from 50 to 100 feet

18:13 ↗ maximum density is 1.24 dwelling units

18:15 ↗ per acre

18:20 ↗ in the initial review we looked at

18:22 ↗ access storm drainage utilities and

18:24 ↗ design

18:26 ↗ do you have quite a bit of information

18:28 ↗ on storm drainage here so bear with me

18:30 ↗ the site access safety and operational

18:33 ↗ analysis will need to be looked at

18:35 ↗ for the access off of sr 900

18:38 ↗ and the storm drainage requirements will

18:42 ↗ need to follow the 2014 ecology

18:44 ↗ stormwater manual

18:46 ↗ we did have an additional question

18:48 ↗ coming

18:49 ↗ recently about storm drainage and i just

18:52 ↗ want to provide

18:54 ↗ what our engineers information was on

18:56 ↗ that topic

18:57 ↗ so there was a question about bmp bmps

19:00 ↗ for

19:00 ↗ storm drainage and

19:04 ↗ the engineer noted that the city follows

19:06 ↗ the adopted storm design manual which

19:09 ↗ encourages storm water low

19:10 ↗ impact design bmps for infiltration and

19:13 ↗ dispersion

19:14 ↗ of runoff to reduce pollutants and

19:16 ↗ restore groundwater

19:18 ↗ the general feasibility of storm bmps is

19:20 ↗ reviewed under the preliminary plat

19:22 ↗ based on site conditions specific storm

19:25 ↗ bmps will be identified and reviewed

19:27 ↗ later under the construction permits

19:29 ↗ infiltration and dispersion rely heavily

19:32 ↗ on site specifics

19:34 ↗ under the preliminary plot the city

19:35 ↗ requires that applicant

19:37 ↗ of proposal proposed new development

19:40 ↗ to provide a geotechnical soils report

19:43 ↗ including an analysis

19:44 ↗ on the feasibility of infiltration the

19:47 ↗ preliminary geotech report submitted by

19:49 ↗ the applicant

19:50 ↗ evaluates stormwater infiltration as

19:53 ↗ likely infeasible

19:54 ↗ due to the significant percentage of

19:57 ↗ fines

19:59 ↗ silt in the soil with low permeability

20:02 ↗ this version of stormwater runoff must

20:04 ↗ also be considered by the applicant

20:07 ↗ since it is not dependent on the soil

20:09 ↗ type dispersion relies on low site

20:12 ↗ slopes and adequate vegetated area for

20:14 ↗ runoff to disperse

20:16 ↗ this may be difficult due to steep

20:18 ↗ on-site slopes

20:19 ↗ the minimal vegetated areas outside of

20:21 ↗ the critical area and their associated

20:23 ↗ buffers

20:24 ↗ so as city staff continues to review the

20:26 ↗ preliminary plat design

20:27 ↗ we will encourage the applicant to

20:29 ↗ investigate opportunities for

20:31 ↗ infiltration and dispersion of storm

20:32 ↗ water runoff where it's feasible

20:36 ↗ and then utilities sewer and water

20:38 ↗ connections have been proposed on site

20:40 ↗ the developer

20:41 ↗ developer will make extensions to the

20:43 ↗ public water and sewer system

20:44 ↗ and the extensions will be owned and

20:46 ↗ maintained by the city of this qua

20:49 ↗ in terms of design uh the the platte

20:52 ↗ we're looking at the layout

20:53 ↗ and the common spaces

20:56 ↗ and landscaping mitigation and aspects

21:00 ↗ such as that

21:01 ↗ building design will not be reviewed

21:03 ↗ until construction permit phase

21:05 ↗ current design review is assessing

21:08 ↗ simply the site design

21:15 ↗ okay landscaping plan will be required

21:18 ↗ in the next phase of review

21:19 ↗ existing trees to be reserved will also

21:21 ↗ need to be reviewed at that time

21:24 ↗ community space will be part of that

21:26 ↗ review as well

21:27 ↗ the project is proposing 24 new units

21:30 ↗ which will require

21:32 ↗ about 6 000 square feet of

21:35 ↗ of shared park space

21:40 ↗ this is a hillside site the telus

21:42 ↗ replacement

21:43 ↗ regulations require over 15 percent

21:45 ↗ grade must meet standards including

21:47 ↗ limiting

21:47 ↗ retaining walls to 10 feet in height or

21:49 ↗ they must be terraced

21:50 ↗ which is a topic that came up earlier

21:52 ↗ and so

21:54 ↗ apparently that is something that must

21:57 ↗ come up frequently in meetings

21:58 ↗ so it's important to to note that there

22:01 ↗ are specific regulations for this site

22:03 ↗ when it comes to walls

22:05 ↗ triage preservation will also be

22:08 ↗ reviewed

22:09 ↗ in the next phase of the project

22:14 ↗ the subdivision must retain a minimum of

22:16 ↗ 30 percent of total caliper of all

22:18 ↗ significant trees in developable site

22:20 ↗ areas as outlined in imc

22:24 ↗ three eight 18.12.1385 a

22:30 ↗ all right and the review process and

22:32 ↗ next steps the applicant has requested

22:35 ↗ that the preliminary flat be reviewed

22:38 ↗ for the 5.7 acre parcel and

22:41 ↗ the proposal is for 24 laps once all

22:44 ↗ staff members have completed their

22:45 ↗ reviews

22:46 ↗ uh city staff will draft the staff

22:48 ↗ report as mentioned earlier

22:50 ↗ and set the date for the hearing

22:52 ↗ examiner

22:53 ↗ who will then make the decision the

22:56 ↗ hearing examiner will hold a public

22:57 ↗ hearing on the proposal

22:59 ↗ and the the city

23:02 ↗ community members and city staff are

23:04 ↗ welcome to join

23:05 ↗ in in that meeting

23:09 ↗ should anyone who is taking part in this

23:11 ↗ meeting wish to be part of that

23:13 ↗ notification

23:15 ↗ list please let me know if you're not

23:17 ↗ already part of the parties of record

23:19 ↗ or live within 300 feet of the site

23:22 ↗ my email is holly k h-o-l-l-y

23:27 ↗ k at issaquah.gov

23:36 ↗ okay with that i will hand it over to

23:38 ↗ leo for his

23:40 ↗ portion of the presentation and i'm

23:41 ↗ going to be running the slides for him

23:43 ↗ here so leo if you just want to let me

23:45 ↗ know when you're ready for me to move on

23:46 ↗ to the next one

23:48 ↗ great thank you holly um and thank you

23:51 ↗ for your uh

23:52 ↗ time in your presentation there that was

23:54 ↗ very good um

23:56 ↗ i will i will try to go through things

23:58 ↗ here and

23:59 ↗ um and then stop for questions at the

24:01 ↗ end of

24:03 ↗ our presentation here but as holly said

24:06 ↗ um we plan to build uh townhomes on this

24:09 ↗ site

24:10 ↗ and the reasoning for that has to do

24:12 ↗ with the density and the topography of

24:14 ↗ the site

24:16 ↗ part of the um part of the purpose of

24:19 ↗ our land plan is to utilize

24:21 ↗ the existing natural topography of the

24:23 ↗ site and to design our homes and product

24:27 ↗ um to best use that topography and

24:29 ↗ townhomes make

24:31 ↗ the most sense we're proposing 24

24:34 ↗ townhomes on the site utilizing

24:36 ↗ approximately 25

24:38 ↗ of the net site area um

24:42 ↗ for the actual development um we're

24:44 ↗ provided or we're proposing 1.43 acres

24:48 ↗ of development area the site is 5.37 so

24:52 ↗ about 25

24:54 ↗ um in this first slide we can see an

24:57 ↗ overview of the site

24:59 ↗ a question came up in the earlier

25:01 ↗ meeting

25:02 ↗ about the proximity of the existing

25:05 ↗ homes in palace

25:06 ↗ to where our closest

25:10 ↗ proposed building will be and on a

25:12 ↗ future

25:13 ↗ slide you'll see our site plan there but

25:16 ↗ just um as a

25:19 ↗ a quick an unofficial measurement i'm

25:22 ↗ suggesting it's going to be at least 250

25:25 ↗ feet

25:26 ↗ between our closest element and the

25:29 ↗ the large retaining wall at the bottom

25:32 ↗ of

25:32 ↗ the portion of dallas that we back up to

25:35 ↗ um

25:35 ↗ that would be the closest point of

25:37 ↗ contact um going back to the last slide

25:39 ↗ you can see that this site is heavily

25:41 ↗ treed

25:42 ↗ there's mature evergreen and deciduous

25:46 ↗ coverage in there

25:48 ↗ there is an existing residence on the

25:50 ↗ site it's been demolished

25:51 ↗ and that was right at the lower right

25:53 ↗ corner of this picture

25:55 ↗ in the highlighted yellow area and the

25:58 ↗ foundation still exists in there

26:00 ↗ that area of the site is relatively flat

26:02 ↗ but it's located above sr 900 there's a

26:04 ↗ large retaining wall

26:06 ↗ that was built with the expansion of sr

26:08 ↗ 900

26:10 ↗ and part of the requirements of this

26:12 ↗ site

26:13 ↗ that were placed by the city of issaquah

26:15 ↗ is that

26:16 ↗ we maintain a 100 foot setback

26:19 ↗ from sr 900 with

26:23 ↗ our development and so um

26:27 ↗ that that forces our um entrance

26:30 ↗ and structures and and other

26:34 ↗ areas of development uh farther away

26:36 ↗ from

26:38 ↗ the sr 900 corridor but it does preserve

26:41 ↗ a permanent green

26:42 ↗ and open space in that location there

26:46 ↗ uh there are a number of critical areas

26:49 ↗ on the site

26:50 ↗ there is um one stream and four wetlands

26:54 ↗ on the site um the stream is an

26:57 ↗ intermittent uh class three water course

27:01 ↗ uh it's on a grade of about 20 percent

27:05 ↗ it actually originates in one of the

27:07 ↗ small wetlands that are located within

27:09 ↗ our site and we're classifying that as

27:11 ↗ wetland b

27:12 ↗ that's a category three wetland there is

27:16 ↗ also

27:16 ↗ uh well i think if yeah if we can go to

27:18 ↗ this side

27:19 ↗ so on the extreme left end of the page

27:22 ↗ here you see the edge of wetland

27:24 ↗ b and that is where the stream which is

27:28 ↗ in blue

27:29 ↗ originates from wetland b carries a 75

27:32 ↗ foot

27:32 ↗ uh buffer and the stream carries a

27:36 ↗ 50-foot buffer under current city code

27:39 ↗ if you look at the large green space at

27:42 ↗ the

27:42 ↗ middle of the page there that is our

27:44 ↗ wetland a

27:46 ↗ wetland a is a february 3 wetland

27:50 ↗ it carries a 75-foot buffer under

27:52 ↗ current city

27:53 ↗ code we had originally envisioned when

27:57 ↗ we had met with staff

27:58 ↗ over a year ago that the city would have

28:01 ↗ adopted by now

28:02 ↗ um the department of ecology

28:04 ↗ recommendations this is a lower

28:06 ↗ grade wetland with a low habitat score

28:09 ↗ and therefore we assumed that it would

28:11 ↗ have a lower buffer

28:12 ↗ which is what this drawing depicts in

28:14 ↗ reality the current city code requires a

28:17 ↗ 75-foot buffer

28:18 ↗ so some adjustments would need to be

28:20 ↗ made to this land plan in order to

28:21 ↗ accommodate that

28:23 ↗ and it's also possible

28:26 ↗ that we would require um a variance

28:30 ↗ in order to enter the site because um

28:33 ↗ with the 100 foot

28:35 ↗ setback from sr 900 and a 75 foot

28:39 ↗ setback from wetland a

28:42 ↗ it it negates our ability to enter

28:45 ↗ in uh the site on an existing access

28:48 ↗ easement

28:49 ↗ that's located directly south of this

28:52 ↗ property

28:54 ↗ um wetland d

28:58 ↗ is not visible in this page it is um

29:01 ↗ at the bottom of our entrance to sr 900

29:05 ↗ it's located on dallas management

29:08 ↗ property it's not

29:09 ↗ a part of this site but it is identified

29:12 ↗ as a wetland

29:13 ↗ and the access road which is paved on

29:17 ↗ our site

29:18 ↗ effectively becomes our boundary on the

29:21 ↗ southern edge of our access road

29:24 ↗ there's one more more wetland it's very

29:26 ↗ small it's wetland c

29:27 ↗ it's not visible in this view it's to

29:29 ↗ the left of the small wetland bee that

29:31 ↗ we see

29:32 ↗ and it really uh with its buffer uh it

29:35 ↗ doesn't have any impact on our proposed

29:37 ↗ development but it is identified and

29:39 ↗ mapped

29:40 ↗ uh on the larger page

29:44 ↗ i'm not sure i can't remember what our

29:45 ↗ next slide is sentencing oh all right

29:48 ↗ see we're on our integrating we have a

29:50 ↗ tree retention

29:51 ↗ i think the tree retention plan um

29:54 ↗ shows uh the area it doesn't quite

29:58 ↗ we didn't map every tree on the property

30:01 ↗ because it's so heavily vegetated and so

30:03 ↗ much of it is

30:04 ↗ well outside of our proposed available

30:07 ↗ area we did map

30:08 ↗ everything that's close to our site and

30:11 ↗ identified that

30:13 ↗ for retention we also are showing

30:16 ↗ the trees that we will be removing right

30:19 ↗ now

30:20 ↗ out of our net developable area we're

30:22 ↗ proposing to remove

30:23 ↗ 20. 21 or to retain

30:26 ↗ 21 of the trees within

30:30 ↗ our developable area on this property

30:33 ↗ and the majority of those retained trees

30:35 ↗ will be along

30:36 ↗ sr 900 however there will be a

30:40 ↗ significant vegetative buffer

30:42 ↗ between our proposed development and the

30:44 ↗ existing talus development

30:46 ↗ directly west of us that will be uh

30:50 ↗ retained uh as holly mentioned um

30:54 ↗ there's also several steep slopes

30:57 ↗ on the site there's one directly below

31:00 ↗ the site on the northwest on northeast

31:04 ↗ corner which would be the top right

31:06 ↗ section of this page

31:07 ↗ that has been mapped as a steep slope

31:10 ↗ it has a buffer and a building setback

31:14 ↗ and our proposed residents are outside

31:16 ↗ of

31:17 ↗ our structures are outside of that

31:18 ↗ building setback

31:20 ↗ one of the lots does go into a small

31:23 ↗ portion of the buffer

31:24 ↗ of that which is permitted currently

31:25 ↗ under city code

31:28 ↗ there's also a steep slope located on as

31:31 ↗ you see this page you can see the steep

31:33 ↗ lines of gradient on the left side of

31:35 ↗ the page

31:36 ↗ and our development is well uh

31:39 ↗ positioned beyond that

31:41 ↗ a a hundred feet from

31:45 ↗ the bottom of that steep slope minimum

31:47 ↗ and and greater

31:50 ↗ um the uh

31:54 ↗ the access to the site will be off of

31:56 ↗ state route 900 there is an existing

31:58 ↗ drive light that currently accesses down

32:00 ↗ to

32:01 ↗ uh say we're 900 there's uh it's paved

32:05 ↗ there's a gate and we intend to take

32:08 ↗ that same

32:09 ↗ access point and improve that to

32:12 ↗ city road standards it's possible that

32:16 ↗ we may

32:17 ↗ propose a vooner as part of our

32:21 ↗ continuing work with staff on this

32:24 ↗ project

32:25 ↗ that would provide a smaller paved area

32:28 ↗ and less impervious surface on the site

32:30 ↗ and it would be it would help to reduce

32:34 ↗ our impacts and requirements for

32:36 ↗ variants into the wetland buffer

32:39 ↗ for utilities we'll be bringing uh sewer

32:41 ↗ directly

32:42 ↗ up from sr 900 and water

32:45 ↗ we propose to bring down from uh

32:49 ↗ talus through an easement through our

32:51 ↗ property

32:53 ↗ um the interior roadways as

32:56 ↗ we've presented show a sidewalk on one

32:59 ↗ side

33:00 ↗ um and it's a modified street standard

33:03 ↗ that we would be requesting from staff

33:05 ↗ however um

33:06 ↗ avon earth is permitted in um

33:10 ↗ in this area of the city and um

33:13 ↗ that is a possible option for us to

33:15 ↗ consider as well as we continue through

33:17 ↗ the preliminary plan

33:18 ↗ process for parking i know that's

33:21 ↗ as a as a builder in talus i've built

33:23 ↗ several hundred homes

33:24 ↗ in the talus community i've done the

33:26 ↗ bridges of talus and oxford

33:28 ↗ and we've done another project below

33:30 ↗ hawksbridge

33:32 ↗ and we are proposing

33:36 ↗ um two parking spaces for each residence

33:40 ↗ that would be in a garage so every

33:44 ↗ residence would have a two-car garage

33:46 ↗ we're also proposing an additional 12

33:50 ↗ guest parking places and we've spaced

33:52 ↗ them throughout the site

33:54 ↗ for access to various buildings um

33:57 ↗ and that's an important feature of the

33:59 ↗ community

34:01 ↗ we are proposing a large open space

34:05 ↗ at the bottom of our site which is going

34:07 ↗ to be adjacent sr 900 in the 100 foot

34:09 ↗ setback area

34:10 ↗ that's relatively flat um there have

34:13 ↗ been

34:14 ↗ recommendations from various members of

34:17 ↗ the public about

34:18 ↗ possible trail connection into our site

34:22 ↗ and into the talus

34:23 ↗ community and we would willingly work

34:26 ↗ with staff

34:26 ↗ and the community to provide that and

34:29 ↗ make something

34:30 ↗ accessible to our site through all of

34:33 ↗ talus as well

34:34 ↗ [Music]

34:37 ↗ um i think i don't know i think i've hit

34:40 ↗ everything i wanted to do

34:41 ↗ uh uh holly is that let's see

34:45 ↗ we've got your overview slides i think

34:48 ↗ you've covered most of that or you are

34:50 ↗ not

34:50 ↗ you or i have collectively um

34:53 ↗ but i'll just put those up here in case

34:56 ↗ there's anything that you wanted to

34:58 ↗ touch upon

34:59 ↗ yeah i'll just say again out of 5.37

35:02 ↗ acres

35:02 ↗ we proposed to only use 25

35:06 ↗ of the site which is 1.43 acres the rest

35:08 ↗ being preserved in either open space

35:11 ↗ or native growth areas

35:14 ↗ and uh we do not propose um

35:18 ↗ a traffic signal off of sr-900 our

35:20 ↗ traffic consultants have told us that's

35:22 ↗ not necessary

35:23 ↗ um and that uh a center turn lane

35:27 ↗ that currently exists in sr 900 will

35:29 ↗ facilitate

35:31 ↗ access into and out of the site or um

35:34 ↗ northbound traffic will have direct

35:36 ↗ access for

35:37 ↗ southbound traffic off of sr 900 however

35:40 ↗ we will of course work with staff and

35:42 ↗ their consultants

35:43 ↗ to make sure that a safe access point is

35:46 ↗ provided into the site

35:51 ↗ and your next slide is site site

35:53 ↗ features kind of touching upon the

35:54 ↗ critical areas

35:55 ↗ one last time yeah and i um again i

35:58 ↗ think that uh

35:59 ↗ i'll just reiterate that um

36:03 ↗ wetland a is currently shown on this

36:05 ↗ site plan

36:06 ↗ it's 50 feet it's under

36:10 ↗ current city standards it will require

36:12 ↗ 75 feet

36:13 ↗ however depending on timing um

36:16 ↗ that buffer may change if it doesn't we

36:19 ↗ would need

36:20 ↗ a variance and we would do a separate

36:22 ↗ application for a variance with staff as

36:24 ↗ well

36:25 ↗ and under their guidance

36:30 ↗ and your general use proposal is

36:34 ↗ i believe i have not designed um the

36:37 ↗ actual

36:38 ↗ buildings but we have done a detailed

36:40 ↗ study of our footprints

36:42 ↗ um and i've used an architect that i've

36:44 ↗ worked with on many

36:45 ↗ projects that's uh very successful and

36:48 ↗ if any of you have ever been in the

36:50 ↗ bridges of talus

36:51 ↗ you'll know that there's a significant

36:53 ↗ amount of slope on that site

36:55 ↗ we've designed we designed our buildings

36:57 ↗ and our structures in there to utilize

37:00 ↗ the topography of the site and we will

37:04 ↗ continue to do that

37:05 ↗ in this project as well and uh grouping

37:08 ↗ buildings together

37:09 ↗ will uh lessen their overall impact it

37:12 ↗ does provide us with uh

37:14 ↗ what i hope would be a more affordable

37:16 ↗ housing option

37:17 ↗ for residents of issaquah um

37:21 ↗ and uh we have not done

37:24 ↗ actual scale building plans rather just

37:27 ↗ a footprint study

37:28 ↗ um we expect our homes to be

37:31 ↗ approximately 2

37:32 ↗ 000 square feet three bedroom two

37:34 ↗ bathroom that's our uh

37:36 ↗ our bowl in mind right now

37:41 ↗ okay and if you just want to touch upon

37:43 ↗ the the storm as that was

37:44 ↗ a comment that was brought up before the

37:46 ↗ meeting i think this would probably be

37:48 ↗ the time to do that

37:50 ↗ thank you ollie yes that's a great uh

37:51 ↗ question so

37:53 ↗ uh we always uh in our analysis we're

37:56 ↗ always looking for

37:57 ↗ um other alternatives to retain our

38:00 ↗ stormwater on site

38:02 ↗ on this site because of its topography

38:04 ↗ because of the soil classification

38:07 ↗ um we are unable to do that um

38:10 ↗ and so in this instance we have designed

38:14 ↗ two vaults on the site one right at the

38:17 ↗ entrance

38:18 ↗ as you come off of sr 900 that would be

38:20 ↗ under the roadway

38:22 ↗ and another just as you enter the site

38:25 ↗ that would also be used

38:26 ↗ as a place for additional guest parking

38:29 ↗ and

38:30 ↗ those are detained those are uh designed

38:33 ↗ to detain

38:34 ↗ uh all the impervious surface runoff

38:36 ↗ that will be generated from the site

38:39 ↗ they will be treated um

38:42 ↗ with for um

38:46 ↗ uh phosphorus treatment and

38:49 ↗ they'll also include a um storm

38:51 ↗ cartridge filter

38:52 ↗ um to bring water quality into line with

38:56 ↗ city standards and we'll continue to

38:58 ↗ work with staff with that on-site bmps

39:02 ↗ that were mentioned or questioned by

39:05 ↗ someone previously are not an option for

39:07 ↗ us on this site

39:10 ↗ okay and thank you leah for your

39:13 ↗ presentation

39:14 ↗ with that i will let

39:18 ↗ us open the florida comments and

39:20 ↗ questions

39:24 ↗ so um as far as the process for comments

39:26 ↗ and questions

39:27 ↗ um since we can't see those we'll have

39:29 ↗ to

39:30 ↗ ask staff to call out folks that are on

39:34 ↗ the

39:34 ↗ call in the meeting uh

39:37 ↗ did the um sometimes the commission

39:40 ↗ wants to ask clarifications before we

39:42 ↗ move to public comment

39:44 ↗ we can certainly do that um if there are

39:46 ↗ questions for clarifications

39:48 ↗ there is a uh the last section here will

39:50 ↗ be our opportunity to ask more specific

39:52 ↗ questions and make comments but if there

39:53 ↗ are

39:54 ↗ questions you have now um just for

39:56 ↗ clarification purposes

39:57 ↗ certainly um raise them since uh i can

40:00 ↗ see most

40:01 ↗ everybody except commissioner price in

40:03 ↗ akita you can just raise your hand

40:05 ↗ in your screen so i can see you and um

40:08 ↗ there is a raised hand feature but

40:09 ↗ instead of going through that

40:11 ↗ explanation i think just a visual

40:13 ↗ probably works just fine so

40:15 ↗ anybody have any clarifying questions

40:17 ↗ and i just wanted to add that i've

40:19 ↗ unmuted um commissioner price uh so

40:22 ↗ hopefully he can participate

40:25 ↗ in spite of the fact that i cannot move

40:27 ↗ him up thank you lucy i did notice that

40:29 ↗ um

40:30 ↗ i did have a question i raised my hand

40:32 ↗ so i'll just jump in real quick

40:34 ↗ um can everybody hear me yes

40:37 ↗ uh so could the applicant describe

40:40 ↗ where retaining walls might occur

40:42 ↗ roughly

40:43 ↗ i didn't i didn't feel feel like we went

40:46 ↗ over that or

40:47 ↗ possibly i'm missing it i just didn't

40:49 ↗ understand where these retaining walls

40:50 ↗ would occur

40:51 ↗ it seems like you would need a number of

40:53 ↗ them or are they just integral to the

40:55 ↗ the structures themselves

40:57 ↗ sure i'm happy to do that it's a great

40:59 ↗ question so um

41:00 ↗ as you enter the site

41:03 ↗ there are retaining walls that will be

41:05 ↗ required

41:07 ↗ on either side of the roadway

41:11 ↗ and they will be

41:15 ↗ in order to achieve a maximum 15 road

41:18 ↗ grade um will have

41:20 ↗ some cut and some fill walls as you

41:23 ↗ enter through the site

41:25 ↗ um up to the first building lot

41:28 ↗ and so on the right side you'll have a

41:30 ↗ retaining wall and on the left side

41:32 ↗ against the wetland there will be

41:34 ↗ another retaining wall that will also

41:35 ↗ minimize our grading

41:36 ↗ necessary against the wetland and the

41:39 ↗ buffer in that location there

41:42 ↗ and then directly above the buffer there

41:45 ↗ is

41:46 ↗ some open space and then an alley road

41:48 ↗ that goes

41:49 ↗ across the bottom of our proposed site

41:52 ↗ and that also will be a fill retaining

41:55 ↗ wall

41:56 ↗ that will basically span

42:00 ↗ the majority of the length of that alley

42:02 ↗ and it will range from

42:04 ↗ two feet to ten feet in height

42:07 ↗ um and at the top of the site where the

42:10 ↗ turnaround and the hammer head is

42:12 ↗ there will be an approximate maximum ten

42:14 ↗ foot retaining wall

42:16 ↗ that also will serve to limit any

42:20 ↗ impacts

42:21 ↗ to the surrounding buffer area by by

42:24 ↗ doing

42:26 ↗ more of a vertical cut retaining wall in

42:29 ↗ that location there

42:31 ↗ and at the top of the site in the

42:33 ↗ backyards of some of the town homes

42:36 ↗ there will be some smaller retaining

42:38 ↗ walls up against the property line

42:40 ↗ and they will be in the two foot to five

42:43 ↗ or six foot

42:44 ↗ height modular block retaining walls

42:48 ↗ within the site we intend to use the

42:51 ↗ natural grade of the site

42:54 ↗ so that the roadway once we're into the

42:57 ↗ first lot

42:58 ↗ um is very close to native grade and

43:02 ↗ we're um we're minimizing the amount of

43:05 ↗ common field

43:07 ↗ both in our roadway and in our building

43:08 ↗ sites

43:09 ↗ [Music]

43:11 ↗ so that part of it is also a cost

43:14 ↗ component so that we're not hauling

43:16 ↗ tremendous amounts of dirt off-site but

43:18 ↗ we're able to reuse dirt on site as well

43:21 ↗ terrific thank you that's all i have

43:24 ↗ great commissioner dillon and

43:26 ↗ commissioner morgan

43:30 ↗ thanks um holly i think i saw in your

43:33 ↗ your presentation that you had quoted

43:35 ↗ the maximum density is

43:37 ↗ 1.24 d u per acre which obviously isn't

43:40 ↗ consistent with

43:41 ↗ with 24 units and i just wanted some

43:45 ↗ clarification on what the

43:47 ↗ the classification and maximum density

43:50 ↗ is for the site

43:53 ↗ so this site was vested as a 24

43:56 ↗ watt plat before the

44:00 ↗ telus replacement regulations were

44:03 ↗ put into play and so

44:07 ↗ the development site is is allowed to

44:11 ↗ move forward as it has been

44:14 ↗ provided so long as it aligns with those

44:17 ↗ development regulations that are

44:19 ↗ replacing the old development agreement

44:21 ↗ and

44:22 ↗ i don't know if lucy wants to add any

44:25 ↗ detail to that at all

44:30 ↗ i think that's fine for now

44:33 ↗ thanks commissioner morgan

44:36 ↗ um thank you uh the on the retaining

44:39 ↗ walls the

44:41 ↗ uh maybe i missed it but the

44:42 ↗ geotechnical report mentioned retaining

44:44 ↗ walls

44:45 ↗ up to 18 feet tall your lot

44:48 ↗ seven

44:51 ↗ is that um can you address that mr sewer

44:57 ↗ i'm not familiar with that so i and i

45:00 ↗ don't

45:00 ↗ have the uh geotechnology report in

45:03 ↗ front of me but i'm not aware

45:05 ↗ that we have an 18-foot retaining wall

45:07 ↗ on this

45:08 ↗ okay it was in the the neighborhood

45:10 ↗ meeting materials

45:11 ↗ and the abp geotech report

45:14 ↗ mentioned that um on page three of their

45:17 ↗ report

45:18 ↗ so okay but

45:21 ↗ you're understanding there's no

45:22 ↗ retaining walls over 10 feet then

45:25 ↗ that's correct yeah right thank you

45:29 ↗ are there other clarifying questions

45:33 ↗ okay seeing then we'll move on to public

45:35 ↗ comment or questions

45:39 ↗ do we have anybody that would like to

45:42 ↗ make a public comment or question ask a

45:44 ↗ question

45:46 ↗ and i'll just remind that if there's a

45:48 ↗ member of the public who would like to

45:50 ↗ ask a question or make a comment that

45:53 ↗ you

45:54 ↗ write question comment in the chat box

45:56 ↗ and then we will move you up as a

45:58 ↗ panelist

46:04 ↗ david uh kepler has identified

46:08 ↗ that he has questions and he's been

46:10 ↗ moved up

46:11 ↗ and unmuted go ahead mr kepler

46:15 ↗ oh great thank you i'm glad i got

46:18 ↗ started there

46:19 ↗ um the the map that's in front of you

46:21 ↗ right now

46:22 ↗ i think it does show at the very middle

46:26 ↗ south end of the higher retaining walls

46:29 ↗ um

46:29 ↗ the elevations show you know it shows

46:32 ↗ the

46:32 ↗ the elevation in front of the wall and

46:34 ↗ the uh elevation on top of the wall

46:37 ↗ and i believe that's where the 18-foot

46:39 ↗ first little section in there is where

46:41 ↗ that number

46:42 ↗ came from um i think earlier the

46:45 ↗ comments

46:46 ↗ on density i think a decimal point got

46:48 ↗ moved wrong like it

46:50 ↗ was said as 2.4 and it should have been

46:52 ↗ 24 or something like that that's where

46:53 ↗ that confusion came from

46:56 ↗ um uh

46:59 ↗ it's kind of interesting with that

47:01 ↗ hundred foot setback which actually

47:03 ↗ kind of pushes it into more trees and

47:05 ↗ and

47:06 ↗ makes some of the site a little more

47:08 ↗ difficult um with

47:10 ↗ grade but it makes the the site a lot

47:12 ↗ quieter

47:13 ↗ and a lot less visible uh to the to the

47:16 ↗ public so i

47:17 ↗ i think it it kind of gets back in there

47:21 ↗ and it's definitely a a better place to

47:25 ↗ live

47:26 ↗ in terms of separation from talus

47:28 ↗ there's significant

47:29 ↗ horizontal but also significant vertical

47:34 ↗ separation between the two communities

47:37 ↗ but the need for a trail i think is

47:40 ↗ really important to connect

47:42 ↗ those and um that's going to take a lot

47:44 ↗ of field work

47:45 ↗ it's um it really they don't own the

47:47 ↗ property to connect up there

47:49 ↗ the property that's below the existing

47:53 ↗ talus trail belongs the homeowners

47:54 ↗ association

47:56 ↗ so that the location that trail would

47:58 ↗ have to be worked out with the hoa

48:00 ↗ but i believe the hoa is supportive of

48:03 ↗ connecting

48:03 ↗ this this the community together

48:07 ↗ and i certainly am as well

48:11 ↗ um just i've been thinking about i guess

48:15 ↗ my

48:16 ↗ long time as a teacher thinking about

48:17 ↗ school buses and

48:19 ↗ the center lane and and and all of that

48:21 ↗ down there it's going to just have to be

48:23 ↗ well thought of

48:24 ↗ where the driveway comes out to 900

48:28 ↗ another complication there is there is

48:31 ↗ no sidewalk on the other side

48:33 ↗ of 900 on the west side

48:36 ↗ it's very wide but it also kind of

48:38 ↗ becomes a bikeway

48:40 ↗ so in a sense this this driveway is

48:42 ↗ crossing

48:43 ↗ where you could have bikes and that's

48:46 ↗ just going to take some signage and

48:48 ↗ and make sure the visibility is really

48:51 ↗ clear

48:52 ↗ on on that entryway there

48:56 ↗ so i know they're going to widen it up

48:58 ↗ to what from where it is now and

49:00 ↗ that should help to make it work better

49:03 ↗ and safer

49:05 ↗ um i've made a pitch for

49:08 ↗ some of the mitigation for the tree loss

49:10 ↗ that some of these trees could end up

49:13 ↗ going being donated to the state park to

49:15 ↗ be used in the

49:16 ↗ mitigation project that mountain sound

49:18 ↗ greenway is doing where they need

49:20 ↗ large woody debris in the state park to

49:23 ↗ uh

49:24 ↗ to get the creek in better shape over

49:26 ↗ there

49:29 ↗ um so i'm just encouraging people

49:32 ↗ the park department the city the

49:34 ↗ developer

49:35 ↗ and other interested citizens especially

49:37 ↗ the residents

49:38 ↗ above to work together on figuring out

49:41 ↗ the trail system that would work

49:44 ↗ um and come up with something that works

49:47 ↗ as a benefit

49:48 ↗ to everybody and is not a big

49:51 ↗ environmental impact

49:53 ↗ and is um over the long term is built

49:56 ↗ correctly so it's not a long-term

50:00 ↗ maintenance nightmare and it's just done

50:03 ↗ right at the start and

50:05 ↗ it'll be a good a great trail and well

50:08 ↗ used i believe

50:11 ↗ um thank you that's it

50:14 ↗ thank you mr kefla are there other

50:17 ↗ members of the public that would like to

50:19 ↗ speak

50:23 ↗ at this time i'm not seeing uh

50:26 ↗ any oh wait um yes just a moment

50:33 ↗ connie marsh i have uh moved you to be a

50:37 ↗ panelist

50:38 ↗ and you are unmuted

50:41 ↗ it must be hard to see

50:44 ↗ okay so um

50:48 ↗ maybe i'll start with dave because he

50:51 ↗ just spoke

50:52 ↗ so dave keeps saying the trees moving

50:55 ↗ over which i agree with

50:57 ↗ to the project for mountains to sound

51:00 ↗ greenway

51:01 ↗ could be considered mitigation i don't

51:04 ↗ agree that they are

51:06 ↗ mitigation um but i do

51:09 ↗ think that it is good will

51:12 ↗ and sometimes goodwill is an amazing

51:15 ↗ thing in a community especially when

51:18 ↗ you're building

51:19 ↗ right next to dallas and they might get

51:22 ↗ cranky

51:22 ↗ and you're building on sr 900 and you

51:25 ↗ could be causing some

51:27 ↗ road disturbances that are going to piss

51:29 ↗ people off

51:30 ↗ so i don't think goodwill can be

51:32 ↗ underestimated

51:34 ↗ but i do refute the concept of

51:37 ↗ mitigation sorry dave um

51:40 ↗ so the the forested buffer that is

51:44 ↗ required was the original 100

51:46 ↗ foot view buffer for talus

51:50 ↗ and that was carried forward

51:54 ↗ in the new standards so

51:57 ↗ uh is that considered a developable

52:02 ↗ area i would say no um

52:05 ↗ so when you don't consider that a

52:08 ↗ developable

52:09 ↗ area your tree retention

52:13 ↗ sounds low because that's where your

52:16 ↗ trees

52:17 ↗ are and so then when you say we have a

52:20 ↗ flat

52:20 ↗ space down there that we could use

52:24 ↗ as the sort of community

52:27 ↗ public area that's required uh

52:30 ↗ that doesn't seem particularly

52:32 ↗ functional

52:34 ↗ because it's a long ways away from where

52:36 ↗ these people would be living

52:38 ↗ so i don't see a

52:42 ↗ place where people can easily get to

52:46 ↗ to have to do something now you're

52:49 ↗ we'll nerf maybe but it does seem like

52:53 ↗ you need some sort of recreational space

52:56 ↗ or

52:56 ↗ something there for people who who don't

53:00 ↗ want to take a hike to the bottom of the

53:02 ↗ hill and then

53:03 ↗ suffer the sr 900 noise because it's not

53:06 ↗ particularly pleasant by sr 900

53:10 ↗ um so

53:14 ↗ uh a cut and fill map i didn't see a cut

53:17 ↗ and fill map

53:18 ↗ and so i'm looking at all this grade

53:20 ↗ change

53:21 ↗ and i did hear you say something about

53:23 ↗ we are trying to reduce the amount of

53:26 ↗ cut and fill or the cutting movement of

53:29 ↗ dirt i'll say that

53:30 ↗ but but

53:34 ↗ i don't see

53:37 ↗ the quantification so then i start

53:39 ↗ thinking about

53:40 ↗ trucking and then i start thinking about

53:42 ↗ sr 900

53:44 ↗ and then i start start thinking about

53:46 ↗ staging

53:47 ↗ so i would like to see a little more

53:49 ↗ information on how

53:51 ↗ that is going to work out because we've

53:54 ↗ had

53:54 ↗ a lot of problems in issaquah with just

53:56 ↗ the movement of dirt

53:58 ↗ especially on a big road like sr 900

54:00 ↗ where it's going to be hard to get in

54:02 ↗ and out

54:03 ↗ so now let's talk about getting in and

54:05 ↗ out on sr 900

54:07 ↗ there are times of the day where you

54:09 ↗ simply will not be able to turn left

54:12 ↗ you won't be able to get to that lane

54:14 ↗ that is just

54:15 ↗ life in non-covid okay we're assuming

54:19 ↗ not covered

54:20 ↗ so i think you need to make a plan where

54:23 ↗ you are going to be able to figure out

54:25 ↗ how you can turn around if you can have

54:27 ↗ a right turn only

54:28 ↗ because i think that's reality people

54:30 ↗ are often just

54:31 ↗ or the scared driver right my mother my

54:34 ↗ sister would never try to take a left on

54:36 ↗ this or 900

54:37 ↗ so what do they do if they turn right

54:41 ↗ do they go down to talus and then weave

54:44 ↗ their way through the school district

54:46 ↗ building

54:46 ↗ how is it that you can get them to

54:50 ↗ make an elegant left without

54:53 ↗ fearing death and i think you really

54:56 ↗ have to consider that because

54:57 ↗ a lot of people might not buy if they're

54:59 ↗ chicken drivers

55:00 ↗ right so then i'm going to move to

55:04 ↗ retaining wall maintenance is this a

55:07 ↗ private road

55:08 ↗ is this a public road who is retaining

55:11 ↗ who is maintaining the road and the

55:13 ↗ retaining walls

55:14 ↗ because retaining walls take maintenance

55:16 ↗ otherwise they fall

55:18 ↗ right because you have to keep them

55:19 ↗ unplugged and ready to go and they

55:21 ↗ actually

55:22 ↗ cost the homeowners association money

55:25 ↗ and so then as i look at the retaining

55:27 ↗ walls that you say are supposed to be

55:29 ↗ above this wetland and i know that in

55:32 ↗ order to maintain a retaining wall

55:34 ↗ you actually have to provide drainage

55:38 ↗ for those retaining walls away from the

55:41 ↗ foot of the retaining wall and

55:44 ↗ then i'm trying to again see how this

55:47 ↗ wetland is going to keep the water that

55:51 ↗ it needs to thrive

55:53 ↗ because we actually in this town need to

55:55 ↗ make our critical areas better

55:57 ↗ we don't have the luxury of just keeping

56:00 ↗ them the same or degrading them

56:02 ↗ i mean we we simply have to step up

56:06 ↗ so i don't understand

56:09 ↗ um your your your critical area

56:12 ↗ sustenance

56:14 ↗ and then one last thing sound goes

56:17 ↗ up and so i think you're gonna have to

56:21 ↗ think about the people who are upgrade

56:24 ↗ from you when you start talking about

56:25 ↗ the noise

56:27 ↗ that you are going to be making as you

56:30 ↗ have this construction

56:31 ↗ so i would try to reach out to them

56:35 ↗ in advance and have a constant

56:38 ↗ communication

56:39 ↗ with upslope people so that they don't

56:42 ↗ get grumpy and they're happy to have you

56:44 ↗ there

56:45 ↗ because communication is key right

56:49 ↗ um and nobody wants to wake up at 7 00

56:52 ↗ a.m on a saturday morning because you

56:54 ↗ guys decided you wanted to do this on

56:56 ↗ weekends

56:56 ↗ and their windows are open because it's

56:58 ↗ summer and now they're cranky right

57:01 ↗ so at this point that is all of my

57:04 ↗ comments thank you very much thank you

57:08 ↗ miss marsh

57:10 ↗ are there other members of the public

57:12 ↗ that would like to comment

57:17 ↗ at this time i do not

57:20 ↗ see any other uh questions

57:23 ↗ or chats um indicating

57:27 ↗ uh someone who would like to comment

57:32 ↗ okay thank you so then we'll open it up

57:34 ↗ to questions from

57:35 ↗ commission members i'll do kind of the

57:38 ↗ same approach

57:39 ↗ going to raise your hand i can see you

57:40 ↗ um and can

57:42 ↗ uh commissioner bryson akita you'll just

57:45 ↗ have to

57:46 ↗ kind of uh chime in if you have an

57:48 ↗ add-on question or if you'd like to

57:49 ↗ ask a question and and we'll make space

57:52 ↗ for you if we can't see you i can't

57:54 ↗ see you um mr commissioner sanford

57:58 ↗ hi thank you uh chairman richard sanford

58:01 ↗ i have a question about

58:03 ↗ uh where the grades are located

58:07 ↗ in the um neighborhood discussion

58:09 ↗ document

58:11 ↗ there is information regarding it says

58:14 ↗ for lots

58:15 ↗ 19 to 24 the house locations are set

58:19 ↗ back more than 25 feet from the top of

58:21 ↗ the 40

58:22 ↗ slopes and on lot 24 the minimum setback

58:26 ↗ appears to be on the order of about 20

58:28 ↗ feet

58:29 ↗ could you show us where on the diagram

58:32 ↗ those lots are and what we're talking

58:34 ↗ about

58:41 ↗ sorry lot 24 is the first lot

58:45 ↗ that comes up on your right as you're

58:47 ↗ driving into the site

58:50 ↗ and lot 23 is directly above it lot 22

58:54 ↗ lot 21.20 that's how it's

58:57 ↗ lined up there so a lot 24 is your first

59:00 ↗ lot as you come up

59:01 ↗ that's designed as a wider more shallow

59:04 ↗ single

59:04 ↗ detached home currently

59:08 ↗ okay and so that's the uh forty percent

59:11 ↗ grade directly behind those slots is

59:13 ↗ that right to the right

59:15 ↗ there's a building setback line and

59:16 ↗ that's the if you look at the footprint

59:18 ↗ of the home

59:20 ↗ the footprint of the home is outside of

59:23 ↗ the building setback line

59:25 ↗ and then the edge of the steep slope

59:27 ↗ buffer is the second line

59:29 ↗ at the back edge of the property

59:33 ↗ okay

59:38 ↗ and the other steep slopes i think that

59:40 ↗ you indicated before

59:42 ↗ on the lower right part of that diagram

59:44 ↗ are those 40

59:45 ↗ slopes as well

59:48 ↗ not at the lower right at the upper

59:51 ↗ right portion

59:52 ↗ of the site as well i'm sorry i'm sorry

59:55 ↗ i guess this is lower left

59:56 ↗ on this diagram yes lower left those are

59:59 ↗ those slopes are above us

1:00:01 ↗ uh on the left side of the creek as

1:00:03 ↗ we're looking at this plan

1:00:04 ↗ that's where the other location of steep

1:00:06 ↗ slopes are

1:00:08 ↗ okay and it indicates there are 25

1:00:12 ↗ slopes within the buildable area is that

1:00:14 ↗ right

1:00:19 ↗ um

1:00:22 ↗ i'm not where are you seeing that

1:00:25 ↗ information

1:00:27 ↗ think there were references to that in

1:00:29 ↗ the uh

1:00:31 ↗ neighborhood discussion document what

1:00:33 ↗ are the slopes within the buildable area

1:00:35 ↗ there are no 25

1:00:37 ↗ grades there uh are you referring to

1:00:42 ↗ just

1:00:42 ↗ um existing grade

1:00:45 ↗ yes yes uh uh

1:00:50 ↗ i'm sorry i believe it's the the

1:00:52 ↗ uppermost portion of the site

1:00:54 ↗ where the steepest amount of slope is uh

1:00:56 ↗ that would be on this page

1:00:57 ↗ at the upper left corner of the site

1:01:00 ↗ okay

1:01:01 ↗ i believe that's our steepest gradient

1:01:02 ↗ in this particular site

1:01:04 ↗ okay and so the areas

1:01:08 ↗ that are most proximal to the wetland

1:01:11 ↗ would be probably this 40 percent grade

1:01:14 ↗ in the lower left of this diagram that

1:01:16 ↗ we can see

1:01:18 ↗ and is that wetland a that we're talking

1:01:20 ↗ about that's fairly close to that on the

1:01:22 ↗ lower left

1:01:24 ↗ um the stream is on

1:01:27 ↗ the lower left of the site here and it's

1:01:30 ↗ at the base

1:01:31 ↗ of the steep slope and there's a wetland

1:01:34 ↗ b

1:01:34 ↗ which is on you see it just at the very

1:01:37 ↗ top of the stream

1:01:38 ↗ on the extreme left edge of the page

1:01:40 ↗ right okay that's the edge of wetland b

1:01:42 ↗ wetland a is the large green wetland

1:01:45 ↗ that we see just as we enter the site at

1:01:46 ↗ the bottom of the site

1:01:48 ↗ okay all right thank you

1:01:53 ↗ are there other questions from the

1:01:55 ↗ commission

1:01:58 ↗ i believe uh commissioner schulte has

1:02:00 ↗ his hand up

1:02:04 ↗ go ahead oh thank you um question for

1:02:07 ↗ the applicant mr sewer i've got

1:02:09 ↗ two questions the first one is can you

1:02:12 ↗ speak to

1:02:14 ↗ um the fire department access

1:02:17 ↗ into this site do you anticipate having

1:02:20 ↗ to

1:02:21 ↗ widen any of these roads access points

1:02:24 ↗ or right now are they reflective of

1:02:28 ↗ the fire department standards i imagine

1:02:31 ↗ that large uh

1:02:34 ↗ kind of roundabout area is there method

1:02:36 ↗ of circulation

1:02:38 ↗ um that is actually an alley um oh

1:02:41 ↗ that's nearly okay

1:02:42 ↗ yeah at the top of the alley at the uh

1:02:44 ↗ extreme left of the

1:02:46 ↗ paved area there that is a fire truck

1:02:48 ↗ turnaround

1:02:50 ↗ roads the grades and the radius

1:02:54 ↗ are all designed to city standards

1:02:57 ↗ we are proposing a 15 road grade

1:03:01 ↗ and that is our maximum slope which is

1:03:06 ↗ permissible for city emergency vehicles

1:03:11 ↗ and there's there is discussion we have

1:03:14 ↗ additional discussion that we have to

1:03:15 ↗ make for city maintenance vehicles

1:03:17 ↗ for utility access and and as part of

1:03:20 ↗ the planning process we have to work

1:03:22 ↗ through that with staff

1:03:24 ↗ okay and my second part

1:03:27 ↗ my second question is can you clarify

1:03:30 ↗ what the extents of the woundorf would

1:03:32 ↗ be did you mention there was going to be

1:03:34 ↗ a wound earth towards the bottom near

1:03:36 ↗ the entry and

1:03:37 ↗ does that go all the way up the main

1:03:40 ↗ road is

1:03:41 ↗ or is that just the alley uh

1:03:44 ↗ i'm only mentioning the wounder because

1:03:47 ↗ it is

1:03:48 ↗ permitted for this development without

1:03:51 ↗ any modifications of standards

1:03:54 ↗ um the road that i'm currently proposing

1:03:56 ↗ on this

1:03:57 ↗ would require a modification of

1:03:59 ↗ standards to achieve

1:04:00 ↗ because it's uh as a sidewalk on one

1:04:03 ↗ side

1:04:03 ↗ and we've intentionally

1:04:09 ↗ shortened the width of the overall

1:04:12 ↗ right-of-way

1:04:13 ↗ in order to limit the amount of impact

1:04:15 ↗ that we have

1:04:16 ↗ um but if a vooner is more preferred by

1:04:19 ↗ staff

1:04:20 ↗ that would be the main road going in it

1:04:22 ↗ would not include the alley

1:04:24 ↗ okay okay got it um

1:04:27 ↗ yeah i know i i do see that sidewalk on

1:04:30 ↗ that main

1:04:30 ↗ that main road access point and whether

1:04:33 ↗ you know whether it's just the

1:04:34 ↗ traditional street with the sidewalk or

1:04:35 ↗ whether it's a wound or if i do

1:04:37 ↗ encourage

1:04:38 ↗ um uh safe

1:04:42 ↗ safe access for both pedestrians and

1:04:44 ↗ bicycles i know we have that uh

1:04:46 ↗ that bicycle path uh along 900 right

1:04:49 ↗ that

1:04:49 ↗ i think ideally we want to connect to

1:04:51 ↗ and then we also have the uh

1:04:54 ↗ the transit station uh up north of the

1:04:57 ↗ site

1:04:57 ↗ so uh you know i envision the residents

1:05:00 ↗ here potentially

1:05:02 ↗ whether it's by foot or by bicycle

1:05:04 ↗ accessing

1:05:05 ↗ uh you know public transportation um a

1:05:08 ↗ lawn 900

1:05:09 ↗ so i don't know what safety measures

1:05:11 ↗ you've got in place whether they are

1:05:13 ↗ bollards whether it is just a raised

1:05:15 ↗ sidewalk along that road but but i do

1:05:18 ↗ encourage

1:05:20 ↗ safe access to and from the site

1:05:23 ↗ thank you i i yeah i appreciate that

1:05:26 ↗ comment

1:05:28 ↗ thank you can i interject uh quickly

1:05:32 ↗ absolutely go ahead or ask a question

1:05:34 ↗ for those that may not know could either

1:05:36 ↗ the applicant

1:05:37 ↗ or staff describe what a voo nerf is and

1:05:40 ↗ how it might be applied to this site

1:05:44 ↗ i'd be happy to take a stab at it um

1:05:46 ↗ [Music]

1:05:47 ↗ because i've put i've built a few of

1:05:49 ↗ them avunif is typically

1:05:51 ↗ a concrete paved roadway

1:05:54 ↗ that is meant to incorporate both

1:05:56 ↗ vehicles

1:05:57 ↗ and pedestrians in the same surface

1:06:00 ↗ and it's usually done with a pattern

1:06:03 ↗ concrete

1:06:05 ↗ to give drivers a cue that there's a

1:06:07 ↗ different driving surface

1:06:10 ↗ that is sharing a roadway it's been

1:06:13 ↗ commonly used in the urban villages

1:06:15 ↗ i've also used it in several other um

1:06:19 ↗ projects outside of the issaquah area

1:06:21 ↗ one notably in

1:06:22 ↗ the city of redmond um and so uh and i i

1:06:26 ↗ found them to be

1:06:27 ↗ very effective means of traffic control

1:06:32 ↗ excellent thank you for that description

1:06:34 ↗ um

1:06:35 ↗ i would just add that there is a

1:06:37 ↗ standard for booners

1:06:38 ↗ in the talus replacement regulations

1:06:42 ↗ if there is a maximum number of homes

1:06:45 ↗ and a width of 20 feet

1:06:49 ↗ which meets the fire department

1:06:52 ↗ of fire lane access with um

1:06:56 ↗ and east side fire and rescue will

1:06:59 ↗ review the plat

1:07:00 ↗ and the construction drawings to ensure

1:07:02 ↗ it meets all of their

1:07:03 ↗ standards for access

1:07:07 ↗ and the allowed number of homes is 29

1:07:09 ↗ units

1:07:11 ↗ thank you

1:07:15 ↗ are there other questions from the

1:07:17 ↗ commission

1:07:22 ↗ mr morgan uh thank you commissioner

1:07:26 ↗ brandon

1:07:26 ↗ one question i um mr stewart i thought i

1:07:30 ↗ heard you mentioned retaining 21

1:07:32 ↗ of the trees on the developable area

1:07:35 ↗ and in the staff report i read that code

1:07:37 ↗ requires a minimum of 30

1:07:39 ↗ of significant trees be maintained am i

1:07:43 ↗ missing something in those two numbers

1:07:51 ↗ you are not that is the requirement in

1:07:54 ↗ the true regulations

1:07:56 ↗ in the imc um

1:08:00 ↗ this proposal is still being reviewed

1:08:02 ↗ and the true retention

1:08:04 ↗ proposal has not been reviewed in depth

1:08:08 ↗ at this point in time

1:08:11 ↗ okay thank you

1:08:17 ↗ yeah commission exemplar question to

1:08:20 ↗ pick up on

1:08:21 ↗ commissioner morgan's recent

1:08:24 ↗ his last question does one of those

1:08:26 ↗ refer to total number of trees in the

1:08:28 ↗ developable area in other words that

1:08:31 ↗ that's 17 and the other to caliper

1:08:35 ↗ of significant trees in the buildable

1:08:37 ↗ area are they kind of

1:08:39 ↗ two different numbers

1:08:44 ↗ i believe that is correct and we will

1:08:46 ↗ address that in our

1:08:47 ↗ written comments and follow up

1:08:52 ↗ [Music]

1:08:57 ↗ are there other questions

1:09:03 ↗ yeah commissioner kita

1:09:10 ↗ i do have a question getting back to

1:09:12 ↗ commissioner

1:09:13 ↗ morgan's discussion on retaining walls

1:09:16 ↗ at the

1:09:17 ↗ the toe of the cut at the steep slopes

1:09:20 ↗ yeah there's

1:09:21 ↗ com discussion about having retaining

1:09:22 ↗ walls are the retaining walls

1:09:24 ↗ um drained and then where will they be

1:09:27 ↗ dilated at

1:09:31 ↗ um all of the retaining walls will

1:09:34 ↗ will be installed with a drainage system

1:09:37 ↗ and because um all of our

1:09:40 ↗ drains all of our detention is located

1:09:43 ↗ well downhill of all of the

1:09:45 ↗ proposed retaining walls will be able to

1:09:48 ↗ capture and collect

1:09:50 ↗ uh and detain any groundwater that comes

1:09:54 ↗ through those

1:09:54 ↗ either through the primary detention

1:09:57 ↗ vault or the secondary vault located

1:09:59 ↗ closer down to the bottom of the hill

1:10:01 ↗ and then they'll be hard piped

1:10:03 ↗ from the retaining wall to the to the

1:10:05 ↗ storm drain system then

1:10:06 ↗ that's exactly right thanks

1:10:13 ↗ other questions

1:10:18 ↗ i've got uh maybe i'll just uh ask a

1:10:20 ↗ couple here real quick

1:10:21 ↗ so i heard from uh mr kaplan during

1:10:24 ↗ public comment about

1:10:26 ↗ uh encouraging kind of trail connections

1:10:29 ↗ within the development area and as

1:10:32 ↗ you've been

1:10:32 ↗ talking about kind of the site

1:10:36 ↗ slope conditions etc is it viable to

1:10:39 ↗ actually make those connections

1:10:42 ↗ particularly to the talus

1:10:43 ↗ neighborhood above this development area

1:10:48 ↗ and um how would you how would you

1:10:50 ↗ accomplish that i don't know how much

1:10:52 ↗ opportunity you've had to look at that

1:10:54 ↗ explore that but how significant of a

1:10:56 ↗ challenge is that

1:10:59 ↗ um i have had some offline discussions

1:11:02 ↗ with mr kepler um

1:11:04 ↗ about potential locations for trail

1:11:07 ↗ connections

1:11:10 ↗ i think his initial reaction was um to

1:11:13 ↗ connect

1:11:14 ↗ not actually into our property but on to

1:11:17 ↗ our access easement as we come up sr900

1:11:21 ↗ it is quite steep um once you go

1:11:24 ↗ off of our site and at the base of the

1:11:28 ↗ wall so it would take a very hardy

1:11:30 ↗ person to make it to the top and i have

1:11:33 ↗ done it once

1:11:34 ↗ i'm not going to do it every day though

1:11:37 ↗ okay and then a question about

1:11:41 ↗ um the wetland buffers there were two

1:11:44 ↗ paths that were described one was

1:11:47 ↗ um the regulations are being um kind of

1:11:50 ↗ redeveloped i guess

1:11:51 ↗ some work being done on that front the

1:11:53 ↗ other was a variant so just curious

1:11:55 ↗ about

1:11:56 ↗ this is a question to staff kind of a

1:11:59 ↗ timing question

1:12:00 ↗ if that is in the works and is that um

1:12:04 ↗ are those decisions going to be made in

1:12:06 ↗ time for this particular project

1:12:08 ↗ or is a variance going to be the path

1:12:10 ↗ most likely

1:12:11 ↗ to accomplish the proposed layout

1:12:16 ↗ so as you probably know um

1:12:19 ↗ planning is working on updating title 18

1:12:21 ↗ and

1:12:22 ↗ the direction from the council has been

1:12:24 ↗ that they would like it to be a holistic

1:12:26 ↗ and comprehensive uh amendment to

1:12:30 ↗ the title and so

1:12:33 ↗ my assumption is based on past

1:12:35 ↗ experience that that is going to take

1:12:37 ↗ staff probably the better part of

1:12:40 ↗ one to two years potentially

1:12:44 ↗ um the amendments to critical areas are

1:12:49 ↗ based off

1:12:50 ↗ of the best practices and ecology

1:12:53 ↗ recommendations

1:12:54 ↗ which have already been updated and so

1:12:57 ↗ we already

1:12:58 ↗ know what those recommended buffers

1:13:01 ↗ would be

1:13:02 ↗ for a wetland that is a category three

1:13:06 ↗ with a habitat

1:13:07 ↗ score of five or lower i apologize i'm

1:13:10 ↗ trying to

1:13:11 ↗ go off the cuff here uh but i'm pretty

1:13:14 ↗ certain that's this is accurate and lucy

1:13:16 ↗ if

1:13:16 ↗ it's not please cut me off um that

1:13:20 ↗ requires under ecology's new guidance a

1:13:22 ↗ 60-foot buffer rather than 75

1:13:25 ↗ feet and that is one of the only

1:13:29 ↗ environmental regulations that has

1:13:33 ↗ lessened as you may know most are

1:13:35 ↗ becoming much more restrictive

1:13:37 ↗ and that is based heavily on the habitat

1:13:40 ↗ score

1:13:41 ↗ because of that low habitat score

1:13:45 ↗ so let's say for instance we were able

1:13:47 ↗ to get that amendment done that 60 foot

1:13:50 ↗ buffer

1:13:50 ↗ would then apply to this project and

1:13:52 ↗ then the applicant

1:13:53 ↗ could apply for a reduction rather than

1:13:56 ↗ going through a variance process

1:13:58 ↗ however if it doesn't get done in a

1:14:00 ↗ timely um

1:14:02 ↗ in correlation to this project timely

1:14:03 ↗ enough for the applicant then

1:14:05 ↗ he would need to apply for variants

1:14:09 ↗ great thank you uh what just one more

1:14:12 ↗ question

1:14:13 ↗ i guess too related to the road access

1:14:16 ↗ the question was asked during public

1:14:18 ↗ comment as whether or not it would be

1:14:20 ↗ a public road or would be maintained as

1:14:23 ↗ a private road

1:14:24 ↗ i think you talked about it was going to

1:14:25 ↗ be constructed to public road standards

1:14:28 ↗ but

1:14:28 ↗ question of ownership was raised

1:14:30 ↗ interested in

1:14:32 ↗ what the plan is there it will be

1:14:35 ↗ a private road and private storm

1:14:37 ↗ drainage system it will be public

1:14:39 ↗ utilities

1:14:40 ↗ on water and sewers and then at the

1:14:44 ↗ connection of the road to uh sr 900

1:14:48 ↗ it kind of goes off the topographic map

1:14:51 ↗ there but it is

1:14:53 ↗ the condition at the road it's fairly

1:14:55 ↗ steep heading down to 900 i'm just

1:14:57 ↗ curious about on a day where things are

1:14:59 ↗ a little slippery out there

1:15:01 ↗ um is there um you know thought about a

1:15:04 ↗ run out at the bottom or something

1:15:06 ↗ where it's flattened out to prevent

1:15:08 ↗ people from sliding into what could be

1:15:11 ↗ fast moving traffic it's probably part

1:15:12 ↗ of your traffic

1:15:13 ↗ safety study that sounds like it's still

1:15:15 ↗ under discussion

1:15:17 ↗ it actually the roadway does flatten off

1:15:20 ↗ as we get

1:15:21 ↗ down to sr 900 the steeper part of the

1:15:25 ↗ site

1:15:25 ↗ is up in the buildable where the

1:15:28 ↗ building lots are

1:15:29 ↗ but our grade does flatten out as we go

1:15:31 ↗ down and it's quite flat at the bottom

1:15:34 ↗ great thank you

1:15:37 ↗ the only item i would just add um to

1:15:40 ↗ commissioner

1:15:41 ↗ uh chairperson brennan's uh

1:15:44 ↗ question is that our public and private

1:15:47 ↗ standards are the same

1:15:49 ↗ ownership is uh different and there are

1:15:52 ↗ some

1:15:53 ↗ advantages that may come with that um

1:15:57 ↗ based on certain details of construction

1:15:59 ↗ but the standards are the same

1:16:01 ↗ great thank you for that can i ask a

1:16:03 ↗ follow-up question

1:16:04 ↗ to to lucy's comment and and mike's

1:16:08 ↗ questions

1:16:09 ↗ yes go ahead reach your price um

1:16:13 ↗ so so uh in regards to one of the public

1:16:16 ↗ comments too

1:16:16 ↗ uh the retaining walls will need

1:16:18 ↗ maintenance this road

1:16:20 ↗ uh will need maintenance um and

1:16:23 ↗ the the nature of ownership of these

1:16:25 ↗ units you say their townhouse is correct

1:16:29 ↗ that's correct yes so that won't they

1:16:31 ↗ will be individually owned

1:16:32 ↗ so there won't necessarily be an

1:16:34 ↗ association unless

1:16:36 ↗ they form an association and a

1:16:38 ↗ homeowners

1:16:39 ↗ association that they would create a

1:16:41 ↗ fund for

1:16:43 ↗ such uh routine maintenance would that

1:16:45 ↗ be true

1:16:46 ↗ there will be a homeowners association

1:16:49 ↗ um and it will be formed

1:16:50 ↗ prior to any sale of any units in there

1:16:52 ↗ and in that

1:16:53 ↗ will be uh part of the budget will be

1:16:57 ↗ for road maintenance okay

1:17:00 ↗ thank you

1:17:06 ↗ other questions from the commission

1:17:12 ↗ seeing no additional questions

1:17:15 ↗ commissioner brandon i do have a

1:17:17 ↗ question this is commissioner schulte

1:17:20 ↗ um question for you mr suver

1:17:23 ↗ um i was looking at the i was just

1:17:25 ↗ looking at in street view

1:17:26 ↗ of 900 and that access point has there

1:17:30 ↗ been

1:17:31 ↗ has there been a review done in terms of

1:17:33 ↗ site triangles

1:17:34 ↗ as you reach the bottom of that road

1:17:37 ↗ because there is a retaining wall

1:17:42 ↗ traveling north you know as you're

1:17:43 ↗ looking left so you know if you wanted

1:17:45 ↗ to turn right

1:17:47 ↗ or left i i don't know if there's

1:17:49 ↗ potentially

1:17:50 ↗ conflict of having to pull further out

1:17:53 ↗ towards the street

1:17:54 ↗ um before seeing the approaching traffic

1:17:57 ↗ from

1:17:58 ↗ the left side you know the retaining

1:18:01 ↗ wall starts out fairly short but it does

1:18:03 ↗ grow in height so

1:18:04 ↗ i don't know in terms of sight whether

1:18:07 ↗ you had an opportunity to visit

1:18:09 ↗ visit that specific spot and see what

1:18:11 ↗ that what that approach looks like

1:18:14 ↗ site distance is a requirement of our

1:18:16 ↗ review and process with the city and

1:18:18 ↗ that is something to be addressed with

1:18:20 ↗ our consultants

1:18:21 ↗ okay okay thank you

1:18:27 ↗ other questions for the applicant or for

1:18:30 ↗ staff

1:18:34 ↗ seeing and want to also just create an

1:18:36 ↗ opportunity if anybody has any

1:18:38 ↗ just general comments uh observations

1:18:40 ↗ that they would like to share

1:18:42 ↗ um just raise your hand and i'll call on

1:18:45 ↗ you for those

1:18:51 ↗ commissioner morgan um

1:18:54 ↗ but i do appreciate the the work that's

1:18:57 ↗ going into this obviously uh

1:18:59 ↗ a tight steep site and um

1:19:03 ↗ but we have a tight steeply priced

1:19:05 ↗ housing market and a need for a lot of

1:19:07 ↗ housing so i can understand it

1:19:09 ↗ and just one quick comment i guess if

1:19:12 ↗ the option of a wounder came up on the

1:19:14 ↗ road

1:19:14 ↗ i prefer it the way it's designed i do

1:19:16 ↗ appreciate having just the one sidewalk

1:19:18 ↗ to

1:19:19 ↗ lessen the impact and i do think with

1:19:22 ↗ that steep slope

1:19:23 ↗ um maintaining a separate sidewalk for

1:19:26 ↗ walking

1:19:27 ↗ and especially bicycles i don't think

1:19:30 ↗ i'd be riding my bicycle up a

1:19:32 ↗ 15 slope very quickly so i would i would

1:19:36 ↗ be in

1:19:36 ↗ in favor of keeping the road design the

1:19:38 ↗ way it is right now instead of a winner

1:19:40 ↗ so thank you

1:19:46 ↗ other comments from commission members

1:19:51 ↗ um one i guess for me

1:19:55 ↗ so uh first thanks for the staff report

1:19:58 ↗ um i think it's all well done and

1:20:02 ↗ to mr silver your presentation as well

1:20:05 ↗ different environment for the commission

1:20:06 ↗ to be operating in it

1:20:08 ↗ not quite as smooth to to do as as

1:20:11 ↗ in person but um everybody i thought has

1:20:13 ↗ done a great job

1:20:15 ↗ of this community conference this

1:20:17 ↗ evening this

1:20:18 ↗ is absolutely a tricky site but there's

1:20:20 ↗ not a lot of easy stuff left out there

1:20:22 ↗ that's already done

1:20:23 ↗ so we are left with what are

1:20:26 ↗ environmentally challenging

1:20:27 ↗ topographically challenging and just

1:20:29 ↗ access

1:20:30 ↗ challenged so properties so i appreciate

1:20:34 ↗ that so it absolutely

1:20:35 ↗ creates some need for creativity and

1:20:37 ↗ good engineering

1:20:38 ↗ as well uh so obviously more work to be

1:20:41 ↗ done on that front

1:20:43 ↗ it is kind of pushing the boundaries in

1:20:45 ↗ a couple of areas as far as the

1:20:46 ↗ regulations it sounds like but there's

1:20:48 ↗ always you know creative ways to to work

1:20:51 ↗ with property to try to make it fit so

1:20:54 ↗ appreciate

1:20:55 ↗ appreciate the effort so far so with

1:20:58 ↗ that

1:20:59 ↗ i believe we will close this community

1:21:01 ↗ conference

1:21:03 ↗ uh and we have one other item of

1:21:05 ↗ business i think that's just

1:21:06 ↗ our our calendar so what's coming up

1:21:10 ↗ uh i guess lucy for the development

1:21:13 ↗ commission

1:21:14 ↗ what do you have in store for us um

1:21:17 ↗ so i'm doing this from memory i don't

1:21:19 ↗ have the calendar in front of me

1:21:21 ↗ but um there are uh

1:21:24 ↗ two site development permits that have

1:21:27 ↗ been submitted

1:21:29 ↗ uh which we anticipate coming to the

1:21:31 ↗ commission

1:21:33 ↗ there is the master site plan and site

1:21:36 ↗ development permit for the providence

1:21:38 ↗ heights

1:21:39 ↗ um community for providence heights high

1:21:42 ↗ school and elementary school

1:21:44 ↗ uh which will come to the commission for

1:21:46 ↗ a recommendation

1:21:48 ↗ the site development permits um will

1:21:51 ↗ come for a decision

1:21:52 ↗ and then uh we are also uh working

1:21:56 ↗ on our schedule and

1:22:00 ↗ public engagement program for title 18

1:22:04 ↗ um that's going to be presented to the

1:22:08 ↗ planning policy commission next

1:22:10 ↗ thursday night may 27th there

1:22:13 ↗ are many topics that we are interested

1:22:16 ↗ in

1:22:17 ↗ um development commission weighing in on

1:22:20 ↗ i will do my best to share that packet

1:22:23 ↗ the planning policy commission packet

1:22:26 ↗ with the development commission so that

1:22:28 ↗ you

1:22:29 ↗ can see and potentially comment on the

1:22:34 ↗ topics that are going to various

1:22:37 ↗ commissions

1:22:38 ↗ uh at this time planning policy

1:22:40 ↗ commission

1:22:41 ↗ must hold the hearing on all of them

1:22:44 ↗ other commissions that

1:22:45 ↗ we are going to or and boards that we

1:22:48 ↗ will engage with

1:22:49 ↗ are along with the development

1:22:51 ↗ commission the environmental board

1:22:54 ↗ and the parks board

1:22:59 ↗ wow so no shortage of things to do

1:23:03 ↗ doing a major update of the landis code

1:23:05 ↗ is

1:23:06 ↗ a big body of work so good luck when

1:23:09 ↗ actually we'll

1:23:10 ↗ weigh in on the way through that and

1:23:12 ↗ then one more

1:23:13 ↗ thing i think i probably should call

1:23:15 ↗ that at the beginning we have

1:23:16 ↗ a new a regular member uh commissioner

1:23:20 ↗ dillon in

1:23:21 ↗ an alternate with us this evening

1:23:23 ↗ commissioner akita so welcome

1:23:25 ↗ uh in your roles with the commission um

1:23:27 ↗ great to have you here

1:23:28 ↗ tonight and i guess one more final shout

1:23:31 ↗ out

1:23:32 ↗ for um commissioner silva for

1:23:35 ↗ the and morgan for your many years i can

1:23:39 ↗ say of

1:23:40 ↗ service as the chair and the vice chair

1:23:41 ↗ thanks a lot um

1:23:43 ↗ absolutely appreciate that this is a lot

1:23:45 ↗ harder than it looks

1:23:48 ↗ especially in a virtual environment so

1:23:51 ↗ but anyway

1:23:51 ↗ looking forward to our next meeting and

1:23:53 ↗ with that i will

1:23:55 ↗ oh one more item i i believe holly did

1:23:58 ↗ you

1:23:59 ↗ want to conclude with any uh description

1:24:02 ↗ of what happens

1:24:03 ↗ subsequent to this meeting thank you

1:24:06 ↗ yeah so i do want to say again thank you

1:24:09 ↗ everyone for

1:24:10 ↗ participating tonight i really

1:24:12 ↗ appreciate the discussion the comments

1:24:14 ↗ and the questions

1:24:15 ↗ and in follow-up to tonight's meetings

1:24:18 ↗ uh all comments

1:24:19 ↗ that were received from the public and

1:24:21 ↗ the commissioners will be summarized for

1:24:23 ↗ response

1:24:24 ↗ and that will be provided in writing to

1:24:28 ↗ any of the property owners 300 feet from

1:24:32 ↗ the property

1:24:32 ↗ as well as the people who have signed up

1:24:36 ↗ to be

1:24:37 ↗ a party of record and that typically

1:24:40 ↗ takes about two weeks

1:24:43 ↗ great um pearl person

1:24:46 ↗ uh brennan i also noticed that um

1:24:49 ↗ director

1:24:50 ↗ uh dollywall our cpd director

1:24:54 ↗ has erased her hand and i've moved her

1:24:56 ↗ up to a panelist i

1:24:58 ↗ think she may have some additional

1:24:59 ↗ comments um

1:25:01 ↗ that she would like to share great

1:25:03 ↗ welcome

1:25:09 ↗ you're you're muted we can't hear you

1:25:14 ↗ can you guys hear me now there you go

1:25:17 ↗ yeah

1:25:17 ↗ good evening commissioners i was just

1:25:19 ↗ wanting to say hi to everyone and i'm

1:25:21 ↗ impressed with all the diligent

1:25:24 ↗ questions you've been asking on this

1:25:26 ↗ uh project um so i don't have really

1:25:29 ↗ much to contribute here but in terms of

1:25:31 ↗ upcoming meetings i would like to ask um

1:25:34 ↗ like lucy said we're launching the title

1:25:36 ↗ 18 code update with a

1:25:38 ↗ planning policy board we're going to be

1:25:40 ↗ talking to them

1:25:42 ↗ one of the ideas we've been having is a

1:25:44 ↗ joint

1:25:45 ↗ boards and commissions meeting with the

1:25:48 ↗ development commission

1:25:49 ↗ and the ppc um just because you would

1:25:52 ↗ bring a different perspective of

1:25:53 ↗ actually reviewing development proposals

1:25:56 ↗ and applying the the code that we're

1:25:58 ↗ looking at updating

1:26:00 ↗ so um which does mean you know we would

1:26:03 ↗ probably

1:26:04 ↗ work with you for scheduling purposes it

1:26:07 ↗ does add a little bit of

1:26:08 ↗ a layer of complexity but wanted to get

1:26:10 ↗ your initial take on

1:26:12 ↗ on that if and your desire for being

1:26:14 ↗ involved in that code update

1:26:17 ↗ um so you don't have to tell me now but

1:26:19 ↗ you know or get back to lucy

1:26:21 ↗ on on what your thoughts are for your

1:26:23 ↗ involvement

1:26:25 ↗ great thank you

1:26:29 ↗ any any other final comments on this

1:26:32 ↗ evening's

1:26:33 ↗ and welcome to the city um in your new

1:26:35 ↗ role

1:26:36 ↗ good to have you glad to be here glad to

1:26:38 ↗ be part of the great community

1:26:41 ↗ thank you staff and applicant excellent

1:26:43 ↗ presentations appreciate it

1:26:45 ↗ yeah okay so i will raise and drop

1:26:49 ↗ the virtual gavel and adjourn the

1:26:51 ↗ meeting everybody have a good evening

1:26:54 ↗ good night everyone thank you

2:34:03 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (8)

Administration/Staff: Michael Brennan Lucy Sloman

Land Development Mgr. Richard Sanford Holly Keeton

Senior Planner Richard Sowa Minnie Dhaliwal

Director

CD&P Patty Dillon Kevin Price Applicant Team: Arthur Schulte Leo Suver

Steve Burnstead Construction Jon Ikeda

Alternate (non-voting) Melvin Morgan Jr

Alternate (non-voting) Commissioners Not Present: Brooke Shore