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)

Michael Brennan

Richard Sanford

Richard Sowa

Patty Dillon

Kevin Price

Arthur Schulte

Jon Ikeda

Melvin Morgan Jr.

Staff (4)

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Mgr.

Holly Keeton, Senior Planner

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CD&P

Leo Suver, Steve Burnstead Construction

Excused

Brooke Shore