Development Commission · Wednesday, May 2, 2018 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Christopher Wright, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Project Oversight Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board to Email the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2018 – Jasmina Mihova The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2018 – Raymond Leong Development Commission members and City 2018 – Richard Sowa Council members from discussing the merit of 2019 – Michael Brennan specific land use development applications outside 2019 – Randolph Harrison of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2020 – Melvin Morgan however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2020 – Kevin Price Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2018 – Robert Bakh Membership 2018 – Carl…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 18, 2018

packet pp.5–10

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission MINUTES April 18, 2018 City Hall South 135 E. Sunset Way Council Chambers Issaquah, WA 98027

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing: Gilman Worklofts, (Q) Manual Analysis

Dan Martinez, Assistant Planner · packet pp.11–179

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · May 11, 2017

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

AGENDA ITEMS a) DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1775 12 Ave NW Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

3717 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ alright looks like we're on the air good

0:15 ↗ evening ladies and gentlemen I'd like to

0:17 ↗ welcome you to the public hearing on the

0:18 ↗ Gilman lofts we have a good agenda we're

0:23 ↗ gonna be approving some minutes first

0:25 ↗ and then we'll get into the public

0:27 ↗ hearing on Gilman Gilman work lofts so I

0:32 ↗ hope trusts that everybody's had a

0:34 ↗ chance to read the minutes from last

0:36 ↗ month so does anybody have a motion to

0:39 ↗ make on it

0:40 ↗ move to approve any discussion or

0:45 ↗ questions all those it improves say aye

0:49 ↗ aye opposed all right looks like they're

0:53 ↗ approved so you see I think you're up

1:06 ↗ good evening I'm Lucy slamming land

1:09 ↗ development manager and we're gonna

1:13 ↗ start with the quasi-judicial part of

1:16 ↗ the meeting as many of you know site

1:21 ↗ development permit of a certain size

1:24 ↗ triggers site development permit in this

1:28 ↗ case it's in central is caught it's a

1:31 ↗ building over a certain size or a site

1:34 ↗ over three acres so it this site is the

1:40 ↗ building is big enough to have triggered

1:41 ↗ that the I have you BDC sorry about that

1:45 ↗ DC is the decision-maker so luckily the

1:48 ↗ right people are here and the type of

1:51 ↗ decision is quasi-judicial so when it's

1:55 ↗ a quasi-judicial decision that means

1:58 ↗ that it proceedings have to be like a

2:01 ↗ court and be both fair and appear fair

2:04 ↗ we do that in two ways one is procedural

2:07 ↗ due process and the other substantive

2:09 ↗ due process for a procedural due process

2:12 ↗ it means that we follow a specific

2:14 ↗ process we send out notifications and

2:18 ↗ all the decision is made on the record

2:22 ↗ substantive due process means that we

2:24 ↗ follow adopted regulations as the

2:27 ↗ substance on which the decision is based

2:30 ↗ so I would ask that the commissioners

2:33 ↗ read through the questions up on the

2:35 ↗ screen and once you're done I'll ask you

2:36 ↗ some questions

2:54 ↗ so how many commissioners answer no to

2:57 ↗ all the questions okay great

3:01 ↗ that was all nose ex parte

3:04 ↗ communications are communications that

3:07 ↗ take place outside of the hearing and I

3:10 ↗ would ask commissioners to identify if

3:12 ↗ any ex parte communications have taken

3:15 ↗ place related to this permit yes mister

3:18 ↗ mom so after the last meeting when we

3:20 ↗ were leaving and remember the public

3:22 ↗ approached me asked question about the

3:25 ↗ version of the standards being used

3:28 ↗ which I said I thought Lucy had covered

3:31 ↗ in the meeting the course was on the

3:33 ↗ intent of the mid-block crossing in the

3:36 ↗ design standards codes and I discussed

3:39 ↗ that shortly and should not have thought

3:43 ↗ it was more of a theoretical discussion

3:44 ↗ but it was this project was still alive

3:47 ↗ and should not have discussed that I

3:49 ↗ don't believe it affects my judgment

3:52 ↗ with regard to this project but I have

3:55 ↗ to put that out there they shouldn't

3:57 ↗ have done it any other commissioners so

4:01 ↗ like mr. Morgan

4:03 ↗ Commissioner Morgan I was also

4:05 ↗ approached standing next to mr. Morgan

4:08 ↗ so yeah his summary of that conversation

4:10 ↗ I think reflects that I also do not

4:15 ↗ believe it will affect my objectivity

4:17 ↗ and ability to make a fair decision

4:20 ↗ Thank You anyone else remember the

4:23 ↗ public also approached me and asked me

4:25 ↗ what version of the standards

4:28 ↗ architecture and device and design

4:30 ↗ standards manual I had and which version

4:35 ↗ we were using and showed me a

4:37 ↗ preliminary map in a version of one of

4:40 ↗ the standards and I said we were using

4:43 ↗ the standards that were identified in

4:45 ↗ the meeting that was all anyone else

4:49 ↗ does anyone in the audience object to

4:51 ↗ the participation of the commissioners

4:54 ↗ okay thank you

4:56 ↗ let me see I have a question yeah but

5:00 ↗ what remind me if you will about what

5:06 ↗ the standard is now or the expectation

5:09 ↗ is of us regarding looking at a site not

5:14 ↗ this site but looking at a site so we

5:17 ↗ know something is coming up at this

5:19 ↗ location we're not really familiar with

5:21 ↗ lay of the land as it is so we have

5:25 ↗ talked to the city attorney he took a

5:27 ↗ different position than the previous

5:30 ↗ source that we were using so you can go

5:32 ↗ visit a site but I do think there are a

5:36 ↗ couple of things to point out one is you

5:38 ↗ can't draw any conclusions so you need

5:40 ↗ to be open-minded to other information

5:42 ↗ about the site that would be presented

5:44 ↗ and it's probably prudent to during this

5:49 ↗ quasi-judicial discussion to identify

5:52 ↗ that you visited the site and sort of

5:55 ↗ what you did while you were there and if

5:58 ↗ you were with anyone else just so that

6:00 ↗ no one can question that later on yeah

6:02 ↗ thank you

6:04 ↗ okay so so here's where we are we're

6:10 ↗ doing this a little differently than we

6:12 ↗ have in the past where we have one

6:14 ↗ presentation related to the briefing

6:16 ↗ response memo there was so much

6:19 ↗ discussion last time about the

6:21 ↗ architectural and urban design manual

6:24 ↗ how we use it had we done a you know as

6:28 ↗ thorough job as the Commission wanted

6:31 ↗ there was a lot of good comments made so

6:34 ↗ our thought is to focus on that first

6:37 ↗ and then we will have the second part of

6:40 ↗ the meeting focused on the brief the

6:42 ↗ rest of the topics in the briefing

6:44 ↗ response memo I want to note that we

6:48 ↗ realize I realized today that we have

6:50 ↗ not given you an updated version of the

6:52 ↗ overall checklist that is from the

6:54 ↗ manual so those are available at your

6:57 ↗ place and I also provided you with a

7:01 ↗ clean one so if you care to use that as

7:04 ↗ any kind of tracking device or putting

7:08 ↗ your own notations on it you can you'll

7:11 ↗ notice that

7:11 ↗ some things have red dotted boxes around

7:14 ↗ them those are the items that were

7:15 ↗ changed from the last diversion you

7:18 ↗ received at the last meeting and I have

7:21 ↗ that if we need to put it up on screen

7:23 ↗ so what we're going to do tonight I'm

7:28 ↗ going to start with going to start with

7:34 ↗ a beef brief PowerPoint presentation and

7:39 ↗ then I will I have the reason I have my

7:41 ↗ laptop up here is I have the ability to

7:43 ↗ pull up both the relevant what staff

7:47 ↗ identified is the relevant sheets and

7:49 ↗ all the markings that we already sent

7:52 ↗ out to you then I have a blank one that

7:54 ↗ we can go through as well so and I can

7:57 ↗ mark that as we go through just so that

7:59 ↗ everyone can see that as part of it now

8:03 ↗ the one piece that I didn't really we

8:05 ↗ didn't really specify as how the

8:09 ↗ Commission would like to integrate in

8:10 ↗ public comment whether you would like to

8:13 ↗ do that you know like I can do the

8:16 ↗ PowerPoint and you could take comment or

8:17 ↗ I could do the PowerPoint and we could

8:19 ↗ go through the checklist and then you

8:20 ↗ could take comment or you could wait and

8:24 ↗ take comment after Dan's done his whole

8:27 ↗ presentation the only thing is that as

8:29 ↗ we go through the checklist you know

8:31 ↗ we're going to mark it off so that might

8:33 ↗ indicate that we would need to go back

8:34 ↗ and you consider whether any of the

8:38 ↗ conditions or markings would be revised

8:41 ↗ based on public comment before we

8:43 ↗ finalize that so we're all kind of

8:46 ↗ feeling our way through the best way to

8:48 ↗ do this I don't know if you have

8:50 ↗ thoughts so reiterate the options here

8:56 ↗ so so they're going to be I have a

8:59 ↗ two-part presentation one is a

9:01 ↗ PowerPoint which is some sections from

9:03 ↗ the briefing response memo related to

9:05 ↗ the design manual then I have the actual

9:09 ↗ selected pages that staff identified as

9:13 ↗ relevant and then after that Dan is

9:17 ↗ going to present the rest of the

9:19 ↗ briefing response by mo so you could do

9:22 ↗ it after the PowerPoint

9:24 ↗ my powerpoint you could do it after the

9:26 ↗ checklist you could do it again after

9:30 ↗ Dan's or only after Dan's okay I don't

9:35 ↗ know what the other commissioners are

9:37 ↗ I'd like to see the the checklist go

9:39 ↗ through the checklist and then have

9:41 ↗ public comment okay Lucy go through the

9:44 ↗ checklist and then public comment and

9:46 ↗ then I was right so what you mean is

9:51 ↗ that was that during tan that was not my

9:54 ↗ intent but I am consumed I am totally

9:56 ↗ open I I so I can definitely go through

10:00 ↗ the checklist I mean that's an

10:02 ↗ interesting point I could go through and

10:03 ↗ sort of summarize how staff evaluated

10:06 ↗ the project then we could take public

10:09 ↗ comment and then the commissioners could

10:12 ↗ go through it then we wouldn't have to

10:13 ↗ do it again you wouldn't have to go back

10:17 ↗ and revisit it after public so that

10:19 ↗ makes sense is that the only time that

10:21 ↗ we're gonna be doing the check or what

10:23 ↗ we were doing the checklist at the end

10:24 ↗ of the whole meeting after the applicant

10:28 ↗ has spoken I mean I like the way this is

10:35 ↗ going so far but it's not clear to me

10:36 ↗ when the checklist will be done okay

10:40 ↗ so the option five-point see so I can do

10:46 ↗ my PowerPoint I could go through staffs

10:49 ↗ evaluation of the checklist we could

10:54 ↗ either take public testimony then or not

10:56 ↗ if we're not going if you're not going

10:58 ↗ to go through the checklist which III

11:00 ↗ your point is well-taken commissioner

11:02 ↗ harrison dan could do his presentation

11:05 ↗ then we could have the applicant do

11:08 ↗ their presentation for everything and

11:10 ↗ then take public comment and then go

11:13 ↗ back and fill out the checklist I like

11:17 ↗ that idea

11:18 ↗ good toys yeah I just want to make sure

11:21 ↗ we get public comment before we do

11:23 ↗ anything permanent I completely agree so

11:29 ↗ maybe the best thing to do is go through

11:30 ↗ the PowerPoint see how everybody feels

11:32 ↗ if they feel like moving in then we

11:35 ↗ could go have you go through the

11:36 ↗ checklist or the staff check

11:37 ↗ see how everybody feels and then you

11:40 ↗ know I mean we're filling it out so I'm

11:41 ↗ kind of trying to get a sense of what

11:43 ↗ the best thing to do is absolutely and I

11:45 ↗ appreciate all your input it's very

11:46 ↗ helpful and and to that point the form

11:50 ↗ that I you receive with staffs

11:52 ↗ evaluation that was just us trying to

11:55 ↗ use the documents we have I hope that

11:58 ↗ either as we're going through it or at

12:00 ↗ the end you know we can do a conclusion

12:02 ↗ because we have hired a graphic designer

12:04 ↗ now to prepare the final manual and

12:07 ↗ we've actually increased the budget for

12:10 ↗ them to prepare a form for our use so

12:13 ↗ I'm very interested in hearing your

12:16 ↗ thoughts about I'm not suggesting this

12:19 ↗ form is the right thing to use but what

12:21 ↗ it tells you about what might be the

12:23 ↗ right thing to use so that we have a

12:26 ↗ pretty holistic set of comments to give

12:30 ↗ to the graphic designer does an

12:43 ↗ applicant get to be aware of the design

12:46 ↗ review checklist early in the process so

12:49 ↗ they not only have the design access to

12:51 ↗ the design manual but they also know

12:53 ↗ that this is what is going to be a

12:55 ↗ checklist so this actually once we left

12:59 ↗ so you know we had done it once in a in

13:01 ↗ a kind of less robust way and you guys

13:04 ↗ said that wasn't enough so we went

13:06 ↗ through and did it again created this

13:08 ↗ checklist did it again based on the

13:11 ↗ drawings that you saw at the commission

13:13 ↗ okay gave it to them said okay these are

13:17 ↗ the places where we do not think you're

13:19 ↗ in compliance they turned around a set

13:22 ↗ of drawings in a day or two and then I

13:24 ↗ redid it again

13:26 ↗ based on the changes that they've made

13:28 ↗ so this has gone through a couple of

13:30 ↗ iterations so you know it is our

13:32 ↗ practice that before we issue a staff

13:35 ↗ report we give it to an applicant for

13:38 ↗ input you know they can tell us they

13:40 ↗ hate every condition that doesn't mean

13:42 ↗ we will change all the conditions but if

13:44 ↗ it's wording if it's a misunderstanding

13:47 ↗ we want to get that worked out and we

13:50 ↗ also

13:50 ↗ want to give them the opportunity to say

13:52 ↗ we disagree with you so that is a part

13:55 ↗ of the process that we went through okay

13:59 ↗ so just as so the two pieces I'm going

14:02 ↗ to focus on are really the I think it

14:06 ↗ was section three and four two and three

14:08 ↗ in the briefing response memo that are

14:11 ↗ designed manual related so the first one

14:14 ↗ was we contacted Crandall or ambulance

14:17 ↗ said help us understand how decisions

14:20 ↗ are made using this who gets to decide

14:23 ↗ what things are required I think you saw

14:27 ↗ the kind of questions so and and I

14:32 ↗ assume you've read this so I'm not going

14:33 ↗ to read the whole thing this is exactly

14:35 ↗ what was in your memo so this is no new

14:37 ↗ material just some highlights so I think

14:41 ↗ that some of the key pieces were that

14:43 ↗ they considered this a toolkit they

14:46 ↗ think of it being considered

14:48 ↗ holistically you know words and pictures

14:51 ↗ that we have an objective and everything

14:54 ↗ is kind of compared back to the

14:56 ↗ objective that the appropriate list may

15:03 ↗ incorporate one or multiple elements and

15:06 ↗ I think this is one of the pieces that

15:07 ↗ we're going to have to sort of feel our

15:09 ↗ way through because as I looked at that

15:13 ↗ the example I gave them is the one

15:15 ↗ that's on the left the arts-and-crafts

15:19 ↗ roof because it's clear that asphalt

15:22 ↗ shingles wood shingles and slate or

15:25 ↗ concrete tile you're going to pick one

15:27 ↗ of those we wouldn't want a hodgepodge

15:31 ↗ of multiple roof materials on the other

15:35 ↗ hand when you look at the doors there

15:38 ↗ sometimes they're very specific for

15:40 ↗ retail you know if you use brick so

15:43 ↗ that's pretty clear but then there are

15:45 ↗ other things where it's an you know it's

15:48 ↗ not clear at least initially it's not

15:52 ↗ clear and I guess the way I read both

15:55 ↗ their response it's it's almost like a

15:57 ↗ performance standard

15:59 ↗ that taking Northwest Lodge for example

16:02 ↗ it says a sense of grand entry and

16:05 ↗ arrival so as they pointed out if you

16:07 ↗ only did natural wood which is this one

16:10 ↗ here that wouldn't be enough to create a

16:14 ↗ sense of grand entry they're not saying

16:17 ↗ it's two from column a and three from

16:19 ↗ column B they're saying if you pick some

16:22 ↗ of these you may have to do multiples to

16:24 ↗ get to Grand Entry if you pick other

16:27 ↗ ones you know like maybe if you're doing

16:29 ↗ really you know a large door and

16:32 ↗ substantive Hardware maybe that's enough

16:35 ↗ just doing those and so this is going to

16:38 ↗ be a performance standard where we have

16:40 ↗ to then look at the elements they've

16:42 ↗ picked and compare that back to the

16:45 ↗ guide line to determine if they have met

16:48 ↗ that expectation does that make sense

16:51 ↗ okay that's great because hard so I

16:56 ↗ think the two things that the memo asked

17:00 ↗ the Commission to give us some feedback

17:02 ↗ on one both were related to massing the

17:06 ↗ first one was complex roofs so there are

17:09 ↗ a series of terms it says more complex

17:14 ↗ roof forms and then they give three

17:17 ↗ different terms of that that could

17:21 ↗ contribute to achieving that so the

17:27 ↗ changes that were made all roofs were

17:30 ↗ made steep consistent with the

17:33 ↗ definition in the adopted standard

17:35 ↗ because they actually put in pitches

17:38 ↗ second they reduced all of the pitches

17:41 ↗ to a single pitch again consistent with

17:44 ↗ the style third they changed the roof on

17:49 ↗ all the stair towers so there are no

17:50 ↗ more shed roofs they are now gable which

17:53 ↗ is again consistent with the style but

17:56 ↗ the outstanding question is doesn't meet

17:59 ↗ than the idea of complex roof forms so

18:04 ↗ there's no definition of what complexes

18:06 ↗ so I think that what the two things sort

18:09 ↗ of two big categories of sources that we

18:12 ↗ have to have

18:13 ↗ you ate that one are the phrases that

18:15 ↗ I've provided here and second is the

18:19 ↗ photos that are provided for arts and

18:23 ↗ crafts and then we it depending on your

18:27 ↗ response we will sort of decide where we

18:29 ↗ go from here thoughts okay I get I get

18:37 ↗ your I I read I hear what you're saying

18:40 ↗ so I will keep going with what's in the

18:43 ↗ memo and then we'll talk about later

18:44 ↗ sorry got lost so if the Commission

18:49 ↗ feels that the roof is not complex

18:52 ↗ enough staff proposed one option in a

18:56 ↗ sort of piecemeal what the graphic

19:00 ↗ migrate graphic skills in word and so

19:05 ↗ one thing one option was to make the

19:08 ↗ roof and the whole stair tower more

19:11 ↗ prominent to create an intersecting

19:14 ↗ Ridge which was one of the elements

19:19 ↗ that's identified and so I sort of

19:22 ↗ pieced together a higher Ridge and what

19:28 ↗ it would might look like from the front

19:31 ↗ so that and and do not if you like the

19:35 ↗ idea and you think this looks lousy

19:37 ↗ don't hold that against the idea and the

19:41 ↗ other one that was identified was

19:43 ↗ dormers so those are two tools there may

19:45 ↗ be other ones that you had identified

19:46 ↗ from the terms that's the two staff

19:49 ↗ thought the other element that came up

19:53 ↗ under massing was asymmetry and what

19:58 ↗ arts and crafts the term that's used is

20:00 ↗ a symmetrical composition in both

20:03 ↗ elevation and volume so in volume you

20:07 ↗ can sort of see the footprints here and

20:12 ↗ this wing is actually about six feet

20:15 ↗ wider than this wing and you know it's

20:20 ↗ slightly in an angle and they're offset

20:22 ↗ so overall volumetrically it's

20:24 ↗ relatively asymmetrical

20:27 ↗ but we're also talking about in

20:29 ↗ elevation and as you may remember the

20:31 ↗ two facades are there are very similar

20:35 ↗ they're symmetrical and so again no

20:39 ↗ definition of asymmetry there are photos

20:42 ↗ provided the photos have bearing levels

20:46 ↗ of asymmetry they demonstrate various

20:49 ↗ levels of asymmetry and so the question

20:54 ↗ becomes how might you make them more

20:57 ↗ asymmetrical and so one idea was to not

21:03 ↗ use and this was actually commissioned

21:05 ↗ their prices I remembered from last week

21:07 ↗ saying that you know we're using the

21:11 ↗ same windows in the same pattern in both

21:13 ↗ wings so I just mocked up something I'm

21:15 ↗ not saying that this is necessarily the

21:17 ↗ right collection of windows but that it

21:21 ↗ would make it less symmetrical and it

21:24 ↗ would also be a good reflection of the

21:27 ↗ difference in the sort of workspaces

21:29 ↗ behind that facade because if you look

21:31 ↗ at blow up this sort of end of the plan

21:34 ↗ you can see that this wing has three

21:39 ↗ workspaces this one has two and one of

21:43 ↗ them has its long dimensional across the

21:45 ↗ face so that the way it was the windows

21:49 ↗ were done sort of bolide that actual

21:53 ↗ configuration and then the last thing as

21:57 ↗ just opportunities for consideration was

22:01 ↗ some changes to material for instance

22:05 ↗ the brick that is used in both bases is

22:09 ↗ the same and so that potential you could

22:12 ↗ use somewhat different brick patterns in

22:17 ↗ each wing to just further enhance that

22:22 ↗ distinction and it would implement one

22:24 ↗ of the appropriate items for arts and

22:28 ↗ crafts which is the phrase that's down

22:30 ↗ here at the bottom decorative brick

22:32 ↗ pattern details

22:36 ↗ open up that part of the memo

22:39 ↗ so now

22:51 ↗ I'm really like on the edge of my

22:55 ↗ technology knowledge here good so I have

22:59 ↗ the blank ones on the left and I won't

23:01 ↗ go through that but I'm going to leave

23:03 ↗ this up here for now so what I have done

23:07 ↗ is as I mentioned gone through here and

23:12 ↗ evaluated it I think there's not much

23:15 ↗ that I would add relative to massing

23:19 ↗ because I think we've already talked

23:20 ↗ about compliance or lack of compliance

23:23 ↗ on a couple of items or maybe not lack

23:26 ↗ of compliance but where we wanted

23:28 ↗ Commission input which was both around

23:32 ↗ the complex room forms and asymmetry so

23:38 ↗ we had proposed some possible conditions

23:40 ↗ if that if the commissioners considered

23:45 ↗ that that needed further enhancement in

23:50 ↗ terms of scale the building from staffs

23:55 ↗ assessment complied with the elements

23:58 ↗ that were identified materials again the

24:06 ↗ materials that have been selected in

24:08 ↗ terms of brick I tried to underline some

24:11 ↗ of these just as a way of identifying

24:14 ↗ how staff thought about this brick would

24:19 ↗ lapse siding and board and batten it is

24:22 ↗ not natural board and batten but it is

24:24 ↗ board and batten

24:33 ↗ windows the sort of basic character the

24:36 ↗ scale of the windows the use of lentils

24:41 ↗ or sills whit down at the ground level

24:44 ↗ level where the brick is being applied

24:47 ↗ all of that complies

24:58 ↗ doors the residential so they complied

25:04 ↗ with many or all of the elements that

25:08 ↗ were identified except for the one

25:09 ↗ associated with residential which seemed

25:14 ↗ appropriate to staff and again the roof

25:19 ↗ material that was selected the asphalt

25:21 ↗ shingles were consistent with the

25:26 ↗ specifications and colors met the

25:31 ↗ palette where and and one of the

25:35 ↗ elements in the description is that if

25:37 ↗ you are using brick that it would be

25:41 ↗ warm tans and browns then moving into

25:47 ↗ the urban design section the map was was

25:54 ↗ labeled as you know to be refined in the

25:58 ↗ July twentieth draft and so based on the

26:07 ↗ [Music]

26:10 ↗ the element so the the elements I guess

26:14 ↗ the potential elements in the area had

26:16 ↗ not been defined some natural elements

26:20 ↗ that are present such as the ditch and

26:22 ↗ the wetland are probably not within the

26:25 ↗ right the ditch has not been identified

26:27 ↗ as a stream and the wetland was far

26:31 ↗ enough away and on the other side of the

26:34 ↗ building it didn't seem to staff that

26:36 ↗ that would then trigger compliance and

26:42 ↗ because the terms hadn't been defined it

26:45 ↗ seemed like that was premature to apply

26:48 ↗ those elements to the building

26:53 ↗ harmony buildings were expected to

26:57 ↗ harmonize and based on the terms in the

27:03 ↗ in the July 20th draft we felt that it

27:08 ↗ complied but we also

27:10 ↗ the draft that went forward for adoption

27:16 ↗ because we thought that had better

27:17 ↗ clarity than the July 20th draft we're

27:20 ↗ not suggesting mixing but we just

27:23 ↗ thought that that provided some

27:24 ↗ additional information that might be

27:26 ↗ useful for the commissioners review

27:31 ↗ block size because of the elements that

27:36 ↗ surround the property we felt that they

27:39 ↗ there was not an ability to break the

27:42 ↗ block up because we couldn't cross I 90

27:44 ↗ and we were already connecting into the

27:47 ↗ King County trail and we did not feel

27:48 ↗ that we could do other or additional

27:51 ↗ King County connections so we identified

27:55 ↗ that as in a parking structures again

28:04 ↗ most of it is under building so many of

28:08 ↗ the elements under the parking

28:10 ↗ structures were identified as not

28:12 ↗ applicable because this was more surface

28:14 ↗ parking but there were a couple and they

28:17 ↗ did comply with those enclosure again

28:23 ↗ complied primarily because it's less

28:28 ↗ four storeys unless

28:36 ↗ setbacks the building is set back we

28:40 ↗ indicated compliance partly because an

28:43 ↗ AAS had administrative adjustment of

28:46 ↗ standards had been approved as part of

28:48 ↗ the original ASDP which was really to

28:51 ↗ address that the property line is set so

28:55 ↗ far back from Gilman and it has only an

28:58 ↗ 80-foot frontage that it really was not

29:00 ↗ possible to get the building within ten

29:02 ↗ feet of that property line and even if

29:05 ↗ you did it would still still feel very

29:07 ↗ far setback from Gilman

29:08 ↗ so that was staffs perspective on that

29:17 ↗ the setbacks from natural areas again

29:21 ↗ because of our previous evaluation we

29:24 ↗ felt that this did not apply

29:29 ↗ ground-floor entries for both retail and

29:32 ↗ commercial mostly complied except that

29:36 ↗ the design manual only allows doors to

29:41 ↗ face parking if they are used for

29:44 ↗ service employees or emergency and it

29:49 ↗ was not clear that this store was

29:51 ↗ restricted to those uses so we proposed

29:54 ↗ a condition to limit the use of that

29:57 ↗ door

30:04 ↗ same with the the ground-floor

30:06 ↗ commercial there were doors on either

30:09 ↗ side of this space that faced the

30:13 ↗ parking lot because they have proposed

30:15 ↗ using this area just north of this area

30:22 ↗ as they're loading it did seem

30:24 ↗ appropriate to have a service door I'm

30:27 ↗ not sure that they needed both those

30:29 ↗ service doors

30:36 ↗ a transparency from a retail perspective

30:41 ↗ complied except for the East Wing the

30:49 ↗ what the West facade of the East Wing

30:53 ↗ did not have enough windows they partly

30:57 ↗ because there was a planter bed there so

31:00 ↗ they had proposed a window that the

31:05 ↗ windows ended at the edge of the

31:07 ↗ planting bed rather than extending past

31:09 ↗ it to meet the percentage for the whole

31:11 ↗ facade commercial complied with the

31:21 ↗ transparency requirements weather

31:24 ↗ protection did not quite comply the

31:27 ↗ entries were recessed but the weather

31:32 ↗ protection standards in the centralist

31:35 ↗ quoi standards still apply in

31:36 ↗ conjunction with the design manual and

31:40 ↗ so they really needed to add weather

31:43 ↗ protection at each of the entries into

31:47 ↗ each retail space and/or the commercial

31:50 ↗ space to meet the 75% that's required in

31:53 ↗ the design manual and lastly the four

31:59 ↗ courts in four courts and courtyards

32:02 ↗ were evaluated by staff as complying

32:13 ↗ so as I understand it and please correct

32:18 ↗ me if I'm wrong we would move to Dan's

32:24 ↗ presentation on the rest of the briefing

32:26 ↗ response memo then the applicants

32:29 ↗ response and then public comment like

32:35 ↗ that okay let's do that

32:40 ↗ good job losing a participant thank you

32:43 ↗ well I at the end of the evening we'll

32:45 ↗ discuss whether we're gonna do it that

32:47 ↗ way

33:02 ↗ [Applause]

33:20 ↗ good evening commissioners and members

33:23 ↗ of the public my name is Dan Martinez

33:25 ↗ I'm an assistant planner with the

33:27 ↗ development services department the

33:30 ↗ first meeting that we had regarding this

33:33 ↗ permit was on on April 4th and we

33:38 ↗ focused largely on the presentation of

33:42 ↗ the details of the requested site

33:44 ↗ development permit today's meeting is

33:48 ↗ really intended to focus on the portions

33:54 ↗ of the briefing response memo that that

33:56 ↗ hopefully answers some of the the

33:58 ↗ concerns and questions raised at the

34:01 ↗ last meeting and this includes the the

34:04 ↗ plaza design for for both plazas as well

34:08 ↗ as how the trail would would work is a

34:17 ↗ brief summary the request is for a

34:21 ↗ four-story mixed-use building measuring

34:23 ↗ forty seven thousand forty three square

34:26 ↗ feet 2500 square feet of ground floor

34:30 ↗ retail would be provided and three

34:32 ↗ stories of individually leased workspace

34:36 ↗ lofts would be constructed second third

34:40 ↗ and fourth floor

34:47 ↗ the the first topic in the briefing

34:51 ↗ response memo relates to procedures and

34:55 ↗ how how those are being followed one of

34:59 ↗ the requests and one of the concerns

35:03 ↗ that we've heard from the public has

35:06 ↗ been that the traffic signal and

35:10 ↗ pedestrian improvements should be part

35:13 ↗ of the discussion here at the

35:16 ↗ Development Commission hearing staff

35:21 ↗ agrees that the Development Commission

35:24 ↗ must weigh the design and technical land

35:29 ↗ used to elements of a project when

35:31 ↗ they're considering making a decision

35:34 ↗ however the initial design of that

35:40 ↗ pedestrian crossing was already approved

35:43 ↗ by the City Council as part of the

35:47 ↗ development agreement on in May of 2017

35:55 ↗ in addition to that we agree that it

36:00 ↗ would be ideal to have that conversation

36:02 ↗ and to have phases one and two of that

36:06 ↗ design occur concurrently however that's

36:10 ↗ not the case the the first phase of the

36:13 ↗ project requires that of these

36:17 ↗ pedestrian and signal improvements

36:18 ↗ requires that the developer construct

36:23 ↗ the signal on addressing the north side

36:27 ↗ of Gilman only and that the Northwest

36:30 ↗ Juniper Street and Rainier Boulevard

36:32 ↗ intersection would be left as a Phase

36:35 ↗ two

36:42 ↗ and and that's something that this again

36:45 ↗ that the city would be responsible for

36:49 ↗ there was also a question raised about

36:54 ↗ whether we could implement the district

36:58 ↗ visions as part of this project the

37:01 ↗ district visions are have not been

37:04 ↗ adopted by the City Council yet they are

37:07 ↗ going to land in Shore committee

37:08 ↗ tomorrow and hopefully they'll be

37:11 ↗ referred back to the City Council for

37:13 ↗ for approval with regards to some of the

37:24 ↗ issues raised for the building design as

37:28 ↗ they pertain to the development design

37:33 ↗ standards

37:34 ↗ Lucy covered the design manual portion

37:37 ↗ these concerns are just meant to address

37:41 ↗ those items specifically within the

37:44 ↗ development and design standards there

37:47 ↗ was a concern raised that this sidewalk

37:52 ↗ here was too narrow

37:55 ↗ the the applicants team did revise that

37:59 ↗ from three feet four feet however we're

38:03 ↗ still looking to get five feet on that

38:07 ↗ on that sidewalk so we've included a new

38:10 ↗ condition that the the project plans

38:15 ↗ will be revised to accommodate a five

38:18 ↗ foot clear walkway there was also a

38:22 ↗ concern expressed about the the garage

38:26 ↗ lights being seen from Gilman Boulevard

38:30 ↗ and from PAGASA the the applicant has

38:35 ↗ made some revisions to that to screen

38:39 ↗ that lighting but in order to ensure

38:42 ↗ that that it carries through to the

38:45 ↗ construction permits we have added a

38:47 ↗ condition that garage lighting will be

38:50 ↗ reviewed with the with the or

38:54 ↗ that that screening will be reviewed

38:56 ↗ with the building permits there was also

39:00 ↗ a concern raised regarding the primary

39:04 ↗ entries which are section fourteen point

39:10 ↗ four of the central Issaquah development

39:12 ↗ design standards outlines the

39:16 ↗ requirements for those the applicant has

39:20 ↗ made some some revisions to that there

39:24 ↗ and staff believes that those revisions

39:27 ↗ adequately address the requirements of

39:30 ↗ the development and design standards

39:34 ↗ however weather protection is still an

39:39 ↗ area of concern for staff so we are

39:44 ↗ including a condition it was condition

39:47 ↗ 31 which Lucy touched on in the design

39:49 ↗ manual

40:00 ↗ better screening from Pigott the the

40:05 ↗ screening requirements forest for

40:08 ↗ parking facilities are identified in

40:10 ↗ fifteen point in section fifteen point

40:12 ↗ three the applicant is providing a six

40:19 ↗ foot tall steel lattice with plants

40:21 ↗ growing up up the lattice this complies

40:25 ↗ with the development design standards so

40:29 ↗ we're not including any conditions there

40:33 ↗ [Music]

40:34 ↗ there was a request for a drawing

40:37 ↗ representing the view from the pegasi

40:39 ↗ site the the applicant has provided this

40:43 ↗ drawing here which is a street view

40:47 ↗ photograph with a simulated building and

40:59 ↗ then through block passage which Lucy

41:02 ↗ touched on in the design manual portion

41:05 ↗ I believe that so so there isn't an

41:10 ↗ opportunity for through block passage

41:13 ↗ going towards I ninety but I believe

41:16 ↗ that the concern maybe through block

41:20 ↗ passage and this area here directly

41:24 ↗ going into PAGASA at the time it would

41:27 ↗ currently it would go into their parking

41:29 ↗ lot so staff believes that that the best

41:34 ↗ time to address that is if and when

41:37 ↗ PAGASA decides to redevelop

41:49 ↗ so one of the thing one of the concerns

41:53 ↗ that had been raised was that there

41:56 ↗ needed to be more public involvement and

41:58 ↗ more stakeholder involvement in the

42:00 ↗ design of the the trail plazas and how

42:07 ↗ they would interface with the East Lake

42:08 ↗ Sammamish trail so we did hold a

42:13 ↗ stakeholder meeting bless you thank you

42:16 ↗ on Tuesday April 17th shortly after the

42:20 ↗ first development Commission hearing we

42:23 ↗ invited King County staff the Cascade

42:27 ↗ Bicycle Club neither one of them were

42:30 ↗ able to attend but they did provide some

42:32 ↗ some comments to us and the amount a

42:37 ↗ representative from the amounts to sound

42:39 ↗ Greenway trust was present

42:42 ↗ representative from the is Issaquah Alps

42:45 ↗ Trail was also present and then there

42:50 ↗ were multiple departments within the

42:52 ↗ city that were present including Public

42:55 ↗ Works engineering the parks department

42:58 ↗ development services department as well

43:04 ↗ incidentally even though the request and

43:09 ↗ the invitation was to discuss the trail

43:13 ↗ Plaza design a lot of what the focus of

43:18 ↗ the meeting turned to was the the design

43:21 ↗ of the actual trail and and how that

43:25 ↗ interfaces with with both Gilman and

43:28 ↗ with the plazas some some of the issues

43:36 ↗ or

43:37 ↗ some of the suggestions that were

43:39 ↗ identified and this was a comment by

43:41 ↗ King County was that this ditch here

43:44 ↗ would be would need to be filled in

43:49 ↗ order to comply with a da there was also

43:55 ↗ a suggestion that visual cues

43:59 ↗ and rumble strips be provided to slow

44:02 ↗ down bicyclist as they are coming from

44:06 ↗ coming down the East Lake Sammamish

44:10 ↗ trail towards Gilman this hopefully

44:13 ↗ helps avert any issues with both the

44:18 ↗ traffic on Gilman and with any

44:20 ↗ pedestrians that are located using the

44:25 ↗ plazas in front of the building a

44:29 ↗ bicycle service station was was

44:33 ↗ recommended and and what that looks like

44:36 ↗ and it would be something like this

44:39 ↗ where you have a rack to put the bicycle

44:43 ↗ on you have air and then you have tools

44:49 ↗ so the another very useful suggestion

44:57 ↗ was to pull the this trail site Plaza

45:00 ↗ back a little bit further from the

45:02 ↗ intersection and for further from the so

45:05 ↗ that wouldn't obstruct any sight lines

45:08 ↗ for trail users and lastly we we

45:14 ↗ discussed having the design of this

45:18 ↗ weather protection here matched the

45:22 ↗ design of this sort of the existing

45:24 ↗ storage building we also discussed the

45:30 ↗ design of the intersection again

45:35 ↗ recognizing that it's it's a two-phase

45:38 ↗ deal what one of the the concerns was

45:43 ↗ that we didn't want the trail itself to

45:50 ↗ feel like it just kind of ends there

45:53 ↗ you know parks and and city staff in

45:57 ↗ general really want to ensure that that

46:00 ↗ East Lake Sammamish trail continues to

46:03 ↗ Juniper and to to Rainier so we've

46:07 ↗ discussed visual cues and signage that

46:11 ↗ would encourage trail

46:13 ↗ users to continue on their journey so so

46:25 ↗ the result of that meeting has has been

46:27 ↗ incorporated into the applicants newest

46:32 ↗ drawings we have the there we go the

46:37 ↗ bicycle service station here along with

46:39 ↗ some bicycle racks the seating would now

46:43 ↗ be a curved bench and this trellis

46:49 ↗ instead of being three separate ones it

46:52 ↗ would be one larger trellis Tim and and

46:55 ↗ the top would be designed again to to

46:59 ↗ match that of the existing storage

47:01 ↗ building the ten-foot wide race

47:08 ↗ crosswalk has also been added by the

47:10 ↗ applicant in this section here and that

47:15 ↗ would include colored concrete

47:24 ↗ and the the the concrete here would also

47:30 ↗ be designed to be distinctive one kind

47:38 ↗ of curveball that was thrown at us was

47:42 ↗ that we initially met with King County

47:44 ↗ Park staff to discuss the that access

47:50 ↗ easement so the ability to both use that

47:56 ↗ easement to construct the signal and to

47:58 ↗ construct the trail side plaza because

48:01 ↗ that would be built on county land King

48:05 ↗ County later identified that unless the

48:09 ↗ city I entered into agreement with them

48:12 ↗ for maintenance of the trail plaza that

48:15 ↗ they wouldn't be willing to support it

48:17 ↗ so it is a requirement of the

48:22 ↗ development agreement was for this trail

48:26 ↗ site plaza to be built so currently

48:30 ↗ we've we did meet with with the mayor

48:33 ↗ and we are meeting with King County next

48:35 ↗ week on Monday we can try to locate the

48:40 ↗ plaza in terms of options we can try to

48:42 ↗ locate it on site however this site

48:46 ↗ would be pretty constrained the plaza

48:51 ↗ itself would also be substantially

48:55 ↗ decreased we could locate the plaza in

48:59 ↗ another nearby location which means the

49:01 ↗ intent of the development agreement that

49:05 ↗ location hasn't been identified by by

49:08 ↗ staff or the applicant yet we can

49:12 ↗ potentially abandon the plaza idea

49:14 ↗ altogether or

49:21 ↗ [Applause]

49:24 ↗ or some essentially some other unknown

49:28 ↗ option in which case the we would come

49:32 ↗ back to to update the Development

49:34 ↗ Commission on on what that would look

49:36 ↗ like the the intent would be to to move

49:41 ↗ forward accepting that this is on an

49:45 ↗ unknown at this time

49:46 ↗ but that staff would be would be coming

49:50 ↗ back to update the Commission on what

49:52 ↗ the outcome of that was so the a lot of

50:01 ↗ the comments pertaining to the building

50:03 ↗ Plaza were that it felt stark or an

50:05 ↗ inviting there was also a concern about

50:08 ↗ the the community board folks not really

50:12 ↗ knowing what it was or what its purpose

50:14 ↗ was so the applicant has revised that

50:20 ↗ design to include a water fountain and

50:25 ↗ some not initially they included some

50:30 ↗ red benches as seating they've non now

50:34 ↗ gone to a more natural wood for

50:39 ↗ proceeding and the the community board

50:46 ↗ has now been changed to the bicycle

50:49 ↗ locker that we had previously discussed

50:52 ↗ so the bicycle locker would now be

50:54 ↗ located here there was there was also a

51:03 ↗ question about what other cities have

51:07 ↗ done what kind of parking has been

51:09 ↗ assigned the short answer to that the

51:11 ↗ the applicants transportation consultant

51:14 ↗ did provide memo which is included as an

51:18 ↗ exhibit but the short answer is that

51:21 ↗ both city is the City of Seattle and

51:24 ↗ Renton don't have a prescribed parking

51:30 ↗ rate for Studio lofts that they are

51:33 ↗ reviewed on a case-by-case basis and

51:37 ↗ then there was also a request for a

51:40 ↗ tabulation of what the parking

51:42 ↗ requirements and the amount of parking

51:44 ↗ being provided for this both the lofts

51:46 ↗ and the existing storage building the

51:52 ↗ parking required amounts to 65 spaces

51:57 ↗ and the parking provided amounts to 81

52:03 ↗ [Music]

52:06 ↗ the there there were concerns about the

52:09 ↗ number of bicycle parking spaces the

52:12 ↗ number of motorcycle parking spaces and

52:15 ↗ the lack of a bicycle locker in the last

52:19 ↗ metal however with the most recent sim

52:23 ↗ it'll the applicant has addressed all of

52:25 ↗ those issues the bicycle parking is

52:28 ↗ being provided in excess it the site

52:31 ↗ requires six spaces and 12 are being

52:33 ↗ provided the motorcycle parking has also

52:37 ↗ been addressed with two spaces being

52:41 ↗ provided here and the bicycle locker

52:44 ↗ again is being provided here so staff

52:46 ↗ recommends the removal of conditions 10

52:50 ↗ 11 and 12

52:56 ↗ however we are recommend recommend

52:59 ↗ indicial

53:00 ↗ for the loading spaces the site requires

53:03 ↗ two but only one is being provided at

53:07 ↗ this time the applicant has expressed

53:09 ↗ that he would like to share have a

53:12 ↗ shared parking with the the storage

53:15 ↗ facility however staff hasn't been able

53:19 ↗ to analyze with what that would look

53:22 ↗ like so this condition is added in order

53:24 ↗ to ensure that that we buy off on that

53:35 ↗ again intersections safety it's been

53:44 ↗ discussed and we are going to continue

53:47 ↗ to just to discuss that as on an ongoing

53:50 ↗ basis again we're meeting with King

53:53 ↗ County on Monday in terms of light

53:57 ↗ traffic light synchronization that will

54:00 ↗ be that's expected to be synchronized

54:04 ↗ with the city's existing traffic signal

54:06 ↗ network

54:14 ↗ four trees there there was some concern

54:18 ↗ that trees should be planted on site and

54:22 ↗ not off site that cottonwood trees

54:25 ↗ should not be used and that the water

54:27 ↗ line easement should be moved to

54:29 ↗ accommodate trees

54:32 ↗ currently the the as I mentioned at our

54:39 ↗ last meeting there are some constraints

54:42 ↗ with where trees can be planted on the

54:44 ↗ site the the site was essentially

54:46 ↗ cleared as part of the ASDP that was

54:50 ↗ allowed as part of the ASDP so there is

54:54 ↗ not a lot of opportunity for retention

54:56 ↗ at this point in terms of planning on

55:00 ↗ site and or off site the development

55:07 ↗ design standards do allow for that the

55:10 ↗ applicant has indicated that no Connolly

55:12 ↗ Kahn wood trees would be used the water

55:16 ↗ line easement that is staff currently

55:21 ↗ recommends maintaining that in order to

55:24 ↗ allow the developer an option to expand

55:29 ↗ in the future the five feet of if the

55:35 ↗ water line easement were to be moved

55:37 ↗ there wouldn't be a lot of space for

55:39 ↗ tree planning along this edge here we've

55:45 ↗ saw opportunities through King County

55:48 ↗ land and through wash top right of way

55:51 ↗ to to plant trees and they have both

55:55 ↗ declined that that opportunity there are

55:59 ↗ there's it there are conditions already

56:05 ↗ as part of the staff report for stuff to

56:08 ↗ continue to work with the applicant on

56:11 ↗ providing trees on site and if not

56:14 ↗ possible then trees off site or to pay

56:18 ↗ into the city tree fund

56:21 ↗ and then lastly there were concerns

56:24 ↗ about the bus stop

56:26 ↗ currently the this red star signifies

56:30 ↗ the current bus stop which is here we

56:34 ↗ have communicated with King County and

56:37 ↗ and we'd be looking at relocating this

56:40 ↗ bus stop somewhere closer to the site

56:43 ↗ and I've put the marker here but I

56:46 ↗ believe the applicant is in a better

56:48 ↗ position to discuss where where that

56:50 ↗ would go and that is all so I'm going to

56:55 ↗ go ahead and hand it over to the

56:56 ↗ applicant

57:34 ↗ hello you me my name is Lara Barnes and

57:38 ↗ I'm with Jackson Maine architecture so

57:44 ↗ from the last development Commission

57:45 ↗ meeting on April 4th

57:47 ↗ we have been diligently working towards

57:49 ↗ providing an architectural solution to

57:51 ↗ meet the concerns presented at the

57:53 ↗ meeting the design concerns that we

57:56 ↗ heard from the commissioners and the

57:58 ↗ public at that meeting far as is as

58:01 ↗ follows both the trail connection Plaza

58:04 ↗ and the building Plaza needed more

58:06 ↗ development there was also discussion on

58:09 ↗ whether project has urban grains or arts

58:11 ↗ and crafts and we decided it's arts and

58:13 ↗ crafts but there needed to be some

58:14 ↗ adjustments to the design to make it

58:16 ↗ more arts and crafts like that included

58:20 ↗ entry arched entry ways recessed entry

58:22 ↗ ways and some more development on the

58:25 ↗ elevator stair shafts and two or three

58:28 ↗ window pairings not four and the removal

58:31 ↗ of one wood facade texture and other

58:36 ↗ design concerns discussed included the

58:38 ↗ garage lighting and what the driver

58:41 ↗ would see driving on Northwest Gilman

58:43 ↗ and more stair and elevator tower

58:47 ↗ development so the trail Plaza and on

58:56 ↗ the right here is the old design or the

58:59 ↗ design from the previous Commission

59:01 ↗ meeting and this is the proposed new

59:03 ↗ design and the stakeholder meeting was

59:07 ↗ held as Dan mentioned on April 17th and

59:11 ↗ comments and concerns were heard and

59:14 ↗ applied to the new design moving the

59:19 ↗ plaza further away from the intersection

59:21 ↗ as shown here provided more safety for

59:26 ↗ trail users as well as to act as a

59:29 ↗ reminder to the trail users or a caution

59:32 ↗ that they're entering a developed area a

59:36 ↗ bicycle pump repair station was

59:38 ↗ suggested amenity and was added and the

59:41 ↗ previous design appeared to be too

59:44 ↗ generic and

59:45 ↗ not really back to the building as much

59:48 ↗ as commissioners and public wanted so

59:51 ↗ that was redesigned and relates more

59:55 ↗ back to the design of the building

1:00:02 ↗ building Plaza design we added enhanced

1:00:06 ↗ raise crosswalk and as Dan Dan mentioned

1:00:09 ↗ and the new building Plaza design

1:00:13 ↗ provides more detail with a greater

1:00:15 ↗ connection on the pedestrian experience

1:00:17 ↗ so again this is the previous design and

1:00:21 ↗ this is the new design a low gravel

1:00:26 ↗ stream with benches and stepping stones

1:00:29 ↗ provides a more interactive pedestrian

1:00:31 ↗ experience with the water feature as

1:00:33 ↗ shown here curving walkways and bench

1:00:37 ↗ benches enhanced pavement in a larger

1:00:40 ↗ landscape planter as you can see here

1:00:43 ↗ got a bit bigger and our elements that

1:00:47 ↗ were used to soften this space

1:00:56 ↗ as for the building design and how it

1:00:59 ↗ relates to arts and crafts arched this

1:01:04 ↗ is so this is the previous South front

1:01:08 ↗ building facade and this is the new

1:01:10 ↗ presented said South facade arched

1:01:16 ↗ recessed entries with contrasting

1:01:17 ↗ lentils as shown here have been added to

1:01:23 ↗ the main retail and loft entries window

1:01:26 ↗ pairings have been adjusted so

1:01:28 ↗ previously there was window pairings or

1:01:30 ↗ groupings of four windows which was a

1:01:33 ↗ comment from the commissioners so it has

1:01:36 ↗ been removed the shake wood texture

1:01:40 ↗ previously shown has been removed so now

1:01:43 ↗ there's only two wood textures and the

1:01:47 ↗ design now provides a consistent roof

1:01:50 ↗ pitch of eight to twelve which is

1:01:52 ↗ considered steep per the design manual

1:01:55 ↗ whereas in the previous design the steep

1:01:58 ↗ roof was only provided at the front and

1:02:00 ↗ the rear elevations so you can see these

1:02:03 ↗ two slopes are both eight to twelve

1:02:13 ↗ the stair and elevator towers were also

1:02:16 ↗ a topic of discussion so these are the

1:02:19 ↗ towers that were presented previously

1:02:21 ↗ and these are the towers that are now

1:02:23 ↗ I'm being presented

1:02:26 ↗ they were previously shown with a Rick

1:02:29 ↗ would Bluegreen sighting treatment and

1:02:32 ↗ it was commented that that made the

1:02:35 ↗ towers stand out too much so they are

1:02:39 ↗ now shown with a cream color wood

1:02:42 ↗ treatment to match the building windows

1:02:47 ↗ have been added to the stair tower here

1:02:50 ↗ as requested and the roofs over the

1:02:54 ↗ elevator and stair towers previously

1:02:56 ↗ shown here was at a shallow slope and

1:03:01 ↗ was a shed roof and now has been

1:03:04 ↗ adjusted to be a gable roof and at a

1:03:06 ↗ steep slope we have also added a chimney

1:03:13 ↗ and like element to the elevator Tower

1:03:17 ↗ and to add to the Arts and Crafts design

1:03:22 ↗ styles and that's an element that is

1:03:25 ↗ mentioned in the manual and we believe

1:03:28 ↗ that these steep roofs and Gables roofs

1:03:32 ↗ adds complexity to the project's roof

1:03:38 ↗ that was previously not had and so these

1:03:45 ↗ past two elevator shafts in South

1:03:49 ↗ elevation relate back to the conditions

1:03:51 ↗ 26 and 27

1:03:53 ↗ concerning massing and asymmetry and

1:03:56 ↗ symmetry we believe that the proposed

1:04:00 ↗ design has addressed concerns of

1:04:02 ↗ complexity of roof forms with the

1:04:04 ↗ addition of the two gabled roofs at the

1:04:06 ↗ elevator and stair towers so and then

1:04:11 ↗ also with condition 27 and I think it's

1:04:14 ↗ better seen from the elevation oops

1:04:20 ↗ we don't believe that the building is

1:04:22 ↗ symmetrical in planas lucy has agreed

1:04:24 ↗ with and mentioned before the shift in

1:04:27 ↗ plan adds a some a symmetry and an

1:04:31 ↗ elevation the two phases are not

1:04:32 ↗ symmetrical as the west wing is seven

1:04:34 ↗ feet wider than the east two this wing

1:04:38 ↗ here is seven feet wider and a brick

1:04:42 ↗ chimney element has been added to the

1:04:44 ↗ west wing and we believe that that adds

1:04:47 ↗ a quality of asymmetry although we don't

1:04:54 ↗ believe the design is symmetrical we

1:04:55 ↗ believe the new design has proposed

1:04:59 ↗ solutions for roof complexity

1:05:00 ↗ requirements but we are willing to work

1:05:02 ↗ with Dan and Lucia to make further

1:05:05 ↗ adjustments if the commissioners feel

1:05:07 ↗ that they're needed and this is an image

1:05:11 ↗ pulled from the design manual that I

1:05:14 ↗ think related back to our proposed

1:05:17 ↗ design

1:05:23 ↗ as Dan mentioned we provided a

1:05:25 ↗ perspective view from the piccata and

1:05:27 ↗ Trent entry on Northwest Gilman of the

1:05:31 ↗ building and just to note the proposed

1:05:35 ↗ building does sit a hundred feet back

1:05:37 ↗ from Northwest Gilman and the distance

1:05:41 ↗ along with existing trees limits the

1:05:43 ↗ view of the building from those driving

1:05:46 ↗ by and this here is the outline of the

1:05:50 ↗ roof

1:05:56 ↗ here we have the East facade both old

1:06:00 ↗ and new so that being said the siding

1:06:05 ↗ has been pulled down three feet on the

1:06:08 ↗ proposed design to limit the amount of

1:06:13 ↗ light that would leave the site from

1:06:15 ↗ garage lighting we are confident that

1:06:21 ↗ those driving by the site will not be

1:06:23 ↗ affected by the lights but we will move

1:06:25 ↗ forward with caution and we will

1:06:27 ↗ continue to work with Dan and Lucy on

1:06:28 ↗ meeting the lighting requirements as

1:06:31 ↗ noted in condition 33 so this plan is

1:06:40 ↗ just calling out a few of the other

1:06:41 ↗ conditions that Dan already went over so

1:06:46 ↗ condition 28 the entry here at the

1:06:49 ↗ retail entry facing the parking and then

1:06:52 ↗ condition 29 entry for commercial facing

1:06:55 ↗ parking we agree and those entries or

1:07:00 ↗ doors will be constricted to service

1:07:03 ↗ employee and our emergency use and as

1:07:06 ↗ you can see the doors here are located

1:07:08 ↗ next to the loading stall and um we'll

1:07:11 ↗ provide service and loading use and then

1:07:18 ↗ condition 30 um speaks to the

1:07:23 ↗ transparency of this face here and as

1:07:28 ↗ Lucy mentioned we did calculate it

1:07:30 ↗ calculated a bit different than she'd

1:07:32 ↗ had because of the raised planter but we

1:07:37 ↗ will abide by the percentage and add

1:07:39 ↗ more width to that store front and then

1:07:45 ↗ condition 30 to the 4 foot clear we will

1:07:50 ↗ also abide by that condition and push

1:07:53 ↗ the elevator in one additional foot to

1:07:56 ↗ allow for that 5-foot clearance

1:08:05 ↗ and this is the last one here also you

1:08:09 ↗ heard Lucy and Dan mention that the

1:08:12 ↗ entries did not comply with the weather

1:08:15 ↗ protection requirements in the SIDS and

1:08:20 ↗ we had thought that resetting the doors

1:08:23 ↗ three feet would provide a weather

1:08:26 ↗ protected entry but per the requirements

1:08:29 ↗ we need six feet of protection and we

1:08:32 ↗ acknowledge that and we will make that

1:08:35 ↗ change we will add with a weather

1:08:38 ↗ protection element at those entries and

1:08:44 ↗ that's all and Bob's gonna speak my name

1:09:01 ↗ is Bob power and I represent as costs to

1:09:04 ↗ do loss and I just want to say I think

1:09:08 ↗ we've had a very collaborative effort

1:09:10 ↗ with the city staff on trying to get

1:09:13 ↗ this project to where it is today

1:09:15 ↗ as a personal side note my educational

1:09:19 ↗ background was in architecture but I

1:09:20 ↗ smart enough to learn that I should

1:09:22 ↗ probably do something else but through

1:09:25 ↗ that I guess that's why we pay the

1:09:29 ↗ professionals and I really think Jackson

1:09:31 ↗ main has done a really good job here

1:09:33 ↗ today and I support what they've done

1:09:35 ↗ both on the project aesthetics as well

1:09:38 ↗ as how we're dealing with the trail and

1:09:40 ↗ the plaza and just look for your support

1:09:42 ↗ thank you thank you all right now we're

1:09:45 ↗ intend to hear from the public if

1:09:47 ↗ anybody wishes to speak would as they

1:09:49 ↗ sign in and open microphone to you

1:10:07 ↗ so I'm Connie Marsh I live up on squawk

1:10:10 ↗ and I brought a sign so I'll deal with

1:10:11 ↗ the sign first this side says Providence

1:10:15 ↗ Point now but that's irrespective so I

1:10:20 ↗ couldn't find black

1:10:21 ↗ here's i-90 it's the exit ramp

1:10:25 ↗ here's Gillman parcel about 300 feet the

1:10:30 ↗ concept of a grid as I found when I

1:10:34 ↗ walked with Fish and Wildlife to

1:10:36 ↗ understand whether it was a ditch or not

1:10:38 ↗ or where it started to be a ditch so I

1:10:40 ↗ got to walk this sort of great parallel

1:10:43 ↗ space that was not on Gillman Boulevard

1:10:46 ↗ so that you could actually walk on this

1:10:49 ↗ side of Gillman without having to be in

1:10:51 ↗ the traffic and so by starting this

1:10:55 ↗ project without creating this line this

1:11:01 ↗ mid-block crossing that will go now I 90

1:11:05 ↗ curves down here so you're gonna

1:11:06 ↗ eventually end up not having a mid-block

1:11:08 ↗ crossing is a darn shame because walking

1:11:13 ↗ along Gillman isn't pleasant and to not

1:11:17 ↗ allow anybody to have an an interesting

1:11:20 ↗ walking experience parallel to Gillman

1:11:23 ↗ on this side of the road is just simply

1:11:26 ↗ against everything that we talked about

1:11:29 ↗ in the central Issaquah plan small grid

1:11:31 ↗ walkability and not having to interface

1:11:35 ↗ with traffic so much so when you say you

1:11:39 ↗ know Picasa they can deal with figuring

1:11:41 ↗ out how to get through somebody else's

1:11:43 ↗ parcel later doesn't work for me what

1:11:47 ↗ you need to do is you need to

1:11:48 ↗ holistically plan for this grid looking

1:11:52 ↗ in the future for 30 years saying

1:11:54 ↗ eventually all these parcel will develop

1:11:56 ↗ and how do we allow the pedestrians to

1:11:59 ↗ gracefully and even sometimes with fun

1:12:02 ↗ go through those parcels so I entirely

1:12:05 ↗ disagree with the staffs position in

1:12:07 ↗ this situation you might be surprised by

1:12:10 ↗ that

1:12:10 ↗ now let's move on to trees we are Tree

1:12:14 ↗ City USA we have a tree canopy and the

1:12:19 ↗ entire time we were saying we could be

1:12:21 ↗ 85 and 95 5% impervious surface in the

1:12:24 ↗ central Issaquah plan there is a caveat

1:12:26 ↗ that you know but that's never really

1:12:29 ↗ going to happen because we have the

1:12:31 ↗ landscape guidelines and we have a tree

1:12:33 ↗ retention code and we have a we have a

1:12:36 ↗ actual minimum tree density and so in

1:12:40 ↗ this situation you also have staff being

1:12:45 ↗ able to say ah you know what now we can

1:12:48 ↗ put it into a tree fund and we can plant

1:12:52 ↗ potentially off-site somewhere so this

1:12:55 ↗ brings me back to the frustration that

1:12:58 ↗ we have all experienced is when is it

1:13:02 ↗ feasible when is it not feasible how

1:13:04 ↗ much of development can you change in

1:13:08 ↗ order to say you know it's just not

1:13:10 ↗ feasible to plant trees in Tree City USA

1:13:14 ↗ and so me you know I'm gonna go for the

1:13:18 ↗ trees because I don't want to live in a

1:13:20 ↗ forgive me Bellevue because Bellevue

1:13:22 ↗ actually has a lot of trees I don't want

1:13:25 ↗ to live in a hard scape town everywhere

1:13:27 ↗ I go I want there to be an echo of our

1:13:29 ↗ green mountains that we can see which

1:13:32 ↗ brings me to the plaza which is hard

1:13:35 ↗ scape so why do we have so much hard

1:13:39 ↗ scape when we cannot find places to

1:13:41 ↗ plant trees very confusing to me because

1:13:44 ↗ it seems like you could plant trees in

1:13:46 ↗ places where we have hard scape which

1:13:51 ↗ brings me further to the points that

1:13:55 ↗ we're on the slide when we were

1:13:56 ↗ discussing that community area when some

1:13:59 ↗ of the comments were it isn't the

1:14:01 ↗ verdant sensibility that we're expecting

1:14:04 ↗ on the trail entrance it needs to be a

1:14:07 ↗ special place a place where you feel

1:14:10 ↗ like you have arrived and this Plaza

1:14:12 ↗ does not feel like a place of arrival to

1:14:14 ↗ me it feels like we're sticking in a

1:14:17 ↗ little bump because we have to and we do

1:14:20 ↗ have a bicycle thingy

1:14:24 ↗ so what to do with that because we don't

1:14:30 ↗ know what the county is going to allow

1:14:32 ↗ and you didn't have the public at the

1:14:34 ↗ table to say what they wanted all you

1:14:36 ↗ had is a couple of specialty groups so I

1:14:43 ↗ guess what I would do is I would ask for

1:14:47 ↗ a condition that this be a placeholder

1:14:50 ↗ that will be designed after the county

1:14:55 ↗ conversation has been had and I don't

1:14:58 ↗ even know if that's possible but it

1:14:59 ↗ seems foolish to create something before

1:15:02 ↗ you can even understand how the trail is

1:15:04 ↗ going to interface with the rest of of

1:15:07 ↗ Issaquah and I feel like there was one

1:15:11 ↗ other thing that made me cranky but I

1:15:13 ↗ probably wrote it down anyway so you

1:15:15 ↗ already know all this but this has

1:15:16 ↗ expression and hand waving so and I hope

1:15:21 ↗ hope it has signing in eventually well

1:15:23 ↗ can I use this pen you can use whatever

1:15:25 ↗ you want

1:15:39 ↗ well this david Kapler 255 southeast

1:15:43 ↗ Andrew Street some ways this is kind of

1:15:45 ↗ a learning and introduction to the

1:15:48 ↗ central Issaquah plan and we'll probably

1:15:51 ↗ hopefully have learned some things here

1:15:53 ↗ that can be better implemented into the

1:15:56 ↗ future I supported the original

1:15:59 ↗ development agreement on this because it

1:16:04 ↗ was we had had some issues there of

1:16:07 ↗ trying to not have to be tearing up the

1:16:12 ↗ streets and curbs and everything later

1:16:14 ↗ to put in to coming up with something we

1:16:19 ↗ came up with some kind of design to try

1:16:20 ↗ and make this five corners basically

1:16:23 ↗ kind of intersection work and it seems

1:16:26 ↗ like we're getting something there the

1:16:29 ↗ city's saved some money

1:16:30 ↗ the developers putting in a quite a bit

1:16:32 ↗ of money into this signal so but not

1:16:36 ↗ everything's perfect but we're learning

1:16:39 ↗ and it's getting better one of the best

1:16:41 ↗ improvements was a stakeholder meeting

1:16:43 ↗ that that did help and I think the

1:16:46 ↗ interaction we're seeing with the park

1:16:48 ↗ department especially with the planning

1:16:51 ↗ people is really a good step forward and

1:16:54 ↗ completely necessary to be successful in

1:16:57 ↗ the central Issaquah plan I know there

1:17:02 ↗ was some deal about building harmony and

1:17:05 ↗ was it supposed to be harmony in harmony

1:17:09 ↗ with the the the storage building I

1:17:11 ↗ didn't see it not that I wanted to be in

1:17:13 ↗ harmony with that building but that was

1:17:17 ↗ confusing to me

1:17:20 ↗ phase 2 basically is the Southside the

1:17:24 ↗ city's still working and trying to

1:17:25 ↗ figure out how to work in the the trail

1:17:28 ↗ there and Rainier and juniper streets

1:17:31 ↗ but at least we'll have the signals in

1:17:34 ↗ will have the conduit in a different you

1:17:37 ↗ know and hopefully in a place where

1:17:40 ↗ it'll work for the future changes the

1:17:42 ↗ city will be doing to their side of the

1:17:44 ↗ street sure like to see some some trees

1:17:48 ↗ besides cottonwoods and across the back

1:17:51 ↗ and seems like it would be in their

1:17:53 ↗ interest given the back is the i-90 to

1:17:58 ↗ have something green in that back area

1:18:04 ↗ the landscaping additional landscaping

1:18:07 ↗ proposed in front of the buildings is of

1:18:10 ↗ definite improvement and appreciated

1:18:15 ↗ asymmetric on the fronts not so much but

1:18:21 ↗ there I'm not sure but I'm not an

1:18:24 ↗ architect so I don't know how I would

1:18:26 ↗ deal with that exactly the chimney we've

1:18:30 ↗ got to really have bricks up there

1:18:32 ↗ I remember in 1964 going to West Seattle

1:18:36 ↗ after the earthquake and where my

1:18:38 ↗ grandparents lived in all the chimneys

1:18:41 ↗ in West Seattle fell over and that

1:18:43 ↗ earthquake and it was pretty exciting in

1:18:46 ↗ the second floor of Bellevue high school

1:18:48 ↗ but we didn't lose anything at the

1:18:50 ↗ school but I don't know it's a chimney I

1:18:54 ↗ don't know whatever

1:18:55 ↗ make sure those bricks if they're going

1:18:57 ↗ to be up there are well attached thank

1:18:59 ↗ you

1:19:02 ↗ so I see nobody else from the public

1:19:07 ↗ will disclose that public comment and

1:19:08 ↗ open this for discussion good questions

1:19:16 ↗ from the commissioners yes do have

1:19:20 ↗ question great yes

1:19:24 ↗ dan can you look at I have a survey plan

1:19:30 ↗ that shows the property and then I have

1:19:34 ↗ all the C's drawing I think into a

1:19:36 ↗ drawings and somehow the property line

1:19:38 ↗ of the survey must be wrong plan or or

1:19:45 ↗ the a and C drawings are on the wrong

1:19:48 ↗ site or something

1:19:49 ↗ because I look at it and we have an

1:19:51 ↗ existing building the storage building

1:19:53 ↗ and the new buildings right smack

1:19:57 ↗ through there

1:19:58 ↗ what sheet are you on ray I am on a

1:20:01 ↗ survey sheet and I'm looking at

1:20:06 ↗ comparing with see drawing see Point C

1:20:09 ↗ Point 1 and 8.1 so when you say survey

1:20:15 ↗ what do you mean I have a survey by

1:20:17 ↗ encompass the tax parcel boundary total

1:20:23 ↗ plan yeah I think that's the one that

1:20:30 ↗ you have there oh yeah so yeah so the

1:20:34 ↗ property line that you have there

1:20:36 ↗ yeah are you showing l-shape building is

1:20:40 ↗ that the storage building that's out

1:20:42 ↗ there now

1:20:43 ↗ so the this building here right that's

1:20:51 ↗ the building that was there a couple of

1:20:54 ↗ years ago before and before phase one

1:20:57 ↗ decided oh okay okay so when the goats

1:21:02 ↗ still grazed okay so all right so that's

1:21:06 ↗ not up to date then it's an existing

1:21:10 ↗ it's it's the existing context it it was

1:21:14 ↗ that's all it was meant to capture okay

1:21:20 ↗ so okay all right so the new building

1:21:25 ↗ it's not even shown on there all right

1:21:27 ↗ if you look at c1 it's very very faint

1:21:33 ↗ mm-hmm

1:21:34 ↗ the the new storage building okay that

1:21:39 ↗ answers the question you can't see it on

1:21:42 ↗ the one that Dan's pulled up yeah aside

1:21:45 ↗ Phegley I see you young minds on the

1:21:47 ↗ print it's slightly available visible

1:21:50 ↗ yeah

1:21:51 ↗ but the question that I have then is

1:21:54 ↗ that you know when you look at the fire

1:21:56 ↗ fighting engine that comes in and then

1:21:59 ↗ around turn around yeah there you go

1:22:04 ↗ is it going into the building or is it

1:22:06 ↗ just going around the parking lot so the

1:22:09 ↗ the the parking there is all under

1:22:13 ↗ building so it wouldn't be going through

1:22:17 ↗ the building but it would be going under

1:22:20 ↗ it gonna go under the building under the

1:22:24 ↗ storage building correct

1:22:26 ↗ is there underground parking there

1:22:29 ↗ because I think that's a parking there

1:22:32 ↗ isn't it

1:22:32 ↗ existing it's it's it's covered parking

1:22:35 ↗ so it's on the surface but the the the

1:22:39 ↗ building is above it okay okay so it's

1:22:43 ↗ level but it's covered correct

1:22:46 ↗ second floor done okay and and the fire

1:22:50 ↗ folks Fire Department looked at it they

1:22:53 ↗ want to fight fire from well that's not

1:22:55 ↗ but that's not part of this project

1:22:56 ↗ right but but you know done yeah but I'm

1:22:59 ↗ just trying to understand what you're

1:23:01 ↗ showing me the fire engine is gonna turn

1:23:04 ↗ around and then come back and then the

1:23:06 ↗ the fire department did look at this

1:23:07 ↗ correct

1:23:08 ↗ yeah we'll fight fire right there on the

1:23:10 ↗ face of the building pretty they've

1:23:12 ↗ already proved it I know you know so the

1:23:16 ↗ answer is yes a will fight fire right

1:23:19 ↗ next to the building I mean yeah okay

1:23:22 ↗ yeah okay

1:23:24 ↗ Commissioner Liang what I would say is

1:23:27 ↗ that sometimes the routes that they're

1:23:29 ↗ showing here are more about exiting

1:23:31 ↗ after they've completed the fire

1:23:33 ↗ fighting rather than the route that they

1:23:35 ↗ would take during the complication so I

1:23:40 ↗ think it just shows that they can turn

1:23:42 ↗ around inside the site now they might

1:23:45 ↗ choose to back out if they needed to but

1:23:50 ↗ they have the ability to turn around

1:23:52 ↗ on-site if they desire to do so

1:24:00 ↗ resti

1:24:03 ↗ when you're building on a on a drawings

1:24:11 ↗ 81 maybe a 2 would show it's better

1:24:17 ↗ towards the south yeah there you go the

1:24:21 ↗ entrance I think it's I haven't seen the

1:24:26 ↗ past submittal but I think the

1:24:28 ↗ landscaping the water fountains probably

1:24:30 ↗ a good idea to have that but that's

1:24:33 ↗ where the unloading loading of the

1:24:35 ↗ passenger is going to curve you have

1:24:39 ↗ main entrances and you have like three

1:24:42 ↗ main entrances I wonder which one would

1:24:45 ↗ they really use if two that goes into

1:24:49 ↗ the retail and then one goes into the

1:24:52 ↗ lobby so as far as you know we'll get

1:24:56 ↗ into this massing of of entrances

1:24:59 ↗ there's no central point of entry it's

1:25:03 ↗ all spread out correct yeah so the again

1:25:10 ↗ the principle use is the lofts and the

1:25:15 ↗ those can be accessed through here

1:25:19 ↗ through the lobby entrance yeah and how

1:25:21 ↗ would they get there how would they get

1:25:23 ↗ here yeah so Gilman Boulevard is is over

1:25:27 ↗ here right and there is a as part of the

1:25:32 ↗ project the applicant would be looking

1:25:35 ↗ at installing a traffic signal that

1:25:39 ↗ would allow access from Gilman both

1:25:43 ↗ right in and left turns and so you can

1:25:49 ↗ drive using this driveway here access

1:25:52 ↗ parking in here okay and then you can

1:25:57 ↗ walk either using this sidewalk or this

1:26:00 ↗ sidewalk to access the entries of the

1:26:04 ↗ building now if you're a pedestrian or a

1:26:06 ↗ bicyclist you would just access the the

1:26:11 ↗ buildings using this

1:26:12 ↗ crosswalk here and the again the lobby

1:26:17 ↗ front door is there and then the two

1:26:19 ↗ retail uses I I taught you can tend to

1:26:24 ↗ agree with you on the pedestrian but the

1:26:26 ↗ folks driving you think they'll go all

1:26:29 ↗ the way around park the car and then

1:26:31 ↗ come back in through the front to go in

1:26:34 ↗ if they are there specifically for the

1:26:37 ↗ those retail uses then yes that's that's

1:26:44 ↗ fine and and the other thing is that we

1:26:46 ↗ have this building and there's only one

1:26:48 ↗ elevator and four Studios you got

1:26:52 ↗ artists that's bringing down their

1:26:53 ↗ crafts it's only one elevator and the

1:26:57 ↗ elevator comes down and how do they get

1:26:59 ↗ to the retail so out through the front

1:27:04 ↗ door and come back yet

1:27:05 ↗ if if somebody from the using the lofts

1:27:11 ↗ wanted to go to to the retail uses yes

1:27:14 ↗ they can use any of these doors here or

1:27:17 ↗ the front door and to access those

1:27:20 ↗ retail uses there upstairs

1:27:22 ↗ they are upstairs so they use the

1:27:24 ↗ elevator bring them down they can use

1:27:26 ↗ the elevator or they can use stairs I

1:27:29 ↗ can bet he'll be willing to bed they're

1:27:31 ↗ not gonna use the stairs

1:27:32 ↗ it's crafts that they carry there no one

1:27:35 ↗ so so there's an every the point is that

1:27:38 ↗ they come out to the lobby how did it

1:27:40 ↗ get to the retail using any any of the

1:27:45 ↗ doors here the the work lofts are

1:27:49 ↗ intended to be III I believe that there

1:27:53 ↗ may be some artists that use them but

1:27:56 ↗ what these really are are small offices

1:27:59 ↗ for start-up businesses it's really the

1:28:05 ↗ the hope is for this facility to be an

1:28:08 ↗ incubator for small businesses I just

1:28:12 ↗ think something needs to you the

1:28:14 ↗ applicant probably need to relook at

1:28:16 ↗ that because you know the circulation is

1:28:18 ↗ just not working you got to go out to

1:28:21 ↗ come back in and it's just so easy to

1:28:23 ↗ put a door in there together

1:28:25 ↗ to the retail so the the central is a

1:28:27 ↗ qua development and design standards do

1:28:30 ↗ require that these primary entrances be

1:28:34 ↗ located facing the street

1:28:36 ↗ so these comply with the design and

1:28:41 ↗ development standards and and in terms

1:28:45 ↗ of anybody using the second third and

1:28:50 ↗ fourth story lofts they yes they would

1:28:54 ↗ use the stairs assuming that they don't

1:28:58 ↗ have you know a lot of things to carry

1:29:01 ↗ they can use the elevator and yes they

1:29:04 ↗ can access the outside through any of

1:29:07 ↗ these doors and if they are looking to

1:29:09 ↗ use the retail then they would go

1:29:13 ↗ through the front door like anyone else

1:29:14 ↗ the up again just need to look I'm just

1:29:17 ↗ proposing that the Opticon needs to look

1:29:19 ↗ at the circulation in there you got four

1:29:21 ↗ storey and then you have only one

1:29:23 ↗ elevator and then you got to go through

1:29:26 ↗ the outside to come back in so I'll

1:29:31 ↗ leave it at that

1:29:33 ↗ will it come back to me mr. chairman

1:29:36 ↗ very good okay why don't ya if you have

1:29:38 ↗ other questions yeah I have a few more

1:29:41 ↗ questions on your parking there's s

1:29:44 ↗ there see there's n but no I suspect

1:29:49 ↗ sees probably I'm on a car impact about

1:29:54 ↗ s standard standard correct about m

1:30:01 ↗ motorcycle oh okay ooh yeah it would be

1:30:06 ↗ nice to have table

1:30:07 ↗ how about L loading ah okay okay

1:30:19 ↗ we're bloating at the main entrance

1:30:22 ↗ that's the only way to get in and out of

1:30:24 ↗ them so the primary entrances are again

1:30:29 ↗ at the front facing Gillman and the

1:30:34 ↗ loading stall is is located essentially

1:30:38 ↗ behind the building so they would to

1:30:42 ↗ access the the lofts sigh they they

1:30:48 ↗ could use this door here or this door

1:30:50 ↗ here

1:30:51 ↗ Commissioner Liang do you mean in terms

1:30:54 ↗ of how to access the parking I just

1:30:59 ↗ realized there's a couple more axes on

1:31:02 ↗ the right towards towards I 90 there

1:31:05 ↗ there is another so that if if someone

1:31:07 ↗ was loading there would still be the

1:31:10 ↗ ability to circulate it now that's

1:31:12 ↗ that's good

1:31:15 ↗ I don't see any mail room so there is a

1:31:21 ↗ I think it's not labeled it's the white

1:31:26 ↗ area sort of between the front door and

1:31:29 ↗ the electrical that's correct uh-huh

1:31:35 ↗ right here yeah

1:31:49 ↗ that's all the question that I have

1:31:51 ↗ right now other questions from

1:31:54 ↗ commissioners the Chairman I have a few

1:31:58 ↗ try to click through them expeditiously

1:32:01 ↗ here regarding the parking screening the

1:32:04 ↗ trellis lattice area what kind of

1:32:07 ↗ planning do we have going up that is

1:32:08 ↗ that IV do we have a seasonal issue with

1:32:11 ↗ that how is that going to work I'm gonna

1:32:17 ↗ turn this one over to the yeah I'm Greg

1:32:31 ↗ pursuits with Jackson main architecture

1:32:32 ↗ and I'm I probably can't answer that

1:32:34 ↗ question because we have a landscape

1:32:35 ↗ architect and what was submitted with

1:32:37 ↗ the planning's I'm not sure we can we'll

1:32:40 ↗ work with the city on something that'll

1:32:42 ↗ be evergreen I guess or the issue would

1:32:44 ↗ be just we're not seasonal so that we

1:32:47 ↗ have screening there the an is that same

1:32:49 ↗ screening going to be on I guess it's

1:32:51 ↗ the west side of the West facade there's

1:32:54 ↗ a little space there that faces the

1:32:56 ↗ storage building is that same screening

1:32:58 ↗ going to be used there at wall right

1:32:59 ↗ yeah that's a wall on that side that

1:33:02 ↗ one's actually directly under the

1:33:03 ↗ building so it became more of a law this

1:33:05 ↗ one's out from the building by about

1:33:07 ↗ okay so that that parking isn't exposed

1:33:10 ↗ on that side of the West building facing

1:33:13 ↗ the storage building it does not appear

1:33:15 ↗ so from the plant I'm looking at sheet

1:33:18 ↗ l1 if you I couldn't tell there were a

1:33:21 ↗ couple of them there I wasn't yeah it's

1:33:23 ↗ hard it's hard to know what some of the

1:33:24 ↗ lines are okay fine signage do we have

1:33:28 ↗ any information on signage I think it

1:33:31 ↗ was mentioned a little in the last

1:33:33 ↗ presentation that some detail would be

1:33:35 ↗ forthcoming on that I think there was a

1:33:37 ↗ decorative band of concrete mentioned at

1:33:39 ↗ one time in the plans we have any I

1:33:42 ↗ think signage was mentioned tonight in

1:33:44 ↗ terms of the stakeholder meeting trail

1:33:46 ↗ signage and things like that but I

1:33:48 ↗ wondered if we had any other detail on

1:33:50 ↗ signage at this time no

1:33:54 ↗ it would this the signage would come

1:33:57 ↗ after the construction of the building

1:34:00 ↗ and they would be required to submit

1:34:02 ↗ sign prints sign permit applications and

1:34:05 ↗ they would be required to comply with

1:34:07 ↗ the current sign standards at that okay

1:34:10 ↗ would we have an opportunity to review

1:34:12 ↗ that or is that a staff decision

1:34:15 ↗ primarily at that point sign permits are

1:34:18 ↗ a staff decision even you know I don't

1:34:24 ↗ believe they'll be requesting any

1:34:26 ↗ deviations from that okay well is there

1:34:30 ↗ another bus stop besides the one we saw

1:34:32 ↗ there isn't there one right in front of

1:34:33 ↗ you oh I always stop it maybe a little

1:34:36 ↗ bit closer to this than the one in front

1:34:38 ↗ of Gilman station

1:35:02 ↗ I'm going to try Google tires y'all yes

1:35:06 ↗ and one at the Gilman station

1:35:19 ↗ so there's the one we're speaking of no

1:35:22 ↗ here's the here's the site and and

1:35:25 ↗ you're correct here's another one down

1:35:28 ↗ here right so it kind of falls in

1:35:30 ↗ between those two well I think what

1:35:33 ↗ Metro is communicated is that they would

1:35:36 ↗ not add one but they would consider

1:35:38 ↗ relocating it which is consistent what

1:35:43 ↗ Dan mentioned is they want to go through

1:35:45 ↗ a signal before they have a stop so they

1:35:48 ↗ wouldn't want to since the new signal is

1:35:51 ↗ going to be approximately here they

1:35:53 ↗ wouldn't want to move the stop right in

1:35:55 ↗ front of the building because they

1:35:57 ↗ wouldn't be able to clear the cig the

1:35:59 ↗ intersection so but they sound like

1:36:03 ↗ they're willing to move it closer to the

1:36:06 ↗ building okay okay good

1:36:10 ↗ let me see okay so I think the original

1:36:14 ↗ design of this building we've been

1:36:15 ↗ through a couple of iterations with this

1:36:17 ↗ right we were urban Grange and our arts

1:36:19 ↗ and crafts and so on and I think your

1:36:21 ↗ original conception may have been more

1:36:25 ↗ consistent with the storage building in

1:36:27 ↗ terms of style

1:36:27 ↗ so we've diverged a bit from that so I

1:36:31 ↗ wonder what elements of harmony you see

1:36:34 ↗ now with the existing arts and crafts

1:36:36 ↗ picking up on a comment from the public

1:36:38 ↗ with the storage building what are they

1:36:40 ↗ going to be that the harmonious elements

1:36:42 ↗ that you see between this building and

1:36:44 ↗ the storage building that already exists

1:36:52 ↗ again bop power when we went through the

1:36:57 ↗ development agreement originally the

1:37:01 ↗ storage building would have had a much

1:37:03 ↗ different color palette than it has

1:37:05 ↗ today it was originally Reds that were

1:37:09 ↗ consistent the the manager of that

1:37:11 ↗ facility is called premier storage and

1:37:13 ↗ they have a they have a color palette

1:37:15 ↗ that they go with so the best we could

1:37:19 ↗ do we really couldn't modify anything

1:37:21 ↗ structurally on or physically on the

1:37:25 ↗ storage building by the time we got the

1:37:29 ↗ information back from the city on what

1:37:31 ↗ the new design guidelines were gonna be

1:37:34 ↗ so the so what we were able to do was

1:37:37 ↗ convince the the manager the operator of

1:37:41 ↗ this storage facility to change the

1:37:43 ↗ color palette of the storage building to

1:37:47 ↗ be more consistent with the color

1:37:49 ↗ palette that's now being developed as

1:37:52 ↗ part of the new central Squa design

1:37:56 ↗ standards so it's not so much what's

1:37:59 ↗ been done to the to the studio lofts to

1:38:05 ↗ integrate that back with the storage

1:38:07 ↗ building but what we could catch on the

1:38:09 ↗ storage building at the last moment to

1:38:11 ↗ kind of integrate the color pallet

1:38:12 ↗ between the two of them they

1:38:14 ↗ approximately the same height as well

1:38:16 ↗ let's do the the studio loft will be

1:38:20 ↗ slightly taller because of the higher

1:38:22 ↗ pitched roofs but the floor elevations

1:38:24 ↗ will be pretty consistent okay I think

1:38:30 ↗ just one or two more the stair tower so

1:38:35 ↗ on the west facade there was the chimney

1:38:39 ↗ that's proposed there

1:38:41 ↗ I was wondering how we feel about that

1:38:45 ↗ addition versus let's say staffs option

1:38:50 ↗ for the taller Tower with a prominent

1:38:52 ↗ intersecting Ridge on page 16 so I would

1:38:56 ↗ propose that maybe we discussed that as

1:38:59 ↗ we go through the massing and

1:39:02 ↗ way your different options I think

1:39:05 ↗ that's a great discussion point I don't

1:39:08 ↗ I don't I don't know that we have an

1:39:13 ↗ answer right now consensus that okay

1:39:18 ↗ fine and just quickly my last one

1:39:20 ↗ weather protection is going to go over

1:39:22 ↗ the doors what is that going to look

1:39:23 ↗ like it's going to be consistent is

1:39:31 ↗ lhara

1:39:31 ↗ again it's going to be consistent with

1:39:33 ↗ the other canopies shown I can bring it

1:39:37 ↗ flat like the other canopy not hard but

1:39:42 ↗ a bit higher up and in order to show

1:39:45 ↗ that lintel piece the contrasting little

1:39:50 ↗ that you yeah okay thanks that's all I

1:39:53 ↗ have mr. Harrison I have two questions

1:40:01 ↗ the water feature I understand is also

1:40:06 ↗ going to have a water fountain for dogs

1:40:10 ↗ is that what I heard no that was a

1:40:15 ↗ suggestion from I believe it was from

1:40:18 ↗ you know you know his dog oriented as I

1:40:25 ↗ am I was thinking of bikers people on

1:40:28 ↗ the trail and what I suggested was that

1:40:30 ↗ if they're gonna have a water feature

1:40:32 ↗ there that since there's no water

1:40:34 ↗ available to people using the trail

1:40:37 ↗ between here and Redmond as far as last

1:40:39 ↗ time I did it that it would be a good

1:40:41 ↗ thing to have a water fountain somewhere

1:40:44 ↗ in this Plaza complex and so what I what

1:40:50 ↗ I see now is that there's not gonna be a

1:40:53 ↗ water fountain even for dogs but there

1:40:55 ↗ is gonna be a pump a bicycle repair

1:40:58 ↗ station put in which is gonna require

1:41:01 ↗ infrastructure and ditches and things

1:41:03 ↗ like that

1:41:04 ↗ I mean to get you know to do it they'll

1:41:06 ↗ be sealed so I it's a small point if

1:41:09 ↗ there's not gonna be any water founder's

1:41:11 ↗ not community water fountain but I just

1:41:12 ↗ I don't

1:41:13 ↗ the bike repair station is okay there's

1:41:17 ↗ right but there's no dry utilities or

1:41:19 ↗ air or any service to the bike repair

1:41:24 ↗ station it didn't it doesn't have air so

1:41:27 ↗ it has a pump Oh a pump okay fine

1:41:30 ↗ more more need for water okay the the

1:41:37 ↗ remember the public did make a

1:41:39 ↗ suggestion to hold the design for this

1:41:43 ↗ until there's some clarification of the

1:41:45 ↗ status with King County what's what do

1:41:47 ↗ you think of that well I think what what

1:41:52 ↗ we would recommend because we don't know

1:41:53 ↗ what it would take to do the Trail Plaza

1:41:59 ↗ is that if they proceed with the Trail

1:42:02 ↗ Plaza that they've shown that you know

1:42:07 ↗ we wouldn't come back and if the I think

1:42:11 ↗ the building I guess what I'm saying not

1:42:13 ↗ very well

1:42:14 ↗ is that the building is separate from

1:42:18 ↗ the trail plaza so if they proceed I

1:42:22 ↗ think they could proceed with the

1:42:24 ↗ building and if they proceed with the

1:42:27 ↗ trail plaza that's shown then we

1:42:29 ↗ wouldn't come back to the Commission if

1:42:30 ↗ they proceed with a different plaza to

1:42:35 ↗ substitute because terms can't be

1:42:37 ↗ reached with King County then that's why

1:42:40 ↗ we proposed some of the other options

1:42:42 ↗ that we could identify because

1:42:44 ↗ Commissioner Brennan had asked us that

1:42:45 ↗ question we didn't have much of an

1:42:47 ↗ answer last time so we thought we should

1:42:48 ↗ think about that

1:42:50 ↗ and so if there is input on those other

1:42:55 ↗ options it would be great to get it from

1:42:57 ↗ the commissioners this evening and so

1:43:01 ↗ that helps guide staff if we are not

1:43:03 ↗ able to reach terms and we would come

1:43:05 ↗ back and have a further discussion with

1:43:07 ↗ the Commission okay and one observation

1:43:09 ↗ to follow up on a question from my

1:43:12 ↗ fellow commissioner is that the

1:43:14 ↗ illustration figure six that is the

1:43:18 ↗ parking structure and surface parking

1:43:21 ↗ parking screening from Puu gotcha

1:43:23 ↗ I just like to point out that desert

1:43:25 ↗ deciduous trees

1:43:26 ↗ there so if that's an example of how

1:43:29 ↗ effective the screening is going to be

1:43:31 ↗ it's gonna be effective for you know six

1:43:34 ↗ months of the year and not for six

1:43:38 ↗ months of the year I'm not sure that's a

1:43:44 ↗ 365-day

1:43:45 ↗ effective I think the intent of figure

1:43:49 ↗ six I look to my honorable coggle

1:43:51 ↗ colleague here I think that the intent

1:43:54 ↗ of this was to show what the image would

1:43:57 ↗ be not to say that the trees were

1:43:58 ↗ necessarily performing the screening the

1:44:02 ↗ I think I had understood that the

1:44:05 ↗ Picacho screening was really from their

1:44:08 ↗ parking lot which that has been

1:44:17 ↗ specifically stated I understand that

1:44:20 ↗ but all right

1:44:21 ↗ that's that's why okay okay the

1:44:28 ↗ commissioners comments question other

1:44:31 ↗ commissioners questions thank you I've

1:44:36 ↗ got a couple question on Dan I'm trying

1:44:43 ↗ to understand page 81 or page 64 of 179

1:44:46 ↗ on the staff comments the calculations

1:44:52 ↗ of the weather protection the first

1:45:00 ↗ paragraph I'm trying to understand it

1:45:02 ↗ says Assad is 44 feet long which

1:45:05 ↗ requires 33 feet of weather protection

1:45:09 ↗ 31:8 required so I'm trying to figure

1:45:11 ↗ out is that 31 eighths provided or this

1:45:16 ↗ requires 31 and 32 required yeah I think

1:45:22 ↗ that's exactly correct apologies but

1:45:26 ↗ that's why it needs a little bit more so

1:45:28 ↗ not too much yeah thank you and then the

1:45:31 ↗ the paragraph below it says facade is 32

1:45:36 ↗ 8

1:45:38 ↗ and 20 feet is provided but I didn't see

1:45:40 ↗ how much is required to figure out down

1:45:51 ↗ below it says the amount provided

1:45:52 ↗ addresses the need anyway oh I I think

1:46:01 ↗ that the way thank you so this is East

1:46:07 ↗ Wing West facade that you're asking

1:46:08 ↗ right right so I think that that my

1:46:12 ↗ coded message here is that it starts

1:46:15 ↗ with complies so 20 feet is enough so 20

1:46:18 ↗ feet is enough gotcha

1:46:19 ↗ I didn't provide the number but I

1:46:21 ↗ understand that might have been a useful

1:46:22 ↗ piece of information great and then I

1:46:25 ↗ wonder if I'd like to look at the

1:46:29 ↗ materials and colors again and so I

1:46:31 ↗ wonder if we could pull up sheet a 3.0

1:46:36 ↗ and then maybe we could look at the

1:46:39 ↗ board at the same time and maybe even

1:46:43 ↗ have it if you don't mind if you can

1:46:48 ↗ sort of hold that for everybody to look

1:46:50 ↗ at at the same time but if you can pull

1:46:52 ↗ up a 3.0 and then I thought and then I

1:46:55 ↗ thought the architect could actually

1:46:56 ↗ explain to us each section of the

1:46:59 ↗ building what we're going to see if

1:47:01 ↗ that's okay

1:47:12 ↗ I'm sorry which one were you asking for

1:47:14 ↗ a 3.0 that yeah really it's the top the

1:47:25 ↗ top portions

1:47:38 ↗ this is good because it shows all the

1:47:40 ↗ different parts okay for understanding

1:47:43 ↗ and then we can hopefully thinking we

1:47:46 ↗ can visualize by looking at this and

1:47:47 ↗ then so the this is live from Jackson

1:47:52 ↗ main the base is brick which is shown on

1:47:56 ↗ the board that's that's the rate

1:48:00 ↗ essentially black okay mm-hmm is that

1:48:04 ↗ the same for the bike storage in the

1:48:06 ↗ middle okay same here

1:48:08 ↗ and then the sighting in the center of

1:48:12 ↗ the building is the Rookwood blue green

1:48:15 ↗ color and there's a color swatch on the

1:48:21 ↗ right there the green that's the color

1:48:23 ↗ mm-hmm and the texture is the board and

1:48:27 ↗ batten and then the front of the

1:48:32 ↗ building on both wings is a cream color

1:48:36 ↗ which also has a color swatch next to

1:48:39 ↗ the green Center one oh okay mm-hmm and

1:48:44 ↗ that's a lap siding and then the board

1:48:46 ↗ and batten oh yes okay exactly

1:48:50 ↗ [Music]

1:48:55 ↗ are there any other materials us was

1:48:59 ↗ that the relaxed khaki is the cream

1:49:07 ↗ color the metal samples on the side are

1:49:11 ↗ the existing storage colors that were

1:49:16 ↗ used that we're trying to match okay

1:49:25 ↗ okay and so the center color that

1:49:29 ↗ Senator white cream color that's there

1:49:32 ↗ that one is that's the facade trim

1:49:38 ↗ that's the terrain that's the change and

1:49:40 ↗ the ones that left it that is a facade

1:49:42 ↗ yes yes okay a dark cream the dark green

1:49:47 ↗ is in the center yeah yeah mm-hmm and

1:49:50 ↗ the glass is at the window color

1:49:52 ↗ yeah the storefront glass mm-hmm with

1:49:56 ↗ the frame with the bronze bronze

1:49:59 ↗ mm-hmm and then the upper right corner

1:50:02 ↗ is that the look of the roof however

1:50:05 ↗ great the right at the bottom the

1:50:12 ↗ crosshatch what is that

1:50:17 ↗ hey Dan right here this it's meant to

1:50:25 ↗ represent these steel lattice that's

1:50:33 ↗ good for me

1:50:34 ↗ should we tell our guess what they win

1:50:37 ↗ [Laughter]

1:50:40 ↗ thank you Dan thank you sure other

1:50:46 ↗ questions

1:50:55 ↗ so how about comments if you want to go

1:51:00 ↗ through the hey do you want to go

1:51:02 ↗ through say Lucy's portions first that

1:51:05 ↗ picklist or through the design questions

1:51:07 ↗ for the development questions you have a

1:51:11 ↗ preference go through the comments first

1:51:16 ↗ well we've got we've got two things

1:51:19 ↗ between Lucy's design standards and then

1:51:22 ↗ Dan's development standards in answers

1:51:25 ↗ to those right and I thought it might be

1:51:27 ↗ good to separate those out let's do the

1:51:30 ↗ design standards first Lucy's yep okay

1:51:49 ↗ [Applause]

1:51:52 ↗ so on the on the right is staffs filled

1:51:59 ↗ out one on the left is the blank one for

1:52:01 ↗ the commissioners

1:52:24 ↗ well I'll jump in if you want I've got

1:52:29 ↗ I've got two comments here and I think

1:52:31 ↗ it would be

1:52:33 ↗ I'll work backwards because the first

1:52:35 ↗ for me the first one would be the

1:52:37 ↗ asymmetrical and actually I I feel like

1:52:41 ↗ the design guidelines in my mind are

1:52:46 ↗ misleading because it talks about one of

1:52:49 ↗ the appropriate things is asymmetrical

1:52:52 ↗ but then when I look at the top picture

1:52:54 ↗ and I think that doesn't seem asymmetric

1:52:57 ↗ oh no I know it's got a little bit of a

1:52:59 ↗ different roof line there the roof

1:53:04 ↗ covers where other protection down below

1:53:06 ↗ are slightly different but in general

1:53:08 ↗ the building seems kind of symmetrical

1:53:10 ↗ to me middle building looks kind of

1:53:13 ↗ symmetrical to me I guess the bottom one

1:53:15 ↗ maybe is a little asymmetrical but I

1:53:18 ↗ guess I don't feel like there's a big

1:53:22 ↗ push to say the building has to be super

1:53:25 ↗ asymmetrical given what the photos are

1:53:28 ↗ and I would view this maybe as

1:53:30 ↗ asymmetrical being an appropriate but

1:53:33 ↗ not necessary so I I'm okay with the the

1:53:40 ↗ symmetry or the way the buildings have

1:53:42 ↗ been designed I think with the setback

1:53:44 ↗ of the front edge and the turn of them a

1:53:46 ↗ bit I'm okay with the buildings but I

1:53:49 ↗ think it's partly because I don't know

1:53:51 ↗ that they're great the the conflict

1:53:55 ↗ would for me between the photos in the

1:53:57 ↗ asymmetry don't meant Madison

1:54:00 ↗ I don't know other commissioners think I

1:54:04 ↗ agree I think these pictures I speak

1:54:06 ↗ loudly and this is what we've given them

1:54:08 ↗ the design from and I think they've done

1:54:10 ↗ a good job of matching that yeah and I

1:54:14 ↗ would agree that you know I I think they

1:54:17 ↗ they try to make it symmetrical it

1:54:20 ↗ symmetrical and then but then if you

1:54:22 ↗ look at the plan then you go into

1:54:24 ↗ something where it's it's a

1:54:27 ↗ parking lot and that's where I guess I

1:54:31 ↗ have a little bit of a problem but if

1:54:35 ↗ you you know if you say is it

1:54:37 ↗ symmetrical yeah I guess they tried and

1:54:39 ↗ they succeeded in doing that but the

1:54:41 ↗ whole jess of the symmetrical symmetry

1:54:44 ↗ is that you have two elements and then

1:54:48 ↗ you that's the main entry of the

1:54:50 ↗ building and that's what it is but if

1:54:52 ↗ you look at the four plans it just goes

1:54:54 ↗ into somewhere where it doesn't there's

1:54:57 ↗ just nothing in there if you look at a

1:54:59 ↗ 2.0 it just goes into something I think

1:55:04 ↗ it goes into a boding parking lot

1:55:09 ↗ whereas the main element of the building

1:55:13 ↗ is to get you up to

1:55:14 ↗ maybe the studios up there or maybe a

1:55:17 ↗ retail store so to ask if it's a legal

1:55:21 ↗ lawyer that would ask you is that

1:55:23 ↗ symmetrical yes I would say it is but is

1:55:26 ↗ it serves the function I would say no

1:55:28 ↗ that's not I'm confused are you saying

1:55:32 ↗ that you think it that this standard

1:55:34 ↗ calls for symmetry as opposed to a

1:55:36 ↗ symmetry it's no I mean what that we're

1:55:39 ↗ talking about the design standards that

1:55:41 ↗ we're using here yeah I think it is is

1:55:44 ↗ what it is symmetrical at the point the

1:55:48 ↗ point is that the design standard calls

1:55:52 ↗ it for it to be a symmetrically submit

1:55:54 ↗ and have they accomplished that in in

1:55:56 ↗ any way right but yes or no but the

1:55:59 ↗ example example we're not talking about

1:56:01 ↗ the example well that the example is

1:56:03 ↗ pretty symmetric what we're talking

1:56:06 ↗ about is the design is proposed I put

1:56:12 ↗ the elevation back up no sure yeah yeah

1:56:25 ↗ but I think the oh the elevation would

1:56:28 ↗ help me illustrate my point if you could

1:56:30 ↗ leave it up if it's okay if I go ahead

1:56:34 ↗ so I think it does achieve a symmetry

1:56:37 ↗ you know these drawings this is an

1:56:38 ↗ elevation drawing and you don't

1:56:40 ↗ experience life like this you experience

1:56:43 ↗ life in perspective so we have a couple

1:56:45 ↗ things going for us these buildings are

1:56:47 ↗ skewed from one another creating soar

1:56:49 ↗ this forced perspective that they're not

1:56:51 ↗ planar they're shifted significantly in

1:56:54 ↗ space which this doesn't illustrate and

1:56:56 ↗ so I think those two things in addition

1:57:00 ↗ to the the varying widths and the

1:57:02 ↗ varying compositions it it's arguably

1:57:05 ↗ asymmetrical so I think it it qualifies

1:57:09 ↗ for those reasons so all this discussion

1:57:12 ↗ would lead us to say that it does comply

1:57:14 ↗ is that the drift time get gaining I

1:57:16 ↗ think so mm-hmm I think so I agree and I

1:57:19 ↗ think one more factor is the positioning

1:57:23 ↗ of the building against where most

1:57:24 ↗ people will be viewing it from it's

1:57:26 ↗ already set askew from the government

1:57:28 ↗ vole bar boulevard and unless you're

1:57:30 ↗ actually approaching it directly from

1:57:32 ↗ the front exactly I mean you wouldn't

1:57:34 ↗ see anything close to that perspective

1:57:35 ↗ it's in front of us here so I would tend

1:57:37 ↗ to agree I think I think it satisfies

1:57:39 ↗ what we're trying to accomplish with

1:57:40 ↗ that design intent is the chimney and

1:57:44 ↗ discussion fit here under massing or is

1:57:47 ↗ that I think I'll get to my next point

1:57:49 ↗ if you don't mind I think that'll come

1:57:50 ↗ in because if you can loose if you can

1:57:52 ↗ go to G 0.03

1:58:11 ↗ out three sorry I lost track yeah so

1:58:14 ↗ that was so this is I guess this is the

1:58:18 ↗ one where I guess I very much agree

1:58:23 ↗ about the complex roof forms and when I

1:58:28 ↗ look at the the bottom one and I look to

1:58:30 ↗ the roof structure to the right even

1:58:32 ↗ with the the dormer for the stairwell it

1:58:35 ↗ looks like a very long flat plain roof

1:58:38 ↗ from either direction looking at that

1:58:42 ↗ and the back side I don't think it

1:58:44 ↗ matters as much because I don't think

1:58:46 ↗ people will see a lot so adding the

1:58:47 ↗ chimney I think helps but this one is

1:58:50 ↗ really critical and to me it seems like

1:58:52 ↗ a very non complex roof my thought is

1:58:56 ↗ that we would need a lot more going on

1:58:58 ↗ on this roof like maybe a series of

1:59:00 ↗ dormers or gable dormers all along that

1:59:05 ↗ roof as opposed to just one and and

1:59:09 ↗ excuse me Commissioner Morgan and as

1:59:13 ↗ your concern views from I'm just not I I

1:59:22 ↗ do understand that as you approach the

1:59:25 ↗ building the front facade and a portion

1:59:30 ↗ of the side facade I'm not sure that

1:59:33 ↗ this view will ever be available I think

1:59:37 ↗ this view I think this is a good view

1:59:39 ↗ from Gilman and I like I think their

1:59:42 ↗ front view of this is in my mind complex

1:59:45 ↗ enough with the two different route

1:59:46 ↗ forms in the one dormer it's beyond the

1:59:49 ↗ dormer to the right that as that as it

1:59:53 ↗ goes back it's just one long I don't

1:59:56 ↗ know 100 foot long flat roof with no

2:00:00 ↗ change to it and to me doesn't seem

2:00:03 ↗ complex beyond that and given the when

2:00:07 ↗ you look at the roofs that are shown in

2:00:09 ↗ the pictures there's nothing that's you

2:00:13 ↗ know none of the roofs and the design

2:00:16 ↗ guidelines are are long you know 100

2:00:21 ↗ foot long

2:00:22 ↗ single roofline like that so are you

2:00:25 ↗ saying that we need some former or some

2:00:30 ↗ modulation to break I think I need that

2:00:33 ↗ Liza he exactly okay okay

2:00:35 ↗ I'm curious what other yeah and I would

2:00:37 ↗ agree with you and I think we also need

2:00:40 ↗ to remember that's the exit on the

2:00:44 ↗ backside on the north side that's where

2:00:46 ↗ the i ninety exodus and a lot of times

2:00:49 ↗ people it's a stop light and that's what

2:00:53 ↗ they see is this long big building and i

2:00:57 ↗ would have to say if you look at g point

2:01:01 ↗ zero three it's like on the top i

2:01:07 ↗ rendering it's like some homes that that

2:01:11 ↗ were put on still waving waiting for a

2:01:14 ↗ flood to come in or flood has come in

2:01:16 ↗ and so it's raced like that and plus

2:01:19 ↗ this big building concept it's like a

2:01:21 ↗ barracks it's like somebody took all of

2:01:25 ↗ rallies a storage unit stack them all up

2:01:28 ↗ and then put it up on stilts so and i

2:01:32 ↗ would agree that you know we need to do

2:01:34 ↗ something to to break up that that long

2:01:36 ↗ wall that long roof and have some kind

2:01:40 ↗ of modulation just i hate to say it it's

2:01:46 ↗ just kind of ugly both from Gillman

2:01:49 ↗ point of view and from exit exceed you

2:01:52 ↗ come down and you see that big building

2:01:55 ↗ that's cream color you were trying to

2:01:59 ↗ have some greeneries around here so you

2:02:01 ↗ have some trees plans so as you're

2:02:04 ↗ coming down I 92 the exit waiting for

2:02:08 ↗ the light that's what you see is this

2:02:10 ↗ cream building that's gonna stand out

2:02:11 ↗ and it's just one flat sidings the roof

2:02:16 ↗ and it's four-story high and maybe even

2:02:19 ↗ five because of the roof so if we could

2:02:25 ↗ if we can make some modulation in there

2:02:28 ↗ something like that and I would I would

2:02:30 ↗ I would really encourage the

2:02:32 ↗ begin to take a look at it and to answer

2:02:34 ↗ your question you know to get back to

2:02:36 ↗ this checklist that we have I would have

2:02:40 ↗ to say that it's it doesn't meet the

2:02:42 ↗ requirements any comments from other

2:02:50 ↗ commissioners I'm just trying to

2:02:54 ↗ visualize what would what would it look

2:02:56 ↗ like if you started modifying the roof

2:03:00 ↗ condition and whether that's going to be

2:03:03 ↗ without something to look at it's

2:03:05 ↗ whether that's going to be helpful to

2:03:08 ↗ the architecture overall architecture to

2:03:11 ↗ the building or more of a detractor or

2:03:14 ↗ too busy yeah because I and I've been

2:03:19 ↗ struggling with that elevation since the

2:03:21 ↗ first time we saw this and about you

2:03:23 ↗ know because it's a very long it is a

2:03:24 ↗ long building and meet some dimensional

2:03:26 ↗ requirements I think that what's be done

2:03:31 ↗ with kind of the prominent sods to the

2:03:34 ↗ building and the this was Western

2:03:38 ↗ elevation yes

2:03:41 ↗ it's grouped good I think it looks good

2:03:43 ↗ those modifications work the one piece

2:03:49 ↗ and the staff report about modifying

2:03:51 ↗ this particular dormer and extending it

2:03:56 ↗ taller and doing something that makes at

2:03:59 ↗ least that front in portion or front

2:04:01 ↗ third of the building look a little more

2:04:02 ↗ interesting I wonder if you keep going

2:04:04 ↗ back and if we do more worried that it

2:04:07 ↗ actually I mean not lead us down a

2:04:13 ↗ better design to a better design

2:04:14 ↗ sleepywood okay yeah which which

2:04:17 ↗ actually Serta gets almost to the I

2:04:19 ↗ think the conflict here between the arts

2:04:21 ↗ and crafts and the grange style because

2:04:24 ↗ I still think we have a green style

2:04:25 ↗ looking building and and I would be

2:04:28 ↗ afraid that we first of all I guess I I

2:04:31 ↗ don't I'm ambivalent about increasing

2:04:34 ↗ the height of the stairwell dormer I

2:04:37 ↗ don't know that I want to make that more

2:04:39 ↗ prominent so I think I would leave it

2:04:41 ↗ the way it is but my concern would be is

2:04:43 ↗ if we tell somebody the

2:04:45 ↗ is a complex roofline and it's a hundred

2:04:48 ↗ foot long straight flat not flat but

2:04:51 ↗ single pitch roof be hard to tell

2:04:54 ↗ somebody else coming in there right it

2:04:58 ↗ had the same and we would say no that's

2:05:00 ↗ not complex but yeah I would agree I

2:05:02 ↗ think I think we have to just go back to

2:05:04 ↗ the definition is it complex well it's

2:05:09 ↗ more complex than it was

2:05:11 ↗ I do appreciate what you did to the

2:05:12 ↗ elevator and the stair tower I think

2:05:14 ↗ that's a market improvement is it

2:05:17 ↗ complex no I think in this funny way

2:05:19 ↗ it's it's more simplified than it was in

2:05:24 ↗ the previous versions with the shed roof

2:05:26 ↗ so so so I think we're probably in a

2:05:29 ↗ struggle with a semantic battle here of

2:05:31 ↗ what is complexity what does that mean

2:05:34 ↗ and and so without more footing or

2:05:41 ↗ clarification on what that means it's

2:05:43 ↗ it's subjective but I agree with what my

2:05:47 ↗ other commissioners have said is is if

2:05:49 ↗ [Music]

2:05:50 ↗ if we're setting a precedent here and

2:05:53 ↗ and I appreciate that the applicant has

2:05:55 ↗ gone through this process and and been

2:05:57 ↗ the guinea pig so to speak but if if

2:06:02 ↗ this then defines complexity I think

2:06:06 ↗ we'll struggle in the future to have any

2:06:10 ↗ footing to define complexity that's what

2:06:13 ↗ I worry about

2:06:13 ↗ yeah I think you said it better but so I

2:06:23 ↗ luckily I think we're doing the hardest

2:06:25 ↗ one first so what I'm hearing is that we

2:06:31 ↗ that we would that number 27 which you

2:06:39 ↗ can see down here at the bottom which is

2:06:41 ↗ about asymmetrical that we would delete

2:06:43 ↗ that condition based on the

2:06:46 ↗ commissioners conversation is is there a

2:06:49 ↗ consensus on that yes yes

2:06:54 ↗ yeah mr. Harrison okay okay so okay and

2:07:11 ↗ so the question remains then relative to

2:07:15 ↗ number 26 the way that's drafted it's

2:07:21 ↗ identified increasing the scale of the

2:07:23 ↗ stair well roofs that seems like at

2:07:26 ↗ least for some commissioners that is not

2:07:28 ↗ a good solution in terms of addressing

2:07:32 ↗ complexity I think that are the gable or

2:07:41 ↗ hipped dormers matching the roof type

2:07:43 ↗ and then intersecting ridges so that

2:07:46 ↗ that was the idea behind increasing the

2:07:48 ↗ stair tower and I I'm not promoting

2:07:50 ↗ anything I'm just talking us through it

2:07:52 ↗ so that would really leave us for

2:07:55 ↗ dormers as the other choice along that

2:08:01 ↗ facade that eastern facade there are

2:08:06 ↗ certainly examples shown here and they

2:08:08 ↗ may be

2:08:26 ↗ but can I just ask Commissioner Morgan

2:08:29 ↗ are you saying it says here that the

2:08:32 ↗ roof form shall be complex so with what

2:08:36 ↗ we have right now once one is that an

2:08:39 ↗ elevator door made of sticking out then

2:08:42 ↗ the rest is all flat right are you

2:08:44 ↗ saying that you want to see that how do

2:08:49 ↗ you accomplish complex is what I'm

2:08:52 ↗ trying to come what I'm thinking is on

2:08:54 ↗ that long roof line mm-hmm that there

2:08:57 ↗ would be more dormers Oh more dorm break

2:09:00 ↗ that up to make it more complex as

2:09:02 ↗ opposed to one long can I show you a

2:09:05 ↗ couple more images I was just getting my

2:09:07 ↗ copy so I wasn't scrolling through so so

2:09:15 ↗ if I can just carry on that idea

2:09:17 ↗ dovetail into what you're thinking

2:09:19 ↗ instead of adding more dormer I mean we

2:09:23 ↗ don't want to add a whole bunch of

2:09:25 ↗ dormer how about one at each end well

2:09:30 ↗ and and then the question would be would

2:09:32 ↗ that be complex and that would that be

2:09:34 ↗ you know complex the roof form shall be

2:09:37 ↗ complex yeah by adding civil we in the

2:09:40 ↗ end you would have to one at each end I

2:09:44 ↗ have this roof line I think that bottom

2:09:47 ↗ left picture shows you a fairly lengthy

2:09:51 ↗ building so one thing to keep in mind

2:09:56 ↗ although these pictures are within the

2:10:00 ↗ family of Arts and Crafts

2:10:02 ↗ I do remember having this conversation

2:10:04 ↗ with Crandall Aram Billa because you

2:10:06 ↗ could look at this this lower picture

2:10:08 ↗ and say why aren't we allowing shed

2:10:10 ↗ roofs in different pitched roofs to

2:10:15 ↗ but but these pictures are shown for at

2:10:19 ↗ the scale page not at the massing page

2:10:21 ↗ right so I do think so we have to keep

2:10:24 ↗ that in mind when we look at these

2:10:25 ↗ pictures on other pages you can see this

2:10:28 ↗ one which has the dual pitch you know in

2:10:32 ↗ this area you can see there's some sort

2:10:34 ↗ of dormer or element that has been added

2:10:38 ↗ and then the last is I'm sorry so the

2:10:52 ↗ multiple pitches you know like they're

2:10:54 ↗ doing sort of a double Gable that is a

2:10:59 ↗ pretty common version and you can tell

2:11:02 ↗ that there is you know a ridge up here

2:11:05 ↗ that is establishing the main gable and

2:11:10 ↗ that these are these are I think in

2:11:12 ↗ essence your cross ridges that were

2:11:18 ↗ described but in in almost like a big

2:11:20 ↗ dormer so mm-hmm so I'm just trying to

2:11:24 ↗ identify some of the pieces of

2:11:26 ↗ vocabulary that are shown in our toolkit

2:11:28 ↗ well in North regard to roofline I take

2:11:31 ↗ the bottom right is the one that shows

2:11:34 ↗ the largest longest roofline for that

2:11:37 ↗ scale and they show it either ends

2:11:40 ↗ fairly large dormers or ridge lines and

2:11:43 ↗ then a couple small dormers in between

2:11:46 ↗ well you mean this one right here go to

2:11:48 ↗ the bottom right right this one yeah

2:11:51 ↗ sorry yeah yeah and the if you look at

2:11:57 ↗ the floor plan of the level four there's

2:12:01 ↗ a fairly large studio on on each end and

2:12:04 ↗ that would you know you've got a dormer

2:12:06 ↗ on one end and so like commissioner lyon

2:12:08 ↗ is talking about you could put a dormer

2:12:10 ↗ on the other end over the studio and

2:12:13 ↗ create some complexity I think that that

2:12:17 ↗ notion of complexity is really

2:12:18 ↗ subjective exactly it is we struggle

2:12:20 ↗ with that really in the original

2:12:21 ↗ description it's saying that the roof

2:12:25 ↗ forms are more calm

2:12:26 ↗ flex than craftsman it's really saying

2:12:30 ↗ that more complex forms distinguish it

2:12:33 ↗ from craftsman it's not really talking

2:12:34 ↗ saying that they must be ultimately

2:12:37 ↗ complex it's making a contrast with a

2:12:39 ↗ Craftsman style Lucy it's on the massing

2:12:43 ↗ original description on the right side

2:12:44 ↗ there no I know I'm trying I was trying

2:12:46 ↗ oh shoot that's what I was trying to do

2:12:56 ↗ was find the craftsman pages

2:13:21 ↗ okay so here's craftsman massing which

2:13:30 ↗ has a hipped roof but you can see that

2:13:34 ↗ it's a relatively although you have

2:13:36 ↗ these projections they're sometimes

2:13:38 ↗ incorporated into the overall roof lines

2:13:40 ↗ and or just you know a larger simpler

2:13:44 ↗ plane it's really busy

2:13:58 ↗ I don't you know this is this is more

2:14:02 ↗ what we're talking about I think I mean

2:14:04 ↗ arts and crafts and craftsman are

2:14:06 ↗ related to each other so if we're

2:14:10 ↗ supposed to be more complex than that

2:14:12 ↗ then we look at our birth line in well

2:14:17 ↗ they didn't think she knew this so do

2:14:27 ↗ you think it meets the sign guidelines

2:14:30 ↗ if we add another dormer at the end so

2:14:34 ↗ that we would have 2 dormers on the long

2:14:39 ↗ face of the building I think that would

2:14:43 ↗ help yeah I don't know if it'd be enough

2:14:46 ↗ to be complex but I think it helps you

2:14:48 ↗ know I just filled it you know this long

2:14:54 ↗ wall it's just you just need some

2:14:57 ↗ modulation in there and I think the

2:14:59 ↗ dormer would help and adding 2 dormers

2:15:03 ↗ one on each end would really enhance

2:15:06 ↗ that we're still meeting the intent of

2:15:10 ↗ the guidelines we're we're not adding a

2:15:14 ↗ whole bunch we're just adding one big

2:15:15 ↗ one in front and one in the back on both

2:15:19 ↗ sides of the building and I personally I

2:15:22 ↗ wouldn't be worried about the other side

2:15:23 ↗ of the building because it faces the

2:15:25 ↗ self storage unit I can't I don't think

2:15:28 ↗ it's really gonna be seen from a freeway

2:15:30 ↗ at all well if you do you treat this

2:15:34 ↗ building dramatically different than the

2:15:36 ↗ other you know we're trying to be

2:15:38 ↗ asymmetrical it really starts to get

2:15:40 ↗ unusual in the overall architecture of

2:15:43 ↗ the building and so concerned about that

2:15:45 ↗ so I care I guess just a couple of

2:15:47 ↗ thoughts as this conversation is going

2:15:48 ↗ on so I this the challenge is that this

2:15:53 ↗ is you know our first run it really

2:15:55 ↗ officially applying the new guidelines

2:15:58 ↗ and so we're gonna unfortunately

2:16:00 ↗ struggle a little bit no it's gonna slow

2:16:02 ↗ us down but I think it's important

2:16:04 ↗ choices that we're making as we as we

2:16:07 ↗ make these

2:16:10 ↗ decisions the I'm a little reluctant to

2:16:15 ↗ actually specify a specific roof

2:16:17 ↗ condition at the end like put a dormer

2:16:19 ↗ this and put a doormat that and because

2:16:21 ↗ really it's the design professionals job

2:16:24 ↗ to try to make the feedback and apply it

2:16:27 ↗ in a way that makes sense for them and

2:16:29 ↗ their client and so I hate to be that

2:16:32 ↗ prescriptive but there seems to be some

2:16:35 ↗ growing consensus on the Commission that

2:16:39 ↗ try to get an art more arts and crafts

2:16:43 ↗ compliant roof condition and based on

2:16:46 ↗ our interpretation of complexity is kind

2:16:48 ↗ of where it's headed

2:16:51 ↗ our challenge is applying these fairly

2:16:56 ↗ prescriptive architectural styles to

2:16:59 ↗ buildings that may not you know fit

2:17:02 ↗ really well into the because the box

2:17:04 ↗ isn't the right size to really apply

2:17:06 ↗ those features in a way that really

2:17:09 ↗ makes perfect a perfect fit so we're

2:17:12 ↗ gonna have to be somewhat flexible here

2:17:13 ↗ because this is a very long you look at

2:17:15 ↗ the example the examples of the Arts and

2:17:19 ↗ Crafts style and if you just I just

2:17:21 ↗ google images of Arts and Crafts

2:17:23 ↗ architecture and and this is a all of

2:17:28 ↗ the examples are many of them are

2:17:30 ↗ residential sorts of projects too but

2:17:32 ↗ and I think that's a good point because

2:17:34 ↗ 200 feet is the maximum length um that's

2:17:38 ↗ specified in the design manual and this

2:17:40 ↗ is about at 200 feet so I think some of

2:17:44 ↗ the challenges that come with that are

2:17:46 ↗ evident yeah so I guess what we need to

2:17:52 ↗ do do is decide you know whether or not

2:17:54 ↗ this is something that is we're gonna

2:17:57 ↗ need a little more work on but we should

2:18:00 ↗ also if we do decide that make sure that

2:18:03 ↗ we have gone through the rest of the

2:18:04 ↗ project and decided whether or not you

2:18:07 ↗ know we're good with the rest or or

2:18:11 ↗ there's other other features and would

2:18:13 ↗ we be comfortable with a condition the

2:18:17 ↗ one that's written or something else

2:18:18 ↗ that'll give staff the flexibility to

2:18:22 ↗ approve

2:18:22 ↗ changes that they might do without

2:18:25 ↗ having to come back to the Development

2:18:26 ↗ Commission right so it would have to be

2:18:32 ↗ enough kind of specificity in the

2:18:34 ↗ direction that staff would have you know

2:18:38 ↗ confidence and what they go up with it's

2:18:40 ↗ gonna work but they're not gonna hear

2:18:42 ↗ back from us later when it's under

2:18:44 ↗ construction well which will be beyond

2:18:47 ↗ our place to weigh in but other than

2:18:50 ↗ comment mr. Harrison yeah well I just

2:18:55 ↗ feel remiss frankly because I think we

2:18:58 ↗ missed an opportunity to address this in

2:19:00 ↗ the last meeting and I personally feel

2:19:04 ↗ remiss because I had the same feeling

2:19:06 ↗ last time and I didn't express it and I

2:19:08 ↗ think it would have been infinitely more

2:19:11 ↗ productive of this commission to have

2:19:15 ↗ brought these issues that this issue of

2:19:18 ↗ last time and I am guilty as charged

2:19:22 ↗ I feel that it is absolutely true that

2:19:27 ↗ the building is asymmetrical on its

2:19:31 ↗ front and I it's not on the side it's

2:19:35 ↗ it's it's not so what do you do with

2:19:38 ↗ that and I would suggest that along with

2:19:42 ↗ Commissioner Brennan that we expressed

2:19:47 ↗ the sort of the concern that the

2:19:51 ↗ Commission has and then give it to the

2:19:56 ↗ applicant and the staff to address our

2:19:59 ↗ concerns which I think are legitimate

2:20:03 ↗ but I'm really reluctant to start

2:20:08 ↗ requiring specific things to address our

2:20:11 ↗ concerns proposed condition says that

2:20:15 ↗ roof forum shall be complex through the

2:20:16 ↗ use of dormers and or increasing the

2:20:18 ↗ scale of the stairwell roofs and to

2:20:20 ↗ create more visible intersecting ridges

2:20:22 ↗ so they've complied with some of that

2:20:24 ↗ but are the sense of the Commission as

2:20:25 ↗ best I can tell is that it's not complex

2:20:28 ↗ enough the other the other part of that

2:20:32 ↗ proposed condition was that the

2:20:33 ↗ composition is not asymmetrical and I

2:20:36 ↗ there's a fairly consistent agreement

2:20:38 ↗ that it is asymmetrical asymmetrical

2:20:41 ↗ enough yeah so one of the things again

2:20:48 ↗ the up for discussion but what I've done

2:20:50 ↗ is on your form put in a place for

2:20:53 ↗ comments and conditions on each page so

2:20:57 ↗ I've already based on and luckily this

2:21:00 ↗ is easy to retype if you disagree but I

2:21:03 ↗ just noted that we're deleting number 27

2:21:06 ↗ for instance so that we are able to sort

2:21:08 ↗ of track the decisions as you make them

2:21:13 ↗ not that we can't go back and revisit

2:21:15 ↗ those to ensure that we're getting to

2:21:17 ↗ the right place I would say to

2:21:21 ↗ Commissioner Harrison we all set a high

2:21:24 ↗ bar for ourselves I think last week last

2:21:28 ↗ meeting we you know staff did not do I I

2:21:33 ↗ think the Commission has done a fabulous

2:21:36 ↗ job of leading the way on how to really

2:21:38 ↗ fully implement this I think you know I

2:21:42 ↗ know that when I did it I mainly focused

2:21:44 ↗ on the front facade not the east and

2:21:46 ↗ west facade thinking that those weren't

2:21:48 ↗ going to be so visible I think you've

2:21:50 ↗ challenged us on that I think that's a

2:21:52 ↗ great thing and so I think you

2:21:56 ↗ challenged the staff to go back and do a

2:21:58 ↗ more detailed evaluation and the

2:22:00 ↗ applicant to respond to that based on

2:22:04 ↗ your conversations last time we're all

2:22:06 ↗ going to learn and we're not going to

2:22:07 ↗ get this exactly right the first time so

2:22:10 ↗ I feel like we're making excellent

2:22:12 ↗ progress one point if I can just make

2:22:17 ↗ we're concentrating on structures you

2:22:21 ↗ know and I sense that it's the long

2:22:25 ↗ siding long roof that we have there are

2:22:31 ↗ different ways of getting breaking up

2:22:33 ↗ that that that long walls and long long

2:22:36 ↗ roof you could do it by material you can

2:22:40 ↗ do it by modulation you can do it with

2:22:42 ↗ colors and make it you know meet meet

2:22:46 ↗ the requirements it doesn't have to be

2:22:48 ↗ strong

2:22:48 ↗ true well in this case we're looking at

2:22:51 ↗ the description in this style says the

2:22:54 ↗ steeper more complex roof forms vertical

2:22:57 ↗ emphasis distinguish the style for

2:22:59 ↗ craftsman so we have to put in the code

2:23:02 ↗ we're supposed to have a steeper more

2:23:04 ↗ complex roof form in what we'd see in

2:23:07 ↗ craftsman I I think Commissioner Liang

2:23:10 ↗ may be referring to some of the tools

2:23:12 ↗ that we had in the central Issaquah

2:23:14 ↗ standards which are not really available

2:23:17 ↗ anymore

2:23:18 ↗ at least in terms of this particular

2:23:21 ↗ style one comment obviously we've had a

2:23:27 ↗ little problem with a word complex here

2:23:29 ↗ yeah

2:23:29 ↗ and complexity I wonder as we go through

2:23:31 ↗ this and we use this tool and we're

2:23:32 ↗ turning up little variations like this

2:23:34 ↗ that are tough can we make notes for rev

2:23:37 ↗ a of this document even though it hasn't

2:23:39 ↗ been really release in final form yet

2:23:42 ↗ because I bet this is not the only

2:23:44 ↗ incident like this you know that will

2:23:46 ↗ come across yeah right I will tell you

2:23:51 ↗ like many commissioners who are hesitant

2:23:54 ↗ to design by commission I am going I'm

2:23:58 ↗ going to be hesitant about certain words

2:24:00 ↗ like asymmetrical and complexity trying

2:24:02 ↗ to define those in any kind of

2:24:05 ↗ prescriptive way I think the question is

2:24:07 ↗ as we go through this is there a clear

2:24:10 ↗ performance standard that provides

2:24:12 ↗ better guidance and I think Commissioner

2:24:16 ↗ Sanford is absolutely right if we can

2:24:17 ↗ identify those along the way we should

2:24:20 ↗ absolutely capture those likewise the

2:24:25 ↗ mayor's asked us as we get

2:24:27 ↗ interpretations from crandall ramble

2:24:31 ↗ I save all of those into a folder so

2:24:34 ↗ that likewise those can be incorporated

2:24:36 ↗ so I think your instincts are absolutely

2:24:38 ↗ right I think we just have to be careful

2:24:41 ↗ thinking that we will come up with a

2:24:46 ↗ cookbook I I think we're proud you know

2:24:49 ↗ I think it's going to be hard to get as

2:24:52 ↗ black and white a manual as we might

2:24:56 ↗ like

2:24:59 ↗ so so an idea with regard to the staff

2:25:05 ↗ proposed condition a roof um shall be

2:25:07 ↗ more complex with these 2 dormers and

2:25:09 ↗ their and/or increasing the scale the

2:25:11 ↗ stairwell roofs to create more visible

2:25:14 ↗ intersecting ridges a couple things here

2:25:17 ↗ one is I don't think just treating the

2:25:19 ↗ stairwell would be enough because we

2:25:21 ↗ still have the long run and and I'm fine

2:25:24 ↗ with the stairwells the way they are

2:25:26 ↗ I would rather change this language just

2:25:29 ↗ to say through the use of dormers or

2:25:31 ↗ other features in the roof and then

2:25:35 ↗ leave it to the staff and the applicant

2:25:37 ↗ that works for everybody

2:25:40 ↗ I would agree okay if that makes sense

2:25:43 ↗ loose yeah yeah I was I didn't start

2:25:46 ↗ typing because I didn't want to assume

2:25:47 ↗ that everyone was gonna agree with you

2:25:50 ↗ so so was it through the use of dormers

2:25:56 ↗ and/or dormers and/or other features

2:26:04 ↗ roof to create more roof features the

2:26:07 ↗ roof features and then you could just

2:26:11 ↗ put period that's a phrase right now

2:26:16 ↗ well roof forms shall bow okay we were

2:26:20 ↗ skipping that oh I think shall be made

2:26:22 ↗ more complex and so the through the use

2:26:25 ↗ of dormers or other features does that

2:26:34 ↗ work for everybody

2:26:36 ↗ get it should we say up or other

2:26:40 ↗ features found in the arts-and-crafts

2:26:43 ↗ guidelines you know I think if you open

2:26:47 ↗ it up to features then what does that

2:26:48 ↗ mean

2:26:49 ↗ yeah yeah more okay you can see the

2:26:51 ↗ shadow roof come back yeah there's a

2:26:54 ↗ chimney feature you say Arts and Crafts

2:26:57 ↗ style or consistent with the Arts and

2:27:00 ↗ Crafts style yeah

2:27:04 ↗ that's why we have lawyers

2:27:16 ↗ that works for me I like okay so let me

2:27:23 ↗ ask you thank you that was that was

2:27:26 ↗ great so do we need to mark any of the

2:27:29 ↗ of the boxes that are up here or do we

2:27:32 ↗ just assume that except where for

2:27:35 ↗ instance I've very I you might my

2:27:39 ↗ mousepad skills are kind of poor but

2:27:42 ↗ we're sort of coloring in this complies

2:27:44 ↗ here and then are we saying that pretty

2:27:49 ↗ much everything else is acceptable

2:27:51 ↗ except maybe the you know the three that

2:27:56 ↗ I boxed in on the right for a roof are

2:28:00 ↗ just kind of leaving them open to decide

2:28:03 ↗ how much we need of any of those so are

2:28:06 ↗ we feeling comfortable with the rest of

2:28:08 ↗ the manner in which staff filled out

2:28:13 ↗ this form I think so I thought you had

2:28:16 ↗ the appropriate for for the massing as

2:28:20 ↗ it's not complying in the asymmetrical

2:28:23 ↗ composition and elevation and volume and

2:28:25 ↗ we think it is asymmetric think it

2:28:27 ↗ complies with that that's where she's so

2:28:30 ↗ I've cut so right now though I've said

2:28:38 ↗ under description that it does not

2:28:39 ↗ comply because of the complex reform so

2:28:43 ↗ for now we would leave that and the

2:28:46 ↗ condition is to address it correct

2:28:48 ↗ is that good good form okay all right I

2:28:52 ↗ mean I just really quick since it looks

2:28:56 ↗ like we're dealing with this as it

2:28:58 ↗ conditions a staff have enough to work

2:29:01 ↗ with in the general sense of the

2:29:04 ↗ Commission here on what must be a

2:29:07 ↗ director of development finish the

2:29:09 ↗ finish line looks like here you know I

2:29:12 ↗ haven't had a chance to talk with the

2:29:14 ↗ applicant my thought is we could try to

2:29:17 ↗ proceed with this I also we also have

2:29:19 ↗ another meeting on the 16th so one way

2:29:23 ↗ to approach this might be to if we get

2:29:27 ↗ to this point approve this and we bring

2:29:29 ↗ the roof back for confirmation

2:29:33 ↗ the next meeting just because I think

2:29:34 ↗ we're still working through it and I

2:29:36 ↗ would like to make sure that you're not

2:29:41 ↗ going to be giving me feedback I can't

2:29:43 ↗ do anything with in a year I think the

2:29:50 ↗ good test is gonna be you could just

2:29:52 ↗ take whatever you come up with take it

2:29:54 ↗ around the staff and say does this look

2:29:56 ↗ complex okay and it'd be like you know

2:29:58 ↗ those Supreme Court and pornography and

2:30:01 ↗ stuff right know how to define it but I

2:30:04 ↗ need more clerks that's what I'll say

2:30:05 ↗ yeah there you go

2:30:08 ↗ okay so I feel like we have a means to

2:30:14 ↗ move forward from this page okay if the

2:30:17 ↗ commissioners agreed I think we I don't

2:30:20 ↗ want to lose the chimney I don't know if

2:30:21 ↗ this is the channel topic or not yes oh

2:30:23 ↗ sorry

2:30:25 ↗ yeah the chimney it's placement kind of

2:30:29 ↗ strikes me as inconsistent with the rest

2:30:32 ↗ of the building kind of superfluous

2:30:34 ↗ there was the appreciate the attempt to

2:30:38 ↗ be more a symmetrical and match the Arts

2:30:41 ↗ and Crafts style that is an

2:30:42 ↗ arts-and-crafts feature for sure seems

2:30:45 ↗ to stand out a little in Congress lay to

2:30:47 ↗ me wonder what the commissioners input

2:30:49 ↗ was on that I guess the one of my

2:30:57 ↗ thoughts would be the way it may tie in

2:31:00 ↗ is if you look at G 0.08 the

2:31:08 ↗ I guess the view coming if you're coming

2:31:10 ↗ down the trail and the view you'd see

2:31:13 ↗ there of the building the brick down

2:31:15 ↗ below is all going to be that raven

2:31:17 ↗ colored black brick and then that

2:31:19 ↗ chimney up above will be the raven

2:31:21 ↗ colored black brick and maybe those

2:31:24 ↗ those two tie together

2:31:30 ↗ well to try and be true to the design

2:31:35 ↗ manual I think that what Commissioner

2:31:38 ↗ Sanford is asking us to do is sort of

2:31:41 ↗ look at the notion of a prominent

2:31:44 ↗ chimney maybe in the context of

2:31:47 ↗ asymmetric ality we don't McMahon Yule

2:31:53 ↗ implies but does not state overtly is

2:31:57 ↗ sort of things that are authentic the

2:32:01 ↗ chimney while very well intended is

2:32:05 ↗ never going to be connected to any heat

2:32:09 ↗ source so I think the question is is the

2:32:13 ↗ visual benefit such that we would add

2:32:18 ↗ something folk exactly Lucy thank you

2:32:23 ↗ yeah yeah it's a faux chimney so it's it

2:32:25 ↗ feels superfluous to me and it's kind of

2:32:28 ↗ like form did not follow function error

2:32:31 ↗ because there's really no function I

2:32:33 ↗ made so the chimney although we did try

2:32:36 ↗ to make it look like the chimney is

2:32:37 ↗ required for the elevator shaft it's the

2:32:39 ↗ overrun for the elevator Oh perfect okay

2:32:42 ↗ I mean so something needs to be there

2:32:44 ↗ excellent so it isn't just alone there

2:32:47 ↗ for Al excellent idea the chimney that's

2:32:49 ↗ what I said I assumed it was functional

2:32:58 ↗ too and when I heard it was functional

2:33:02 ↗ good thing we have an architect in the

2:33:04 ↗ statement so are we comfortable leaving

2:33:08 ↗ the chimney then yeah okay great

2:33:11 ↗ [Music]

2:33:14 ↗ do some for smoke okay so are we done

2:33:23 ↗ with massing yeah I'm good with scale

2:33:47 ↗ right on the border 200 feet okay walls

2:33:54 ↗ eateries I guess a question to striking

2:34:04 ↗ out the natural and natural finish

2:34:06 ↗ board-and-batten so let me double check

2:34:11 ↗ that this is one thing that we spent a

2:34:17 ↗ long time asking Crandall Aram Beulah

2:34:21 ↗ about when we got to oh it does so it

2:34:25 ↗ does even in the final once a natural

2:34:28 ↗ stained or painted so the so one of our

2:34:32 ↗ concerns was that they they had a lot of

2:34:35 ↗ like true light true divided light

2:34:38 ↗ windows you know things that would not

2:34:41 ↗ have allowed you to use any hardy

2:34:42 ↗ materials that are painted that would

2:34:45 ↗ looked like exactly like

2:34:47 ↗ board-and-batten leads to the untrained

2:34:49 ↗ eye and there was a question on our part

2:34:54 ↗ you know they said no simulated stone

2:34:56 ↗ but does that mean you have to have full

2:34:57 ↗ stone well you know so trying to clarify

2:34:59 ↗ some of that so the ultimate way this

2:35:05 ↗ says this says natural board-and-batten

2:35:08 ↗ in the july draft but in the adopted

2:35:11 ↗ draft it says natural stained or painted

2:35:14 ↗ board-and-batten okay so if you're that

2:35:17 ↗ I think I struck it because it isn't

2:35:21 ↗ natural board-and-batten well no wonder

2:35:23 ↗ this said natural finish so maybe I just

2:35:25 ↗ meant to fin

2:35:26 ↗ not the actual natural wood but hmm okay

2:35:30 ↗ I'm good with it

2:35:31 ↗ it's another one of those things that we

2:35:33 ↗ can all interpret differently I would

2:35:34 ↗ interpret that is it's the actual

2:35:36 ↗ material that's exposed you might be

2:35:38 ↗ stained but it would be a natural

2:35:39 ↗ material that you would see I just don't

2:35:43 ↗ know that that's all we want to mandate

2:35:45 ↗ right because that takes away all kinds

2:35:48 ↗ of color and design options and and I

2:35:53 ↗ think that's where it's even though we

2:35:55 ↗ are using the July draft I think

2:35:57 ↗ sometimes the adopted draff is

2:36:00 ↗ informative about you know where we

2:36:02 ↗ ended up in weather that you know yeah

2:36:07 ↗ so does that mean we're okay with walls

2:36:10 ↗ yes yes I'm okay with walls yeah windows

2:36:16 ↗ I'm okay everyone okay with windows yes

2:36:27 ↗ okay then that would leave doors

2:36:35 ↗ I'm okay yeah I appreciate the design

2:36:38 ↗ changes to respond to criteria so I

2:36:41 ↗ think that was helpful

2:36:42 ↗ look very good okay next is roof which i

2:36:49 ↗ think is pretty straightforward go back

2:36:55 ↗ to green sheet language and then color

2:37:07 ↗ then natural context we received you

2:37:11 ↗ know public comment not tonight but in

2:37:16 ↗ writing about that so I want to make

2:37:18 ↗ sure that the Commission has an

2:37:20 ↗ opportunity to consider

2:37:24 ↗ I think staffs perspective was we didn't

2:37:32 ↗ really know what those terms were there

2:37:34 ↗ aren't any critical areas immediately

2:37:36 ↗ present the trail was shown on the map

2:37:41 ↗ that was not adopted at this point or

2:37:43 ↗ even except proposed at this point so I

2:37:46 ↗ think it's just a question of how the

2:37:49 ↗ Commission wants to interpret it I'm

2:37:54 ↗ fine with it okay I think this is going

2:37:58 ↗ to be another one of those world we'll

2:37:59 ↗ have discussions along the way with

2:38:01 ↗ different projects about what does that

2:38:03 ↗ mean I think the key is the context I

2:38:05 ↗ mean what's the circumstance that's

2:38:08 ↗ immediately surrounding but not just

2:38:10 ↗ that

2:38:10 ↗ what's the backdrop behind the project

2:38:12 ↗ coming backdrop behind this projects a

2:38:13 ↗ free way but it is you know something

2:38:17 ↗ we're enough to think about and we're

2:38:18 ↗ talking about integration remember even

2:38:21 ↗ when we're dealing with the Costco

2:38:25 ↗ expansion discussion and about miu

2:38:28 ↗ corridors and what does that mean trying

2:38:29 ↗ to make sure we're really leveraging the

2:38:33 ↗ the natural environment around the city

2:38:35 ↗ including the mountains that are around

2:38:37 ↗ the city so I think this is this is when

2:38:39 ↗ we'll be coming back to you more

2:38:41 ↗ but I think for this particular project

2:38:43 ↗ I'm comfortable with what we've got and

2:38:45 ↗ what I would add to Commissioner

2:38:47 ↗ Brennan's comments is that by the time

2:38:49 ↗ that we actually adopted it we actually

2:38:52 ↗ created a specific list the map is

2:38:55 ↗ illustrative because things can change

2:38:57 ↗ over time but there was a specific list

2:39:01 ↗ of triggers like a wet because some of

2:39:05 ↗ the areas that are shown here actually

2:39:07 ↗ developable land so we weren't trying to

2:39:10 ↗ take away anyone's rights on the other

2:39:12 ↗ hand I think that we feel that there is

2:39:15 ↗ a response necessary when you're

2:39:17 ↗ adjacent to certain features and what we

2:39:18 ↗ had to do was agree on what those

2:39:20 ↗ features were and so through the time

2:39:23 ↗ with land and shore committee we did

2:39:25 ↗ agree on a list of features so oh yeah I

2:39:28 ↗ think it will

2:39:37 ↗ so harmony you know I highlighted July

2:39:41 ↗ 20th as you can see at the top of the

2:39:44 ↗ page and that is because that one was

2:39:49 ↗ pretty amorphous and by the time you

2:39:57 ↗ know we said we need something

2:39:59 ↗ measurable and you know something kind

2:40:01 ↗ of tangible and so if you look at the

2:40:05 ↗ one on the left which is the one that

2:40:09 ↗ was adopted it talks about certain kinds

2:40:12 ↗ of elements but it also identifies that

2:40:16 ↗ if you're using an architectural style

2:40:18 ↗ be and the result of that is that helped

2:40:21 ↗ create harmony now it may inform which

2:40:23 ↗ style you select you know that if you're

2:40:26 ↗ next or something that's more arts and

2:40:28 ↗ crafts you're probably not going to do

2:40:30 ↗ Grange but you know we also have to look

2:40:33 ↗ at the scale of the building and

2:40:34 ↗ sometimes as we so painfully learned

2:40:37 ↗ going through this project sometimes the

2:40:39 ↗ scale of a building does not lend itself

2:40:41 ↗ to the style that you might want to pick

2:40:47 ↗ this is one I've I think we're fine here

2:40:50 ↗ in this case I mean the colors they've

2:40:52 ↗ done a good job I think of sort of

2:40:54 ↗ matching the color palette to get that -

2:40:57 ↗ but this is one I'm fine with this I

2:40:59 ↗ think in the long term this is very

2:41:01 ↗ dangerous one for us to work with

2:41:03 ↗ because we're going to get a situation

2:41:05 ↗ where we get a say a single-family house

2:41:09 ↗ single-story and we want to build a

2:41:12 ↗ five-story building next to it and

2:41:13 ↗ somebody can say well that's not in

2:41:15 ↗ harmony with it and I think the idea of

2:41:19 ↗ incremental development that you always

2:41:21 ↗ have to build a house or a building in

2:41:23 ↗ harmony with the one right next to it

2:41:25 ↗ each time doesn't allow you to bring in

2:41:29 ↗ a lot of changes but I'm sorry I

2:41:32 ↗ shouldn't be no I think we had some of

2:41:35 ↗ the same questions and so if you look at

2:41:37 ↗ the description on the left it says that

2:41:41 ↗ there's a relationship between the new

2:41:43 ↗ building and the exist existing but the

2:41:45 ↗ intent not to require imitation or

2:41:47 ↗ copying

2:41:48 ↗ instead the integrity of existing

2:41:50 ↗ building shall be respected by

2:41:51 ↗ positively addressing nearby existing

2:41:54 ↗ development characteristics you know cuz

2:42:00 ↗ what we didn't want to was reiterate

2:42:02 ↗ something we're trying to move away from

2:42:04 ↗ back it's back to respecting the context

2:42:08 ↗ that you're developing in I mean whether

2:42:10 ↗ its natural or built it's gotta fit

2:42:13 ↗ again that's subjective in a lot of ways

2:42:16 ↗ too about what that looks like whether

2:42:18 ↗ we're talking about harmony between the

2:42:20 ↗ architecture style of a building or how

2:42:24 ↗ its interfacing with the natural

2:42:26 ↗ environment that's going on around it so

2:42:28 ↗ this is just part of the learning that

2:42:30 ↗ we're gonna do as we continue to apply

2:42:32 ↗ these but I you know I'm feeling as this

2:42:36 ↗ has been a little slow but I'm feeling

2:42:38 ↗ like as we do this a little bit more

2:42:40 ↗ it's gonna this tool set will help us so

2:42:42 ↗ much compared to what we were working

2:42:45 ↗ with before we go and and and I think

2:42:49 ↗ this is actually an example that's a

2:42:51 ↗ good one to start with in that respect

2:42:53 ↗ because it seems to me as I understand

2:42:55 ↗ it that the existing storage facility

2:42:59 ↗ was designed before these new standards

2:43:05 ↗ came into effect and now we spent all

2:43:08 ↗ this time with the new standards and

2:43:10 ↗ they're in effect and we're looking at

2:43:12 ↗ the district so I don't think it can I

2:43:15 ↗ don't think that with all the respect

2:43:18 ↗ the up house phenomenon you know the

2:43:22 ↗ movie it's going to be a permanent

2:43:27 ↗ factor for us for the city going forward

2:43:31 ↗ but the objective is to have these

2:43:33 ↗ districts with architectural better

2:43:36 ↗ architectural guidelines than we've had

2:43:39 ↗ before which is a really good thing for

2:43:42 ↗ for everybody involved but it inevitably

2:43:46 ↗ is going to inflict with the property

2:43:51 ↗ next door because we're changing and and

2:43:54 ↗ and I think that's a good point

2:43:56 ↗ as well as that there are some other

2:43:58 ↗ sections of the guidelines up in the

2:44:00 ↗ introduction as

2:44:01 ↗ as the contacts section which is talking

2:44:05 ↗ about both built and natural environment

2:44:07 ↗ I think that when we look at that it'll

2:44:09 ↗ help provide some guidance around

2:44:11 ↗ addressing that that very point okay

2:44:21 ↗ a block size so I I think that the I'm a

2:44:40 ↗ little confused by MS Marcia's comments

2:44:43 ↗ whether she was talking about something

2:44:45 ↗ back of the building or along the front

2:44:49 ↗ of the building that would form a

2:44:50 ↗ sidewalk kind of on the service road I

2:44:54 ↗ think that if we're if what she's

2:44:57 ↗ requesting is that there be pedestrian

2:45:01 ↗ features along that sort of service road

2:45:05 ↗ frontage I think that's fine and that

2:45:09 ↗ that a little sort of stub or sort of

2:45:14 ↗ gesture to the next property line so you

2:45:16 ↗ don't have to negotiate with the

2:45:18 ↗ property owner could certainly be made I

2:45:20 ↗ think if it's along i-90 I I guess I

2:45:25 ↗ would be concerned that doesn't seem

2:45:27 ↗ like the right place I do I think

2:45:32 ↗ everything the intent of this is to not

2:45:34 ↗ have super blocks and it's for breaking

2:45:37 ↗ up the grid the street grid into smaller

2:45:39 ↗ block sizes and this doesn't fit this

2:45:44 ↗ site doesn't fit that at all to me and I

2:45:47 ↗ feel like just the massing of the

2:45:48 ↗ building achieves it you know the fact

2:45:50 ↗ that they did break it down into two

2:45:51 ↗ separate yeah buildings it's actually

2:45:56 ↗ helps significantly yeah it is and if

2:46:00 ↗ you're thinking about an example is kind

2:46:02 ↗ of a gridded Street pattern with long

2:46:04 ↗ blocks and you do want to have the

2:46:07 ↗ ability to or pedestrians to travel

2:46:10 ↗ through without having to go all the way

2:46:11 ↗ around but this there's nothing on the

2:46:14 ↗ back of this so I tend to agree with

2:46:17 ↗ that what I think the requirement is

2:46:21 ↗ trying to get at doesn't fit with the

2:46:23 ↗ site conditions we have here okay so

2:46:28 ↗ we're in agreement that it's not

2:46:30 ↗ applicable

2:46:32 ↗ correct parking structures and Lots

2:46:46 ↗ separable implies you know I'm good with

2:46:51 ↗ the screening with provision that a

2:46:55 ↗ plantings are your goes out of condition

2:47:07 ↗ do we need a well we could certainly

2:47:11 ↗ make it one I think I think it's not

2:47:15 ↗ like we're saying it's wrong we're just

2:47:17 ↗ specifying what kind of plantings should

2:47:19 ↗ be implemented I think it's fine to make

2:47:22 ↗ it a condition that I I'm doubting that

2:47:24 ↗ the applicant is disgrace there's an

2:47:29 ↗ existing condition isn't there regarding

2:47:32 ↗ the screening right now I'm not sure

2:47:41 ↗ [Applause]

2:47:53 ↗ hmm maybe there isn't I think it's about

2:47:57 ↗ performing landscape screening as

2:48:00 ↗ opposed to so we um I think the intent

2:48:19 ↗ is that that the parking will area will

2:48:22 ↗ be screened right and so it's not

2:48:27 ↗ screened six months out of the year

2:48:29 ↗ screened the whole year so that's seems

2:48:31 ↗ to me to be pretty obvious for the

2:48:34 ↗ applicant to comply with that and I

2:48:36 ↗ don't even we need to emphasize it but I

2:48:40 ↗ have a condition 33 regarding the garage

2:48:43 ↗ lighting I don't know if you want to

2:48:45 ↗ check screening on to that or if it's

2:48:47 ↗ something completely different

2:49:06 ↗ yeah we could add that on there okay all

2:49:14 ↗ right

2:49:16 ↗ next is enclosure which we said complies

2:49:27 ↗ does the Commission agree and the the

2:49:43 ↗ appropriate went upper floors are set

2:49:45 ↗ back incorporate terraces and usable

2:49:47 ↗ would that just be n/a instead of

2:49:49 ↗ complies yes I think so

2:50:07 ↗ yeah

2:50:11 ↗ is there a dimensional requirement where

2:50:12 ↗ the step-back has to happen and what

2:50:14 ↗ height it was after the first four

2:50:17 ↗ floors and this buildings only for his

2:50:19 ↗ column that was in the yes I think you

2:50:21 ↗ made that der something and Dan made the

2:50:23 ↗ comment in the staff report so wouldn't

2:50:28 ↗ you right are we ready to move on to the

2:50:34 ↗ next one huh

2:50:35 ↗ yes we are okay setbacks ground-floor

2:50:40 ↗ retail

2:50:50 ↗ acceptable yeah complies yep

2:50:55 ↗ okay then setbacks natural areas and

2:50:59 ↗ what staff was basically saying is if we

2:51:02 ↗ don't have something that we're defining

2:51:04 ↗ as natural areas and this section

2:51:06 ↗ doesn't apply natural offering careful

2:51:13 ↗ so are we good to move on from the

2:51:20 ↗ ground floor entries this one we did

2:51:25 ↗ staff did propose a condition I have an

2:51:29 ↗ issue with this one and it's it's kind

2:51:32 ↗ of more with the code itself could you

2:51:35 ↗ pull up a 2.0 yep

2:52:05 ↗ maybe if you could zoom in just a little

2:52:07 ↗ bit did you want both of them both of

2:52:16 ↗ them if you could yeah great thank you

2:52:21 ↗ so I guess the issue I have just in

2:52:25 ↗ reading this in terms of the design

2:52:27 ↗ standard or the development stand at the

2:52:29 ↗ the idea of we're in essence saying we

2:52:33 ↗ want the retail in the front we want the

2:52:36 ↗ parking back behind but we don't want

2:52:38 ↗ you to get from the parking into the

2:52:39 ↗ retail we want you to have to go around

2:52:41 ↗ the building to get in the retail and

2:52:43 ↗ the real issue I see with this is with

2:52:46 ↗ the handicap stalls the two handicap

2:52:50 ↗ stalls in the middle there so if I'm in

2:52:52 ↗ a wheelchair and I get out of my van and

2:52:56 ↗ then I look across I want to go into

2:52:58 ↗ that retail space there's a door there

2:53:01 ↗ that's going to be serviced and

2:53:02 ↗ employees only and I'm gonna have to go

2:53:05 ↗ outside and come back in the entry of

2:53:09 ↗ the retail and then it's even further to

2:53:12 ↗ get around to the other entry for the

2:53:14 ↗ retail which makes me wonder are we

2:53:16 ↗ would we be violating any 88 codes well

2:53:20 ↗ I'll tell you if we're violating 88

2:53:23 ↗ codes that trumps everything but I will

2:53:25 ↗ tell you that we pushed a lot on this

2:53:28 ↗ particular provision you know as qua

2:53:30 ↗ Highlands has those double-faced

2:53:33 ↗ buildings but you know Crandall or

2:53:36 ↗ ambulance point is a valid one that what

2:53:38 ↗ we saw it at is qua Highlands is that

2:53:42 ↗ some of the shops have put essentially

2:53:45 ↗ their back door to the street and their

2:53:48 ↗ front door to the parking lot and it was

2:53:51 ↗ a real battle and we had enough trouble

2:53:54 ↗ just getting the two doors many of them

2:53:57 ↗ didn't even want a front door to the

2:53:59 ↗ street so I understand their concern is

2:54:03 ↗ that if

2:54:04 ↗ you're really building a pedestrian

2:54:06 ↗ environment then we need to put all of

2:54:09 ↗ our sort of towards the street point

2:54:14 ↗ well-taken

2:54:15 ↗ about a DA you're right it has to be

2:54:18 ↗ closest to the entry and if there was a

2:54:21 ↗ concern that for instance this entry

2:54:26 ↗ needs to be open to because of a DA

2:54:29 ↗ parking I think that would take

2:54:32 ↗ precedence over our pedestrian

2:54:35 ↗ orientation but what about the other the

2:54:39 ↗ upper one would you have to have a door

2:54:41 ↗ from the garage fraid either that or you

2:54:43 ↗ can require them to go out and around I

2:54:46 ↗ believe so

2:54:47 ↗ it my understanding is that it has you

2:54:51 ↗ have to put the ad a as close as

2:54:53 ↗ possible where the parking is but we

2:54:59 ↗ don't have to be close the proposed

2:55:01 ↗ conditions if there was parking in front

2:55:05 ↗ of the building then you would put it

2:55:06 ↗ there yeah but there's not so okay you

2:55:13 ↗ know I it's a good question and I

2:55:15 ↗ imagine as we got through this review

2:55:17 ↗ with the building department I will

2:55:18 ↗ become more informed you know every time

2:55:22 ↗ you go through this you learn something

2:55:23 ↗ new and it's a good question and I'll

2:55:25 ↗ let you know when we have another

2:55:27 ↗ building and I would agree that your

2:55:29 ↗ interpretation is correct of what's

2:55:31 ↗ written with the only provision buna

2:55:33 ↗ talks about parking lots and could a

2:55:36 ↗ parking garage be considered something

2:55:38 ↗ different than a parking lot but I don't

2:55:40 ↗ see that I can make that stretch you

2:55:44 ↗ know it talks about entries directly

2:55:45 ↗ from parking lots shall be limited to

2:55:47 ↗ service employee and so forth and this

2:55:49 ↗ is a parking garage another parking lot

2:55:53 ↗ but legally I think you're you're right

2:55:58 ↗ I think we're all ok with the ad a

2:56:00 ↗ access it's just a little bit longer to

2:56:04 ↗ travel and you know the layout probably

2:56:10 ↗ needs to be revisit kind of shortened to

2:56:12 ↗ travel

2:56:13 ↗ and the vehicle to retail and we're

2:56:18 ↗ assuming all the handicapped folks are

2:56:19 ↗ going to retail and they may go up to

2:56:23 ↗ the elevator and go up to the upper

2:56:26 ↗ floors so I think that's an interesting

2:56:29 ↗ point about the customer entries access

2:56:34 ↗ directly from parking lots or alleys

2:56:36 ↗ so I'll pursue making sure that I'm not

2:56:40 ↗ overly narrowly interpreting that and

2:56:44 ↗ it's more of my mind is more than one of

2:56:46 ↗ those longer review thing you know down

2:56:49 ↗ the road reviewing a standard now maybe

2:56:51 ↗ this is worth flagging for a section to

2:56:53 ↗ revisit yeah more closely I tend to

2:56:57 ↗ agree with the underlying intent about

2:56:59 ↗ rating the activity at the front of the

2:57:02 ↗ building and pushing the pedestrians out

2:57:03 ↗ there and in this particular building

2:57:05 ↗ you actually have from the parking

2:57:08 ↗ garage this pathway that leads between

2:57:10 ↗ the two buildings that get you to the

2:57:13 ↗ it's not that far to travel and and the

2:57:16 ↗ ad a requirement is closest proximity

2:57:18 ↗ it's feasible to the main entrance but

2:57:24 ↗ and a safe path of travel so I think

2:57:27 ↗ they've probably accomplished that with

2:57:28 ↗ this question though is really about you

2:57:31 ↗ know in the future now what do you what

2:57:34 ↗ are we trying to do is these buildings

2:57:36 ↗ these particularly larger retail uses

2:57:38 ↗ that are going to her as more buildings

2:57:39 ↗ develop I think if you push that's it

2:57:42 ↗ push it the way that Lucy's interpreting

2:57:45 ↗ this now it drives a design solution

2:57:47 ↗ like this that you want to provide a

2:57:49 ↗ nice pathway to get people to the

2:57:51 ↗ commercial uses in your building instead

2:57:53 ↗ of driving through the back door from

2:57:55 ↗ the garage see yeah okay yeah okay

2:58:05 ↗ okay so that sounds like we're okay with

2:58:08 ↗ this page yes luck Tinley well I'm it

2:58:17 ↗ looks like there were a lot of changes

2:58:19 ↗ in the adopted version and I can't read

2:58:21 ↗ it fast enough because my brain is just

2:58:22 ↗ kind of frying at this point so it may

2:58:27 ↗ be we may have actually different text

2:58:29 ↗ when we are using the adopted version

2:58:32 ↗ ground-floor commercial entries had the

2:58:35 ↗ same issue oh thank you

2:58:47 ↗ I'm good with ground fire and then

2:58:52 ↗ transparency this one was requiring a

2:58:56 ↗ little bit larger window on the eat the

2:58:59 ↗ west face of the East Wing okay the

2:59:04 ↗ condition addresses the design concerns

2:59:08 ↗ yeah okay and then a I'm sorry just back

2:59:19 ↗ up one second because actually in terms

2:59:21 ↗ of checking the box not come food we see

2:59:24 ↗ not complying with this hmm would it be

2:59:34 ↗ the very guideline at the top that would

2:59:36 ↗ not comply yeah

2:59:39 ↗ sorry that's a good point

2:59:54 ↗ thank you yeah no thank you okay and

3:00:00 ↗ then ground floor commercial complied

3:00:07 ↗ bring staffs perspective Commission

3:00:13 ↗ agree agree and and then last second to

3:00:18 ↗ last is the weather protection so

3:00:27 ↗ somewhere here we'd have to say not

3:00:29 ↗ comply hmm I got complied crazy huh part

3:00:36 ↗ of this is this is practice though is

3:00:40 ↗ how are we going to fill out the

3:00:43 ↗ checklist because if we say we could say

3:00:46 ↗ does not comply and then when we have it

3:00:48 ↗ does not comply there would be a

3:00:50 ↗ condition yeah right that would bring it

3:00:54 ↗ into compliance but then you check the

3:00:56 ↗ box complex now the condition brings it

3:00:58 ↗ in compliance so anyway so I think we

3:01:00 ↗ just have to decide which we're gonna do

3:01:01 ↗ it and then just keep doing it that way

3:01:03 ↗ or complies with condition yeah I think

3:01:06 ↗ that does not comply flags it and then

3:01:08 ↗ that canned it brings you to the

3:01:09 ↗ condition that says there's a condition

3:01:10 ↗ that needs to be addressed to bring into

3:01:12 ↗ compliance yeah and and you know to get

3:01:16 ↗ full full plan or wonk on after you

3:01:20 ↗ assuming that you approve this project

3:01:22 ↗ Dan will be drafting findings and

3:01:25 ↗ conclusions and basically that's what

3:01:27 ↗ the findings and conclusions say is that

3:01:31 ↗ with the conditions it complies you know

3:01:34 ↗ and so it's not just that it complies

3:01:37 ↗ but that with the conditions as written

3:01:39 ↗ it complies so I mean I I think there

3:01:42 ↗ that this sort of helps tie that loop

3:01:45 ↗ back together but I agree that's that's

3:01:48 ↗ one of our sort of outstanding questions

3:01:57 ↗ okay and then and then the last is the

3:02:07 ↗ usable open space agree agree okay go

3:02:14 ↗ team all right so what I will do is

3:02:29 ↗ while you speak with Dan about the

3:02:32 ↗ briefing response memo I'll work on the

3:02:37 ↗ conditions to edit some of them relative

3:02:41 ↗ to what you've done this evening so now

3:02:52 ↗ we opened up for questions on the

3:02:54 ↗ briefing response mental score comment I

3:03:01 ↗ just walk

3:03:06 ↗ so do you have should we just should we

3:03:11 ↗ just go through the staff reponses

3:03:14 ↗ responses and see if we agree with what

3:03:17 ↗ he's done

3:03:18 ↗ sure is that what you're thinking Lucy

3:03:21 ↗ I'm not thinking so I'm real quick just

3:03:36 ↗ from a process standpoint I'm trying to

3:03:38 ↗ a lot of the responses that are in the

3:03:42 ↗ briefing response memo we've already

3:03:43 ↗ just talked back uh-huh so I'm just from

3:03:46 ↗ a time standpoint I'm just wondering

3:03:50 ↗ what are the are there specific topical

3:03:53 ↗ areas that need additional discussion or

3:03:57 ↗ do we think that they've adequately been

3:03:59 ↗ addressed in the conversation as we've

3:04:01 ↗ gone through the design standards I feel

3:04:07 ↗ like we address them and then we even

3:04:09 ↗ provided condition or investigating the

3:04:16 ↗ complexity of the room so I feel like it

3:04:18 ↗ was I think most of that's been all

3:04:20 ↗ driven around the design standards but

3:04:22 ↗ any of the you're circling back to

3:04:25 ↗ circling back to the beginning yeah yeah

3:04:28 ↗ so the design manual covered topics two

3:04:32 ↗ and three so if you have any questions

3:04:36 ↗ or concerns about whether the other

3:04:40 ↗ topics have been appropriately addressed

3:04:42 ↗ and okay we're the trail connection

3:04:44 ↗ Plaza fall under this category correct

3:04:47 ↗ yeah yeah okay

3:04:49 ↗ so I wonder if we just walked through

3:04:51 ↗ you know the the first procedures number

3:04:55 ↗ one did we have

3:04:57 ↗ does anybody have any concerns with the

3:05:00 ↗ responses with regard to our purview or

3:05:03 ↗ the district vision

3:05:07 ↗ okay so the sense is that we've resolved

3:05:15 ↗ there were comfortable comfortable with

3:05:17 ↗ two and three do you want to talk about

3:05:21 ↗ those as well yeah I just went through

3:05:28 ↗ the deadline yeah yeah so two and three

3:05:31 ↗ would have been with the discussion we

3:05:34 ↗ just had it yeah

3:05:50 ↗ [Applause]

3:05:53 ↗ and in terms of the I guess into for the

3:05:56 ↗ elevator shaft I would agree with the

3:05:59 ↗ condition that's been added and the

3:06:04 ↗ language regarding the screening the

3:06:06 ↗ plant screen uh-huh

3:06:08 ↗ as well Roger likes I do appreciate the

3:06:12 ↗ additional they brought down the

3:06:14 ↗ building to screen the lights and yes in

3:06:19 ↗ general I've said I think I appreciate a

3:06:20 ↗ lot of the changes that you've made from

3:06:22 ↗ our last meeting to address things you

3:06:25 ↗ didn't very good job so I believe I

3:06:28 ↗ think we talked about bundling in the

3:06:33 ↗ year-long plants or for screening

3:06:40 ↗ bundling that in with the garage lights

3:06:42 ↗ condition I believe that there is

3:06:45 ↗ already a parking screening condition

3:06:49 ↗ that we might be able to to include that

3:06:51 ↗ with right that was number 33 Dan so the

3:07:00 ↗ the original condition and I apologize

3:07:03 ↗ because I don't have it

3:07:05 ↗ yeah I I have this I'm not sure that it

3:07:08 ↗ let's let it says garage lighting with

3:07:09 ↗ the building permit the applicant will

3:07:11 ↗ provide photo photometric plans and

3:07:13 ↗ other lighting details to demonstrate

3:07:15 ↗ compliance with CI DDS chapter 17

3:07:18 ↗ lighting especially for parking

3:07:19 ↗ standards well I think the one that Dan

3:07:23 ↗ may be referring to is number 13 from

3:07:27 ↗ the original staff report which talks

3:07:30 ↗ about the surface parking lot shall be

3:07:32 ↗ softened with the required 10%

3:07:36 ↗ landscaping provision of winter I mean

3:07:38 ↗ it states

3:07:39 ↗ additionally the applicant shall provide

3:07:41 ↗ plans to be reviewed with construction

3:07:43 ↗ permits that demonstrate compliance with

3:07:45 ↗ 15.3 so we could add another sentence to

3:07:49 ↗ that number condition number 13 or it

3:07:53 ↗ could go on 33 either one that says that

3:07:56 ↗ the plantings on the east side of the

3:08:00 ↗ building associated with the grid screen

3:08:04 ↗ will

3:08:05 ↗ climbing evergreen will provide

3:08:08 ↗ year-round school

3:08:10 ↗ yep no something like that which

3:08:12 ↗ condition it goes on - that's like 13

3:08:15 ↗ was more this better yeah nine

3:08:32 ↗ it would we be to five the plaza design

3:08:46 ↗ [Applause]

3:08:47 ↗ you know I I appreciate the fact that

3:08:50 ↗ they got a meeting together and got

3:08:51 ↗ input from some different groups and and

3:08:55 ↗ and I think what they've come up with is

3:08:57 ↗ a better better Plaza I don't feel like

3:09:02 ↗ we should hold this up and say we need

3:09:04 ↗ to come up with a grand entrance to

3:09:07 ↗ Issaquah course a developer to come up

3:09:13 ↗ with with something that is grander than

3:09:15 ↗ what they've come up with for this

3:09:16 ↗ already but is that because the status

3:09:20 ↗ of this is kind of tenuous at this point

3:09:22 ↗ whether that trail connection applause

3:09:24 ↗ will even exist well I guess that and

3:09:27 ↗ and I I don't know it seems like they've

3:09:30 ↗ met the intent of creating a Waystation

3:09:34 ↗ the tools the bench the extent that the

3:09:37 ↗ city wants to do a bunch more signage or

3:09:40 ↗ other stuff yeah I guess my thought was

3:09:43 ↗ I wonder if there is an opportunity

3:09:44 ↗ there there was a beautiful redesign of

3:09:46 ↗ I guess it's called a building Plaza and

3:09:48 ↗ it's very verdant and lots of planting

3:09:51 ↗ in there and I wonder if any of that

3:09:52 ↗ could be migrated into the front rail

3:09:54 ↗ collect and connection plazas well I

3:09:56 ↗ wonder if there's a tree opportunity

3:09:58 ↗ there instead of the hardscape that's

3:10:00 ↗ being referred to so I think that no dan

3:10:03 ↗ go ahead so that is King County did

3:10:08 ↗ provide us with a trail section some

3:10:13 ↗ guidelines with that we we can do some

3:10:17 ↗ shrubs but we cannot do any trees within

3:10:24 ↗ 15 feet of the edge of pavement

3:10:26 ↗ okay so we're constrained by the county

3:10:28 ↗ there we are constrained by that yeah

3:10:30 ↗ however didn't you say Dan attended the

3:10:34 ↗ meeting I didn't didn't you say that the

3:10:36 ↗ that that this drawing is

3:10:41 ↗ representational of sort of the

3:10:42 ↗ hardscape and structural elements but

3:10:44 ↗ that landscape along the edges was

3:10:46 ↗ planned so you can do some like shrubs

3:10:51 ↗ some shrubs but even those have a

3:10:54 ↗ setback requirement okay of the 15 feet

3:10:57 ↗ no I believe it's three feet

3:11:03 ↗ right so I think we would look to have

3:11:07 ↗ some kind of shrubs but again that's

3:11:10 ↗ part of the negotiation with the county

3:11:14 ↗ they had a rather natural palette that

3:11:17 ↗ they identified as my memory correct

3:11:20 ↗ that that is true so we would work it

3:11:23 ↗ out with them and and again they did

3:11:27 ↗ provide us with some some of those

3:11:30 ↗ guidelines and and I provided that with

3:11:32 ↗ it with the last presentation I don't

3:11:36 ↗ have it here now I think also in the

3:11:38 ↗ stakeholder meeting they recommended

3:11:40 ↗ that that cover be consistent with the

3:11:42 ↗ storage building is that right is that

3:11:46 ↗ the intent or is it to be more

3:11:47 ↗ consistent with our law office building

3:11:54 ↗ so I believe that the roof structure of

3:11:58 ↗ that trellis would be designed to match

3:12:02 ↗ for the storage building are you is that

3:12:08 ↗ not the right image

3:13:17 ↗ I didn't have a picture right ah here we

3:13:21 ↗ go thank you

3:13:26 ↗ so we we identified this I guess it's a

3:13:33 ↗ some sort of roof overhang or trellis

3:13:37 ↗ trellis and that we would used that same

3:13:41 ↗ design to to work with the plaza trellis

3:13:49 ↗ well I think the work they've done is

3:13:53 ↗ definitely an enhancement with we had

3:13:56 ↗ previously the idea of trying to connect

3:13:58 ↗ back into the buildings I think is good

3:14:00 ↗ I think in this idea of this grand

3:14:04 ↗ arrival plaza well that's not really in

3:14:07 ↗ my mind yeah you have an arai you've

3:14:10 ↗ arrived at Gilman Boulevard and some

3:14:12 ↗ buildings nearby but you haven't it's

3:14:14 ↗ not like a public a large public place

3:14:16 ↗ or community center or anything like

3:14:18 ↗ that so I mean the idea is they want

3:14:20 ↗ people to actually keep going heading to

3:14:23 ↗ Old Town and buy stuff so or just keep

3:14:29 ↗ bicycling

3:14:31 ↗ so I think I think this idea of it so

3:14:34 ↗ kind of this point where you can pause I

3:14:36 ↗ mean you're at a kind of major

3:14:38 ↗ intersection you can pause you can you

3:14:40 ↗ know hopefully I'd have to fix your bike

3:14:42 ↗ but if you have to hey you might have

3:14:43 ↗ some tools handy it's fine I the idea of

3:14:47 ↗ softening it with landscaping as best we

3:14:50 ↗ can within the limits that were given

3:14:52 ↗ with the county I think is a good idea

3:14:55 ↗ to do that but you also have now you can

3:14:58 ↗ have this discussion about who's gonna

3:14:59 ↗ maintain this and I think that's going

3:15:01 ↗ to be the root of the debate get to some

3:15:04 ↗ agreement yeah that's the more you put

3:15:07 ↗ in the more costly if he comes to take

3:15:09 ↗ care of it

3:15:10 ↗ imagine that's a city responsibility

3:15:13 ↗ then right as I understand that King

3:15:18 ↗ County has had bad experiences uh-huh

3:15:22 ↗ but I think we're happening to be able

3:15:24 ↗ to do because the applicant is actually

3:15:27 ↗ prepared to me

3:15:28 ↗ so I think we're kind of hoping we could

3:15:31 ↗ do some is okay

3:15:35 ↗ I don't want to misspeak for you Bob I

3:15:37 ↗ thought that was where we were so I

3:15:39 ↗ think we're hoping maybe there's some

3:15:41 ↗ kind of cosign partnership things so

3:15:43 ↗ that the city functions as a backstop

3:15:45 ↗ but you know we have to we've only met

3:15:49 ↗ once with them and there's additional

3:15:51 ↗ discussion necessary look a procedural

3:15:57 ↗ question on this so this is a condition

3:16:00 ↗ of that development agreement that they

3:16:03 ↗ do the plaza which requires the cat

3:16:05 ↗ Knight I don't have the development

3:16:06 ↗ agreement open and go back to was there

3:16:08 ↗ uh was there an out if there was okay

3:16:10 ↗ that never mind you don't need to go any

3:16:12 ↗ farther that's funny because it hangs up

3:16:15 ↗ this whole permitted there's not a

3:16:17 ↗ off-ramp

3:16:25 ↗ all right

3:16:30 ↗ were there any other shoes so you want

3:16:33 ↗ on building plasma in closet we like

3:16:38 ↗ what they did with the building Plaza I

3:16:40 ↗ think that's going to be a nicer space

3:16:43 ↗ to pause and it'll be good for the

3:16:46 ↗ retail users I think it'll be more

3:16:48 ↗ attractive there's seating I think it

3:16:52 ↗ was previously I thought it was fairly

3:16:54 ↗ stark and not inviting and I think I

3:16:56 ↗ think the new idea is the water feature

3:16:58 ↗ I think is is nice yeah yeah all right

3:17:04 ↗ Randy mission there is your dog friendly

3:17:08 ↗ water fountain five point two point C so

3:17:14 ↗ I think the what we were discussing

3:17:19 ↗ earlier was that there was some hope

3:17:22 ↗ that there be a a water fountain on the

3:17:25 ↗ trail pause aside but that's not that's

3:17:29 ↗ not possible

3:17:32 ↗ yeah you got to run water you got to run

3:17:35 ↗ dream well and again it's still county

3:17:39 ↗ owned properties Oh parking

3:17:48 ↗ oh I I did I was checking so City of

3:17:53 ↗ Seattle requires one stall per mm square

3:17:56 ↗ feet for storage and one per 1,000

3:17:59 ↗ square feet for office so half a stall

3:18:02 ↗ per thousand for storage one for office

3:18:06 ↗ and I looked at the lost portion the

3:18:09 ↗ 45,000 square feet are required is 35

3:18:13 ↗ which would be 0.78 per thousand which

3:18:16 ↗ is right in between but the provided is

3:18:19 ↗ 43 which I calculate to be 0.96 per

3:18:22 ↗ thousand which provided about one per

3:18:25 ↗ thousand which seems to match the city

3:18:28 ↗ of seattle requirements for office

3:18:30 ↗ parking so it seems to fit in general

3:18:37 ↗ with what seattle is doing and maybe

3:18:40 ↗ what their basis was for whatever they

3:18:42 ↗ approved there so I'm fine with the

3:18:44 ↗ parking yeah the the this required kind

3:18:50 ↗ of a different approach because you know

3:18:53 ↗ we do have our own parking standards for

3:18:55 ↗ office we recognized this is a is

3:18:59 ↗ something entirely different that needed

3:19:02 ↗ to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis

3:19:15 ↗ and are we good with the recomendation

3:19:20 ↗ to remove conditions 10 11 and 12 but we

3:19:30 ↗ would be adding a condition to address

3:19:33 ↗ the loading spaces

3:19:55 ↗ I'm fine with the traffic signal yep

3:20:08 ↗ Treece I'm fine with environmental the

3:20:18 ↗ people think about the trees

3:20:36 ↗ well the reality is with that

3:20:38 ↗ significant design change as far as

3:20:40 ↗ on-site plantings for additional trees

3:20:43 ↗ there's not a lot of opportunity for

3:20:44 ↗ that and there was an attempt to try to

3:20:52 ↗ do some agreement with wash dot and that

3:20:56 ↗ wasn't successful which is unfortunate

3:20:59 ↗ but they have no reasons I'm sure

3:21:02 ↗ liability possibly so I mean at this

3:21:09 ↗ point this is kind of still ultimate

3:21:12 ↗ solutions not yet defined you know what

3:21:15 ↗ the tree plantings are going to be and

3:21:18 ↗ where they're going to be although

3:21:19 ↗ there's a requirement to meet threshold

3:21:22 ↗ that's necessary so I'm I'm not seeing

3:21:25 ↗ it would be nice to see more on-site but

3:21:28 ↗ the reality is I just don't know that

3:21:31 ↗ it's a practical thing to advance at

3:21:36 ↗ this point this project I think we've

3:21:40 ↗ done a lot to try to enhance areas where

3:21:45 ↗ we're going to have the interaction with

3:21:48 ↗ the pedestrians at the front of the

3:21:49 ↗ building hopefully we can get a little

3:21:51 ↗ bit more with the plaza and trail Reiser

3:21:59 ↗ off the site already right well aren't

3:22:06 ↗ those trees that are behind it those are

3:22:08 ↗ all cottonwoods I mean they're all kind

3:22:12 ↗ of dangerous trees that we don't want

3:22:14 ↗ around anyway

3:22:18 ↗ you nice if you get the state to agree

3:22:21 ↗ to let us replace them yeah well we also

3:22:23 ↗ anticipate on the property line common

3:22:28 ↗ with Pigott cheese who also has some

3:22:30 ↗ very big cottonwoods like that that we

3:22:33 ↗ may request as part of our permit

3:22:35 ↗ application to a joint redevelopment of

3:22:37 ↗ that landscape strip so that it's more

3:22:40 ↗ appropriate yeah

3:22:43 ↗ but we can't do that till we get a

3:22:45 ↗ little further it seemed like be nice if

3:22:47 ↗ the state would agree to say as part of

3:22:50 ↗ the tree planning for this to take out

3:22:52 ↗ those cottonwoods and something better

3:22:55 ↗ in there but it would it be would it be

3:23:01 ↗ constructive for us to just note that is

3:23:04 ↗ the sense of the Commission the

3:23:05 ↗ Development Commission to acknowledge a

3:23:08 ↗ public comment to the effect that this

3:23:11 ↗ site should have as many trees as is

3:23:14 ↗ possible within the plan yeah absolutely

3:23:18 ↗ and that is a condition it's condition

3:23:22 ↗ 14 of the original staff report in issue

3:23:28 ↗ 14 condition 14 is that we will continue

3:23:34 ↗ to try to identify areas where we can

3:23:38 ↗ plant trees on site and for those where

3:23:43 ↗ you know they will have a required

3:23:46 ↗ number of trees that they have to

3:23:48 ↗ replant if you know I'm just throwing

3:23:51 ↗ out a number here if they're required to

3:23:53 ↗ replant 40 and they can get 10 then the

3:23:56 ↗ other 30 will need to be planted

3:23:59 ↗ off-site or paid into the city tree fund

3:24:02 ↗ but but I do think if you if you look at

3:24:05 ↗ the condition 14 I think we could add

3:24:08 ↗ some language about the goal is to get

3:24:11 ↗ as many trees as healthful is this

3:24:14 ↗ health I can't even speak at this point

3:24:18 ↗ that's what happens when you have to

3:24:20 ↗ commission nights in a row when we have

3:24:24 ↗ then Shore tomorrow yes we have another

3:24:26 ↗ one here's this longer yeah so let me

3:24:29 ↗ add let me out I just type up some

3:24:32 ↗ language for you to look at to add to

3:24:39 ↗ the last item is the bus stop

3:24:51 ↗ yeah yeah and I'm at a bus-stop expert I

3:24:55 ↗ think we want to located it in the most

3:24:57 ↗ optimum spot works for transit service

3:25:01 ↗ and and those conversations the

3:25:03 ↗ applicant did reach out to Metro and and

3:25:07 ↗ I've been in contact with them too so

3:25:08 ↗ that's ongoing okay more comments

3:25:20 ↗ questions concerns do you want to go to

3:25:32 ↗ a motion we have a motion to make was he

3:25:37 ↗ ready for us to go to a motion I am at

3:25:41 ↗ your service others read that then so I

3:25:45 ↗ moved that the development commission

3:25:47 ↗ approved site development permit number

3:25:48 ↗ SDP 1 7 - 0 0 0 0 3 for the Issaquah

3:25:53 ↗ loss project number prj 1 7 - 0 0 0 1 2

3:25:57 ↗ as described and evaluated in the staff

3:26:00 ↗ report dated March 23rd 2018 with

3:26:04 ↗ exhibits a through g the briefing

3:26:06 ↗ response memo dated April 25th 2018 with

3:26:10 ↗ exhibits a through E the project

3:26:14 ↗ drawings and reports received November

3:26:15 ↗ 16 2017 and all subsequent Middle's up

3:26:19 ↗ to April 19 2018 and subject to the

3:26:23 ↗ conditions contained in the staff report

3:26:25 ↗ and removed and new conditions contained

3:26:28 ↗ in the brief in response memo new

3:26:30 ↗ condition numbers 25 26 and 28 through

3:26:40 ↗ 34 well yeah we're so they just removed

3:26:44 ↗ I just go ahead and read numbers 25 to

3:26:46 ↗ 34 if I we've got the rest of it up on

3:26:48 ↗ the screen okay and remove conditions

3:26:51 ↗ number 10 11 12 and 27 oh well that

3:26:58 ↗ wasn't in the

3:26:59 ↗ oh okay do you see what I'm saying so I

3:27:03 ↗ just read it as written and then say and

3:27:06 ↗ as amended right and as amended tonight

3:27:08 ↗ great should I go ahead and read it you

3:27:16 ↗ can read them or not read them or you

3:27:18 ↗ could just say or as amended tonight and

3:27:20 ↗ we've got this up and we will do this as

3:27:23 ↗ the basis look at 13 and 14 and make

3:27:26 ↗ sure you're comfortable with that

3:27:27 ↗ language and is that the west side the

3:27:33 ↗ west side of the east side thank you see

3:27:35 ↗ that's why I have you read these things

3:27:37 ↗ you're testiness good yeah it was

3:27:40 ↗ intentional I mean Arctic on 14 both

3:27:51 ↗ prayer well you have to eliminate both

3:27:53 ↗ but practical and cognizant of tree

3:27:57 ↗ health and public safety okay

3:28:06 ↗ as millions I'm sorry Lucy you got I

3:28:10 ↗ hate to be a grammarian here but no I

3:28:11 ↗ love it I really tells out because

3:28:14 ↗ you've got free are we comfortable with

3:28:22 ↗ the word may be many many trees as many

3:28:25 ↗ trees uh-huh

3:28:27 ↗ yes where do we want to say minimum of

3:28:29 ↗ no no okay yeah as many trees as

3:28:34 ↗ possible okay with under those

3:28:38 ↗ conditions they need to be healthy and

3:28:40 ↗ creative own safety list are they

3:28:43 ↗ located

3:28:44 ↗ loosely the second part would do you

3:28:46 ↗ want us to vote on the first and then

3:28:48 ↗ vote on the second so that is your

3:28:50 ↗ tradition you VDC reads the whole thing

3:28:53 ↗ and votes on it all at the same time so

3:28:55 ↗ I think it's just whatever your you

3:28:58 ↗ would prefer

3:28:59 ↗ yes comfortable doing all's one let's go

3:29:01 ↗ for it and I move that the Development

3:29:03 ↗ Commission directed development services

3:29:05 ↗ department to prepare findings of fact

3:29:07 ↗ and conclusions or review and approval

3:29:09 ↗ by the development commission chair

3:29:11 ↗ forming the development Commission's

3:29:13 ↗ decision to approve this qual loss

3:29:14 ↗ project site development permit number

3:29:16 ↗ SDP 17.000 0-3 subject conditions

3:29:21 ↗ listing the staff modified the briefing

3:29:23 ↗ response been MOU and as amended tonight

3:29:26 ↗ period second we have a motion it's been

3:29:31 ↗ seconded is there discussion further

3:29:34 ↗ discussion real quick it's the

3:29:38 ↗ complexity issue on the roof so we're

3:29:43 ↗ approving this permeate with that as a

3:29:45 ↗ condition so we're done then we pass

3:29:48 ↗ this motion if I understand I just like

3:29:57 ↗ you know who to blows in favor of the

3:30:10 ↗ proposal the motion to approve say aye

3:30:13 ↗ aye opposed motion carries thank you and

3:30:20 ↗ I think unless people want to stay a

3:30:25 ↗ little longer I think we are before we

3:30:27 ↗ adjourn oh I think we have at least one

3:30:29 ↗ commission member it's leaving the

3:30:32 ↗ Commission yeah mr. commissioner they

3:30:35 ↗ long so I just thought it would be

3:30:39 ↗ important just to take a moment to say

3:30:42 ↗ it's been amazing working with you for

3:30:44 ↗ the many years that I've been on the

3:30:46 ↗ Commission and you've been here many

3:30:47 ↗ more than that so a 20 plus or or so so

3:30:51 ↗ I just

3:30:52 ↗ it's an incredible commitment to the

3:30:56 ↗ community and we'll really appreciated

3:30:58 ↗ your perspective and sharing your

3:31:00 ↗ comments and best of luck to you with

3:31:04 ↗ whatever you decide to do from here

3:31:05 ↗ you're here thank you thank you we're

3:31:08 ↗ glad that you made the right choice and

3:31:09 ↗ move from planning policy to Development

3:31:12 ↗ Commission that's right that's right I

3:31:14 ↗ was with the PPC for about two three

3:31:17 ↗ years and just didn't see a lot of

3:31:18 ↗ things coming up this policy and as you

3:31:22 ↗ know it takes quite a while before you

3:31:24 ↗ see something happens even every so ray

3:31:27 ↗ do you have a plan to replace the income

3:31:29 ↗ that you're gonna lose from talk to my

3:31:34 ↗ wife about there but I understand or you

3:31:37 ↗ guys are getting a five percent raise

3:31:40 ↗ yeah I would like to let me know what

3:31:46 ↗ you're getting your so thank you very

3:31:48 ↗ much for you sir thank you right and I

3:31:49 ↗ would like to thank the members of the

3:31:51 ↗ public that commented and that may have

3:31:53 ↗ been watching on the television so thank

3:31:56 ↗ you for your participation

3:31:58 ↗ we always like the public to come down

3:32:01 ↗ and provide input it's really critical

3:32:02 ↗ and vital to us so thank you for your

3:32:04 ↗ time and let's call a meeting adjourn

3:32:07 ↗ thank you

3:32:18 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF