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

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Audience commenters (2)

Connie Marsh

Joint Discussion LEONG

Recommendations & actions (3)

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

She showed a perspective view from the Pogacha Restaurant parking lot adjacent to the property, as requested at the last meeting.
Commissioners indicated many of their concerns were addressed in the memo, and expressed appreciation to the applicant for making modifications as requested at the April 4 meeting.
After some discussion, staff agreed to add that language to existing Condition