← Back to City Council Digest

Development Commission Auto captions

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

7:00 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Continued from 9/5/18 Costco Campus Expansion - Building 4 Community Conference, (I) 2/2
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.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 2019 – Michael Brennan The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2019 – Randolph Harrison Development Commission members and City 2020 – Melvin Morgan Council members from discussing the merit of 2020 – Kevin Price specific land use development applications outside 2022 – Jasmina Mihova of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2022 – Richard Sowa however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2022 – Richard Sanford Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2019 – Ryan Roeter Membership 2019 – Vacant…
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of September 5, 2018
packet pp.5–12
Staff report:
CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission MINUTES September 5, 2018 City Hall South 135 E. Sunset Way Council Chambers Issaquah, WA 98027
3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
3a
Officer Elections
packet pp.13–14
Staff report:
City Clerk's Office 130 E. Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3000 issaquahwa.gov
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4a
Continued from 9/5/18 Costco Campus Expansion - Building 4 Community Conference, (I)
Jean Lin, Senior Planner
4b
Continued from 9/5/18 Public Hearing - Costco Campus Expansion - Building 5, (D)
Jean Lin, Senior Planner Meeting Materials · packet pp.15–65
Staff report:
occurred at the September 5 meeting to allow Staff to render the decision, additionally we believe that completing the requested information would be useful to the commission, public, and record for the administrative decision. Definitions AAS: Administrative Adjustment of Standards as allowed by the CIDDS and/or IMC ASDP: Administrative Site Development Permit. In this case, the implementing permit for Building 4 (Office Building). CIP: Central Issaquah Plan, adopted on December 17, 2012 providing the Central Issaquah Plan Area Map, an overview, definitions, guiding principles, central plan districts, policies and exhibits to the plan. CIDDS: Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards. With the adoption of the DA, any implementing proposals for the Costco DA are vested to the CIDDS in effect at the time the Costco DA was adopted. That version of CIDDS is available at the City’s…
0:23 and I thought she was talking about
0:25 something else but it may have been
0:27 about that night and I just didn't
0:28 understand she was saying that she
0:29 planned to be there and one gonna make
0:31 it yeah
0:33 all right good evening ladies and
0:35 gentlemen I like to call our call to
0:38 order the development Commission meeting
0:40 of October 3rd we're going to be
0:42 discussing we have to well a number of
0:44 agenda items but the specifics are a
0:46 Costco campus expansion building for
0:48 community conference for information and
0:51 a public hearing Costco campus expansion
0:53 building five for a decision before we
0:56 do that we are going to we have a couple
0:58 of business issues to take care of the
1:01 first is approval of minutes of
1:02 September 5th and then we have to elect
1:04 some officers for this coming year so
1:06 let's look at the minutes first
1:09 everybody had a chance to read the
1:11 minutes and if you have would like to
1:13 accept a motion move to approve the
1:16 minutes second any discussion all those
1:22 agreed say aye
1:24 aye opposed motion carries
1:27 so now the election of officers and I
1:32 will call for nominations for the chair
1:35 and the commissioners can make
1:38 nominations
1:39 I'll close the nominations and then
1:41 we'll discuss that if needed and I'll
1:44 call for a vote mr. chair I nominee are
1:48 current here Richard so as chair at
1:53 second there are other other nominations
1:58 for your speech do you want to know what
2:02 I did in high school no sir
2:05 so all those in favor say aye aye those
2:11 opposed and I guess I'm the chair how
2:13 bad I would like to accept nominations
2:16 for the vice chair miss Chairman I
2:19 nominate Commissioner Melvin Morgan as
2:22 vice chair at second
2:25 other nominations all those in favor say
2:30 aye aye aye all those opposed
2:33 so we've concluded our nominations so
2:36 thank you gentlemen
2:38 congratulation why does it take the
2:40 federal government months and months you
2:46 don't really want an answer for that
2:47 rhetorical question okay so let us start
2:51 our community conference for the Costco
2:55 campus expansion building number four
2:57 we'll be starting with our Senior
2:59 Planner Jean Lynne and she'll give a
3:02 presentation we'll have a applicant
3:04 presentation we'll open the floor for
3:07 public comments if there are members of
3:09 the public and then we'll have some
3:12 discussion over it so this Lynne I just
3:16 get to do the fun part first oh I'm
3:18 sorry no that's all right it's not on
3:20 the agenda so it's a quasi-judicial
3:24 hearing I think I'm gonna skip this
3:26 slide because you know this but if you
3:28 could read through the questions
3:37 how many commissioners answer no to all
3:40 the questions any commissioners answer
3:43 yes and then the other piece of it is ex
3:48 parte communications have you had any
3:52 conversations about this permit outside
3:55 of the public hearing no no no no great
4:00 any challenges from the applicant
4:12 thank you
4:25 good evening Development Commissioners
4:28 I'm gene Linn senior planner with the
4:30 city of is a quad development services
4:33 department and I'm also the project
4:35 planner for the proposed development so
4:37 here tonight there's also the applicant
4:39 seem we have Steve Bullock here to my
4:41 left from MJ to architects and we also
4:45 have Jackie Frank
4:47 from Costco I think later on we'll also
4:50 be joined by other members of Mg to
4:53 Shannon Susan so tonight's meeting is a
4:57 continuation of the meeting on September
5:00 5th that's where we received comments
5:04 from the development Commission and the
5:06 public on the proposed Costco campus
5:11 expansion project and the presentation
5:13 tonight is going to be really focused on
5:15 the questions and comments from the last
5:18 meeting so as a reminder the project
5:22 consists of two discrete applications
5:24 with two distinct review processes and
5:28 it's we're looking at a site development
5:30 permit and a administrative site
5:33 development permit and while they're
5:35 listed as two separate projects in the
5:38 agenda tonight we're going to be
5:40 presenting them in one presentation and
5:44 the meeting materials have also been
5:46 combined as well
5:50 [Music]
5:58 so the following meeting sequence is the
6:02 proposed is proposed to help organize
6:05 the presentations and discussions for
6:07 tonight we'll start with a combined
6:10 presentation by staff and the applicant
6:13 that'll be followed by any public
6:16 comments and then we'll have the
6:20 continuation of the public hearing with
6:23 the development Commission's discussion
6:25 and decision for the site development
6:29 permit for building five that's the
6:32 parking garage and then we'll follow
6:34 that up with the continuation of the
6:37 community conference for the
6:41 administrative site development permit
6:43 for building four and that's the office
6:47 building so if there's any members of
6:51 the public who want to speak they could
6:54 sign in at the clipboard at the front of
6:55 the room so just to provide a very quick
7:02 recap of the proposed development it's
7:06 two new buildings on the left there it's
7:10 building five that is on the northwest
7:13 corner of Lake Drive and southeast 62nd
7:16 Street it's a ten story parking garage
7:19 and there's approximately 30,000 square
7:22 feet of active uses on the ground floor
7:25 to the right of that is building four
7:28 that's at the northeast corner of Lake
7:31 Drive in South East 62nd Street it's a
7:34 nine story office building with one
7:36 level of underground parking and the
7:39 building consists of approximately
7:41 600,000 square feet there's also a sky
7:45 bridge that goes across Lake Drive that
7:48 connects the two buildings on the upper
7:50 floors
7:54 as I touched upon earlier we're looking
7:57 at two discrete applications tonight so
8:00 for the site development permit that's
8:02 for building five the development
8:04 Commission's role is the decision-making
8:07 body and that would be to take action on
8:10 the project for the administrative site
8:13 development permit that's for building
8:15 for the development Commission's role is
8:17 to provide staff with input so that we
8:21 can write our administrative decision so
8:28 we received a number of comments from
8:29 the last meeting and what we've done is
8:35 organize the comments into 13 topics the
8:39 first 8 topics you see pertain to
8:41 building 5 as well as the overall site
8:44 and the last 5 topics pertain to
8:47 building for the city and the applicant
8:52 have worked together on responding to
8:54 these comments and our consolidated
8:57 responses are provided in the briefing
8:59 response memo the topic numbers that are
9:02 listed here do correspond with the topic
9:06 numbers as presented in the briefing
9:09 response memo so we'll start with the
9:14 first topic and that is an
9:16 administrative adjustment of standards
9:18 to provide some greater design clarity
9:22 for the through block connection at
9:24 building 5 this was something that we
9:28 had told the Commission we'd come back
9:31 to present we had provided a preliminary
9:35 condition that would require us to go
9:39 through an ASN we are here tonight doing
9:42 so so there's a couple of refinements to
9:46 the design of the through block passage
9:48 at this building the applicant is
9:50 proposing differently patterned concrete
9:54 at the walkways and at the vehicular
9:56 drive there's going to be bollards along
10:00 the pedestrian walkways artwork on
10:04 the northern walkway there's a couple of
10:08 elements that would try to help soften
10:11 the environment through that walkway
10:16 area under the building that includes
10:19 Rick horsing would like ceilings and
10:22 inset lighting into the ceiling so one
10:27 thing to note is that the artwork that's
10:29 shown here is really only intended to
10:31 provide a flavor of what could be
10:35 proposed it's not representative of
10:38 actual artwork that's proposed at that
10:41 location in fact staff would prefer art
10:43 that would be designed to be distributed
10:47 along the route rather than concentrated
10:49 on one segment
10:57 so the design of the through block
11:01 passage includes two walkways where it
11:06 goes through the building you'll see
11:08 that on the northern route the walkway
11:11 is eight feet wide and on the southern
11:13 route the walkway would be five feet
11:15 wide these widths include placement of
11:19 bollards and when you have bollards
11:21 within that walkway with its reduces the
11:25 clear width of the walkway by about 6
11:28 inches to up to a foot for the north
11:33 walkway that's not so much of an issue
11:35 it's wide enough to accommodate
11:39 pedestrians comfortably going through as
11:42 well as the bollards but on the southern
11:44 walkway when you reduce the five-foot
11:47 walkway to about four and a half four
11:50 feet to four and a half feet that gets a
11:52 little tight and uncomfortable for two
11:55 people passing so staff is recommending
12:00 modifying the southern route to require
12:03 a minimum of five foot clear with for
12:06 that walkway so you'll see our proposed
12:10 revision to condition for condition
12:13 floor as I mentioned was a preliminary
12:15 condition in the staff report and that's
12:18 to require us to come back with an AAS
12:21 we're modifying that language since we
12:24 are bringing the a the AES back now and
12:28 so the condition has been modified to
12:31 provide a minimum clear with of seven
12:34 feet and five feet for these walkways
12:41 Thank You Jeanne the one thing that that
12:44 I just wanted to bring up is clarity for
12:47 you guys what we're proposing to put
12:49 through here or what we're required to
12:51 put through here is what's called a
12:52 secondary through block connection and
12:54 per said the the configuration of a
13:00 through block a secondary through block
13:01 c'n connection is a five foot wide
13:06 pathway with four feet of landscaping on
13:09 either side of it
13:10 and so what we're proposing here what
13:12 this is all about is eliminating the
13:15 four feet of landscaping required on
13:17 either side of that walkway as we're
13:19 going through the passageway that goes
13:22 under the building and to compensate for
13:25 that we're proposing the two sock
13:26 sidewalks were in agreement with city
13:29 staff in regards as we as it pertains to
13:31 the revision of the conditions we're
13:34 fine with that
13:43 so moving on to the second topic this
13:46 pertains to the northeast corner of
13:48 building five the comment is that this
13:51 corner appears utilitarian and
13:54 monolithic and that there's no gateway
13:57 element or other feature at this corner
13:59 and the applicant has come back with a
14:01 modified design as you can see on the
14:04 left is the original proposal and on the
14:10 upper floors of the parking garage
14:12 the original proposal had slats and that
14:15 was consistent with the rest of the
14:17 facade on the right is the revised
14:20 proposal and that incorporates accent
14:23 paneling at the building corner the
14:26 paneling treatment is pretty consistent
14:29 with the treatment of other building
14:32 corners along the South East 62nd Street
14:34 side for both buildings and helps book
14:37 and the building so that it kind of
14:39 provides a nice nice edge to the to the
14:44 buildings into the site
14:50 here's a perspective of that same corner
14:54 but with some context of views of
14:59 building for and the skybridge this is a
15:02 view coming down Lake Drive and if I
15:09 could we just want to say thank you for
15:11 suggesting this look at this again
15:13 because we really do agree with you that
15:15 this was a very positive change to our
15:19 design it's something that reflects
15:21 other places that we the way we treated
15:24 the building in other parts of it and
15:26 and it's really appropriate here and
15:27 gives us a much richer final product
15:31 Thanks but their third topic pertains to
15:40 tree retention and density the comment
15:43 we received basically asked for more
15:47 trees to be planted on site that the
15:51 tree removals adjacent to the net to the
15:55 natural areas impact the experience
15:57 along those natural areas and to plant
16:00 native species on the site
16:10 so as part of the conditions of approval
16:14 condition 5 does require the applicant
16:17 to meet the minimum tree density on site
16:20 to the extent that it's would be
16:22 practical and feasible if it's not
16:27 feasible to plant all the trees on site
16:29 to meet the minimum tree density there's
16:32 the option to find opportunities to
16:36 plant trees off-site and if both on and
16:41 off site options have been exhausted
16:43 there's the option to contribute to the
16:47 city's tree fund in addition to
16:51 condition 5 staff is recommending a new
16:54 condition that encourages the applicant
16:57 to plant slightly larger larger trees
17:01 and also to plant trees that are
17:04 adjacent to the natural areas that is a
17:06 long as a col Creek and Pickering
17:09 Pickering pond thanks Jean what we're
17:16 showing here is is the properties that
17:20 we're going to be developing and we've
17:22 overlaid the footprints of our building
17:25 and utility corridors on top of our tree
17:29 survey and and it's not even showing
17:33 everything - you know there's there's
17:35 the plaza area on the east side of
17:38 building 4 - that in the end what we're
17:43 talking about to build these buildings
17:45 excavation that's going to be required
17:47 for the basement garage on building 4
17:50 and all the circulation that's happening
17:53 for building 5 and including the utility
17:58 corridors is that we're impacting the
18:00 entire site and it's and it's not a
18:02 decision that we took lightly we
18:05 considered you know what does what does
18:10 the urban core zone allow and you know
18:12 it allows a 95 percent block coverage
18:15 and
18:16 the end we're going to be providing 81
18:18 and 88% lot coverage so less than then
18:21 the maximum allowed and and we we had a
18:25 lot of thought and conversation go into
18:28 the trees that are out there you know
18:31 some of them are our parking lot trees
18:33 built to provide our installed to
18:36 provide shade and and break up the area
18:40 of a parking lot and then some on the
18:43 perimeter and we have photos that that
18:46 document this that we're all planted by
18:49 a Costco over the years to provide
18:51 screening of the parking lot and
18:53 obviously that's not going to be the
18:55 condition in the future and so in the
18:58 end we ended up applying for an an
19:01 administrative adjustment of standards
19:03 to ask for approval to remove all the
19:05 trees and that that's not because we
19:07 don't want to plant trees as some of the
19:10 letters that were received said we we
19:12 absolutely want to plant trees and and
19:14 what we're showing here is our site plan
19:17 with all the trees that were proposing
19:21 at this point in time and as we continue
19:23 to develop the site plan and and some of
19:27 the the street wall conditions and
19:29 things like that I think we're even
19:30 going to be able to supplement this some
19:32 more but currently what we're proposing
19:34 with our administrative adjustment of
19:36 standards is a elimination of a hundred
19:39 and eighty four trees on the site of
19:41 those only 116 are considered
19:44 significant trees because the other
19:45 tree's are either too small or they're
19:47 in poor condition as determined by the
19:49 arborist and those 116 trees represent
19:57 1268 caliper inches of trees and when
20:02 when we read says section ten point four
20:05 states that there's one replacement tree
20:07 required for every six inches of tree
20:10 caliper removed so for the for the two
20:13 hundred and eleven trees that represent
20:15 that that 1268 caliper inches divided by
20:19 six means that the replacement amount of
20:22 trees is a two hundred eleven trees this
20:26 plan right here is showing a hundred and
20:27 sixty-one trees
20:29 and and the minimum insulation size per
20:35 says - is is 2 inch diameter for
20:38 deciduous trees and seven feet tall for
20:41 for conifers and it would absolutely be
20:44 our intent to plant things at greater
20:46 size probably a three to four inch
20:48 caliper - to get us some instant effect
20:53 especially in some of the plaza area to
20:55 get those canopies up high enough that
20:56 people can walk under them and things
20:58 like that and the same thing for for
21:01 some of the the conifers to put them in
21:03 it at Heights greater than the minimum
21:05 to address exactly the conditions that
21:08 that staffs talked about as being
21:11 proposed conditions so again this is
21:13 something just to kind of give you a
21:14 flavor of what our thought process has
21:17 been we absolutely want to to have the
21:20 final product for for our campus
21:24 continue to be one that demonstrates
21:26 high quality and and and dedication to
21:32 have in a natural environment trees
21:35 shrubs and and the like to be lush and
21:38 beautiful and and full so that it
21:41 matches up with the existing canopy
21:43 screaming dizzying campus that is out
21:45 there and the adjacent natural features
21:47 that we're hoping to take advantage of
21:49 from a view perspective so we are and
21:55 can we concur with with staffs
21:59 recommending conditions on this
22:06 thanks T so the next topic is about
22:11 trail experience and in the sense that
22:15 the proposed removal trees potential
22:18 tall retaining walls and views of the
22:21 buildings are going to ruin the the
22:25 trail experience so we're gonna respond
22:32 firstly about the Pickering pond the
22:35 Pickering pond trail experience and then
22:38 we'll talk about the Pickering trail
22:39 experience so Pickering pond trail
22:41 experience is long building five
22:43 generally the applicant is has
22:46 redesigned this trail so that is raised
22:49 approximately by three feet so it's
22:53 gonna be at the top of a retain a
22:55 retaining wall instead of at the bottom
22:57 of the retaining wall the applicant is
23:00 proposing to revegetate the area where
23:03 the pond where the trail is adjacent to
23:06 the pond overlook the pond overlook
23:08 would be supported by either columns or
23:10 a retaining wall and staff is requesting
23:16 proposing to revise condition 11
23:19 pertaining to building 5 to require
23:21 treatment if retaining walls over 4 feet
23:24 are proposed anywhere along the
23:27 Pickering pond trail in addition staff
23:31 is proposing a new condition with the
23:36 redesign of the trail and raising it to
23:40 be above the retaining wall the trail
23:43 alignment has changed such that portions
23:45 of the trail would now be on Costco's
23:48 private property and so the new
23:50 condition would help ensure that the
23:52 public trail access would be ensured
23:56 through
23:56 granting of an easement to the city
24:03 we'd like to just talk real quickly I
24:05 don't know how many of you have been on
24:07 the the Pickering Pond Trail this is the
24:09 existing path that's on the west side of
24:12 where we're going to be putting building
24:14 five and doesn't mass show yeah good the
24:19 these first two images in the top left
24:21 in the center kind of show you you know
24:24 that that path has been in place now
24:26 since since the early 90s and the
24:31 vegetation is has really filled in and
24:34 and as you can see there the path is
24:37 overgrown there's branches and you know
24:41 overtaking it and it's it's not a very
24:44 inviting place to walk right now
24:46 as you continue on and look at the one
24:48 here in the upper right you see is kind
24:50 of this long it's almost turned into a
24:52 cavern is so overhung with with
24:55 vegetation and plants and then you can
24:57 see too that there's a lot of invasive
24:59 species that have taken over there's
25:01 that's a bunch of Himalayan blackberry
25:04 there's Morning Glory there there's a
25:06 bunch of stuff out there that that needs
25:08 to be cleaned up and sand back and in
25:12 these these bottom two images on the
25:15 Left show you the the path as it gets
25:17 down kind of at the low point where it
25:21 has some issues with flooding in the
25:24 wintertime and groundwater seepage that
25:26 comes over it and it leaves kind of a
25:29 slimy mess on on the path and it's not a
25:34 very inviting place to walk or have
25:37 people go there and so part of what
25:40 we're looking to do is is make that a
25:42 better experience when you look at this
25:45 site plan I hope you can see the kind of
25:47 yellow stripe here to on the left side
25:51 of that image and that's where the
25:54 existing path is now and it's got a
25:56 retaining wall on the east side of it
25:59 that's I'll say roughly three feet high
26:01 our idea is to take it and and get rid
26:06 of that path and put the new one on top
26:08 of that retaining wall which gets it to
26:11 a point where it's no longer looking
26:13 the retaining wall it gets it a little
26:15 bit hired so you can look over and see
26:17 the pond better and in all these areas
26:20 that are shown in green are areas that
26:25 are just going to slope back to the new
26:28 building number five or the adjacent
26:31 driveways there will be no retaining
26:33 walls in those areas or if so just very
26:35 low a couple feet at most and and so
26:38 that area is going to be planted we have
26:41 a requirement with the Public Works
26:43 Department for bringing our our water
26:46 main around the outside of the building
26:47 there and the path and and and the
26:50 landscaping are going to allow us to do
26:51 that and it's going to be at the at the
26:55 narrowest point here we're talking about
26:57 25 feet wide
27:02 getting widening out to approximately 40
27:05 feet at the south end so we're going to
27:07 be able to put some substantial
27:09 landscaping in there to soften the
27:11 effect of that new building building
27:15 five and in the end the other thing that
27:17 we think that's really neat about this
27:19 whole thing is that the the new trail
27:21 and the through block connection that we
27:24 talked about on our previous discussion
27:26 are going to meet at this this node here
27:29 that we're calling the pond overlook
27:31 feature and and and we think that that's
27:33 going to be a great way to connect those
27:36 two trails up and allow for people to
27:38 move through the area and just be a very
27:42 beautiful experience and besides that
27:45 we're in agreement with the staffs
27:47 proposed conditions at this time
27:53 continuing on this topic
27:55 so we're looking at the other side at
27:57 building for Pickering trail near is a
28:00 koala Creek so we looked more closely at
28:05 the trail experience along the Pickering
28:07 trail and one element one significant
28:12 element that we noticed is that there's
28:14 an existing offset stand off site stand
28:17 of trees it's about a hundred and sixty
28:19 five linear feet that's along the trail
28:21 and that's that vegetation is going to
28:25 stay
28:26 and in the slide here you can see on the
28:29 left is the proposed development and
28:32 that stand of trees is circled in the
28:34 red and on the right is the aerial photo
28:37 of the existing conditions with the
28:39 stand of tree that trees circled in
28:42 yellow and you could also see the
28:44 location of the trees and proximity to
28:47 the trail and the site so the stand of
28:53 trees is going to soften the appearance
28:55 of the building when viewed from the
28:59 trail and so these the section on top
29:04 helps illustrate the relationship
29:06 between the building vegetation and
29:08 trail if you start on the very left the
29:11 far left
29:12 that's where building four would be as
29:14 you come to the right you see the so
29:19 here's the building and then as you move
29:21 right this is the Creekside Terrace deck
29:25 area and then and then you'll see the
29:28 stand of trees and then to the right of
29:30 the sand trees is the Pickering trail so
29:33 there's quite a bit of distance between
29:35 the trail and the building and the plan
29:42 view on the bottom illustrates what this
29:44 area looks like so again building
29:47 Creekside Terrace area and the trees and
29:50 the trail the one thing that we want to
29:57 bring to your attention as well is that
29:59 there used to be an easement on Costco's
30:03 property it was called the easement r
30:05 and it was supposed to be for the city
30:08 to put a ran along the very east edge of
30:11 our property and it was supposed to be
30:13 there for the trail to be constructed in
30:16 well ultimately the trail didn't get
30:18 constructed there it got constructed
30:19 entr'acte where it is now and it's about
30:25 a year year-and-a-half ago
30:26 Costco worked together the City Council
30:28 to get that easement relinquished and
30:32 and as part of that Costco agreed to to
30:37 pay the city twenty five thousand
30:39 dollars to assist in mitigating any
30:44 difficulties or visual obstructions
30:46 whatever you want to call it that might
30:48 occur with this building being built in
30:52 close close proximity to the trail and
30:54 and ultimately we're going to want to
30:57 connect our system up with the trail as
31:00 well and so I after we're through with
31:03 this project we're going to start
31:04 working together with Parks and Rec
31:05 working out their direction and their
31:08 their leadership to put together a plan
31:11 for how things happen in track day how
31:13 some of our trails and and Plaza spaces
31:16 ultimately connect up to Pickering trail
31:18 and then what kinds of plantings get
31:21 done there if and when the trail maybe
31:23 gets adjusted in its location and all
31:26 that stuff is is partially paid for by a
31:29 contribution that Costco has already
31:30 made to the city
31:38 so the next topic relates to excavation
31:41 and fill the concerns expressed were
31:45 that the number of truck trips that
31:48 would be required and associated with
31:50 the proposed excavation and fill the
31:52 site there's also concerns about trying
31:55 to keep trucks off of sr 900 in May
31:58 Valley Road trying to minimize the truck
32:01 trips by keeping soil in Issaquah rather
32:05 than trucking it out and also the amount
32:07 of soil that would be needed to address
32:09 the local faction issues on the site so
32:13 information that was presented in the
32:16 previous packet noted that there would
32:18 be about 55,000 cubic yards of material
32:21 that would be hauled from the site and
32:25 due to some refinements of the project
32:27 namely a reduction in the underground
32:30 garage at building four that number has
32:33 been updated to about forty thousand
32:37 cubic yards of material condition 15
32:42 would also address the local faction and
32:45 weak soils at the site yeah and we're
32:55 we're in agreement with this city on
32:57 this once we have our general contractor
33:01 on board for the project and one of the
33:04 things that they're going to need to do
33:05 is put together a construction
33:08 management plan a best practices type of
33:11 thing that includes haul routes and
33:13 traffic control and all of that and
33:16 they're going to have to come up with
33:18 things that make the city that that meet
33:20 the city's requirements for hauling what
33:22 roads get used all of that stuff and
33:24 we're going to comply with whatever the
33:26 city requires us to do at that time it's
33:29 hard to make commitments to that right
33:31 now
33:40 so the next topic pertains to traffic
33:43 and road improvements and the concern
33:45 was that given the amount of development
33:47 in this area that additional road
33:50 improvements would be necessary to serve
33:52 this area specifically what was
33:55 suggested is to provide an additional
33:57 right turn lane at 17th Avenue SR nine
33:59 hundred and twelfth Street and also to
34:02 provide a crossing over through i-90 so
34:07 both of these improvements are actually
34:10 have actually are actually contemplated
34:13 and the with respect to the 17th Avenue
34:17 SR 900 and 12th Street
34:19 improvements at that intersection that's
34:22 already been committed to as part of the
34:24 Costco development agreement in the
34:27 master transportation funding agreement
34:30 and timing for that has actually been
34:35 delayed do you do the need to coordinate
34:37 with Lake Sammamish State Park this is
34:42 one of three transportation improvement
34:44 projects that were identified in the
34:46 Costco development agreement with
34:48 respect to the i-90 crossing that's that
34:52 has been identified as a long-term
34:54 improvement in the city's transportation
34:56 improvement plan the target is to start
35:00 work on that in 2020 and by start work
35:03 it means to start applying for grant
35:06 funding to allow for preliminary design
35:09 work to begin however construction of
35:14 that project may be many years after
35:17 2020
35:26 topic number seven pertained to
35:28 sustainability and the comment was to
35:30 incorporate the city's sustainable
35:32 building action strategy green building
35:35 measures into the project the applicant
35:38 has provided a response the development
35:41 agreement exhibit K which talks about
35:46 sustainability already requires certain
35:49 measures to be incorporated into the
35:52 project I've got listed here
35:55 several the key measures from the
35:58 applicants response to exhibit K with
36:02 and these are the measures that the
36:03 applicant has committed to implementing
36:06 as part of the project I think I might
36:13 just just say real quickly we've we've
36:15 had a number of conversations with many
36:17 different people from city staff about
36:19 how we comply with exhibit K and and and
36:22 the city's desire for this to be a you
36:28 know a model project as it relates to
36:30 sustainability and and I think we've had
36:32 some really good conversations with is
36:35 it David Kawamoto or puja moto thank you
36:38 I'm sorry and and then the rest of the
36:41 staff talking about these things
36:48 so the next topic pertains to site
36:51 amenities the comment
36:55 listen number of amenities that the site
37:00 I guess requesting that the site the
37:03 development should provide these
37:05 amenities
37:05 these include creating spaces for social
37:07 opportunities providing convenient
37:10 access to Lake Sammamish State Park
37:13 providing amenities for all ages
37:16 providing weather protection and seating
37:19 for pedestrian paths and transit stops
37:21 providing outdoor lighting to facilitate
37:25 evening public activity activities
37:28 providing a location for the i-90
37:31 crossing and transit pedestrian and
37:34 bicycle connections to the Pickering to
37:37 Gilman connection so many of these
37:43 amenities are already proposed
37:45 incorporated as part of the proposed
37:46 project some of these elements however
37:50 aren't relevant to this site or
37:53 development so for example the request
37:56 to provide a connection to Lake
37:59 Sammamish State Park is going to be not
38:03 relevant to this site because it's the
38:06 site isn't adjacent to the State Park or
38:08 or in very close proximity with respect
38:13 to the i-90 crossing location that
38:16 location is actually anticipated and
38:18 lower Pickering and not at this site so
38:23 I think that Steve might elaborate on
38:26 some of the other amenities yeah I just
38:28 we we took this opportunity to kind of
38:31 highlight some of the things that we
38:33 have going on here there's there's a
38:35 number of different gathering or
38:37 community spaces provided throughout
38:39 these two buildings and they go from
38:43 spots that are quieter more
38:46 contemplative of nature
38:49 you know you have the pond overlook
38:51 you've got the the Creekside Terrace
38:53 that's looking towards Issaquah Creek
38:55 those those are going to be a little bit
38:56 more quiet and and allow people to kind
38:59 of view and experience nature and be
39:01 immersed in nature to a certain degree
39:03 and then the other the other public
39:06 spaces are you know more urban in nature
39:09 you know they're close to the buildings
39:10 they're there where the building and the
39:13 street is being activated there's
39:14 there's lots of activity going on in the
39:16 buildings there they're connected to two
39:18 cafeterias in some spaces close to
39:23 assembly spaces in others and benches
39:27 and and tree canopy and and interesting
39:30 things for for the people that use those
39:33 spaces are going to be there and we
39:35 believe that we comply with the things
39:37 that that letter brought up so that
39:46 concludes the topics pertaining to
39:47 building five in the overall site at
39:50 this time we're going to transition into
39:52 topics that pertain only to building
39:54 four which is the administrative site
39:57 development permit so for building four
40:04 blank walls was brought up at the last
40:07 meeting and discussed to some extent so
40:10 there's two locations of blank walls
40:13 that were identified and the comment is
40:16 how how are these blank walls going to
40:18 be addressed these two locations are at
40:21 the southeast corner of the building and
40:23 at the northwest corner of the building
40:25 the applicants provided some refinements
40:29 to the design of these blank wall areas
40:31 and as a reminder condition 10 also
40:34 requires blank wall treatments at both
40:37 these locations
40:42 so starting with the southeast corner of
40:44 the building this is the corner that's
40:47 adjacent to South East 62nd Street on
40:51 the on the top you'll see the original
40:54 proposal with the blank wall and
40:57 initially just landscaping was proposed
41:00 to treat that blank wall on the bottom
41:04 is the revised design and in the and the
41:07 revisions the applicants added some
41:10 punched windows along the majority of
41:13 the length of that wall they've raised
41:15 the planter beds they have raised
41:18 planter beds to help obscure the
41:19 remainder of that blank wall and there
41:23 would be additional brick detail that
41:24 would be added to the wall design yeah
41:33 we this is nothing new you know we I
41:38 think it shows a little bit better here
41:40 than it does on the on the perspective
41:43 and that's partially because the the
41:48 grades aren't very well developed on the
41:51 perspective but the road sixty second is
41:54 actually coming from the bridge abutment
41:57 as a high point and slowly ramping down
41:59 towards the the traffic circle at the
42:02 intersection of lake and 62nd and so we
42:05 see and you can kind of see here in in
42:07 this corner the the landscape bed that's
42:11 adjacent to the the sidewalk between the
42:13 sidewalk in the building is actually
42:15 going to kind of terrace this way down
42:17 as the sidewalk is is dropping along
42:20 62nd and then there's going to be a
42:23 backdrop of windows behind that to allow
42:26 some of the views into the building
42:27 there that's an actual foyer area for an
42:30 assembly area for Costco and there there
42:34 may be pre function type activities
42:37 going on in there and so having windows
42:39 here is not a bad thing for us
42:46 so the other area with blank walls is at
42:48 the northwest corner of the building and
42:50 this is a long lake drive it's actually
42:53 a section that's set back from a lake
42:55 drive it's adjacent to the ramp to the
42:59 underground garage it's still it's set
43:03 back quite significantly from Lake Drive
43:06 but still visible what's what's proposed
43:09 here are raised landscape planters as
43:12 well as providing some additional detail
43:15 to the brick to break up to make it a
43:20 little more interesting yeah I think
43:24 looking at the elevation you can see the
43:27 area where staff had the concern which
43:29 is is this brick wall here what's going
43:32 on behind that is it's the service and
43:34 kitchen area of the building that serves
43:36 the cafeteria and and the loading docks
43:39 which is why we don't have windows and
43:42 things in there and what we've tried to
43:44 do and you can see it in the perspective
43:46 below we have we have the ramp going
43:49 down to the basement garage plus
43:52 landscaping on either side of that ramp
43:54 for a total distance of probably close
43:58 to 40 feet that removes pedestrians from
44:01 that wall and so in that 40 feet there
44:04 be a 24 foot wide drive aisle and then
44:06 another 15 feet of landscaping on either
44:09 side of that that has trees and shrubs
44:11 berm area all kind of filtering and
44:15 screening views of that wall will do
44:18 some things architectural II to make it
44:19 interesting so it's not just a plain
44:21 flat wall but but it it's already going
44:24 to be very fairly much removed from
44:26 where pedestrians are going to be there
44:28 they're set back quite a significant
44:30 distance from it
44:38 topic number 10 deals with sense of
44:41 arrival and the comment was raised about
44:44 how to achieve a sense of arrival for
44:46 those coming from the east so there's a
44:53 couple of elements that could signal the
44:55 sense of arrival there transitions that
44:59 would have an implied sense of arrival
45:01 there's also physical markers or design
45:04 elements that could mark the arrival
45:07 point so in terms of the transitions
45:15 there's some pretty significant
45:17 transitions as you come from East Lake
45:22 Sammamish Parkway and as you move
45:24 towards the Costco corporate campus
45:28 what's the experiences as as you come
45:33 from East Lake Sammamish Parkway you're
45:36 gonna hit a roundabout and then that
45:38 that would be so East Lake Sammamish
45:43 parkways over here you come through that
45:45 a roundabout and then and then you're
45:48 gonna negotiate through a fairly long
45:52 bridge along South East 62nd Street that
45:56 bridge has a span of about eight to nine
45:58 hundred feet and it spans the natural
46:02 Creek and wetland habitat area so the
46:05 photo on the right shows a good view of
46:08 that habitat area as you as you're on
46:13 the bridge
46:23 so in addition to that there's as you as
46:26 you near the western end of the bridge
46:32 and get closer to the Costco campus
46:34 you're going to transition from the
46:36 natural habitat to the urban street
46:39 environment and the transition also
46:41 takes place in terms of what you see so
46:44 the views are going to be transitioning
46:45 from the wetland views to the trees and
46:48 the proposed building in this case
46:51 building four you're also going to be
46:54 transitioning from the bridge onto an
46:58 at-grade Road and so all of these
47:01 transitions really help signal to the
47:04 user that you're you're entering a
47:06 different place and it really instills a
47:09 strong sense of arrival into the Costco
47:12 campus and into Pickering in addition to
47:20 these transitions and implied sense of
47:23 arrival there's also physical markers
47:26 that could be implemented to mark the
47:30 arrival points Costco is already in the
47:34 process of developing wayfinding signage
47:36 for Pickering and because of that
47:41 staffed Enfield's need to add a new
47:44 condition to require physical markers
47:47 but if the Development Commission feels
47:50 that a new condition is warranted
47:52 we've included some suggested language
47:54 in the briefing response memo thank you
47:59 thank you gene excuse me we've had a lot
48:05 of internal discussion about this since
48:07 it was brought up at the last
48:08 development Commission meeting and
48:12 section chapter 12 point-to-point II
48:15 where it talks about sense of arrival
48:17 says sites should promote unique design
48:19 features and a sense of arrival in each
48:20 district and development to establish
48:23 distinct boundaries that are
48:24 recognizable to the community and that's
48:26 that's all it says about it and and even
48:29 some of the discussion that we had at
48:30 our last meeting was
48:33 I'm not sure we totally knew what you
48:36 guys were looking for or what you were
48:39 hoping that we would do what what we
48:44 thought and you know we're coming at it
48:46 from an architecture perspective and we
48:50 believe that there are site design and
48:53 our building design is really centered
48:56 on this area that we have highlighted
48:59 with the dashed lines here which which
49:02 is focused on the the entry canopy of
49:05 the building for and there are there are
49:10 three lantern features one right here in
49:13 this northwest corner of building four
49:14 one in the southwest corner building
49:17 four and one at the southeast corner
49:19 building five and and that coupled with
49:23 the pedestrian bridge that's framing
49:25 this whole area and the fact that that
49:28 the traffic circle is all funneling
49:30 people if you're coming from the east or
49:33 west on the south once you hit that
49:35 traffic circle and you start turning up
49:37 Lake Drive this is your sense of arrival
49:41 you are here we're dealing with it
49:43 specifically in the architecture of the
49:45 building and and the features that are
49:47 built into the building and the site
49:48 design the same thing as you're coming
49:50 south on on Lake Drive you're coming
49:54 down and you see this community space
49:56 this the plaza the lantern feature the
49:59 the area where the auto court and this
50:03 is all culminating in what we believe
50:06 from an architect's perspective is the
50:09 sense of arrival for these buildings now
50:13 relating to a sense of arrival for a
50:15 district we we agree that Pickering
50:17 place is a development as a whole that
50:21 that deserves some monumentation it has
50:23 some right now but it's fairly dated it
50:26 doesn't have any on this southeast
50:28 corner of the site and and Costco along
50:32 with other owners of Pickering place are
50:35 already kind of in the midst of talking
50:37 about some different things to do to
50:40 refresh and and and put something
50:42 together that is a comprehensive way
50:45 finding and monumentation package
50:47 the entire Pickering place development
50:49 and we would like to continue moving
50:52 forward without without that being
50:54 something that is conditioned on this
50:56 project because we feel this is a very
50:58 different thing than that and we're
51:01 committed to moving forward on both of
51:03 those and that's kind of where we are at
51:04 as far as we hope that we can move this
51:07 approval forward without a condition
51:09 related to that and we will continue to
51:11 move that other effort forward on its
51:13 own track so building for the question
51:25 was raised about how this building
51:27 complies with the build to line
51:29 requirements in the centralized across
51:31 standards and also in the Costco
51:33 development agreements so the image on
51:37 the left is from the development
51:40 agreement land plan and this shows a
51:42 good that shows the relationship that
51:44 was contemplated between building four
51:46 and what was assumed to be the alignment
51:49 of South East 62nd Street at that time
51:53 to the right is the proposed site plan
51:56 that shows the relationship of the
51:59 proposed building for with the actual
52:02 alignment of South East 62nd Street that
52:05 is as it is currently being constructed
52:13 so for curvilinear streets the
52:15 development agreement allows some
52:17 flexibility to the build to line
52:20 compliance with the build to line
52:22 standard in that it understands that
52:27 buildings can be can meet the intent of
52:32 the bill to line standard without
52:35 meeting the letter that when you have
52:37 curved linear streets and especially if
52:40 you don't want to force all of the
52:42 buildings to be curved and along with
52:45 the street so with respect to the build
52:50 to line compliance the building along
52:53 lake drop the lake drive frontage is
52:55 actually largely compliant with the
52:59 standard as for the South East 62nd
53:02 Street frontage we looked at this a
53:07 little more closely and the alignment
53:09 has actually changed pretty
53:10 significantly since the alignment that
53:15 was assumed under the development
53:16 agreement so in the image here and the
53:19 green the green line actually shows the
53:21 alignment that was assumed under the
53:24 development agreement and you can see
53:26 under this alignment it is pretty it's
53:29 it's a fairly straight alignment there's
53:31 about 331 feet of straight frontage in
53:35 this alignment since then there's been
53:39 some modifications to that the current
53:42 alignment of South East 62nd Street
53:46 right-of-way is shown in the blue line
53:49 above that and in the blue line there's
53:54 some additional curved areas that have
53:58 been incorporated into that alignment
54:00 and so you end up only with 182 feet of
54:04 straight frontage so what we're working
54:06 with here is actually a street that was
54:09 assumed to be much straighter than it is
54:11 and has now become more curvilinear and
54:17 so because of that we feel that the
54:21 building along this frontage would be
54:22 eligible for the flexibility
54:25 that's allowed under the development
54:27 agreement we agree
54:36 this this was the subject of many many
54:40 talks internally with with our team and
54:43 and then also with with city staff or
54:46 over the months in the year about how we
54:49 we get a building that meets the intent
54:51 of this and there's a lot of things
54:53 we're trying to do to really meet the
54:55 intent we're in many cases we're pulling
54:58 the sidewalk right up to the face of our
55:00 buildings so the building feels like a
55:02 zero lot line building even even though
55:04 the sidewalk may the actual property I
55:07 excuse me may be more than 10 feet away
55:09 from the face of our building we've got
55:10 sidewalk running right up to the face er
55:13 of our building so it feels like you're
55:14 all still within the the public realm
55:17 and the public right-of-way and we're
55:21 providing community space and we're
55:23 committed to working really hard with
55:26 staff to come up with solutions for for
55:29 how we continue to reinforce the the
55:32 street wall within that build to line so
55:35 we're grateful for their direction on
55:37 this and and continue to look forward to
55:40 working together with them on it
55:48 the next topic pertain to the east-west
55:51 through blocked passage at building four
55:54 specifically how the design and
55:57 alignment of this passage would
56:00 prioritize pedestrians there was one
56:02 particularly challenging location that
56:05 was identified in the last meeting and
56:07 that's where the through blocked passage
56:11 traverses through the loading area for
56:14 the trading building that's shown in the
56:18 blue oval on in the diagram on the left
56:21 the picture on the right actually shows
56:23 that loading area at the trading
56:26 building so again some design
56:33 refinements have been made to make this
56:35 a safer and more pleasant pedestrian
56:39 experience the applicant is proposing an
56:42 8 foot wide path that would be patterned
56:45 concrete and that would contrast with
56:49 the paving design for the vehicular
56:52 areas a landscape planter area has also
56:57 been extended down to create a 10-foot
57:00 by 10-foot pedestrian refuge in that
57:04 through blocked passage area as well so
57:07 that makes it a little more comfortable
57:08 for pedestrians to negotiate through
57:10 that area if and when there are vehicles
57:13 going through that area at the same time
57:15 one consideration to keep in mind is
57:19 that the trading building is will be
57:23 redeveloped at some point in the future
57:25 and so the pedestrian experience would
57:28 likely change with the redevelopment of
57:31 that site Thank You Jeanne one other
57:35 thing I'd like to add that this picture
57:39 of the UPS truck park there is rather
57:43 unfortunate for a number of reasons the
57:46 the way this loading dock is supposed to
57:49 work is trucks actually pull inside and
57:53 all the loading and unloading
57:54 happens inside the building and in all
57:57 reality there's only one to four trips a
58:02 day that they come to this so it's it's
58:04 not a high use area we believe what
58:08 we're proposing here both from
58:10 differentiating the path and then
58:12 providing a place for people to to stop
58:15 and and and and have some protection
58:18 before they move on is an appropriate
58:20 response to staffs legitimate concern
58:24 here and I think we have a solution that
58:26 we both feel good about so we're at the
58:36 last topic here and that has to do with
58:38 the CEPA analysis for impacts of flood
58:43 plains so the comment that we received
58:46 indicated that actions of the floodplain
58:48 are not covered by the planned action
58:50 determination that was the basis of
58:55 previous environmental analysis so
58:59 floodplain impacts are quite heavily
59:03 regulated by federal state and city
59:06 regulations the the previously pnau
59:13 analysis also did identify compliance
59:16 with these regulations as part of the
59:18 mitigation measures for development
59:21 within floodplain areas and so we've
59:24 we've had condition 16 proposed which
59:28 would require the that the applicant
59:31 obtain a flood hazard permit and that
59:34 they comply with all city applicable
59:37 city codes and and just to give you a
59:41 little bit of detail on that as well
59:43 we've already hired some consultants the
59:46 same consultants that actually that
59:47 worked on the flood hazard permit for
59:50 the city's Road job here we've hired
59:52 them to do our work and and have that
59:55 pretty much completed and we're waiting
59:57 for us getting through this process if
1:00:00 we have this approval process in place
1:00:03 and we'll be applying for our flood
1:00:04 hazard permit with the city to to
1:00:06 demonstrate that we come
1:00:08 with all the the city federal and state
1:00:09 codes related to that thank you jackie
1:00:17 frank chairman mr. vice chairman
1:00:21 congratulation on your elections tonight
1:00:23 as you can see before you this evening
1:00:27 this presentation staff has been an
1:00:30 excellent partner we're pleased to have
1:00:32 collaborated on the response memo and
1:00:34 the presentation we really appreciate
1:00:37 your considering both the administrative
1:00:39 site development permit together with
1:00:41 the site development permit it's a
1:00:43 unique situation but we felt that it was
1:00:47 needed and that they both needed to be
1:00:49 viewed together one in fact provided
1:00:52 context for the other and we thank you
1:00:54 for allowing us to structure things this
1:00:56 way thanks again for the comments that
1:00:59 you've provided at the last meeting your
1:01:01 suggestions on building five facade
1:01:04 treatment were excellent and we we
1:01:07 definitely believe it improved the
1:01:08 quality of the design so thank you thank
1:01:11 you for that looking back and I'm gonna
1:01:16 if we've really talked about this much
1:01:17 but as a part of the process I'm
1:01:20 especially pleased with the time we
1:01:22 spent with your consultant Crandall
1:01:25 arambula we went through the SIDS
1:01:28 compliance checklist even though we
1:01:30 didn't really have to
1:01:31 it helped us develop common language
1:01:34 with your consultant and with staff and
1:01:37 a vocabulary in considering projects and
1:01:41 evaluating design solutions we think it
1:01:43 was really productive and and time
1:01:46 well-spent
1:01:47 from Costco's perspective additionally
1:01:51 we're very pleased with the success of
1:01:53 the project relative to our own growth
1:01:55 and consolidation objectives and we hope
1:01:59 our responses tonight were sufficient
1:02:01 and we appreciate your guidance and your
1:02:03 input overall i'd like to say on behalf
1:02:05 of costco that we appreciate the
1:02:06 partnership we've we have between the
1:02:09 city of Issaquah and costco wholesale
1:02:10 thank you
1:02:19 so this concludes staff and applicants
1:02:23 presentation at this time we're
1:02:26 available to take any questions from the
1:02:29 Development Commission as well before we
1:02:32 move on to public comments and just as a
1:02:35 reminder here's the proposed meeting
1:02:37 sequence for tonight so we've just
1:02:40 completed the combined staff and
1:02:42 applicant presentation we could move on
1:02:47 to public comments after that and the
1:02:49 public hearing for the site development
1:02:52 permit and then finally the community
1:02:54 conference for the administrative site
1:02:56 development permit event any members of
1:02:59 the public wish to speak please sign in
1:03:02 at the clipboard at the front of the
1:03:04 room and if you can please consider
1:03:07 presenting your comments around each
1:03:09 building separately as the development
1:03:11 commissioners will have to have separate
1:03:13 conversations about each building as
1:03:15 well thank you so much we didn't know if
1:03:23 you might have questions before we
1:03:24 opened it so
1:03:34 no you can do questions after - we just
1:03:37 didn't know if you had any clarification
1:03:39 sorry for the confusion we are trying to
1:03:41 decide what the best approach would be
1:03:42 and at this point we think the best
1:03:44 approach would be for us to open the
1:03:46 discussion for public comment if members
1:03:49 of public wish to make comment we'd like
1:03:50 you to sign in introduce yourself and
1:03:54 then we'll hear your comments and then
1:03:56 the Commissioner will have some
1:03:57 discussion and questions
1:04:06 don't forget thank you
1:04:13 [Laughter]
1:04:16 invisible ink it's wood we know who you
1:04:28 hi my name is Connie Martian I live up
1:04:31 on squawk and I didn't want to come and
1:04:33 then I looked at the this website and I
1:04:36 said yeah okay I have to go down because
1:04:40 y'all know I'm generally dissatisfied
1:04:44 right and so I was pleased to see that
1:04:48 progress was made it's going to be hard
1:04:54 to divide being pleased with progress
1:04:58 between both between the buildings so
1:05:02 I'm not exactly sure how to go with that
1:05:06 but you guys talked about the trails and
1:05:08 the trees at the same time so I'm going
1:05:10 to do the same thing I think what Costco
1:05:16 agreed to do on the trail around the
1:05:20 ponds is going to be way better for
1:05:22 everybody and so I totally appreciate
1:05:26 that because we can make a better trail
1:05:29 and get Costco what they want on the
1:05:32 Pickering trail side I'm trying to be
1:05:40 positive on that it's basically saying
1:05:42 we're doing enough and it's going to be
1:05:44 great and trust us it's going to be
1:05:46 great and that stand of trees is not as
1:05:50 big or thick as you as you think
1:05:54 especially in the wintertime because a
1:05:57 lot of those trees are deciduous and so
1:06:00 in this new developing relationship with
1:06:06 Costco that's warm and fuzzy
1:06:08 I would like more evergreen trees to
1:06:11 give sort of a year-round sense of green
1:06:14 and now I'm following into the
1:06:16 landscaping shown for both of both of
1:06:19 the buildings
1:06:20 the pictures are showing evergreens and
1:06:23 they're talking about how this is going
1:06:25 to soften the building phases but it
1:06:28 won't in the winter and so we only have
1:06:32 leaves on trees for a certain period of
1:06:35 time so in this new warm and fuzzy
1:06:38 experience I think we need to be sure
1:06:41 that we are talking about year-round
1:06:42 vegetation that will that will give us
1:06:46 this sense of screening because I don't
1:06:52 I don't think what they're planning
1:06:54 there is actually gonna work around now
1:06:58 I want to talk a little bit about the
1:07:00 sense of arrival and again I think this
1:07:03 is both buildings in all of Costco when
1:07:06 you go into their area you don't even
1:07:08 know where you are if you aren't from
1:07:10 town and you don't know that you're in a
1:07:12 Costco place you're going wow this is
1:07:15 sort of wild I just went through the
1:07:16 green and now I'm in this new age over
1:07:20 Pasi thing who are these people yet you
1:07:25 can't get out you can't go to a
1:07:26 restaurant you don't really know what
1:07:28 it's about unless you're from here and
1:07:30 so I think you do need some clues that
1:07:33 it's sort of a maybe an avant-garde
1:07:36 business campus so that people who are
1:07:40 interacting with it because they will be
1:07:42 more now because we have that new road
1:07:45 have some concept of how to behave or
1:07:48 what to do and where the public places
1:07:52 are and where the not so public places
1:07:53 are and sort of what it's about and I
1:07:56 think signage might do it may be big
1:07:59 huge addresses on the buildings so that
1:08:01 people can understand these are these
1:08:03 are corporate buildings here and then
1:08:06 they'll think and that's probably a
1:08:08 corporate gym and that's probably a
1:08:10 corporate cafeteria as compared to well
1:08:14 can I get a bowl of chicken soup in
1:08:15 there and so that would be sort of my
1:08:18 comments on the sense of arrival I don't
1:08:21 think it needs a condition I think with
1:08:23 the new warm and fuzzy relationship with
1:08:25 Costco that we're expressing that we
1:08:28 should be able to get that now my last
1:08:31 comment is
1:08:33 should this relationship not be as warm
1:08:37 and fuzzy as as we're anticipating from
1:08:40 this meeting tonight what can be done to
1:08:45 make it better and not to be a non
1:08:49 trusting person but I'm not if I was to
1:08:53 see something that I think that you guys
1:08:55 wouldn't approve of going up what's the
1:08:59 mechanism for coming back and getting a
1:09:01 fix and maybe I just don't understand it
1:09:03 maybe it's in the development agreement
1:09:05 but it is totally unclear how these
1:09:08 decisions are going to be made and how
1:09:10 they're gonna be given to you so you
1:09:14 know it's happening and given to the
1:09:15 public so they understand what's
1:09:16 happening because that's all totally non
1:09:18 transparent but warm and fuzzy okay
1:09:22 that's it thank you thank you that's
1:09:29 so I don't think we have other members
1:09:32 of the public thank you for your
1:09:34 comments and we'll close the public
1:09:35 comment period at this point and now the
1:09:37 commissioners will open it up for
1:09:39 questions I have a few questions please
1:09:43 and a couple of comments I'll start with
1:09:46 the questions I'll start with topic one
1:09:49 this is really just a practical question
1:09:52 and I'm sure there's some criteria that
1:09:54 I'm unaware of with respect to the width
1:09:57 of those two sidewalks
1:09:59 why wouldn't they either just be the
1:10:01 same or the the South sidewalk be the 8
1:10:05 it seems more foot traffic would occur
1:10:07 on the south side versus the north side
1:10:11 or or again maybe I'm just not
1:10:15 understanding some alignments or some
1:10:16 other criteria but why are they why are
1:10:19 we pushing the minimum on one side and
1:10:22 the other side is much more right great
1:10:24 great question and and that's you know
1:10:27 there's been lots of discussion between
1:10:29 us and staff and disagreement and you
1:10:32 know ultimate where we're at right now
1:10:34 and we're anxious to hear what you say
1:10:37 but one of the reasons we're showing it
1:10:39 there's there's two big reasons why
1:10:41 we're showing it on the north side the
1:10:43 first is that we have this through block
1:10:45 connection on this side of trading that
1:10:50 hits this crosswalk and continues on
1:10:53 across and they line up and so somebody
1:10:57 that's that's coming across and wants to
1:10:59 use that wider sidewalk and continue on
1:11:01 to the east that's that's one of the
1:11:03 reasons why we did that the spur ongoing
1:11:07 excuse me I went all the way
1:11:16 the other reason is this parking garage
1:11:21 is going to have 1700 cars come in and
1:11:25 out of it in a day and there's two main
1:11:29 entrances to it one in the southwest
1:11:31 corner and and and the other one kind of
1:11:34 at this northeast point right here
1:11:36 right and and our thought is that the
1:11:40 amount of cars coming and you know you
1:11:42 take 1700 cars they come in and they go
1:11:44 that's 3400 trips if you split them
1:11:46 50/50 there's back at 1,700 trips coming
1:11:50 out of out of this driveway right here
1:11:53 and we thought it made more sense to try
1:11:56 to emphasize the the walkway on the
1:11:58 north side of the of that drive aisle to
1:12:00 get them away from all those trips going
1:12:04 in and out of the garage so those those
1:12:06 were our two thoughts we're anxious to
1:12:09 hear what you think we've had lots of
1:12:11 discussion with staff and and debate and
1:12:13 and we're open to your direction as well
1:12:16 yeah it was more of a question of why
1:12:19 and I think that answers it a lot I
1:12:21 think beyond that is is there some sort
1:12:24 of system that signals when cars are
1:12:26 exiting no question what we're going to
1:12:29 be doing and it doesn't show very
1:12:32 clearly here but we're going to be
1:12:34 pulling back the walls on either side of
1:12:37 that curb cut so that opening is
1:12:40 probably going to end up being if the if
1:12:42 the curb cut was 24 and I'm not sure
1:12:44 that that is what it's going to be but
1:12:45 assume it is we're probably going to
1:12:48 have upwards of 30 feet of opening there
1:12:50 with you know three to four feet on
1:12:52 either side of that so that as people
1:12:55 are coming walking up they'll be visible
1:12:57 the drivers that are trying to exit okay
1:13:00 sue come Kevin can I just add one thing
1:13:03 about because we're removing the
1:13:07 landscape we felt strongly that at least
1:13:09 one of them had to be wider to kind of
1:13:14 compensate and make it a little more
1:13:16 gracious because it doesn't have the
1:13:18 landscape on either side
1:13:22 you may remember that last time it we
1:13:26 staff's condition was to have it wider
1:13:28 on the south side we went back and forth
1:13:32 I think some of the commissioners
1:13:33 comments last time where why wasn't it
1:13:35 on the north side I know I'm still a
1:13:38 proponent for the south side so you and
1:13:40 me guys but I think Costco felt strongly
1:13:45 it's going to be their campus I mean I
1:13:49 think if it was on the south side I'm
1:13:51 not sure that you're gonna get most of
1:13:52 the pedestrian traffic at the same time
1:13:54 as the cars I think you can make a case
1:13:56 for which side has the wider one I think
1:13:59 we're fine
1:14:00 deferring to their preference because I
1:14:04 think there is a case for for either
1:14:06 I appreciate the explanation I think
1:14:09 it's reasonable so I wouldn't have any
1:14:12 further comment on changing it my second
1:14:16 question was topic number two so there's
1:14:19 the two renderings there and maybe it's
1:14:21 just a matter of perspective the one on
1:14:23 the left on the on the plaza level
1:14:26 appears to have a much higher first
1:14:29 floor plate is that accurate or is it
1:14:32 just that it's farther away no what we
1:14:35 were doing we were actually
1:14:37 incorporating glass into the first level
1:14:39 of parking so it looks like it's taller
1:14:42 and we changed how that that all worked
1:14:46 worked together on the on the second
1:14:48 well we're not pulling the glass quite
1:14:49 up as high but we're bringing that that
1:14:51 bookend feature down a little further
1:14:53 and okay well generally I think it's a
1:14:56 good solution and and I appreciate the
1:15:00 response
1:15:03 and I'll just reserve some comments till
1:15:07 we're even further comments boys for I'm
1:15:12 sorry or the questions I have a question
1:15:15 this may be for the city on the revised
1:15:18 condition 5 I think that's on page 24 65
1:15:24 is that wording the additional wording
1:15:27 and addition to condition 5 it's not a
1:15:30 replacement for condition 5 correct
1:15:40 condition 5 age 24 65 I'm talking about
1:15:56 the wording of the slightly larger
1:15:58 caliper trees and track day and so on
1:16:03 sorry could you repeat your question
1:16:04 about that condition yeah so so on page
1:16:07 24 of 65 the area marked new condition
1:16:10 okay yes yes and it has to do with
1:16:14 planning slightly larger caliper trees
1:16:16 and so on
1:16:16 it's is that an addition to the existing
1:16:19 condition 5 above it it has not replaced
1:16:21 the language of the condition 5 above
1:16:24 it's that right yes that is correct it
1:16:26 would be in addition to condition 5
1:16:28 brain stops oh thank you that's new
1:16:30 condition 27 that is correct
1:16:39 the applicant I had a question about on
1:16:42 page 21 of 65m curious about the
1:16:45 increase of the floor floor thickness I
1:16:47 guess in building five it's going to
1:16:50 increase by a few inches no therefore
1:16:52 the building's going to be five feet
1:16:53 higher is that because you anticipate
1:16:55 the total width of that opening to be
1:16:57 wider because of the walkability factor
1:17:00 we've been talking about what would
1:17:03 happen there is that we were originally
1:17:06 showing 37 feet to provide this amount
1:17:09 of walkability columns on either side of
1:17:12 it supporting it after having some
1:17:15 discussions with our structural engineer
1:17:18 we found out that we're going to have to
1:17:20 have a seismic break on one side or the
1:17:23 other and so our first thought was to
1:17:26 put a second row of columns in on one
1:17:29 side and it was going to narrow that
1:17:30 that corridor up to thirty three and a
1:17:32 half feet well that didn't go over very
1:17:35 well and so we then ate into the other
1:17:39 side of our building but with with when
1:17:45 we were only at thirty three and a half
1:17:46 feet of span we were able to have the
1:17:50 floor thicknesses be a certain thickness
1:17:52 I think we're at ten inches but when we
1:17:55 bump up to thirty seven feet of span and
1:17:58 that needs to get thicker by five inches
1:18:03 to span that much further and so what
1:18:06 will happen we're not going to bump have
1:18:08 a bump in each floor we'll put that
1:18:10 thickness on the bottom but every floor
1:18:12 is going to have to go up a little bit
1:18:14 to accommodate that understand but we
1:18:16 were talking about thirty seven feet
1:18:17 last meeting correct yes that was known
1:18:20 then that the floors would have to be
1:18:22 thicker as if our line no we I didn't
1:18:25 know about the fact that we had lost
1:18:28 three three and a half feet for that
1:18:30 seismic joint and columns okay
1:18:40 one more I guess let's see
1:18:43 page 22 of 65 that has to do with the
1:18:49 corner added on building five the kind
1:18:51 of bookend effect they're the renditions
1:18:54 are really nice but I'm trying to get a
1:18:55 sense of how this would appear from the
1:18:57 street level as we're going by in the
1:18:59 street then and we're looking up into
1:19:01 that wood we see the lighting on the
1:19:04 ceiling of the garage there there's no
1:19:06 vertical screening left behind those
1:19:09 windows correct that's correct yeah that
1:19:11 would look kind of like prison bars
1:19:12 almost I guess there's no there's no
1:19:15 screening behind them there's on the
1:19:19 other floors or we just have the slats
1:19:21 you can see thickened horizontal members
1:19:24 which are blocking car headlights we
1:19:26 don't need those on this section where
1:19:28 we have the bookend because the actual
1:19:30 horizontal beams of the bookend are our
1:19:32 blocking headlights but looking up here
1:19:35 at night times you would you would see
1:19:38 lights from the parking garage the
1:19:41 actual lights in the building on the
1:19:46 current Costco garage those things get
1:19:48 operated on a timer now and they they
1:19:51 come on when people come in at nighttime
1:19:53 they come on they have motion sensors
1:19:55 and they come on and once people leave
1:19:57 they they turn off okay all my questions
1:20:05 I have a couple questions the revised
1:20:10 condition for doesn't have the language
1:20:14 about processing an Aes for the through
1:20:17 black passage is that because they've
1:20:19 already applied for one did you say that
1:20:21 is correct yes so we are presenting
1:20:24 their application for the AAS at this
1:20:26 meeting so that's why we deleted the
1:20:28 language in revise condition 11 talking
1:20:35 about blank walls on building 5 I'm not
1:20:38 sure in here there's the only addition
1:20:44 to this the third bullet point the trail
1:20:49 users be exposed to routine walls over
1:20:51 four feet yes I believe that is the only
1:20:57 addition and that is to address that
1:21:01 unique condition with the revised design
1:21:03 of the trail to make sure that anything
1:21:07 that any walls taller than four feet
1:21:09 would be treated along the trail now I
1:21:14 understand that they're not well I guess
1:21:16 one question B was exposed being there's
1:21:19 a retaining wall you could be on top of
1:21:21 it or you could be facing it so does it
1:21:24 mean that you would be looking into a
1:21:25 retaining wall that's over four feet yes
1:21:28 okay yes then but I thought with the new
1:21:31 design we wouldn't have people looking
1:21:33 into any retaining walls is that right
1:21:35 with the new design can you go back to
1:21:38 that other slide yep there's there's a
1:21:41 section at the pond overlook so that's
1:21:43 the section on top it's a fairly short
1:21:47 section because the pond overlook is
1:21:49 maybe 20 feet long but the applicants
1:21:54 shown that it would be either retaining
1:21:57 walls or columns so what columns you
1:22:01 know there there wouldn't be a need to
1:22:02 to treat the columns but if they did
1:22:05 opted to go with retaining walls there
1:22:08 then they would need to treat that
1:22:09 retaining wall okay great thank you and
1:22:12 the other question I guess was we have a
1:22:15 retaining wall now we're moving the
1:22:16 trail up above the retaining wall where
1:22:19 there would be points where the height
1:22:20 the rotating wall would require railings
1:22:23 or fencing along the path I think the
1:22:26 assumption should be that there needs to
1:22:28 be handrails along the entire length of
1:22:30 it okay
1:22:31 and that would just be something in a
1:22:33 building permit I assume okay
1:22:39 the condition 12 about the minimum 25%
1:22:45 of the bicycle stalls would be in
1:22:48 building four we discussed that I didn't
1:22:51 see any change that and I don't know if
1:22:54 I guess because my question is is it
1:22:59 hamstringing the project too much we
1:23:01 sort of discussed it wasn't a science
1:23:03 behind it but a feeling of maybe 25
1:23:06 percent should be in building four but I
1:23:09 didn't see anything from Costco either
1:23:11 so I don't know if you have a feeling
1:23:12 about does that create any problems or
1:23:14 we talked about having it just as
1:23:17 appropriate or so I think I think for
1:23:21 predictability we would like to have a
1:23:23 number but I also take your point that
1:23:27 as this evolves it if it was 20 percent
1:23:33 or if it went to 40 percent because that
1:23:36 worked better that would not be a
1:23:38 problem so I'm wondering if we did
1:23:42 something where we were proposing or as
1:23:45 approved by the directors so that we had
1:23:50 that where you're meeting the same
1:23:51 intent but as you said there isn't a
1:23:54 specific societies and okay yeah
1:23:57 will will write something up okay great
1:24:04 the gifts that I'm good I think I'm good
1:24:13 with questions thank you so now we can
1:24:17 have comments it's the enemy questioner
1:24:19 I'm fine want me to start yes please
1:24:26 topic 10 sense of arrival from the east
1:24:29 just just my commentary and feedback I'm
1:24:32 inclined to agree with the applicant and
1:24:35 now understanding that processional a
1:24:37 little better I think once you hit that
1:24:39 roundabout as you're coming down 62nd
1:24:41 you're gonna have the beacon that that's
1:24:44 gonna signal something then then there's
1:24:46 gonna be this this amazing processional
1:24:48 of this new bridge over the wetland that
1:24:50 none of us have really experienced and I
1:24:52 think that in and of itself is pretty
1:24:54 gonna be pretty special and that that's
1:24:56 enough of a sense of arrival it's not
1:24:58 the main interest it's a pass-through
1:24:59 even to the retail beyond so and then
1:25:03 you do hit sort of an ode there you can
1:25:05 take a ride and head into the Costco
1:25:07 campus so I guess I'm inclined to agree
1:25:09 that it's fine as is and I wouldn't
1:25:12 place any additional conditions on a
1:25:15 physical feature in my opinion that
1:25:21 makes sense it does
1:25:26 sorry and then um topic 11 sort of
1:25:30 relates to that same edge and I think
1:25:32 it's it doesn't necessarily meet the
1:25:35 spirit of the code but I think it's a
1:25:37 better reaction frankly to how it treats
1:25:41 that street edge it creates sort of this
1:25:43 many subordinate Plaza lead you into
1:25:47 that through blocked passage and then
1:25:49 gives way to that bigger Plaza that's
1:25:50 it's internal so I think it's fine as is
1:25:54 I wouldn't base any further conditions
1:25:57 on staff to change that
1:26:02 is to pick up on that point to the
1:26:05 applicants discussing working with other
1:26:07 businesses in Pickering to enhance the
1:26:10 signage to give a sense of arrival to
1:26:13 all the Pickering place and I really
1:26:15 like that idea if it were more visible
1:26:21 guess I have one question for the
1:26:24 commissioners your opinion regarding the
1:26:27 new treatment of the corner of building
1:26:31 five the Northeast building corner how
1:26:35 the commissioners feel about the
1:26:37 lighting probably being visible in the
1:26:39 ceiling of that garage from the street
1:26:41 that an issue with you or not interested
1:26:44 in your opinion I do know that most I
1:26:51 think almost all probably new commercial
1:26:53 garages would be set up on timers that
1:26:55 will dim lights and come on as people or
1:26:58 cars and through them most of the Costco
1:27:01 employees seem to leave at five o'clock
1:27:04 therefore whatever there's kind of an
1:27:06 exodus out of there I think in most
1:27:09 evenings when people come through most
1:27:12 of those floors aren't going to be all
1:27:14 that lit up with the way the lighting
1:27:18 joiner it's encouraging we're not going
1:27:20 to have an in fluorescent up there
1:27:22 burning all night yeah so it will
1:27:24 probably be LED and it probably won't be
1:27:27 you know that different than the lights
1:27:29 in the office buildings I mean if you
1:27:31 think about it you you know on the upper
1:27:33 floors when you look up you're looking
1:27:35 at those ceiling lights as well and so
1:27:38 you know with the sophistication of the
1:27:41 lights either through the kinds of lens
1:27:43 design we do require that the lights not
1:27:47 throw light out of the garage and so
1:27:51 we've worked with their lighting
1:27:53 designers previously on Garage lighting
1:27:56 and it you know it's a pretty
1:27:58 sophisticated design even for garage
1:28:00 lighting these days okay great we're not
1:28:03 exactly the lady detail right now I
1:28:05 understand right that's that's
1:28:06 encouraging I think it's a good question
1:28:07 there is
1:28:08 last well I have well number one thank
1:28:17 you very much both the staff and the
1:28:19 applicant for all the work that you've
1:28:20 done in short order and especially the
1:28:23 changes like to building five and the
1:28:25 frontage along building four there at
1:28:27 the base I think they'll make great
1:28:30 improvements and the the question about
1:28:36 trees and the path I think everything
1:28:39 being done is appropriate in terms of
1:28:41 bringing more evergreen trees and I
1:28:42 think we're all for that in general and
1:28:46 I trust Costco is going to come up with
1:28:48 something that's going to look good
1:28:50 because of with a lot of employees
1:28:51 looking out towards the trail during a
1:28:54 lot of dark winter months I think
1:28:56 wanting to see more evergreens as most
1:29:00 most of us want to see that anyway so
1:29:03 the the sense of arrival question you
1:29:08 mentioned we were wondering what we
1:29:10 thought we wanted and I think we thought
1:29:13 the same thing this is I think the first
1:29:16 time we faced this issue of a sense
1:29:18 arrival into a district I would agree
1:29:21 with the idea of about the roundabout
1:29:23 creating the point but I think there
1:29:25 will be a big sense of arrival just
1:29:27 coming down the road and you go from a
1:29:29 trail through wetland to a 10-story
1:29:31 office building you'll know things have
1:29:33 changed the I don't feel that there's a
1:29:38 need to address signage wayfinding or
1:29:41 monument at signage but I would highly
1:29:44 encourage you to work with the other
1:29:46 owners I think it's a great opportunity
1:29:48 this is really becoming a major campus
1:29:52 not that it isn't already been with
1:29:54 10-story office buildings it's a major
1:29:56 campus and it's got a great history of
1:29:59 Pickering it's a great history of Costco
1:30:01 in Issaquah and I think especially where
1:30:05 the new building is there could be some
1:30:07 wonderful opportunity for signage there
1:30:08 that would be fun for everybody
1:30:11 in the built in line I agree with
1:30:14 Commissioner price about that I think
1:30:17 the bill to requirement in Cid's
1:30:20 is really driven tour
1:30:22 so a geometrically patterned downtown
1:30:25 like streets that where everything comes
1:30:27 up to the sidewalk and in this building
1:30:30 this location isn't really fit for it
1:30:33 anyway
1:30:34 and I agree with Commissioner price
1:30:35 about in terms of that opening plaza up
1:30:37 and then pulling into the rest of the
1:30:39 building works well too so
1:30:42 however the math works out and however
1:30:44 whenever we get to it I think it'll work
1:30:46 just fine so thank you yeah I guess my
1:30:50 count my comments are consistent of the
1:30:55 cooperation and the effort you've made
1:30:56 of working with the staff I think you've
1:30:58 both done a really admirable job of
1:31:00 accomplishing some some really
1:31:02 innovative neat things in it and I think
1:31:04 you mentioned that it was looking they
1:31:06 were looking forward to it being a model
1:31:09 or a you know a prototype of how to do
1:31:11 things at least in the sustainability
1:31:13 thing well I think it exceeds that so
1:31:15 congratulations it looks like a good
1:31:17 piece of work so I think we're ready to
1:31:28 move on
1:31:29 [Applause]
1:31:31 so two things I didn't provide Jeanne
1:31:38 with a very good model for how to write
1:31:41 the motion
1:31:42 so she's repeated the conditions that
1:31:46 are already in the memo so these are not
1:31:49 revisions that we're proposing that are
1:31:52 distinct from those in the memo
1:31:54 these are she repeated the conditions so
1:31:58 there's no reason to read through all
1:32:04 the text that's here except potentially
1:32:09 editing condition 12 to add or as
1:32:14 modified by the director consistent with
1:32:17 the conditions the intent described in
1:32:21 the staff report or or something to that
1:32:23 effect and I can write it up on the
1:32:25 screen if that would be helpful to you
1:32:26 okay would would you like us just to
1:32:31 read the front port and then and then
1:32:34 the very bottom on the back where those
1:32:36 are the two sort of standard yeah pieces
1:32:39 of the motion okay do you want me to
1:32:42 provide the edit for condition 12 or do
1:32:45 you have a sense of it if you can that'd
1:32:47 be great
1:33:40 was it August is what was the date on
1:33:43 the staff report reading then that would
1:33:57 come at the end of the first sentence of
1:33:58 that I believe I take you at your word
1:34:01 and it's yours to put where you want
1:34:08 well mr. chair I move that the
1:34:10 Development Commission approved site
1:34:12 development permit number SDP 17-0 zero
1:34:15 zero zero 1 with a Costco campus
1:34:18 expansion building five project number
1:34:20 PR j17 - zero zero zero zero eight as
1:34:24 described and evaluated in the staff
1:34:26 report dated from August 29 2018 with
1:34:30 attachments one through twelve the
1:34:32 briefing response memo dated September
1:34:34 28 2018 with attachments one through
1:34:38 eight the project drawings and reports
1:34:41 received August 18 2018 and all
1:34:45 subsequent middles up to October 3rd
1:34:48 2018 and subject to the conditions
1:34:50 contained in the staff report in revised
1:34:53 and new conditions contained in the
1:34:55 brief in response memo parentheses
1:34:57 revised condition numbers 4 11 and 12
1:35:02 and new conditions number 27 and 28
1:35:10 could I make a friendly amendment that
1:35:12 just at condition 12 as revised this
1:35:16 evening because condition is condition
1:35:19 12 also revised in the memo no no
1:35:23 so I since condition 12 isn't in the
1:35:26 memo I think you need to specifically
1:35:29 state what the revision is or as shown
1:35:33 oh do you see what I'm saying because
1:35:36 the memo doesn't capture the revision
1:35:38 that you're interested in adding gotcha
1:35:45 you could probably dementia motion so
1:35:48 you don't have to read the whole thing
1:35:49 again you know if I'm in the emotional
1:35:52 he's a minute please do um so last
1:35:54 paragraph or it says so revised
1:35:56 conditions for and 11 and new conditions
1:36:01 number 27 and 28 and revised condition
1:36:06 number 12 as shown in the meeting
1:36:10 tonight okay
1:36:19 is there a second I would second emotion
1:36:22 discussion all those in favor say aye
1:36:29 aye opposed motion carries
1:36:42 I think we need the second hat the
1:36:44 second conditioner okay our second
1:36:48 motion sorry mr. chair I move that the
1:36:52 Development Commission directed
1:36:54 development services department to
1:36:55 prefer findings of fact and conclusions
1:36:57 for review and approval by the
1:36:59 Development Commission chair firming the
1:37:01 development Commission's decision to
1:37:02 approve the Costco campus expansion
1:37:04 building five project site development
1:37:07 permit SDP 17-0 zero zero zero one
1:37:10 subject to the conditions listed in the
1:37:13 staff report modified in the briefing
1:37:16 response memo and as amended tonight
1:37:21 second is there any discussion all those
1:37:27 in favor say aye aye all those opposed
1:37:30 motion carries
1:37:32 I think we've come to a fairly rapid
1:37:39 ending so I'd like to thank the
1:37:43 participants especially thank Costco
1:37:45 yeah I have done a really good job and I
1:37:48 we appreciate it thank you then and so I
1:37:50 will adjourn the meeting thank you thank

Attendance

Council / Members (1)
Administration/Staff: