Development Commission · Wednesday, May 1, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Sep 5, 2018

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Lucy Sloman, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Land Development Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board Email to the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2020 – Melvin Morgan The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2020 – Kevin Price Development Commission members and City 2022 – Michael Brennan Council members from discussing the merit of 2022 – Richard Sowa specific land use development applications outside 2022 – Richard Sanford of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2023 – Brooke Shore however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2023 – Ben Rush Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2020 – Mark Rigos Membership 2020 – Nischitha Venkatesh The…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 3, 2018

packet pp.5–9

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Sep 5, 2018

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-03-18 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Development Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers October 3, 2018 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

Evergreen Lincoln Ford Dealership and Service Facility (SDP19-00001), (Q)

Katie Cote, Planning Consultant · packet pp.11–173

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

PUBLIC HEARING(S) a) DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1775 12 Ave NW Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next meeting is currently scheduled for May 15, 2019 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. The commission will hold their election of officers at this meeting

Topics: Elections

▶ Watch from 2:13:50

2717 segments .txt ↗

0:21 ↗ [Applause]

0:26 ↗ all right ladies gentlemen welcome to

0:29 ↗ our public hearing for the Evergreen

0:32 ↗ Lincoln Ford dealership and service

0:33 ↗ facility site development plans 19-0

0:36 ↗ zero zero zero one welcome we have some

0:41 ↗ administrative business that we have to

0:43 ↗ take care of first some approval of

0:44 ↗ minutes from October 3rd 2018 mr. chair

0:52 ↗ move we approved the minutes from the

0:53 ↗ October 3rd 2018 meeting we have motion

0:58 ↗ any discussion

1:01 ↗ what all those in favor say aye

1:03 ↗ aye opposed motion passes

1:07 ↗ okay just one other process note next

1:12 ↗ meeting May 15th we will be have a

1:16 ↗ scheduled meeting and the council

1:17 ↗ chambers and the Commission will be

1:18 ↗ holding their election of officers at

1:20 ↗ this meeting so the fun will never stop

1:24 ↗ we probably won't hold it on the 15th

1:27 ↗ but the next meeting for this topic

1:30 ↗ which we'll discuss at the end of the

1:32 ↗ meeting I was kidding about the 15th I

1:35 ↗ know that we'll hold it at the next

1:40 ↗ meeting for this topic okay okay so I

1:44 ↗ will turn the meeting over to the city

1:52 ↗ so good evening Lucy sloman land

1:55 ↗ development manager I'm gonna start with

1:59 ↗ our always fun quasi-judicial coverage

2:03 ↗ and then yes if we are gonna have some

2:07 ↗ public comment or we may have public

2:08 ↗ comments if you wish to have make public

2:10 ↗ comments we have a sign-in sheet and

2:12 ↗ we'd like you to sign in with your name

2:14 ↗ and address and we will call you in

2:18 ↗ order of the assignment so please do

2:20 ↗ that if you intend to talk thank you so

2:24 ↗ this is a quasi-judicial permit which

2:28 ↗ means we're going to treat things like a

2:30 ↗ court and the proceedings have to both

2:32 ↗ be fair and appear fair and we do that

2:36 ↗ through procedural due process meaning

2:39 ↗ we provide certain kind of notice and we

2:42 ↗ follow a certain kind of process and we

2:44 ↗ focus on the relationship of the

2:46 ↗ decision-makers to the people who

2:48 ↗ benefit from the decision as well as

2:51 ↗ substantive due process which

2:53 ↗ essentially means that we base our

2:56 ↗ decision on adopted codes and

3:00 ↗ regulations so if you would be so kind

3:04 ↗ as to read through the questions

3:19 ↗ how many people answer no to all the

3:21 ↗ questions great and then ex parte

3:29 ↗ communications associated with the

3:30 ↗ permit have to be part of a public

3:33 ↗ record and so communications even by

3:36 ↗ accident outside of the proceedings

3:39 ↗ where you're you're being recorded are

3:43 ↗ considered ex parte contacts has anyone

3:46 ↗ had any ex parte contacts related to

3:49 ↗ this permit no oh okay great

3:52 ↗ anyone challenge any of the

3:55 ↗ commissioners okay I turn it over to

4:01 ↗ Katie who you met last time good evening

4:05 ↗ i'm katie cody planning consultant for

4:08 ↗ the city I'm gonna pull out my

4:10 ↗ presentation here okay so we've been

4:15 ↗ working with evergreen Ford for a couple

4:18 ↗ of months to review this project and as

4:22 ↗ you can probably tell from the staff

4:23 ↗ report it's a complicated project in a

4:26 ↗ complicated site and as we've continued

4:30 ↗ to review and the applicant has refined

4:32 ↗ the design there have been some changes

4:36 ↗ even up to the day that the staff report

4:38 ↗ was completed so I'm gonna point out a

4:40 ↗ few items in the presentation where the

4:44 ↗ analysis has changed a little bit based

4:46 ↗ on new information that we've received

4:50 ↗ okay so that here we go the project the

4:54 ↗ Evergreen Ford proposed site is in

4:56 ↗ eastern Issaquah it's adjacent to or

4:59 ↗ across the street from the lakeside

5:01 ↗ industries site and just off of i-90

5:07 ↗ here's the project site again it's zoned

5:10 ↗ intensive commercial and the auto

5:13 ↗ dealership uses appropriate

5:15 ↗ it's a Latin allowed use in that zone

5:17 ↗ surrounding properties are as I

5:20 ↗ mentioned the lakeside industry site to

5:22 ↗ the east here I 90 to the southeast and

5:27 ↗ then commercial properties to the

5:28 ↗ northwest or this to the southwest

5:33 ↗ you'll know notice in the presentation

5:35 ↗ that North will change and be pointing

5:39 ↗ to the left instead of up so we've tried

5:41 ↗ to put a North arrow on there to help

5:43 ↗ orient you but let me know if if you're

5:45 ↗ getting confused and I can clarify that

5:47 ↗ so existing conditions this is the

5:50 ↗ former Carlson kennel site one of the

5:53 ↗ kennel buildings is still on the

5:55 ↗ property but will be demolished

5:57 ↗ the North Fork of Issaquah Creek runs

6:01 ↗ through the top portion of the site the

6:03 ↗ bird's eye image that you see here is an

6:06 ↗ older view before the creek was

6:09 ↗ relocated there the creek relocation

6:11 ↗ happened I think one or two years ago

6:13 ↗ and we do have an aerial photos showing

6:16 ↗ the current location and as you can see

6:19 ↗ the site is mostly vacant with some

6:22 ↗ trees and other vegetation part of this

6:27 ↗ project is also a lot consolidation

6:29 ↗ there's two parcels that make up the

6:31 ↗ development site that are in the process

6:34 ↗ of being joined and then these images

6:36 ↗ show the former's alignment of the creek

6:40 ↗ and then the new alignment and the

6:42 ↗ stream realignment was done by wash dot

6:46 ↗ as part of the as a requirement after

6:49 ↗ the culvert salmon culvert replacement

6:52 ↗ case and they did all of the work and

6:57 ↗ the city did not review permits for that

7:00 ↗ project so in addition to the stream so

7:06 ↗ the stream obviously is a critical area

7:08 ↗ the city has buffer requirements for

7:11 ↗ critical areas a stream has a 100-foot

7:13 ↗ buffer requirement the applicant is

7:16 ↗ asking for a 25-foot reduction to that

7:19 ↗ buffer for this project and we're still

7:22 ↗ working to determine the exact location

7:25 ↗ of the ordinary high water mark and

7:27 ↗ that's right now that's happening and

7:30 ↗ they're surveying the staked location of

7:33 ↗ the stream so that's a condition I'll

7:35 ↗ just note that I haven't included the

7:37 ↗ condition language in the presentation

7:38 ↗ but I've cited conditions where I'm

7:41 ↗ talking about them so you can read the

7:42 ↗ full text in the sac report

7:45 ↗ so we this is an area that we're also

7:47 ↗ still working on the buffer is shown in

7:51 ↗ purple on the map that's the portion of

7:54 ↗ the buffer that's on the site the buffer

7:57 ↗ is seventy-five feet on either direction

7:59 ↗ of the stream though so the buffer

8:01 ↗ extends also onto the right-of-way so

8:04 ↗ the green shaded area is where we've

8:07 ↗ kind of generally shown that there may

8:10 ↗ be additional buffer impacts by way when

8:14 ↗ they're when they're replacing or

8:16 ↗ installing sidewalks or bike lanes or

8:18 ↗ during improvements to the roadway so

8:20 ↗ this those additional buffer impacts

8:22 ↗ need to be studied and mitigated as well

8:24 ↗ and that will be reviewed with

8:26 ↗ construction permits this site has a

8:30 ↗ mapped flood way and floodplain which

8:34 ↗ I've shown in the picture on the right

8:36 ↗ the stream relocation may have

8:40 ↗ eliminated the flood way and floodplain

8:43 ↗ or at least the floodplain and if that

8:47 ↗ is in fact true that the applicant would

8:51 ↗ need to get map change through FEMA and

8:53 ↗ that's pending so at this point we don't

8:56 ↗ have documentation the flood plain has

9:00 ↗ been moved or removed so there are still

9:02 ↗ conditions that they need a flood hazard

9:04 ↗ permit that may go away if they're able

9:06 ↗ to amend the map couple infrastructure

9:11 ↗ notes the site in addition to having the

9:15 ↗ creek in the floodplain also has is a

9:20 ↗ critical Aquifer recharge area so it's

9:22 ↗ hydrology is is feeding drinking water

9:25 ↗ and I passed out a letter that we

9:29 ↗ received from the Sammamish plateau

9:30 ↗ water district and they had some

9:32 ↗ concerns over the stormwater plans for

9:35 ↗ the site wanting to make sure that that

9:39 ↗ the that aquifer is kept clean so we're

9:42 ↗ still working on or the applicant is

9:45 ↗ working with us to refine their

9:46 ↗ stormwater design we feel that that

9:50 ↗ there is a way to get to a place where

9:53 ↗ both the city and Sammamish plateau

9:57 ↗ agree that the

9:58 ↗ design is good and we think that that

10:01 ↗ can happen without majorly reconfiguring

10:04 ↗ this site so we feel confident that we

10:06 ↗ can move forward with the land use

10:09 ↗ approval and figure that out with the

10:11 ↗ site development permits there are so

10:16 ↗ the site will be accessed off of 230th

10:20 ↗ avenue south east and 66th Street the

10:25 ↗ access off of 66th Street will be

10:26 ↗ designed as a pedestrian priority Street

10:30 ↗ which is a central Issaquah standards

10:31 ↗ Street type we're working with the

10:35 ↗ applicant to figure out some site

10:37 ↗ distance issues at that intersection and

10:39 ↗ also redesign the corner we're 66 and to

10:43 ↗ 30th meet that was a recent change it

10:47 ↗ was originally a curve and now it's a

10:49 ↗ corner and so that's changed their site

10:52 ↗ plan a little bit on the city is still

10:54 ↗ reviewing that that intersection design

10:58 ↗ okay here's the site plan the proposal

11:02 ↗ includes two buildings the main building

11:05 ↗ will house a Ford dealership a Lincoln

11:08 ↗ dealership and a service and parking

11:11 ↗ facility it'll be a structured parking

11:14 ↗ garage with service uses on the bottom

11:18 ↗ and then this on the very bottom of the

11:22 ↗ site display pavilion building will be

11:25 ↗ there and that was a way for the

11:29 ↗ applicant to meet the street while

11:30 ↗ requirements because that is a frontage

11:33 ↗ on East Lake Sammamish Parkway and so

11:36 ↗ when working with the applicant to

11:38 ↗ figure out a way to meet that street

11:40 ↗ wall they suggested a display pavilion

11:43 ↗ use where they could show that display

11:45 ↗ antique cars or potentially hold the

11:48 ↗ community events and we thought that was

11:50 ↗ a good solution I also want to point out

11:54 ↗ the red areas are merchandise display

11:58 ↗ and we wanted to make sure that those

12:01 ↗ were seen as display and not parking

12:05 ↗ although cars will be there this is not

12:08 ↗ required parking and it's not counted

12:11 ↗ toward their parking

12:13 ↗ and there's no there's no stipulation on

12:16 ↗ how the cars need to be oriented in that

12:20 ↗ space essentially it's like a shelf for

12:23 ↗ their wares here's a perspective of the

12:27 ↗ building the two dealerships you can see

12:31 ↗ down on the ground floor with the

12:33 ↗ parking and service areas behind them a

12:36 ↗ total of 300 parking stalls will be

12:39 ↗ provided and I mentioned already the

12:44 ↗ critical area will be reduced just a

12:49 ↗ quick summary of compliance with code it

12:52 ↗ does meet the floor area ratio height

12:55 ↗ setbacks and impervious surface

12:57 ↗ standards and I'm going to go through a

13:04 ↗ few interpretations that we made when

13:08 ↗ reviewing this permit that

13:11 ↗ well they'll make sense when I talk

13:13 ↗ about okay first of all the as I

13:16 ↗ mentioned that pedestrian priority

13:18 ↗ street that is a street that has a

13:21 ↗ landscape strip behind the sidewalk so

13:24 ↗ the sidewalk kind of blends into the

13:26 ↗ road and then has a landscape strip

13:28 ↗ behind it we thought it was appropriate

13:30 ↗ since that Road was adjacent to the

13:33 ↗ critical area buffer to have the buffer

13:35 ↗ serve the function of that landscape

13:38 ↗ strip so we haven't required an

13:40 ↗ additional landscape strip on that side

13:43 ↗ of the street there is landscaping on

13:45 ↗ the other on the other side of the

13:46 ↗ street this site would according to

13:53 ↗ central Issaquah standards would require

13:54 ↗ a through block passage but the some of

13:59 ↗ the neighboring land uses and the

14:01 ↗ critical area didn't really make that

14:04 ↗ possible or didn't really make sense

14:06 ↗ it's not going to be an environment

14:08 ↗ where we want to encourage a lot of

14:10 ↗ pedestrian activity with the i-90

14:12 ↗ off-ramp to the south and lakeside

14:14 ↗ industries over to the east and then we

14:17 ↗ don't want we wouldn't want to impact

14:19 ↗ the buffer by having through blocked

14:21 ↗ passage through the critical area which

14:24 ↗ didn't leave much been offered

14:27 ↗ for through black passage without

14:29 ↗ bisecting this site so there will not be

14:33 ↗ a through block passage

14:37 ↗ similarly the the build to line is

14:40 ↗ required and we've decided to not

14:47 ↗ require the bill to line on within the

14:49 ↗ critical area buffer to avoid impact in

14:52 ↗ the critical area and then along to 30th

14:56 ↗ Avenue southeast that's actually the

14:58 ↗ edge of the central Issaquah plan area

15:01 ↗ once you go on to to 30th you're outside

15:04 ↗ of the plan area so we didn't feel it

15:07 ↗ was so we excluded that street from the

15:11 ↗ building frontage requirement as well

15:16 ↗ and finally the central Issaquah plan

15:22 ↗ does show the site for a proposed park

15:25 ↗ but the park strategic plan which was

15:29 ↗ adopted in 2018 does not and since the

15:33 ↗ park strategic plan was adopted after

15:36 ↗ its the most current plan more current

15:39 ↗ than the central Issaquah plan we've

15:41 ↗ deferred to that plan and so there's no

15:44 ↗ park location there okay so when we're

15:49 ↗ applying the design manual to this site

15:52 ↗ we decided to we interpreted the manuals

16:00 ↗ approach of allowing sites with multiple

16:03 ↗ buildings to have different styles per

16:06 ↗ on multiple buildings on a single site

16:08 ↗ we're applying that to this site by

16:11 ↗ allowing each of the different elements

16:14 ↗ to stand alone or to be distinct

16:17 ↗ architectural features so the Lincoln

16:20 ↗ dealership the Ford dealership there are

16:22 ↗ two different businesses and they have

16:24 ↗ different franchise requirements for

16:26 ↗ their designs and those will be treated

16:28 ↗ as two different buildings essentially

16:30 ↗ the pavilion building is also a dome

16:33 ↗ building and then the parking and

16:34 ↗ service facility functions as its own

16:37 ↗ thing as well so each of those will be

16:38 ↗ seen

16:39 ↗ on their own and will need to comply on

16:41 ↗ their own we're actually in the middle

16:46 ↗ of the CEPA comment period so mdn

16:49 ↗ proposed mdns was issued last week and

16:53 ↗ we're looking at some stream and buffer

16:57 ↗ mitigation issues the site was the

17:01 ↗ applicant spoke with the Department of

17:03 ↗ Archaeology and historic preservation

17:04 ↗ about this site and although there's no

17:06 ↗ mapped artifacts or historic structures

17:10 ↗ it is a stream area so there's a there

17:13 ↗ is a high likelihood that there could be

17:15 ↗ cultural resources so we'll add a

17:18 ↗ condition to address work stoppage if

17:21 ↗ anything is discovered and then as I

17:24 ↗ mentioned we're still working through

17:25 ↗ some circulation design issues and as

17:30 ↗ far as public comment goes we received

17:33 ↗ one comment asking about the project's

17:36 ↗ sustainability and a comment that I

17:39 ↗ handed out about from the Sammamish

17:42 ↗ Plateau about stormwater and the

17:45 ↗ critical Aquifer recharge area okay so

17:49 ↗ this project is down here in the blue

17:51 ↗ arrow or blue star as I mentioned it's

17:54 ↗ right on the edge it's in the East Lake

17:56 ↗ neighborhood of the central Issaquah sub

17:59 ↗ area and each neighborhood in the sub

18:05 ↗ area has some developer obligations that

18:11 ↗ help that collectively help the city

18:13 ↗ achieve the vision for the central area

18:16 ↗ and each of these are reviewed in the

18:19 ↗ staff report and we found all but one of

18:22 ↗ them to be compliant the one that were

18:26 ↗ required requiring a condition for in

18:29 ↗ fact they may have already met this

18:31 ↗ condition with their redesign plan set

18:34 ↗ but the developer obligation says that

18:38 ↗ provide wayfinding for local and

18:39 ↗ regional trail users as imported by the

18:41 ↗ city's wayfinding plan and the Issaquah

18:44 ↗ president trail is down here on the

18:47 ↗ southern part of the site so we've asked

18:50 ↗ that wayfinding signage be provided

18:53 ↗ at the site's entrances to direct folks

18:55 ↗ around the corner to the trail okay so

19:05 ↗ this just shows the circulation into the

19:09 ↗ building the red arrows are the people

19:15 ↗ pedestrian entrances the purple arrows

19:18 ↗ are the main vehicle entrances entrances

19:22 ↗ and exits however I will say that the

19:25 ↗ parking garage will not be accessed by

19:28 ↗ customers themselves

19:30 ↗ it'll be used by dealership employees to

19:33 ↗ park to store cars and to park customer

19:35 ↗ cars for them we looked around the site

19:40 ↗ to find the nearest bus stops and

19:43 ↗ they're quite a ways away across i 90

19:45 ↗ down on Gilman alright so I'm just going

19:54 ↗ to go through a couple more of the of

19:55 ↗ the design elements the project and then

19:58 ↗ the design manual itself the pedestrian

20:02 ↗ priority Street is going to provide a

20:06 ↗ way for the building to front directly

20:09 ↗ on a street instead of having the

20:10 ↗ building front on a surface parking lot

20:12 ↗ so it'll have travel lanes and parallel

20:16 ↗ parking a walkway that's separated with

20:20 ↗ bollards or other safety features to

20:24 ↗ prevent people from walking into the

20:25 ↗ roadway and then the landscape strip

20:28 ↗ we've asked for some more design details

20:31 ↗ on for example lighting in bollards but

20:34 ↗ at this at this stage of the review

20:36 ↗ they've provided sufficient information

20:39 ↗ that we can review the details later

20:43 ↗ with construction permits South East

20:48 ↗ 66th Street will be designed to a

20:51 ↗ collector arterial standard and that has

20:54 ↗ a requirement for landscape strip and

20:56 ↗ they do provide a landscape strip on all

20:59 ↗ of the the frontage except where the

21:02 ↗ bridge crosses north the North Fork

21:06 ↗ they've asked for a deviation because

21:08 ↗ the it's difficult to establish a

21:10 ↗ healthy landscape strip on the bridge

21:13 ↗ with not a lot of depth for planting so

21:16 ↗ that deviation is current the deviation

21:19 ↗ from the standards is under review and

21:21 ↗ and we propose adding a new condition

21:25 ↗ because the deviation request has not

21:28 ↗ yet been approved we had hoped we could

21:29 ↗ have it approved before the meeting but

21:31 ↗ it's still under review so the I'm

21:33 ↗ proposing a new condition that they need

21:35 ↗ to have that with their construction

21:38 ↗ permits the central Issaquah plan or the

21:43 ↗ non-motorized plan has proposed on

21:47 ↗ street bike facilities for East Lake

21:49 ↗ Sammamish Parkway this is a site or a

21:54 ↗ shot of the existing configuration the

21:58 ↗ roadway is under washed-out jurisdiction

22:02 ↗ and so the city can't require work in

22:05 ↗ the roadway so an adjustment of

22:09 ↗ standards is being requested to move the

22:12 ↗ bike lane onto the behind the curb onto

22:14 ↗ the right-of-way and replace the so move

22:19 ↗ the bike lane off of the roadway onto

22:23 ↗ the behind the curb and then put a

22:24 ↗ landscape strip between the bike lane

22:27 ↗ and the roadway and then in addition to

22:29 ↗ that a sidewalk on to 30th Avenue right

22:37 ↗ now the design has two driveways and the

22:41 ↗ city's engineers were concerned that

22:43 ↗ that didn't meet their access point

22:45 ↗ spacing requirements so we're asking for

22:48 ↗ a redesign or at least reconsider that

22:51 ↗ those driveway configurations I just

22:56 ↗ wanted to briefly touch on the parking

22:58 ↗ since this site appears to have so many

23:01 ↗ cars and there is a parking maximum for

23:04 ↗ this location but as I mentioned a lot

23:08 ↗ of the cars on this surface will be

23:11 ↗ display spaces display merchandise and

23:14 ↗ not required parking and

23:16 ↗ maximum parking number only applies to

23:18 ↗ surface parking and not the structured

23:21 ↗ parking so the total of 300 spaces are

23:24 ↗ proposed but only 64 spaces of parking

23:28 ↗ will be surface spaces so it does comply

23:30 ↗ with the maximum space and and the

23:35 ↗ structured parking allocation as well

23:40 ↗ and I also this is an issue that we're

23:43 ↗ still working with African on but SIDS

23:46 ↗ does require a commute trip reduction

23:48 ↗ plan for this site and it's possible

23:51 ↗ that that it wouldn't not it wouldn't

23:55 ↗ apply if the facility employs fewer than

23:58 ↗ 100 people but we didn't have

24:00 ↗ information on employment numbers so at

24:02 ↗ this point it's still a condition that

24:04 ↗ they need to meet the rooftop has some

24:10 ↗ landscaping the central Issaquah

24:14 ↗ standards do have or the design manual

24:16 ↗ has requirements for active uses in the

24:19 ↗ urban core for rooftops but this is not

24:21 ↗ in the urban core but they are using the

24:24 ↗ roof for car storage so they will have

24:27 ↗ screening and a trellis for screening

24:31 ↗ and some interior landscaping this is a

24:37 ↗ shot of their landscaping plan this site

24:42 ↗ does have several significant trees on

24:44 ↗ it right now and the plan is to not

24:49 ↗ retain any of those that is allowed

24:52 ↗ under the central Issaquah standards as

24:55 ↗ long as they meet replacement or in lieu

24:59 ↗ payments to replace trees and we're

25:02 ↗ still working out those details those

25:04 ↗ will be worked out with the construction

25:06 ↗ and the landscape plans

25:14 ↗ the the mitigation area and that was

25:18 ↗ planted by wash dot was as I said it was

25:21 ↗ not done with city review so we didn't

25:25 ↗ know whether that area was sufficiently

25:28 ↗ planted and we therefore required that

25:32 ↗ the applicant well we asked the

25:35 ↗ applicant to make sure that it did did

25:37 ↗ comply and in the meantime we've worked

25:40 ↗ with our stream consultant that the

25:43 ↗ watershed group to review the plantings

25:45 ↗ in that existing mitigation area and

25:49 ↗ they concluded that the washed out

25:51 ↗ plantings did meet the city standards it

25:53 ↗ just needed some more ground cover so as

25:55 ↗ part of the applicants mitigation of

25:58 ↗ their new buffer area they'll need to

26:00 ↗ bring that existing buffer area up to

26:03 ↗ the city standards the site has to have

26:13 ↗ building frontage that has to have

26:15 ↗ portion of the building in the building

26:18 ↗ front in the frontage the pavilion

26:22 ↗ building down here as I mentioned before

26:25 ↗ was put there to meet that frontage

26:29 ↗ requirement it almost meets it it's

26:31 ↗ about 22 feet shy of actually filling

26:34 ↗ the 60% of that East Lake Sammamish way

26:37 ↗ frontage so they'll need to provide

26:40 ↗ additional architectural elements to to

26:44 ↗ fill out the remaining remaining 60% and

26:46 ↗ then the frontage up at this corner here

26:50 ↗ the property line actually I'm gonna go

26:54 ↗ to the next one the property line

26:55 ↗ actually is a little bit inside of the

26:58 ↗ corner so as you can see the building

27:01 ↗ fills in fills that whole corner

27:04 ↗ frontage and if you noted in the staff

27:08 ↗ report we had this was a change in the

27:11 ↗ the corner change was we received it

27:14 ↗ late and we missed that I misunderstood

27:18 ↗ the location the property line so I had

27:20 ↗ a condition in there that they needed to

27:21 ↗ provide additional frontage but after

27:24 ↗ reviewing it more closely I

27:26 ↗ that the property line is actually set

27:27 ↗ in from the curb and that they do

27:29 ↗ complain just a couple other site design

27:34 ↗ issues or conditions that I'm requiring

27:37 ↗ they need to show all of their

27:40 ↗ above-ground utilities on their plans

27:42 ↗ and make sure that they're screened to

27:43 ↗ minimize visual impact and we're asking

27:46 ↗ for some additional design details on

27:48 ↗ their waste and load their waste

27:51 ↗ enclosure including what the wall

27:55 ↗ materials are the roof the sides etc we

27:58 ↗ know we know its approximate size and

27:59 ↗ location but there's a few more details

28:02 ↗ that we need to work out at construction

28:05 ↗ all right so the property is located in

28:10 ↗ the traditional Issaquah design area the

28:17 ↗ style that the applicant chose was the

28:19 ↗ Northwest Revival style which is an

28:21 ↗ appropriate style in this in the

28:24 ↗ traditional Issaquah area and as

28:27 ↗ conditioned we feel that the proposal

28:30 ↗ substantially is compliant with the

28:32 ↗ Northwest Revival style and there's a

28:35 ↗ couple areas that we wanted to just have

28:38 ↗ a discussion with you about we worked

28:40 ↗ pretty hard with the applicant to push

28:43 ↗ them to bring their design in into

28:46 ↗ compliance with the Northwest Revival

28:47 ↗ style and they did make several changes

28:50 ↗ and at the same time had to balance the

28:53 ↗ design requirements of the Lincoln and

28:55 ↗ Ford franchises so we think that the

28:59 ↗ results are pretty good I'm going to go

29:03 ↗ through each of the four architectural

29:05 ↗ elements separately and then open it up

29:08 ↗ for a discussion actually after I finish

29:10 ↗ I'll give the applicant a chance to

29:13 ↗ present and then we'll do public comment

29:15 ↗ and open it up for discussion

29:18 ↗ okay the Ford dealership facade is I'm

29:24 ↗ going to the Ford dealership facade has

29:29 ↗ a mixture of glass and stone and metal

29:34 ↗ on the facade the

29:37 ↗ the frame around the outside here is a

29:41 ↗ limestone panel that's this one I'll

29:45 ↗ hand this around the middle feature by

29:49 ↗ the door is a metal aluminum panel

29:54 ↗ composite panel and then there then

29:59 ↗ beyond that I think beyond I think

30:04 ↗ that's it for that one that the parking

30:05 ↗ structure is visible behind it but we're

30:07 ↗ looking at that separately it has the

30:11 ↗ the two main forms are the glass curtain

30:15 ↗ wall and the frame the limestone stone

30:20 ↗ frame around it and that those are the

30:28 ↗ main elements of that design so what do

30:32 ↗ you guys think

30:37 ↗ so I think what Katie's trying to get at

30:41 ↗ is that there are some points that are

30:43 ↗ clearly compliant and there are some

30:47 ↗ points where we would like to have a

30:48 ↗ discussion with the Commission about

30:50 ↗ your thoughts regarding certain aspects

30:54 ↗ of the design that are being driven by

30:58 ↗ the franchise relative to the Northwest

31:02 ↗ revival and so I don't know I I think it

31:07 ↗ may be easier to do it now before we go

31:12 ↗ through all of those slides for each one

31:14 ↗ on the other hand if you would prefer to

31:16 ↗ see them all before you have the

31:18 ↗ discussion that is certainly an option

31:19 ↗ as well I guess one question would be if

31:26 ↗ we do it now before the applicant has a

31:28 ↗ chance to have input or the public would

31:33 ↗ be better for us to wait to hear that as

31:34 ↗ well and then go through all of them

31:38 ↗ okay the Lincoln dealership is designed

31:46 ↗ with a very different look it's a little

31:48 ↗ bit more of a mid-century look with a

31:52 ↗ glass enclosed area that's up a few

31:56 ↗ steps from the street frontage that

31:59 ↗ little portion is 18 feet the rest of

32:02 ↗ the storefront is 22 feet in height

32:05 ↗ there are it's a mix of materials with

32:08 ↗ glass windows some metal bezel materials

32:12 ↗ and then a porcelain tile and the way

32:18 ↗ that they've used the porcelain tile

32:20 ↗ does evoke masonry character which is

32:24 ↗ appropriate with the Northwest Revival

32:26 ↗ style

32:26 ↗ so although tile as a facade material is

32:30 ↗ discouraged we felt like this was a good

32:32 ↗ way of meeting the intent of the style

32:35 ↗ with the porcelain

32:40 ↗ the parking and service facility is cast

32:43 ↗ concrete

32:44 ↗ it'll be painted in three different

32:48 ↗ colors the base will be a medium grey

32:52 ↗ the body a lighter gray and the corners

32:54 ↗ a dark grey paint I'm gonna pass this

32:58 ↗ around and those that same color scheme

33:07 ↗ is proposed for the display pavilion

33:09 ↗ which has the concrete base and windows

33:17 ↗ we don't have a shot here of the doorway

33:19 ↗ but it's essentially a structure with a

33:22 ↗ lot of windows to be able to see the

33:24 ↗ display vehicles inside and that is the

33:30 ↗ end of my presentation here's a shot of

33:32 ↗ the the site plan and the perspective of

33:37 ↗ the main building David would you like

33:43 ↗ to say a few words so let's see if the

33:47 ↗ Commission has any questions before we

33:49 ↗ switch over I thought what we said was

33:54 ↗ would like to hear the applicants and

33:56 ↗ that's protections you want

33:57 ↗ clarification on that this specific

34:00 ↗ presentation before we move on maybe

34:04 ↗ better wait till the end okay would you

34:09 ↗ like your PowerPoint or no

34:15 ↗ or you can just leave this up to that's

34:20 ↗ my name is David Estes I'm the project

34:27 ↗ architect for the project the rest of

34:30 ↗ the some of their other project team is

34:32 ↗ here to answer questions as opposed to a

34:37 ↗ formal presentation we'd really like to

34:40 ↗ get your feedback and questions it's a

34:45 ↗ very complicated project and not knowing

34:49 ↗ what the Commission's exact questions

34:51 ↗ and interested in it doesn't seem right

34:53 ↗ to just go off in a direction and

34:56 ↗ discussion without knowing what you're

34:58 ↗ interested in so I think we'd prefer

35:01 ↗ just to answer questions any specifics

35:05 ↗ you have Katie's in the planning staff

35:07 ↗ have done a great job presenting the

35:10 ↗ project and I'm not sure there's a lot

35:12 ↗ that we add if you have questions about

35:15 ↗ why we're doing this what some of the

35:19 ↗ economics are and what some of the items

35:23 ↗ who have done that don't show up in this

35:25 ↗ in terms especially in terms of

35:27 ↗ substantive we'd love to talk about it

35:31 ↗ but we'd rather answer your questions as

35:34 ↗ opposed to present something and not

35:37 ↗ know what you're really interested in

35:39 ↗ and seems to be a good point I know from

35:43 ↗ public comment the same thing happens

35:45 ↗ and specific questions so we'd be more

35:48 ↗ than happy I'd be more part of the rest

35:51 ↗ of the design team would be more than

35:52 ↗ happy to answer specific questions

35:55 ↗ because Katie's done such a great job of

35:57 ↗ presenting the project well--that's is

36:03 ↗ there anybody that would like to make

36:04 ↗ public comment if you would like to make

36:09 ↗ public comment we would like you to sign

36:11 ↗ in

36:14 ↗ [Laughter]

36:22 ↗ okay my name is Connie marsh and I live

36:25 ↗ on squawk and I had to I was just gonna

36:30 ↗ watch this at home and then I started

36:32 ↗ getting grumpy because I read the CEPA

36:36 ↗ and I kept hearing things that should be

36:39 ↗ in the CEPA that are not addressed or

36:42 ↗ just being pushed off too permitting so

36:46 ↗ in order to understand the impacts of a

36:50 ↗ project you actually have to know what

36:52 ↗ the impacts are going to be and then

36:54 ↗ understand how you're going to mitigate

36:56 ↗ them before you approve the project and

37:01 ↗ the city has sort of twisted it by

37:04 ↗ saying yeah and as a condition we're

37:06 ↗ gonna say you have to mitigate things

37:08 ↗ but part of SEPA is that the public gets

37:13 ↗ to see what you're doing so it's

37:16 ↗ transparent and it won't be transparent

37:20 ↗ because 75% of what is supposed to be a

37:24 ↗ mitigation is happening at permitting so

37:27 ↗ what I don't understand in the writing

37:31 ↗ it says we're removing the trees doesn't

37:34 ↗ say landscape strip it says trees in

37:37 ↗ order to not impact the buffer so that

37:44 ↗ doesn't make sense to me nowhere does it

37:48 ↗ say how we are going to offset reducing

37:52 ↗ the buffer by 25% and it never is clear

37:58 ↗ why we have to reduce the buffer by 25%

38:02 ↗ because that's not just a given you

38:04 ↗ don't just say oh we can so we will you

38:07 ↗ have to say we must reduce the buffer

38:11 ↗ because there is no other way to build

38:13 ↗ the project and so in the presentation

38:16 ↗ and the information provided I don't

38:20 ↗ understand why we have to impact the

38:22 ↗ environment in that way and then I think

38:24 ↗ what lofted me a little bit more as I

38:26 ↗ was reading about how this this fulfills

38:29 ↗ the sustainability indicator because we

38:33 ↗ are basically following

38:35 ↗ with our buffer enhancement yet we are

38:39 ↗ not a we are not even addressing how we

38:41 ↗ have to offset the impacts for a bridge

38:45 ↗ going over the North Fork

38:46 ↗ we're not explaining here what we are

38:51 ↗ even going to be doing to offset the

38:54 ↗ impacts that's going to be happening

38:56 ↗ during construction so well the building

39:04 ↗ does it fit

39:06 ↗ I don't know when you are looking at it

39:11 ↗ from the streets and you have this great

39:14 ↗ wetland and you have the washed out

39:16 ↗ mitigation it is unclear to me that we

39:22 ↗ aren't just going to be looking at an

39:25 ↗ auto dealership and no one on the planet

39:28 ↗ from the street will understand that

39:29 ↗ there is an interface with a critical

39:32 ↗ area given what you are planning and

39:34 ↗ seeing how most people are not going to

39:36 ↗ be walking it I don't think that that

39:39 ↗ adheres to the central Issaquah design

39:42 ↗ standards where you're supposed to be

39:44 ↗ creating this interface with your

39:46 ↗ natural areas which is what the city of

39:49 ↗ this acquires supposedly all about so

39:52 ↗ I'm I'm not feeling the Natural Area

39:56 ↗ love what I'm feeling is we are building

40:00 ↗ the development because we can and we

40:03 ↗ are doing the minimum of what we have to

40:07 ↗ do for our environment I didn't see

40:09 ↗ anything about wildlife corridors which

40:11 ↗ is also stated so as a first shot off

40:14 ↗ for using this design manual well half

40:19 ↗ because we used half of it before I

40:21 ↗ don't think that we have the language

40:24 ↗ that I expected and so of course I have

40:27 ↗ a bunch of SEPA comments now and for the

40:32 ↗ developer who said yeah I especially

40:35 ↗ want to discuss sustainability the

40:38 ↗ sustainability indicators say so much

40:40 ↗ more than we are going to adhere to code

40:42 ↗ I want to understand are we using

40:47 ↗ solar panels all over the roof are we

40:50 ↗ using pervious pavers so that we can

40:52 ↗ actually deal with our Aquifer recharge

40:55 ↗ area and get infiltration in that manner

40:58 ↗ what are the things that are above and

41:01 ↗ beyond that this development is giving

41:04 ↗ us so that we can have what we perceive

41:07 ↗ in Issaquah nor green people think and

41:11 ↗ they're doing it and then we can go

41:13 ↗ woohoo look at all the great stuff that

41:16 ↗ we're doing we're allowing the

41:17 ↗ development but they're giving us the

41:19 ↗ something some extra so and I have just

41:21 ↗ the one thing that they could do to help

41:23 ↗ that which would be if they are gonna

41:26 ↗ take every tree down and they're gonna

41:29 ↗ put money into our tree replacement fund

41:31 ↗ well we have a flaw in our tree

41:32 ↗ replacement fund all that does is that

41:35 ↗ pays for the planting of the tree and

41:37 ↗ the tree it does not pay for any

41:39 ↗ maintenance of our trees so we plant

41:42 ↗ trees all over town and we have nothing

41:45 ↗ to maintain them so they die and so our

41:48 ↗ offset of our tree canopy is not working

41:51 ↗ because we did not set up the code

41:53 ↗ appropriately so if these guys wanted to

41:56 ↗ say hey you know what we understand that

41:57 ↗ and we are green and we want those trees

42:00 ↗ and we want them to thrive or survive

42:02 ↗ they can say and we want to add that

42:04 ↗ money to the green tree fund so that is

42:06 ↗ one little thing y'all can do to be like

42:09 ↗ green okay thank you thank you other

42:16 ↗ comments from the public

42:22 ↗ well commissioners this is your

42:26 ↗ opportunity to weigh in

42:28 ↗ ask questions to ask questions I have

42:33 ↗ one question I think you indicated the

42:38 ↗ 300 parking spaces are going to be part

42:42 ↗ of the project is that right yes I think

42:48 ↗ in the applicants presentation doesn't

42:51 ↗ it say parking for quite a few more

42:55 ↗ spaces 470 I think on page 75 of the 145

43:00 ↗ I think it calls out 470 spaces could

43:04 ↗ you never bring up the parking sheet

43:20 ↗ and not a thing so the it's hard to see

43:33 ↗ so is this the page you're talking about

43:36 ↗ I know it's page 75 of my handout we're

43:38 ↗ just part of the applicants material is

43:41 ↗ it part of the project narrative

43:44 ↗ well I'll address it when there's a

43:47 ↗ project definition 2.0 or okay from

43:49 ↗ Evergreen for it I think that in in

43:52 ↗ earlier versions of the applicants

43:56 ↗ designs parking the display stalls were

43:59 ↗ included in the parking calculation or

44:02 ↗ at least they were they may have been

44:03 ↗ called parking and in on this sheet they

44:09 ↗ are not included I think and so the the

44:12 ↗ actual parking spaces that are that are

44:15 ↗ counted toward the the requirement are

44:19 ↗ are in the pink and then the green are

44:23 ↗ showing the display areas and the

44:25 ↗ distinction that we needed to make with

44:27 ↗ that was that the display areas that

44:30 ↗ function as merchandising areas are not

44:33 ↗ exempt from the floor area ratio but

44:36 ↗ structured parking is so we needed to

44:39 ↗ make sure to show when we were trying to

44:41 ↗ hit that point five floor area ratio

44:43 ↗ that that all structured parking was

44:48 ↗ excluded but the display areas were

44:50 ↗ included another question the pavilion

44:56 ↗ so the use of the pavilion would be for

44:58 ↗ display of something like antique cars

45:00 ↗ or other kinds of special events right

45:05 ↗ yeah that's something that hasn't really

45:06 ↗ been the display pavilion was not a

45:10 ↗ requirement the building needed to meet

45:12 ↗ the front was needed to meet the

45:13 ↗ Frederick's requirement but the

45:14 ↗ displayed pavilion itself was something

45:18 ↗ that the applicant wanted to do to

45:19 ↗ display cars and they mentioned that it

45:21 ↗ may it may be a place for community

45:24 ↗ gatherings but that hasn't been

45:25 ↗ developed any further than then that

45:29 ↗ this area is there any parking planned

45:30 ↗ around that

45:31 ↗ they're pedestrian walkway around there

45:33 ↗ how do people see that David I'm not

45:39 ↗ David you can't talk from the audience

45:44 ↗ apologize

45:45 ↗ there is a walkway from the private

45:48 ↗ street in front of the Ford facility to

45:50 ↗ the pavilion facility now that's a

45:53 ↗ fairly passive space so those cars are

45:58 ↗ on display they're not for sale cars

46:01 ↗ what cars will actually be in there is

46:04 ↗ is open to debate but there is the

46:08 ↗ potential to move those cars out of

46:11 ↗ there

46:11 ↗ the doors open on the side walls and a

46:15 ↗ community event could be held there now

46:18 ↗ that's working out between Dan and the

46:22 ↗ city for whatever that event might be

46:23 ↗ could be a grand opening celebration or

46:26 ↗ or whatever but it's it's a potential

46:31 ↗ that we discuss and we're excited about

46:33 ↗ but it's a little hard to work the

46:36 ↗ details out of that in the future now

46:38 ↗ and not when it's physically there and

46:41 ↗ we have something that comes up it's a

46:44 ↗ good question this is something we've

46:46 ↗ had extensive discussion about you said

46:57 ↗ that this build t line required more

47:01 ↗ than the 60 feet that was provided the

47:06 ↗ pavillion has shown so what is the plan

47:14 ↗ so yes the 60 feet the requirement is

47:18 ↗ that 60% of the frontage be occupied by

47:21 ↗ building or alternative building

47:23 ↗ frontages which could be an

47:24 ↗ architectural element like a trellis or

47:28 ↗ some other features so 22 or 12 that was

47:34 ↗ required additional 22 and we need to

47:38 ↗ discuss because there's a little bit of

47:41 ↗ misunderstanding on something since

47:44 ↗ frontage was not required on the off

47:46 ↗ ramp side and we wanted to form a hard

47:49 ↗ corner there we wrapped the building

47:54 ↗ around his wife slowly l-shaped and our

47:57 ↗ understanding was the l-shaped portion

48:00 ↗ that 20 feet would count towards that

48:04 ↗ frontage requirement which if we've got

48:08 ↗ to sort that out we will and we may have

48:10 ↗ to reconfigure the building and not

48:12 ↗ define that corner like we wanted to

48:16 ↗ Lucy you're looking at me will respond

48:21 ↗ in the briefing response menu I just

48:24 ↗ wanted to clarify the condition says 12

48:25 ↗ so it's not clear so there's an error in

48:29 ↗ the math okay yeah we're just wasn't

48:31 ↗ sure which was right yeah so the

48:34 ↗ requirement is I will bring up that so

48:42 ↗ yes

48:43 ↗ 82 minus 60 is 22 not 12 so we will fix

48:46 ↗ that condition

48:51 ↗ can I go yes can we get a little more

48:55 ↗ background on the design review

48:57 ↗ requirements from the franchise and and

49:02 ↗ what's driving the overall scheme and

49:06 ↗ and where's the flexibility in that

49:09 ↗ criteria and well just give us some

49:16 ↗ background if those aren't met what

49:17 ↗ happens there it's the easy answer is

49:21 ↗ there's not a project but obviously

49:23 ↗ that's not true

49:24 ↗ we've worked we've been doing a back and

49:28 ↗ forth to get to this point with the

49:31 ↗ franchise requirements the key issues

49:34 ↗ were the branwall which originally in

49:37 ↗ Ford requires ACM materials farva's

49:41 ↗ approved an alternative material since

49:44 ↗ metal panels aren't allowed that's a

49:46 ↗ considerable expense those are limestone

49:49 ↗ panels that are coming from Italy that

49:51 ↗ meet the requirements that is the

49:55 ↗ negotiation that we've worked with Ford

49:57 ↗ and the city on to mitigate to bring two

50:02 ↗ palaces as much as possible the issue of

50:08 ↗ certain looks is fixed that the look of

50:12 ↗ this of the Ford entry for the entry

50:15 ↗ element and that curtain wall style is a

50:18 ↗ Ford franchise requirement period if

50:21 ↗ you're going to build a new building

50:23 ↗ this is the things you have to do and

50:27 ↗ I'm not sure I'm answering your question

50:28 ↗ no I think you are and I appreciate it

50:30 ↗ but I can't imagine this is the first

50:32 ↗ time Ford has put a dealership in a

50:34 ↗ community with design review guidelines

50:36 ↗ and so how how do they navigate that now

50:39 ↗ do you strike that balance the

50:41 ↗ back-and-forth that we've been having

50:46 ↗ that it's hard to describe a little bit

50:51 ↗ the back and forth to end up with the

50:53 ↗ limestone wall panels and trying to meet

50:56 ↗ it this is to Ford's knowledge and to

50:59 ↗ mine and I've been doing this for quite

51:02 ↗ some time is the first time

51:05 ↗ we've addressed an issue where this plan

51:09 ↗ is quite as restrict and I'll use that

51:13 ↗ word restrictive and that's not a fair

51:15 ↗ word right the restrictive is some of

51:17 ↗ the croisé plans are now at one point

51:21 ↗ when we were brainstorming Lucy had some

51:26 ↗ ideas and brought one up and and one of

51:28 ↗ the ideas she brought up actually is the

51:30 ↗ Lincoln facade this is something

51:36 ↗ especially in the Lincoln program and

51:38 ↗ Dan

51:39 ↗ don't try to kick me from under the

51:40 ↗ table here the the Lincoln program it

51:44 ↗ there's a very hard line it's a

51:46 ↗ direction the company is taking and

51:50 ↗ they're being very hard with us we've

51:52 ↗ had very little luck in trying to

51:54 ↗ negotiate much change but we're close

51:57 ↗ enough the the give-and-take has been

52:01 ↗ going through and and it's it's been a

52:03 ↗ lengthy process it slowed us down a

52:06 ↗ little bit in the project thank you

52:09 ↗ were you aware of these requirements

52:11 ↗ when this site was selected dan how long

52:15 ↗ ago did you buy the site eight years ago

52:18 ↗ no no these weren't in place you weren't

52:21 ↗ aware at all okay well that helps give

52:23 ↗ us a little background thank you one

52:27 ↗ question ECM diadem a little minimum

52:30 ↗ composite material Lumina mashite with a

52:33 ↗ plastic core thank you and metal panel

52:37 ↗ it's considered a metal panel not

52:39 ↗ allowed with the Northwest Revival style

52:43 ↗ and in the natural context area and just

52:49 ↗ clarify so the the horizontal stripes

52:52 ↗ there that's this board that a see

52:55 ↗ actually this right here this entry

52:59 ↗ element is the that middle material okay

53:02 ↗ and these horizontal stripes are windows

53:04 ↗ correct that's just regular storefront

53:07 ↗ framing okay it's it's set with a your

53:14 ↗ normal aluminum facing the vertical

53:17 ↗ segments are

53:18 ↗ silicon glaze so they don't appear to

53:20 ↗ have a face so it appears to be one long

53:22 ↗ strip and then the wall behind that it's

53:26 ↗ the Italian tile right here this is the

53:30 ↗ stone this handle here yeah okay so I'm

53:41 ↗ still confused on the parking on your

53:43 ↗ presentation you had a chart that

53:45 ↗ identified that identified not them not

53:49 ↗ the colored thing but just in your point

53:52 ↗ presentation could you go back to that

53:53 ↗ and just help me yeah okay

53:59 ↗ the the you know the amount of louder

54:02 ↗ required is 123 minimum and 246 maximum

54:07 ↗ 300 as I understood it weren't those

54:10 ↗ were in the parking structure and so

54:14 ↗ there's 64 space surface spaces provided

54:17 ↗ and yeah so I'm just doing a little math

54:22 ↗ here so the sixty-four spaces are

54:25 ↗ included in the 300 so the six there are

54:30 ↗ 64 surface spaces and then 240 something

54:36 ↗ structured parking spaces and those

54:39 ↗ together are 300 spaces that's what I

54:42 ↗ wasn't understanding yeah are the

54:44 ↗ display sites or spaces in this number

54:47 ↗ also are there some no those are not

54:49 ↗ included in that number because although

54:53 ↗ although a number has been assigned to

54:55 ↗ them in the plans we wouldn't

54:58 ↗ necessarily keep we wouldn't require

55:01 ↗ them to adhere to that number because

55:03 ↗ that's basically their space for

55:05 ↗ displaying their merchandise so it's not

55:07 ↗ it's not regulated as a parking space so

55:13 ↗ another question or comment I had was on

55:16 ↗ the accommodation of the requests from

55:20 ↗ Sammamish plateau water to be able to

55:23 ↗ mitigate any adverse effects to the to

55:25 ↗ the groundwater I guess and

55:28 ↗ the obvious question is so what if you

55:31 ↗ can't I mean what the point how how

55:33 ↗ well-developed are the plans to be able

55:35 ↗ to accommodate that well we have the

55:39 ↗ engineer that's developing the plans

55:41 ↗ here so maybe she can address that can

55:43 ↗ you introduce yourself yeah so my name

55:45 ↗ is Mallory I'm with scj Alliance part of

55:47 ↗ the civil design crew I did a lot of the

55:51 ↗ stormwater design and basis of that

55:53 ↗ originally so we actually are providing

55:56 ↗ what they consider with the Department

55:58 ↗ of Ecology considers enhanced treatment

55:59 ↗ for all of the pollution generating

56:02 ↗ surfaces so pretty much all the

56:04 ↗ stormwater runoff from this site is

56:06 ↗ being treated by multiple modular

56:09 ↗ wetland systems essentially their box

56:11 ↗ with dirt in them that treats everything

56:14 ↗ per the Department of Ecology

56:15 ↗ requirements which meets also the

56:18 ↗ stormwater requirements first city of a

56:19 ↗ so that is what we were proposing

56:22 ↗ for now as far as the Sammamish water

56:24 ↗ plateau for what they're asking it's

56:27 ↗ still in the works of what more they're

56:29 ↗ wanting from us because in my experience

56:31 ↗ that that would be that would provide

56:34 ↗ the required treatment for even the

56:36 ↗ aquifer okay the the plan set that that

56:41 ↗ Sammamish plateau reviewed has evolved

56:44 ↗ since then okay so they've been working

56:46 ↗ on some some alternatives and if we also

56:51 ↗ have the city's a hydrologist engineer a

56:54 ↗ engineer from the city that can speak to

56:57 ↗ whether or not it may be feasible to to

57:00 ↗ meet those requirements but at this time

57:03 ↗ we feel like there's a path forward that

57:06 ↗ that they can achieve without having to

57:10 ↗ redesign the whole site essentially

57:13 ↗ would you like to hear more yeah she

57:16 ↗ you're gonna see of Sammamish yeah no

57:18 ↗ this is from Steve is it yeah my name is

57:22 ↗ Stacy rush I'm a development engineer

57:24 ↗ with the city of Issaquah and stormwater

57:26 ↗ is kind of my focus so what's your

57:29 ↗ specific question so does the treatment

57:32 ↗ method that they're proposing does it

57:34 ↗ meet the class one khara that this

57:36 ↗ Manish is

57:37 ↗ franciene yes yeah I mean it does the

57:43 ↗ one of the concerns was the groundwater

57:45 ↗ level and stuff but that's what we're

57:46 ↗ still all working out so the design is

57:49 ↗ not totally figured out yet we're still

57:52 ↗ going back and forth related so are the

58:00 ↗ solutions depending upon where the water

58:03 ↗ table is that affects the design can

58:09 ↗ they be implemented without triggering a

58:10 ↗ significant redesign of the site or are

58:13 ↗ they do have the potential to kind of

58:15 ↗ upset the applecart here no yeah we

58:18 ↗ really talked about this when we've been

58:20 ↗ going back and forth and there shouldn't

58:22 ↗ even if they have to reconfigure the

58:25 ↗ infiltration system or even if they

58:26 ↗ actually have to switch it to

58:27 ↗ traditional detention and not infiltrate

58:30 ↗ that won't change the building design or

58:32 ↗ anything above-ground it would just I

58:34 ↗ would all be below ground so and they

58:37 ↗ have plenty of room on the site to

58:38 ↗ maneuver things around so it shouldn't

58:41 ↗ require a design a design change on the

58:43 ↗ up the top part thank you

58:47 ↗ related his rain garden technique also

58:50 ↗ part of the infiltration system

58:52 ↗ anticipated her well know in the in the

58:55 ↗ design that we received it had rain

58:57 ↗ gardens but they were in the buffer of

58:59 ↗ the stream and that's not allowed per

59:01 ↗ code so I think the design has been

59:03 ↗ changed to remove those those rain

59:06 ↗ gardens they were think there might

59:07 ↗ still be a rain garden on the

59:09 ↗ intersection I haven't seen a river yet

59:11 ↗ we haven't seen a revised design so we

59:14 ↗ removed the bioretention area out of the

59:17 ↗ rain out of the stream buffer we were

59:19 ↗ using that as a mitigation plan

59:20 ↗ originally and we we worked with the

59:22 ↗ city and it was determined that that

59:23 ↗ wasn't appropriate so we took that out

59:26 ↗ and then there will be bioretention area

59:29 ↗ located within the right-of-way for the

59:31 ↗ furniture provements for some of the

59:33 ↗ stormwater stuff that changes over there

59:34 ↗ so there will be one small buyer

59:36 ↗ attention area located in the front of

59:38 ↗ the building in the corner there

59:43 ↗ just one quick comment of the nine

59:48 ↗ points in this mannish water district

59:50 ↗ letter that we got yesterday literally

59:54 ↗ we'd already been working on five of

59:57 ↗ them and the mounting study is ongoing

1:00:00 ↗ and along with the monitoring we're

1:00:03 ↗ waiting for that information to come in

1:00:05 ↗ now that spring is here and we've got

1:00:08 ↗ the rest of the data for water level so

1:00:12 ↗ all that's underway we do have an

1:00:15 ↗ updated surface water management plan

1:00:17 ↗ stormwater plan which we finished last

1:00:21 ↗ Friday but it was not available to the

1:00:25 ↗ Sammamish Water District and I think

1:00:26 ↗ that covers five of the items and two of

1:00:29 ↗ the items Department of Ecology has

1:00:31 ↗ issued a memo bulletin what was 2017

1:00:37 ↗ that contradicts there's two of the

1:00:41 ↗ points made by the water district points

1:00:44 ↗ eight and nine if you wanted to refer to

1:00:46 ↗ those it was the rain garden and the

1:00:52 ↗ coliform bacteria the ecology and study

1:00:55 ↗ is found in fact rain gardens are

1:00:57 ↗ efficient and removing coliform bacteria

1:01:00 ↗ and that the rain garden doesn't have an

1:01:03 ↗ impact and it's a very small area of the

1:01:06 ↗ site now because it's it's dealing with

1:01:10 ↗ the requirement for the public right

1:01:12 ↗ away only which must be handled in the

1:01:15 ↗ public right away which leads to some

1:01:18 ↗ interesting secondary questions of why

1:01:21 ↗ we didn't use Li D in that area and and

1:01:25 ↗ why we didn't use porous pavement it's

1:01:28 ↗ because of the Karma infiltration to

1:01:33 ↗ make sure we treat everything ahead of

1:01:34 ↗ time with pretreatment to enhance levels

1:01:38 ↗ before it goes to the aquifer which cut

1:01:40 ↗ down on some of the sustainability

1:01:42 ↗ options we had for the site are there

1:01:45 ↗ any special measures for spill

1:01:47 ↗ prevention with the site use or like

1:01:49 ↗ storage tanks or anything like that

1:01:53 ↗ interior and

1:01:55 ↗ double-walled oil tanks for oil storage

1:01:58 ↗ meeting austin current standards and

1:02:01 ↗ requirements but it's limited as all

1:02:06 ↗ type 3b liquids if it means anything in

1:02:10 ↗ double wall tanks and the volumes are

1:02:12 ↗ far less than they were loud mandatory

1:02:19 ↗ mitigation requirements under 3b for

1:02:23 ↗ hazardous materials I'd like to add

1:02:27 ↗ something to that because Sammamish

1:02:28 ↗ Plateau brought up like car washing your

1:02:30 ↗ car maintenance and stuff all of that

1:02:32 ↗ stuff the building has car wash bays and

1:02:35 ↗ maintenance bays and those drained to

1:02:37 ↗ the sanitary sewer so it's not like

1:02:39 ↗ they're doing that right out in the

1:02:40 ↗ parking lot and that would go into the

1:02:42 ↗ aquifer and that was I just want to

1:02:45 ↗ elaborate too on why the uh pervious

1:02:47 ↗ pavement is a good lig thing but here

1:02:49 ↗ it's not and actually the city would not

1:02:51 ↗ allow that over the aquifer because

1:02:53 ↗ water flowing from pollution generated

1:02:56 ↗ surface from drivable surfaces that

1:02:58 ↗ flows through the pervious pavement

1:02:59 ↗ through the soil that does not provide

1:03:01 ↗ enough treatment it's to get enough

1:03:03 ↗ treatment that you want in your car one

1:03:05 ↗ class one you need to capture it in a

1:03:08 ↗ place and run it through specific

1:03:10 ↗ treatment filters just draining it

1:03:12 ↗ through the regular soil doesn't meet

1:03:13 ↗ the criteria what is the criteria for

1:03:17 ↗ reducing a buffer so the come up so

1:03:28 ↗ buffer reduction of up to twenty five

1:03:30 ↗ percent is allowed if a mitigation if

1:03:33 ↗ critical area studies performed in

1:03:35 ↗ mitigation is provided do you want to

1:03:39 ↗ know like specifics on mitigation or

1:03:41 ↗ this this is Mark he designed the

1:03:44 ↗ mitigation planting so maybe do you want

1:03:46 ↗ to talk well maybe a question first I

1:03:48 ↗ guess just in terms of you know can

1:03:52 ↗ anybody get a buffer reduction if they

1:03:54 ↗ if they do that no so the so a buffer is

1:03:59 ↗ the hundred foot buffer is purely just a

1:04:03 ↗ space buffer it's not required any type

1:04:05 ↗ of enhancement so to reduce the buffer

1:04:08 ↗ they

1:04:09 ↗ also have to enhance the buffer that's

1:04:11 ↗ part of the mitigation planting so if if

1:04:14 ↗ someone were to reduce the buffer and

1:04:17 ↗ not meet those other standards for

1:04:19 ↗ mitigation and enhancement they would

1:04:20 ↗ not have the buffer reduction approved

1:04:23 ↗ and they also have to study study the

1:04:27 ↗ area and study the mitigation to by

1:04:30 ↗ biologists needs to study it and make

1:04:32 ↗ sure that it makes sense that they

1:04:34 ↗ choose to do that they always have that

1:04:36 ↗ option to do that know for instance if

1:04:40 ↗ you had a enhancement is the most common

1:04:45 ↗ form of mitigating a buffer reduction so

1:04:50 ↗ if you had a pristine beautiful no

1:04:54 ↗ invasive hundred foot buffer reducing it

1:04:58 ↗ to 75 you couldn't you couldn't do

1:05:00 ↗ anything to make it better so that

1:05:03 ↗ wouldn't be an appropriate location so

1:05:07 ↗ or circumstance I guess is a better term

1:05:10 ↗ and what we can do we worked with

1:05:13 ↗ watershed to make sure that they felt

1:05:16 ↗ that this qualified for the criterion we

1:05:19 ↗ can provide more detail on those

1:05:21 ↗ criteria and the ones they qualified for

1:05:23 ↗ thank you sure my name is Mark Garth I'm

1:05:34 ↗ with SC jli and some Landscape Architect

1:05:37 ↗ and I did design the mitigation planting

1:05:40 ↗ it should be noted that some of the

1:05:43 ↗ buffer was already mitigated by washed

1:05:44 ↗ out when they moved the Creek over but

1:05:47 ↗ not all of it so we're proposing to

1:05:52 ↗ enhance the rest of the buffer all the

1:05:54 ↗ way out to the 75 foot line what's

1:05:57 ↗ currently in that on enhanced buffer as

1:06:01 ↗ the old animal shelter and which will be

1:06:04 ↗ removed and some invasive weeds and a

1:06:07 ↗ lawn area so in order to meet the

1:06:09 ↗ criteria for the buffer reduction we're

1:06:12 ↗ enhancing it with native species and and

1:06:15 ↗ meeting all of the minimum requirements

1:06:17 ↗ of the city of Issaquah so in for all

1:06:21 ↗ intents and purposes it'll be complete

1:06:23 ↗ planted basically every part of the

1:06:25 ↗ buffer that's on the property we're

1:06:27 ↗ planting it you know where it exists

1:06:30 ↗ nice well we have the Landscape

1:06:32 ↗ Architect up can ask a question could

1:06:34 ↗ you give us more information on and

1:06:37 ↗ potentially the person who did there's

1:06:39 ↗ more information on the screening that

1:06:41 ↗ occurs on the roof of the garage and the

1:06:43 ↗ associated trellis did I understand that

1:06:46 ↗ was vegetated and planted yeah we're

1:06:49 ↗ still we're still working out the

1:06:50 ↗ details on how to get enough soil depth

1:06:55 ↗ up on the roof and also meet our kind of

1:06:59 ↗ vehicle storage requirements we're still

1:07:01 ↗ working out those details but the intent

1:07:02 ↗ is to meet the requirements and to

1:07:06 ↗ vegetate the roof on those trellises and

1:07:08 ↗ in planting beds that are both you know

1:07:12 ↗ on the exterior of the roof and also in

1:07:15 ↗ the interior of the parking lot there's

1:07:16 ↗ a little strip that goes in we thought

1:07:19 ↗ that might be a fun place for employees

1:07:21 ↗ to do a pea patch since you can't see it

1:07:23 ↗ from the road anyway right is there a

1:07:25 ↗ reason it doesn't travel all sides of

1:07:27 ↗ the building we're working on that we're

1:07:29 ↗ working that out so that's actually a

1:07:31 ↗ condition of the staff report okay it's

1:07:33 ↗ to just to make that right should could

1:07:36 ↗ I just clarify whether you're talking

1:07:39 ↗ about extending the planting to all

1:07:41 ↗ parts of the roof or the trellis and

1:07:44 ↗ architectural elements I think we are

1:07:50 ↗ what we're excuse me what we're looking

1:07:53 ↗ at Lucy is the trellis will not be

1:07:56 ↗ extended because that meets the maximum

1:07:59 ↗ allowed under the the CIP standards of

1:08:03 ↗ 50 percent of the required area what

1:08:07 ↗ we're looking at is we do have some

1:08:08 ↗ potential other small areas I'm

1:08:16 ↗ left-handed so bear with me we're

1:08:18 ↗ looking at it adding additional planning

1:08:22 ↗ here to meet the criteria of course we

1:08:26 ↗ don't want to lose any more spaces on

1:08:29 ↗ that roof than we we can parking spaces

1:08:33 ↗ are are critical on this site as you

1:08:35 ↗ might imagine

1:08:36 ↗ so we're looking at that one small area

1:08:40 ↗ increase we're looking the best way to

1:08:41 ↗ do this that provides the green space we

1:08:47 ↗ want the planted materials but yet is

1:08:50 ↗ relatively economical I mean soil starts

1:08:53 ↗ getting heavy and has structural impacts

1:08:58 ↗ to the building but you would say the

1:09:00 ↗ parts that our screen currently are

1:09:02 ↗ those that are most visible from sort of

1:09:04 ↗ the the 3-prime there yes and further

1:09:08 ↗ there is a 4-foot parapet all the way

1:09:10 ↗ around the upper level I mean party that

1:09:13 ↗ is ad a requirement of 42 inches so that

1:09:16 ↗ nobody can fall over the edge but there

1:09:19 ↗ the whole perimeter is screened at this

1:09:21 ↗ level

1:09:22 ↗ partly to to make the northwest Revival

1:09:25 ↗ style work with the cornice and partly

1:09:28 ↗ for safety and while we're on that

1:09:29 ↗ screening topic real quick so what

1:09:31 ↗ occurs at the lower openings where on

1:09:35 ↗ some of the elevations you could see

1:09:37 ↗ cars visible is there an additional

1:09:39 ↗ screening that occurs there and it's so

1:09:41 ↗ is that is that a third or fourth

1:09:42 ↗ material we're introducing it's no it's

1:09:45 ↗ not another well stated and thoroughly

1:09:47 ↗ it's stainless steel ok cabling but

1:09:49 ↗ there are two locations that provide

1:09:52 ↗ views where we have display on those

1:09:56 ↗ levels where we haven't went with the 42

1:09:59 ↗ inch concrete screen

1:10:02 ↗ and we've opened that up specifically

1:10:04 ↗ for display for visual interest okay

1:10:07 ↗ okay thank you

1:10:11 ↗ since we're talking about vegetation

1:10:13 ↗ kind of go to the tree retention and

1:10:18 ↗ mitigation and kind of can you walk us

1:10:21 ↗ through a little bit of what the the

1:10:24 ↗ plan is there since there will be some

1:10:27 ↗ tree removal it looks like

1:10:30 ↗ some plantings on the property but can

1:10:33 ↗ you meet the offset that's required into

1:10:35 ↗ the code and if not how you mitigate yes

1:10:40 ↗ so we I don't believe we can meet the

1:10:43 ↗ treatment occasion standard on-site

1:10:45 ↗ there's just simply not enough space

1:10:47 ↗ even though we're planting literally

1:10:49 ↗ hundreds of trees in the buffer they

1:10:51 ↗ don't count towards mitigating the the

1:10:54 ↗ trees that will remove from the site so

1:10:57 ↗ we will be we will be putting money into

1:11:00 ↗ the tree fund to offset the the tree

1:11:02 ↗ impacts we did just so you know we did

1:11:06 ↗ look at ways to save trees and we were

1:11:08 ↗ able to save a couple initially but

1:11:12 ↗ because of the way the driveways are

1:11:15 ↗ configured and just where the existing

1:11:16 ↗ trees are on site it just it just wasn't

1:11:19 ↗ possible and I also would just add from

1:11:23 ↗ a horticultural standpoint a lot of

1:11:25 ↗ those trees on site if you've ever been

1:11:26 ↗ out there they're mostly around the ring

1:11:28 ↗ and they're not the finest specimens we

1:11:32 ↗ tried to save a really nice spruce but

1:11:34 ↗ because of the driveway issues it just

1:11:36 ↗ it wasn't gonna work out so we did our

1:11:39 ↗ best related question there's a SEPA

1:11:44 ↗ condition five says the applicant shall

1:11:46 ↗ revise mitigation plan to increase tree

1:11:48 ↗ planting to cover the entire buffer

1:11:50 ↗ enhancement areas that what we've been

1:11:52 ↗ talking about here yes

1:11:54 ↗ so we've that was separate from the tree

1:11:57 ↗ mitigation plan for removals on-site

1:12:00 ↗ that was more related to the buffer

1:12:01 ↗ enhancement so we have changed our plan

1:12:04 ↗ to have trees throughout the entire

1:12:07 ↗ buffer initially there there was an

1:12:11 ↗ element in the wash top plan where they

1:12:12 ↗ didn't have trees in one corridor so we

1:12:14 ↗ matched that initially but through

1:12:17 ↗ working with staff we're planting the

1:12:18 ↗ whole buffer with trees and shrubs and

1:12:21 ↗ ground cover I guess with with this plan

1:12:26 ↗ of the trees that are planted along the

1:12:31 ↗ i-94 amp I guess would be sort of lower

1:12:35 ↗ right there along there yeah so those

1:12:38 ↗ are every those right those are large

1:12:40 ↗ deciduous trees

1:12:42 ↗ that would that would go in there and I

1:12:45 ↗ guess one of the questions I have is

1:12:46 ↗ that's going to be a very visible part

1:12:49 ↗ of the property is people coming off

1:12:51 ↗ that off-ramp looking at that side of

1:12:53 ↗ the building and there's really not it

1:12:56 ↗ seems like not much going on on that

1:12:58 ↗ side of the building some bays and

1:13:00 ↗ garage and so forth I guess one of the

1:13:03 ↗ questions I had was we want just

1:13:05 ↗ deciduous how large would the trees be

1:13:07 ↗ how much screening would it provide yeah

1:13:13 ↗ that's that's a good point

1:13:15 ↗ we do have trees all along this I guess

1:13:18 ↗ I should look at this not the screen

1:13:20 ↗ there we go yeah we do have trees all

1:13:22 ↗ along here in this planted buffer it

1:13:24 ↗ should also be noted that in along this

1:13:27 ↗ ditch here there are a lot of existing

1:13:30 ↗ trees so if you take that off-ramp now

1:13:33 ↗ it's it's not that easy to see into the

1:13:36 ↗ site you can from a couple of points but

1:13:38 ↗ as you're rushing off the off-ramp it's

1:13:40 ↗ it's actually fairly well vegetated by

1:13:42 ↗ trees that are that are off-site that

1:13:44 ↗ are not on our property and we don't

1:13:45 ↗ control there's a lot of cottonwoods in

1:13:48 ↗ there and some other you know more

1:13:50 ↗ brushy species in those trees were if I

1:13:53 ↗ remember I said a large deciduous tree

1:13:55 ↗ going in I can't remember the name it

1:13:58 ↗ might be a zelkova I don't have the Cova

1:14:00 ↗ yeah so how big does that tree get

1:14:03 ↗ eventually it'll be a 60 foot tall tree

1:14:06 ↗ over time yeah yeah it's a nice species

1:14:15 ↗ I one question not related landscaping

1:14:21 ↗ but on page 19 it mentioned removing a

1:14:25 ↗ compensatory flood storage easement just

1:14:29 ↗ curious what that was

1:14:30 ↗ yes so the project down the road a few

1:14:35 ↗ years ago is that a few years ago

1:14:37 ↗ recently that Evergreen Ford built a

1:14:40 ↗ detail shop and that was also had some

1:14:44 ↗ flood requirements and part of that was

1:14:47 ↗ a condition that they needed

1:14:48 ↗ compensatory flood storage and they got

1:14:51 ↗ an easement to put that on this site and

1:14:54 ↗ that easement has been it's been

1:14:56 ↗ determined that that easements no longer

1:14:58 ↗ needed and the city is extinguishing the

1:15:01 ↗ easement so if it hasn't been completed

1:15:03 ↗ its it will be in short order okay and

1:15:07 ↗ then question about cars next to the

1:15:10 ↗ buffer zone can cars overhang into a

1:15:14 ↗ buffer zone or does there have to be

1:15:16 ↗ some kind of wall fence railing prevents

1:15:20 ↗ that I would say no they can't overhang

1:15:22 ↗ because that would be a buffer intrusion

1:15:24 ↗ but we haven't put any conditions in

1:15:28 ↗ terms of wheel stops and that sort of

1:15:30 ↗ thing but we can certainly think about

1:15:31 ↗ it have to be something for all those

1:15:32 ↗ stalls that are pointing into the buffer

1:15:35 ↗ that would prevent that yeah maybe there

1:15:40 ↗ was a minimum curb there dad Adam hmm at

1:15:45 ↗ a minimum I would assume that there is a

1:15:47 ↗ curb there yeah but if there's a curb

1:15:49 ↗ right your wheel stuff than you right

1:15:50 ↗ hanging out right

1:16:07 ↗ and a question about bridge condition

1:16:10 ↗ number 32 the new one you had who

1:16:14 ↗ approves that condition is that the the

1:16:19 ↗ landscape the deviation for the that as

1:16:23 ↗ I believe our traffic engineers would so

1:16:26 ↗ it's it's a joint decision with Public

1:16:29 ↗ Works engineering and development

1:16:31 ↗ services because it is an essential is

1:16:34 ↗ squad standard it's a city street

1:16:36 ↗ standard and that's in their purview

1:16:39 ↗ okay so if the city approves that before

1:16:41 ↗ this gets approved that would come out

1:16:43 ↗ but until then we wouldn't have to be in

1:16:45 ↗ okay and just to clarify the bridge

1:16:49 ↗ exists now it's not a new bridge it

1:16:52 ↗ would just be the frontage improvements

1:16:54 ↗ required on the bridge not having to put

1:16:56 ↗ landscaping and the other thing I would

1:16:58 ↗ add is although we need to do a

1:17:02 ↗ deviation this I don't I don't think

1:17:05 ↗ there's really a question that it

1:17:07 ↗ wouldn't be approved you mean if you

1:17:08 ↗ look at sixty second the new bridge by

1:17:11 ↗ Costco that doesn't happen we don't put

1:17:14 ↗ planting strips on bridges typically

1:17:16 ↗ because of all the reasons Katie

1:17:19 ↗ mentioned that's reasonable and then a

1:17:21 ↗ question about the net refund of course

1:17:24 ↗ and Connie brought up about maintaining

1:17:26 ↗ trees they take it if an applicant

1:17:29 ↗ donates to the tree fund the city

1:17:31 ↗ decides where that money goes and it's

1:17:33 ↗ up to the city to decide to plant or

1:17:36 ↗ span can the city actually spend on

1:17:38 ↗ maintenance or I'm not I'm not sure

1:17:43 ↗ whether we know that I whether that I'm

1:17:47 ↗ just looking looking at and phoning a

1:17:50 ↗ friend I believe that is a true issue

1:17:56 ↗ that we have with the tree fund that the

1:17:59 ↗ basis of the money that goes in there is

1:18:02 ↗ the cost of the tree but not the

1:18:05 ↗ maintenance of the tree

1:18:09 ↗ it's interesting question can I get some

1:18:11 ↗ information back on that one when this

1:18:13 ↗ comes back just because it is something

1:18:15 ↗ that is applied on a fairly regular

1:18:17 ↗ basis for mitigation so I mean if there

1:18:21 ↗ are concerns about its effectiveness and

1:18:25 ↗ there's some you know suggesting the

1:18:27 ↗ Commission can make to help improve that

1:18:30 ↗ we it might be worth a discussion okay

1:18:34 ↗ thank you I'm back on traffic and the

1:18:39 ↗ roadway

1:18:40 ↗ we're Lakeside's comments addressed and

1:18:42 ↗ was there additional truck count

1:18:44 ↗ included in a traffic analysis I think

1:18:48 ↗ they're still working on that do you

1:18:50 ↗ have any okay maybe Dave knows I'm gonna

1:18:54 ↗ turn over to David the DIA the traffic

1:18:59 ↗ impact analysis has been revised for

1:19:02 ↗ both the intersection and leg sides

1:19:03 ↗ concerns leg sights concerns were based

1:19:06 ↗ on total trips per day and not peak hour

1:19:10 ↗ trips and there was some confusion from

1:19:12 ↗ lakeside on what they were looking at I

1:19:15 ↗ believe but as turns out after taking

1:19:18 ↗ leg sites impact into consideration that

1:19:21 ↗ I think it changed at one peak hours

1:19:24 ↗ trip very very minor so the point at

1:19:29 ↗ which their concern came in we were able

1:19:31 ↗ to incorporate it as at consistent with

1:19:35 ↗ the scoping and process that we use for

1:19:37 ↗ evaluating traffic

1:19:43 ↗ question on condition 30 the bike lane

1:19:47 ↗ says a bike lane shall be provided and

1:19:50 ↗ may be located behind the curb so is it

1:19:52 ↗ definitely will be located buying the

1:19:55 ↗ curb so that's a shall instead of a make

1:19:56 ↗ yes it's not the plan for the rest of

1:20:01 ↗ that corridor but tie in in the future

1:20:05 ↗ well the hope that whole corridor does

1:20:08 ↗ have is proposed for bike routes

1:20:10 ↗ I actually remember it's because it's by

1:20:12 ↗ i-90 right isn't that what it says yeah

1:20:14 ↗ yeah so further down the road there are

1:20:17 ↗ bike lanes if there are there is a block

1:20:19 ↗ where there aren't right now and we

1:20:21 ↗ spent quite a while meeting with Public

1:20:22 ↗ Works engineering to talk about how to

1:20:26 ↗ handle this block because once you get

1:20:28 ↗ past toot 229th the road that comes into

1:20:34 ↗ this then it's outside of wash dot zone

1:20:37 ↗ of control and so it may not be handled

1:20:41 ↗ this way in the next block but mostly

1:20:43 ↗ the wash dot control is what's driving

1:20:47 ↗ this that is a good question

1:20:53 ↗ because if you're flipping the lane the

1:20:56 ↗ transition if you're riding can be

1:20:58 ↗ tricky as you're as you're moving

1:20:59 ↗ between a protected bike lane versus

1:21:03 ↗ back out onto the onto the road so it's

1:21:06 ↗ just it's a public works challenge I

1:21:08 ↗ when you do that but I understand I

1:21:11 ↗ understand the challenge here and this

1:21:13 ↗ does connect up to the trail - so did

1:21:16 ↗ generate some bike traffic mm-hmm and

1:21:19 ↗ pedestrians

1:21:24 ↗ maybe I'll page 27 of them sorry

1:21:27 ↗ page 27 the report there was a table

1:21:29 ↗ with standards allowed required and it

1:21:34 ↗ didn't show anything else they looked

1:21:39 ↗ almost like an Excel chart there yeah

1:21:42 ↗ and fit in or something wondering if

1:21:44 ↗ there's actual yeah that the version of

1:21:49 ↗ that that should have been there is this

1:21:51 ↗ oh no not this one whoa

1:21:54 ↗ [Music]

1:21:57 ↗ this one looks like there's a column

1:22:01 ↗ that went off yeah I can fix that so the

1:22:05 ↗ point five is a minimum and a maximum we

1:22:08 ↗ have to have a very tricky challenge hmm

1:22:13 ↗ we didn't discover it till they came in

1:22:15 ↗ to talk to my code amendment like right

1:22:21 ↗ away because I did note about that I and

1:22:28 ↗ he didn't show that here and I had a

1:22:30 ↗ question like min or max and both yes

1:22:37 ↗ yeah oh just a general question is there

1:22:43 ↗ a threshold for changes that happen

1:22:46 ↗ during permitting that would make the

1:22:47 ↗ make it come back into the commission

1:22:49 ↗ yeah so we've we've been kind of working

1:22:51 ↗ through this and our goal is for the

1:22:56 ↗ development that's approved by the

1:22:58 ↗ Development Commission to be essentially

1:23:00 ↗ what's built and that if there's any

1:23:02 ↗ change to the outside of the building or

1:23:04 ↗ the site that would be easily

1:23:06 ↗ recognizable if you were to look at it

1:23:09 ↗ say that's not what I approved those are

1:23:11 ↗ the types of things that we would bring

1:23:12 ↗ back so materials changes changes to the

1:23:16 ↗ facade of the building reconfiguration

1:23:19 ↗ of major site elements we would come

1:23:22 ↗ back with those but if it's you know

1:23:26 ↗ changing internal things internal to the

1:23:28 ↗ building or you know what are some other

1:23:31 ↗ things that we would not bring back so

1:23:34 ↗ the internal is a good thing you know if

1:23:36 ↗ if

1:23:37 ↗ a planter island moved around in the

1:23:42 ↗ parking lot but they're still meeting

1:23:43 ↗ the same percentage we wouldn't bring

1:23:46 ↗ that back and I know that seems kind of

1:23:49 ↗ like an odd standard can you see that it

1:23:52 ↗ happened but that that the Commission is

1:23:57 ↗ aware that you know when we've had for

1:24:01 ↗ instance there's a project in which they

1:24:03 ↗ moved some of the parking out of a

1:24:05 ↗ garage into a surface parking situation

1:24:08 ↗ which would have made the parking

1:24:10 ↗ visible they still met the parking they

1:24:13 ↗ met all the standards so there was no

1:24:16 ↗ issue with compliance but it would have

1:24:18 ↗ been a perceptible change and we wanted

1:24:20 ↗ to come back and have that conversation

1:24:22 ↗ so it is a judgment call but we are

1:24:27 ↗ looking at the drawings the staff report

1:24:29 ↗ and the items that were discussed by the

1:24:31 ↗ Commission to sort of know where we have

1:24:34 ↗ set the bar to decide when we need to

1:24:38 ↗ come back well we get a chance to see

1:24:45 ↗ the rivers and streams Board minutes in

1:24:49 ↗ our next package when will those minutes

1:24:52 ↗ be approved we have they don't have to

1:24:56 ↗ be a pretty attached okay then we can

1:24:59 ↗ definitely send those to you we can send

1:25:01 ↗ them more then the next package was yeah

1:25:05 ↗ that was my cue to get up and talk Keith

1:25:10 ↗ Niven director of economic development

1:25:11 ↗ development services so River so this

1:25:14 ↗ project went to River in streams and

1:25:17 ↗ they talked about the buffer reduction

1:25:19 ↗ on the North Fork and what they asked

1:25:21 ↗ for is for a more detailed landscaping

1:25:26 ↗ plan to come back as it relates to that

1:25:29 ↗ buffer so we've talked about their next

1:25:33 ↗ meeting is going to be it would be the

1:25:37 ↗ third Tuesday of this month and I don't

1:25:39 ↗ know if Katie and David will be ready to

1:25:42 ↗ go to that we haven't kind of dialed

1:25:44 ↗ that down just yet so if if they're good

1:25:46 ↗ so the minutes this is a long way of me

1:25:49 ↗ saying the minutes from the

1:25:51 ↗ last meeting are gonna basically say

1:25:52 ↗ that that this project was discussed at

1:25:56 ↗ committee at the board meeting that they

1:25:59 ↗ acknowledged that a buffer reduction was

1:26:02 ↗ acceptable but that they wanted to see a

1:26:04 ↗ more detailed landscape plan and that I

1:26:06 ↗ believe is going to happen hopefully

1:26:09 ↗ before the next DC meeting on this

1:26:11 ↗ particular project okay great thank you

1:26:20 ↗ seems to me the big thing to talk about

1:26:22 ↗ I guess is the design in our yeah going

1:26:25 ↗ back we're gonna move into a comment

1:26:28 ↗ period or are we gonna run through the

1:26:30 ↗ guidelines are there any more comments

1:26:32 ↗ well I thought we were in questions okay

1:26:34 ↗ are there any more questions

1:26:38 ↗ would this be questions or comments or

1:26:41 ↗ both or forth discussion about it yes

1:26:46 ↗ um so I may be incorrect but when we had

1:26:51 ↗ our training last week we discussed that

1:26:53 ↗ we weren't going to go through the

1:26:54 ↗ checklist in page-by-page because you

1:26:58 ↗ had the draft and we're of course happy

1:27:01 ↗ to pull up any page that you would like

1:27:02 ↗ to discuss answer question and answer

1:27:04 ↗ questions of course and that's why I

1:27:08 ↗ think Katie chose to do those sort of

1:27:10 ↗ consolidated slides as a way of trying

1:27:14 ↗ to spark that conversation you know

1:27:16 ↗ we're still figuring out the best way to

1:27:18 ↗ handle the design manual discussion so

1:27:24 ↗ let us know how what would be useful to

1:27:26 ↗ you did we see page 125 of 145

1:27:37 ↗ [Music]

1:27:55 ↗ sorry

1:27:58 ↗ that's it 145 for 125 125 yeah that's

1:28:05 ↗ fine so I will definitely defer to those

1:28:10 ↗ with more architectural experience on

1:28:12 ↗ this point but I'm having a lot of

1:28:15 ↗ trouble matching this design to my idea

1:28:17 ↗ the north-western viable style if we

1:28:21 ↗ look at the description commonly a

1:28:23 ↗ simple expression adaptations of

1:28:25 ↗ neoclassical elements ornamental detail

1:28:28 ↗ at the building base and foot should be

1:28:30 ↗ used for greater height is greater than

1:28:34 ↗ length typical for above 5 storeys a a

1:28:41 ↗ little bit going on there on 127 same

1:28:45 ↗ subject I'm promised I'll keep this

1:28:46 ↗ short but the scale a description of

1:28:50 ↗ scale says vertical emphasis greater in

1:28:56 ↗ height and length vertical articulation

1:28:58 ↗ and so on well-suited for buildings five

1:29:01 ↗ stories or higher I guess I don't see

1:29:05 ↗ the ornamentation and so on that's very

1:29:08 ↗ characteristic of this style an old sail

1:29:10 ↗ downtown's and that was the idea or old

1:29:13 ↗ style city centers I thought that was

1:29:15 ↗ the idea that we were talking about when

1:29:17 ↗ we were originally talking about the the

1:29:19 ↗ Revival style and I understand it's

1:29:22 ↗ probably the best choice available and I

1:29:25 ↗ think a lot of work has probably gone

1:29:27 ↗ into this but I need help in

1:29:30 ↗ understanding how the design is that

1:29:33 ↗ description in terms of the for number

1:29:37 ↗ of storeys I just want to add that on

1:29:40 ↗ page 135 the style summary the it says

1:29:45 ↗ typically six floors minimum of four so

1:29:50 ↗ four storeys is is allowed but your

1:29:54 ↗ other points are open for discussion it

1:29:57 ↗ seems to me that in reading a lot of his

1:29:59 ↗ you've pointed out a lot of areas where

1:30:02 ↗ you don't think it fits this style the

1:30:06 ↗ applicant has said they

1:30:07 ↗ not going to make a change and I don't

1:30:11 ↗ be honest I don't think that any of the

1:30:13 ↗ styles that are allowed within the

1:30:17 ↗ central area agree are designed for car

1:30:20 ↗ dealerships or retail centers you know

1:30:23 ↗ there's nothing and I think they've

1:30:25 ↗ probably done the best they can do to

1:30:26 ↗ fit it but we're at a point where it

1:30:28 ↗ says doesn't fit it in several

1:30:30 ↗ categories I don't know what we are

1:30:33 ↗ supposed to do at this point it you know

1:30:35 ↗ um this project is situated right at the

1:30:39 ↗ border of Central Issaquah right it's

1:30:41 ↗ right on the very edge of it

1:30:43 ↗ and even the the boundary street is

1:30:46 ↗ outside of central alyssaglawe its

1:30:48 ↗ intensive commercial use it's not an

1:30:51 ↗ unheard of use for central Issaquah but

1:30:52 ↗ it's not a preponderant use either if we

1:30:57 ↗ look at the Northwest contemporary style

1:31:00 ↗ if we look at description of that I

1:31:02 ↗ understand it's not currently allowed in

1:31:04 ↗ urban core

1:31:05 ↗ sorry I'm not saying anything okay but

1:31:11 ↗ if we look at descriptions of you know

1:31:13 ↗ Northwest contemporary building height

1:31:15 ↗ and scale or sensitives the existing

1:31:17 ↗ urban and natural context simple

1:31:20 ↗ composition engaging ground floor

1:31:24 ↗ one-story to max allowed durable

1:31:28 ↗ materials metal concrete and so on

1:31:31 ↗ appropriate any allowed height is

1:31:35 ↗ acceptable from one story to the maximum

1:31:37 ↗ height we have a problem with material

1:31:40 ↗ of walls in contemporary its can

1:31:44 ↗ incorporate concrete and/or metal panel

1:31:47 ↗ for window material can be metal frame

1:31:51 ↗ large operable storefronts on ground

1:31:54 ↗ floor to attack attract customers and so

1:31:56 ↗ on so that style seems to be much closer

1:32:00 ↗ to me than North West survival and I

1:32:03 ↗ guess I wonder if we should consider any

1:32:06 ↗ exception basis for including North West

1:32:10 ↗ contemporary style inside urban if

1:32:15 ↗ there's any argument for that I think

1:32:16 ↗ this this

1:32:17 ↗ one of our first examples makes a good

1:32:20 ↗ argument for that because if we the

1:32:23 ↗ other option is to say there is going to

1:32:24 ↗ be a bunch of areas where it doesn't

1:32:26 ↗ meet north west revival how do we give

1:32:30 ↗ exceptions for those I am here I get

1:32:34 ↗ better in this case I can see the

1:32:36 ↗ applicant has done a really good job

1:32:38 ↗ with the with staff and trying to meet

1:32:40 ↗ the various criteria the style but if

1:32:43 ↗ we're bending the style the criteria the

1:32:46 ↗ style that much it could be challenged

1:32:48 ↗ are we using Northwest Revival style at

1:32:51 ↗ all and really what is it elisee what

1:32:56 ↗ happens if on our first one we welcome

1:33:00 ↗ to our world so we're in uncharted

1:33:09 ↗ territory right and part of the reason

1:33:12 ↗ why staff kind of queued these up as

1:33:14 ↗ more conversations than recommendations

1:33:17 ↗ from the administration is we wanted to

1:33:19 ↗ dialogue with you guys on where you want

1:33:21 ↗ to take this and I think there's some

1:33:24 ↗ choices at the end of the day depending

1:33:26 ↗ on what you decide our job is to write a

1:33:30 ↗ decision that's defendable so that if

1:33:32 ↗ somebody appeals that the Commission's

1:33:34 ↗ decision is on good ground and so part

1:33:37 ↗ of what we'd like to do is to let you

1:33:41 ↗ guys deliberate when you're ready to do

1:33:44 ↗ so on what you think is the right answer

1:33:46 ↗ here and then let us figure out how do

1:33:49 ↗ we put that in in a space that that

1:33:52 ↗ makes sense with the code that we have

1:33:54 ↗ so don't worry about that piece yet feel

1:33:57 ↗ free to wander around and talk about

1:33:59 ↗ different alternatives and then when

1:34:01 ↗ you're ready to land it then let's talk

1:34:03 ↗ about how we get there so just a couple

1:34:07 ↗ of our big dilemma because we're the

1:34:13 ↗ dilemma is either we're looking at the

1:34:16 ↗ northwest revival and essentially

1:34:19 ↗ allowing for flexibility on specific

1:34:22 ↗ elements or we're saying the northwest

1:34:26 ↗ contemporary design

1:34:28 ↗ essentially mimics more closely what's

1:34:31 ↗ been proposed in front of us but it's

1:34:32 ↗ not allowed in this particular district

1:34:34 ↗ and so it's either flipping the whole

1:34:35 ↗ thing and saying we're gonna make an

1:34:36 ↗ exception for the entire design criteria

1:34:39 ↗ or we're gonna make a number of

1:34:40 ↗ exceptions to the specific Northwest

1:34:43 ↗ revival that's an allowed designing this

1:34:45 ↗ and this is it in this district and so I

1:34:48 ↗ we thought when we were doing this

1:34:50 ↗ development when we were developing the

1:34:52 ↗ design standards I remember the

1:34:54 ↗ conversation about this potential and

1:34:56 ↗ wouldn't you know at first one out of

1:34:58 ↗ the dish and we get this so I don't have

1:35:02 ↗ the answer I also understand the

1:35:05 ↗ challenge on the economic development

1:35:06 ↗ side and corporate branding that is also

1:35:12 ↗ something we've run into before and how

1:35:14 ↗ do we how do we reconcile that against

1:35:18 ↗ the vision that we're trying to

1:35:20 ↗ implement for this city and there there

1:35:22 ↗ will be more of these that come our way

1:35:24 ↗ that tension so part of our challenge is

1:35:27 ↗ understanding where's our flexibility

1:35:30 ↗ under the code and where are we

1:35:31 ↗ constrained and I don't know part of our

1:35:35 ↗ challenges we think again we don't have

1:35:36 ↗ a lot of experience with it yet so I'm

1:35:38 ↗ I'm struggling a little bit with that

1:35:41 ↗ about where do we where do we have that

1:35:44 ↗ ability to kind of interpret or bend a

1:35:49 ↗ bit versus where are we constrained so

1:35:52 ↗ so I would just echo what Keith said is

1:35:56 ↗ I think what I think be given that we

1:36:02 ↗ have the two meeting format that is a

1:36:03 ↗ real advantage and that's what we're

1:36:05 ↗ really looking is for some because you

1:36:09 ↗ were our partners in developing this

1:36:12 ↗ design manual I think we're looking for

1:36:16 ↗ some testing of it from you and so but I

1:36:23 ↗ think you just did an excellent summary

1:36:26 ↗ of the probably the two most obvious

1:36:29 ↗ solutions maybe there are others between

1:36:34 ↗ Northwest revival and Northwest

1:36:35 ↗ contemporary as you laid out very well

1:36:40 ↗ and I think the question is

1:36:42 ↗ if you set the mechanism for picking

1:36:45 ↗ between those aside which one would you

1:36:49 ↗ recommend which one would leave you

1:36:52 ↗ feeling better about how you've

1:36:54 ↗ implemented your first project which one

1:36:59 ↗ would you rather explain to your

1:37:00 ↗ neighbor I'm taking a page from Randy

1:37:04 ↗ Harrison so I think that's what we're

1:37:08 ↗ looking for I appreciate your effort to

1:37:10 ↗ think about the technique I think we

1:37:14 ↗ would just like to hear from you which

1:37:16 ↗ if you have preferences or thoughts

1:37:18 ↗ about either of those directions or

1:37:20 ↗ another one and then we'll go and kind

1:37:24 ↗ of dig in to try and figure out how to

1:37:26 ↗ get there I I'm reminded or reflecting

1:37:31 ↗ on when we put the design manual

1:37:33 ↗ together and we knew we wouldn't get it

1:37:36 ↗ right we did our best job we did the

1:37:39 ↗ best effort and what we said was we

1:37:41 ↗ wanted as I recall three years to take a

1:37:45 ↗ look at the proposals to see see how

1:37:47 ↗ they fit to see what we did and I'm not

1:37:51 ↗ sure that we should jump off and say

1:37:54 ↗ well the first one we probably didn't

1:37:57 ↗ get a right that it may just be an

1:37:59 ↗ anomaly and I think it would be really

1:38:02 ↗ wise to take a look at the the styles

1:38:07 ↗ that were identified for those for the

1:38:09 ↗ areas and do the best we can to redeem

1:38:13 ↗ the responsibility and if that means

1:38:15 ↗ making some modifications or some

1:38:17 ↗ adjustments that that makes pretty good

1:38:18 ↗ sense but not to throw the style away I

1:38:26 ↗ think I would agree with with what I

1:38:29 ↗ think you're saying is not throw the

1:38:30 ↗ style away let's let's let's screen it

1:38:33 ↗ against that real quick and see what

1:38:34 ↗ that means I don't think we've even

1:38:36 ↗ asked are we really at the end of

1:38:40 ↗ revisions you know where where is the

1:38:43 ↗ flexibility and as I look at this

1:38:45 ↗ building and screen it against the

1:38:47 ↗ criteria and boil it down to its very

1:38:49 ↗ essence what is really missing to nudge

1:38:53 ↗ it marginally close

1:38:54 ↗ to to the appropriate style is where's

1:38:58 ↗ the emphasis on verticality in that

1:39:00 ↗ building it's just a long horizontal

1:39:02 ↗ building everything in it is horizontal

1:39:04 ↗ so so is there a way to bring it closer

1:39:08 ↗ through some minor adjustments you know

1:39:13 ↗ let's focus on the big alpha in the room

1:39:15 ↗ which is the parking structure I don't

1:39:17 ↗ think it meets any criteria you know

1:39:20 ↗ it's it's a parking structure so so if

1:39:23 ↗ we screen it against the criteria of the

1:39:27 ↗ style it it would be characterized by an

1:39:31 ↗ articulated facade a well-modulated

1:39:34 ↗ facade with the verticality on emphasis

1:39:37 ↗ the resulting punches openings

1:39:40 ↗ fenestration windows also are vertical

1:39:43 ↗ so is there any way to change some of

1:39:48 ↗ those those structural elements to have

1:39:51 ↗ more of a vertical orientation and then

1:39:53 ↗ part two of that might be the the

1:39:56 ↗ curtain wall system I understand that

1:40:00 ↗ that's proprietary that long horizontal

1:40:02 ↗ I guess it's a grille of an f-150 maybe

1:40:05 ↗ I don't know but could we could we

1:40:09 ↗ entertain bringing some vertical

1:40:12 ↗ emphasis to that curtain wall system and

1:40:16 ↗ if those two subtle things happen I

1:40:18 ↗ think it starts to push it closer to the

1:40:22 ↗ images that that we've identified as

1:40:24 ↗ appropriate I don't think by any stretch

1:40:27 ↗ of the imagination it's going to be one

1:40:29 ↗ of these buildings but could we could we

1:40:32 ↗ push those buttons and and see if

1:40:36 ↗ there's room to move there

1:40:40 ↗ I'll give one more input which is I've

1:40:42 ↗ not been here for three years to watch

1:40:44 ↗ this whole thing come to fruition but I

1:40:46 ↗ agree that there is a process that you

1:40:48 ↗ have to come to to try and figure out

1:40:50 ↗ how this system works you know being the

1:40:52 ↗ new person here and looking at this and

1:40:54 ↗ thinking okay you're not going to get it

1:40:56 ↗ right on your first pass and so we have

1:40:58 ↗ to try and figure out how it fits into

1:41:00 ↗ the whole scheme or trying to do so kind

1:41:10 ↗ of like the what Commissioner price is

1:41:12 ↗ talking about because just looking at

1:41:14 ↗ the structured parking garage and you

1:41:16 ↗ know having essentially it looks like a

1:41:18 ↗ garage with cars parked in it I don't

1:41:20 ↗ know that's really the image we want to

1:41:22 ↗ project and maybe there are some things

1:41:23 ↗ we can do as far as the the question

1:41:27 ↗ about do we try to apply the style

1:41:30 ↗ that's allowed and you know the elements

1:41:33 ↗ the key elements of that style versus

1:41:34 ↗ make a case for applying them the focus

1:41:38 ↗ contemporary I would say probably

1:41:41 ↗ staying with the style that's allowed

1:41:44 ↗ and trying to accomplish the elements

1:41:46 ↗ that we can and the reason I make that

1:41:48 ↗ case is other buildings will happen

1:41:51 ↗ around in this in this area that will

1:41:54 ↗ align with the style and then we'll have

1:41:56 ↗ this really weird mix going on and I

1:41:58 ↗ don't know that that's the vision that

1:41:59 ↗ we were shooting for so that some

1:42:02 ↗ ability of architectural connection I

1:42:04 ↗ think is what we want so you are setting

1:42:08 ↗ the tone for what follows so do you have

1:42:13 ↗ any thoughts about the things I

1:42:15 ↗ mentioned is there room inside of that

1:42:18 ↗ that still captures the spirit of the

1:42:21 ↗ criteria of the Deford well there's

1:42:24 ↗ several items to add one and it doesn't

1:42:27 ↗ show up too well in the colored

1:42:29 ↗ elevations is that the column grid is

1:42:32 ↗ emphasized vertically through color and

1:42:37 ↗ it's hard to get true color in a colored

1:42:40 ↗ elevation and reiteration and I'm

1:42:45 ↗ left-handed so this never works but so

1:42:50 ↗ we've got color here

1:42:52 ↗ working to form the grid which is

1:42:55 ↗ important in the style and to emphasize

1:42:57 ↗ verticality we also have extensive

1:43:00 ↗ detailing at the cornice which is a

1:43:03 ↗ court requirement of the style and we've

1:43:06 ↗ actually reworked with staff the parking

1:43:09 ↗ structure they bring this cornice all

1:43:11 ↗ the way around the building on all sides

1:43:14 ↗ to take the dominant element the the

1:43:17 ↗ parking structure which we have no way

1:43:21 ↗ to to get around and to make that as

1:43:27 ↗ much as possible a contemporary

1:43:29 ↗ interpretation of the style now I would

1:43:33 ↗ point that the vertical or horizontal

1:43:35 ↗ issue some of the best examples in

1:43:38 ↗ Seattle of the Northwest Revival style

1:43:40 ↗ happen to be one in two storey buildings

1:43:42 ↗ sure one of the great ones is the fill

1:43:45 ↗ start spark building on Capitol Hill

1:43:47 ↗ which is a car dealership so we we've

1:43:53 ↗ tried to work very part hard with the

1:43:55 ↗ three part structure with the the

1:43:58 ↗ essence of as much as possible of the

1:44:02 ↗ style but faced with certain franchise

1:44:06 ↗ things franchise requirements and items

1:44:08 ↗ we've compromised on that now as Lucy

1:44:12 ↗ can tell you she and how he had long

1:44:15 ↗ discussions over the issue of Northwest

1:44:18 ↗ Revival style and northwest contemporary

1:44:21 ↗ there's no question that contemporary

1:44:23 ↗ fits better but it's not allowed and in

1:44:27 ↗ terms of the other styles in the

1:44:30 ↗ district the other ones fit even less

1:44:33 ↗ right see you've got as you pointed out

1:44:36 ↗ there is no perfect fit here sure and

1:44:40 ↗ and I agree and so I guess that was our

1:44:42 ↗ question I just want to find the edges

1:44:43 ↗ of this thing and if your position is

1:44:45 ↗ you have no no room to move then I think

1:44:49 ↗ it helps us identify which way we're

1:44:51 ↗ moving we we moved as far as we can with

1:44:55 ↗ with Ford and to the point that Lucy had

1:45:00 ↗ not Lucy but Katie had put some words in

1:45:03 ↗ the staff report to sell certain the

1:45:06 ↗ branwall changed to stone to Ford okay

1:45:09 ↗ so we've been we pushed hard trust me

1:45:13 ↗ then can I ask you Lucy so let's

1:45:15 ↗ hypothetically say we're gonna screen

1:45:19 ↗ this through a different style what what

1:45:22 ↗ then is asked of staff and applicant we

1:45:25 ↗ go through this process again is it do

1:45:27 ↗ we literally take it as is screen it

1:45:29 ↗ through that or their additional asks or

1:45:32 ↗ changes or we cycle through this whole

1:45:35 ↗ process again well I think that at the

1:45:45 ↗ next meeting we would if Northwest

1:45:51 ↗ contemporary was your the Commission's

1:45:54 ↗ recommendation to explore the or request

1:45:58 ↗ to explore that I think we would do

1:46:03 ↗ another you know not necessarily all of

1:46:06 ↗ the pieces but more the architect redo

1:46:09 ↗ the architectural style page evaluation

1:46:12 ↗ for Northwest contemporary so that you

1:46:15 ↗ could see whether we are you know

1:46:21 ↗ compliant okay

1:46:30 ↗ and I and I will agree that I think

1:46:34 ↗ David characterized it well there were a

1:46:36 ↗ lot of long afternoons sitting in a

1:46:38 ↗ meeting room with lots of pictures and

1:46:41 ↗ trying to go through and figure out if

1:46:44 ↗ we could do it and you know our

1:46:47 ↗ preference was I think similar to the

1:46:49 ↗ Commission's we really should try and

1:46:52 ↗ stick with the style but we also

1:46:54 ↗ recognized that we were going to hit a

1:46:58 ↗ few bumps along the way and that's why

1:47:00 ↗ we wanted to have the conversation

1:47:02 ↗ because Northwest contemporary is

1:47:05 ↗ probably an easier fit it seems to me

1:47:10 ↗ that you know the the styles that

1:47:14 ↗ Crandall Brambilla for traditional

1:47:18 ↗ Issaquah outside urban core all of them

1:47:20 ↗ really just historic styles it's

1:47:23 ↗ essentially it is said that we have to

1:47:25 ↗ build every building from now on as an

1:47:27 ↗ historical looking building and I

1:47:30 ↗ thought this this you would come up more

1:47:32 ↗ say with the restaurants or something

1:47:34 ↗ like that and somebody came in and we

1:47:37 ↗ said you're not going to have any

1:47:38 ↗ corporate restaurants come in here thing

1:47:40 ↗ like that

1:47:42 ↗ to me it's a it's a it's a shortcoming

1:47:47 ↗ of these Olymp it's a limitation of just

1:47:50 ↗ having these historic styles to work

1:47:52 ↗ with is the only thing we if we tried to

1:47:57 ↗ force it in I think the problem is going

1:47:58 ↗ to be well if we had something that has

1:48:00 ↗ metal panels that don't meet the style

1:48:03 ↗ and we say that's okay to do and if we

1:48:06 ↗ and if we right from the get-go said

1:48:10 ↗ well we don't care about the style of

1:48:12 ↗ requirements we're going to just get

1:48:15 ↗ close to them we also had the concern

1:48:17 ↗ that if we allowed Northwest

1:48:19 ↗ contemporary in traditional Issaquah

1:48:22 ↗ that all buildings then would become

1:48:24 ↗ Northwest traditional and we wouldn't

1:48:26 ↗ really be having have any style

1:48:28 ↗ definition in central Issaquah which is

1:48:31 ↗ really what we were trying to do well

1:48:33 ↗ and I think I think you're bringing up a

1:48:35 ↗ really I mean we're all going back

1:48:37 ↗ dredging in our memories those

1:48:38 ↗ conversations but I think that Crandall

1:48:42 ↗ Milas proposal was based on the idea

1:48:47 ↗ that the urban core should be a

1:48:49 ↗ distinctive area and part of the way it

1:48:53 ↗ would be distinguished is by being the

1:48:55 ↗ only area with northwest contemporary

1:48:57 ↗ but likewise there was a concern at the

1:49:01 ↗ council that not maybe not everyone

1:49:03 ↗ would want to do a modern style which

1:49:06 ↗ was why Northwest revival was added to

1:49:09 ↗ the urban core I think that I think one

1:49:19 ↗ of the other challenges is that you know

1:49:21 ↗ Northwest revival came in towards the

1:49:23 ↗ end and with the Styles the other five

1:49:32 ↗ styles in traditional is kua you can see

1:49:35 ↗ more modern versions of those as you

1:49:39 ↗ look through our pictures I think that

1:49:42 ↗ given the time frame they had to develop

1:49:44 ↗ that they used a more historic you know

1:49:48 ↗ true historic buildings as they're

1:49:51 ↗ examples of Northwest revival and there

1:49:56 ↗ are not really modern examples I think

1:50:03 ↗ part of that is Northwest contemporary

1:50:05 ↗ non lifting up the tent Northwest

1:50:09 ↗ revival in Northwest contemporary are

1:50:12 ↗ basically two sides of the same coin I

1:50:14 ↗ mean they're not they're they're they're

1:50:19 ↗ based on the same sort of tradition it's

1:50:22 ↗ just one's modern and one's historic and

1:50:24 ↗ so I think that was one of the

1:50:26 ↗ challenges in coming up with more modern

1:50:29 ↗ images because that that really began to

1:50:33 ↗ be Northwest contemporary right I think

1:50:36 ↗ there's room for adaptation and

1:50:38 ↗ interpretation do and I think that's

1:50:40 ↗ just the reality of it so I think just a

1:50:45 ↗ comment on this site I think our

1:50:48 ↗ challenge tonight is to figure out

1:50:50 ↗ what's the path other way we can't keep

1:50:51 ↗ spinning around we have a project in

1:50:53 ↗ front of us and there's

1:50:55 ↗ an investment that's being made and they

1:50:57 ↗ want to move forward and so we need to

1:50:58 ↗ write a facilitated a path the I guess

1:51:04 ↗ what's going for us on this one is kind

1:51:07 ↗ of being one of the first ones out of

1:51:08 ↗ the chute is it is at the edge so this

1:51:11 ↗ isn't in the middle of downtown where

1:51:12 ↗ we're struggling with this it's kind of

1:51:14 ↗ at the perimeter so and what will happen

1:51:17 ↗ around it in all honesty is somewhat

1:51:19 ↗ limited I mean it backs up to kind of

1:51:22 ↗ industrial use and and a freeway

1:51:26 ↗ off-ramp on the other side so I'm not

1:51:29 ↗ too concerned about you know setting a

1:51:31 ↗ new pattern in a particular area from

1:51:33 ↗ this so I think the path that I would

1:51:40 ↗ probably prefer is to stay on the

1:51:43 ↗ northwest revival but do some adaptation

1:51:45 ↗ obviously there are some elements that

1:51:47 ↗ are going to drift over into the

1:51:48 ↗ Northwest contemporary maybe but I'm

1:51:50 ↗ just to pick a path to give them some

1:51:52 ↗ direction on what to come back with so

1:51:55 ↗ that we can get this done and then part

1:51:58 ↗ of the experience is that it's the

1:52:00 ↗ experience and what's working what's not

1:52:02 ↗ and then you do loop back eventually and

1:52:04 ↗ say okay let's revisit some of this

1:52:05 ↗ because that was kind of the commitment

1:52:07 ↗ at the beginning and make adjustments

1:52:09 ↗ but now we got one right out of the

1:52:12 ↗ chute didn't you know it's already

1:52:14 ↗ challenging this but I that's not a bad

1:52:16 ↗ I guess I'm just not hearing that any

1:52:18 ↗ further adaptation as possible no what

1:52:22 ↗ I'm hearing pretty much that we're

1:52:24 ↗ pretty much locked down by the franchise

1:52:26 ↗ requirements and I think for me there's

1:52:31 ↗ some Commissioner price was asking good

1:52:34 ↗ questions particulars provided this

1:52:41 ↗ isn't clear enough to really show what

1:52:44 ↗ you were describing and maybe there's

1:52:47 ↗ something that can you can do a better

1:52:50 ↗ job of actually showing how those

1:52:52 ↗ elements actually show up in the in the

1:52:54 ↗ building design and then there are some

1:52:56 ↗ other things maybe there are some

1:52:57 ↗ adjustments maybe there are some

1:52:59 ↗ adjustments particularly to the large

1:53:00 ↗ garage structure you can add some

1:53:02 ↗ additional elements maybe add some

1:53:04 ↗ better screening so we're not looking at

1:53:06 ↗ just a large

1:53:07 ↗ concrete parking garage make this a

1:53:11 ↗ little bit more appealing that's one

1:53:14 ↗ place to go I understand of challenged

1:53:17 ↗ with the corporate franchise and and the

1:53:21 ↗ branding that's probably not sounds like

1:53:24 ↗ that you've worked out pretty hard well

1:53:26 ↗ I mean I I think that well I'd say a

1:53:31 ↗ couple things one I'd say Mel called

1:53:36 ↗ this when we were working on the design

1:53:39 ↗ manual and it was permutations beyond

1:53:42 ↗ what I could figure out to do with but

1:53:45 ↗ so of course it's the first one we got I

1:53:48 ↗ think second certain brands are much

1:53:52 ↗ more tied to a whole image and this

1:53:58 ↗ dealership is a is a particular one I

1:54:02 ↗ mean you know McDonald's stuck with

1:54:04 ↗ their their particulars for a long time

1:54:08 ↗ and now you could put up one small

1:54:10 ↗ pedestrian blade sign with a golden arch

1:54:14 ↗ on it and everyone would know exactly

1:54:15 ↗ what it was no matter what the facade

1:54:17 ↗ looked like so I think this is

1:54:22 ↗ particularly hard because it is such a

1:54:24 ↗ package but I think understanding I what

1:54:29 ↗ I'm hearing is that and I apologize if I

1:54:34 ↗ missed something I'm not trying to

1:54:35 ↗ dismiss anything but I'm hearing that

1:54:38 ↗ the garage in particular you're asking

1:54:41 ↗ for more attention to the garage and

1:54:45 ↗ ways in which both the all all of the

1:54:50 ↗ pieces feel have more of the verticality

1:54:54 ↗ verticality expressed within the context

1:55:00 ↗ of and still respecting the franchise

1:55:03 ↗ requirements is is that a fair

1:55:05 ↗ characterization of some of the pieces

1:55:08 ↗ and if there's some singular ones that

1:55:11 ↗ you would like us to particularly

1:55:13 ↗ explore it's not that I wouldn't explore

1:55:15 ↗ more I'm just I think that's where me

1:55:19 ↗ for me the way I

1:55:21 ↗ I think that's pretty good

1:55:22 ↗ characterization of where I am I think I

1:55:24 ↗ see the garage is the area where there's

1:55:26 ↗ some room to move I understand the front

1:55:29 ↗ facade and the corporate image piece

1:55:33 ↗ that that represents but it's a parking

1:55:36 ↗ garage and I think there's you know

1:55:40 ↗ there are things that you can do like I

1:55:42 ↗ think that could one show us with higher

1:55:46 ↗ level of detail what your design

1:55:48 ↗ actually does to accomplish the design

1:55:50 ↗ criteria but also maybe there are some

1:55:54 ↗ additional enhancements that you can

1:55:55 ↗ explore that improve the facade the

1:56:00 ↗ garage facade you know I think one thing

1:56:06 ↗ on the garage too is we very likely

1:56:08 ↗ could face us again hopefully with other

1:56:11 ↗ properties that have structured parking

1:56:12 ↗ because we want that at or even an

1:56:15 ↗ additional Transit Center garage that

1:56:17 ↗ would truly be just a garage and I guess

1:56:22 ↗ I'm a little less concerned with the

1:56:24 ↗ garage some some of the issues I think

1:56:28 ↗ but the I think they've done it with a

1:56:29 ↗ tripartite and the cornice and I think

1:56:32 ↗ there is some verticality that shows up

1:56:34 ↗ a little more in our drawings terms of

1:56:37 ↗ the color of called columns in there my

1:56:39 ↗ bigger concern if you can pull it up

1:56:41 ↗ again the the Ford Lincoln aside me the

1:56:50 ↗ maybe a better version of it

1:56:54 ↗ are you are you looking for the

1:57:01 ↗ perspective or like the front on

1:57:04 ↗ perspective of it

1:57:07 ↗ first maybe that so to me the big issue

1:57:11 ↗ is that the two big components in here

1:57:14 ↗ that in the staff review on page 131 the

1:57:19 ↗ glass curtain walls of the Ford Lincoln

1:57:21 ↗ dealership are inappropriate and then

1:57:25 ↗ and on page 129 the foreign aid tree

1:57:30 ↗ features clad in metallic panels and

1:57:32 ↗ that's inappropriate Lincoln bevel

1:57:34 ↗ material in appropriate so it seems to

1:57:36 ↗ me we've got a glass curtain wall and

1:57:38 ↗ we've got metal panels that are sort of

1:57:40 ↗ the front and center elements of the

1:57:42 ↗ building that's a staff of saying or

1:57:44 ↗ inappropriate and it sounds like that's

1:57:46 ↗ a Ford requirement and I see sort of a

1:57:50 ↗ loggerhead there that I don't see how we

1:57:53 ↗ get past it because if we just say okay

1:57:55 ↗ go ahead and do clasp you know the glass

1:57:57 ↗ curtain wall and metal panels

1:57:59 ↗ I think we've sort of just thrown out a

1:58:03 ↗ big portion of this style of requirement

1:58:06 ↗ and just said okay it doesn't have to

1:58:08 ↗ meet that then the question becomes what

1:58:11 ↗ do we do to the next project that comes

1:58:12 ↗ along and says we we want to do glass

1:58:15 ↗ curtain wall metal panels

1:58:17 ↗ well aren't you corporate no well I

1:58:19 ↗ should be able to do it because they got

1:58:21 ↗ to do it and then the hordes running you

1:58:29 ↗ know catch-22 because there are

1:58:31 ↗ corporate identities I mean they're you

1:58:32 ↗ know McDonald's Apple stores they all

1:58:34 ↗ look like certain things and you can

1:58:36 ↗ look at them and identify what they are

1:58:37 ↗ and so this is no different and so how

1:58:41 ↗ do you blend in what we want to see as

1:58:44 ↗ far as the style goes with what the

1:58:46 ↗ corporate identity wants to be which is

1:58:48 ↗ for somebody to instantly look at it and

1:58:50 ↗ recognize what it is right and so if we

1:58:53 ↗ you know in the future miss wants

1:58:55 ↗ to attract other businesses that we you

1:58:58 ↗ know we don't want to detract heavily

1:59:00 ↗ from their ability to have their

1:59:02 ↗ corporate image so there for me is a

1:59:05 ↗ catch-22 you you want to be able to

1:59:07 ↗ retain your identity but you also want

1:59:09 ↗ to build attract businesses that have

1:59:11 ↗ their own identity if that makes sense

1:59:13 ↗ yeah but are but the code as I read it

1:59:16 ↗ doesn't have allowances in here that say

1:59:18 ↗ if you have a corporate I did

1:59:22 ↗ preserve you don't have to follow these

1:59:24 ↗ standards I'm thinking a little of the

1:59:29 ↗ Gilman lofts challenge that we had was

1:59:30 ↗ that I wasn't was that the urban Grange

1:59:34 ↗ style that we finally decided on for

1:59:36 ↗ that and it doesn't look like a

1:59:38 ↗ traditional Grange building at all but

1:59:40 ↗ it was close enough and the design was

1:59:42 ↗ close enough that I could map the

1:59:44 ↗ contours the fundamentals of that style

1:59:47 ↗ on to that much more modern structure

1:59:49 ↗ this is a lot more challenging to me you

1:59:52 ↗ know this really looks like a borderline

1:59:53 ↗ case it's described in this in a handout

1:59:56 ↗ as in a transitional area it's a gateway

1:59:59 ↗ to Issaquah between one world and

2:00:01 ↗ another me it really argues this an

2:00:04 ↗ exception case and to me I think it

2:00:06 ↗ would be easier to be able to create

2:00:09 ↗ exception language around this

2:00:12 ↗ particular case and maybe part of it has

2:00:14 ↗ to do with franchise requirements maybe

2:00:16 ↗ part of it has to do with boundary

2:00:18 ↗ location than to try to contort these

2:00:22 ↗ elements and and to redefine the

2:00:25 ↗ elements of the style essentially by

2:00:27 ↗ saying that a glass curtain wall is okay

2:00:29 ↗ in this case for Northwest Revival

2:00:31 ↗ because I think that would do more

2:00:32 ↗ damage long-term absolutely without and

2:00:35 ↗ so maybe the exception becomes more of

2:00:37 ↗ we're saying it's a locational exception

2:00:39 ↗ here because of where this is and

2:00:45 ↗ possibly franchise requirements play

2:00:47 ↗ into that we know they can't rule

2:00:49 ↗ necessarily but partly perhaps that's a

2:00:53 ↗ factor in this case yeah perhaps even

2:00:55 ↗ the use of the building you know

2:00:57 ↗ considering the use of it

2:00:58 ↗ as well if there's a way that we can so

2:01:01 ↗ consider that so for me I think mr.

2:01:04 ↗ Brendan kind of nailed that our

2:01:05 ↗ Commissioner Brennan nailed it on head

2:01:07 ↗ when he said what we need to do is

2:01:09 ↗ decide a course of course forward you

2:01:11 ↗ know and so the issue becomes are we are

2:01:15 ↗ we committed to the recommended styles

2:01:18 ↗ for the given district or is it more

2:01:22 ↗ important to think about a style that we

2:01:26 ↗ think would better fit this current

2:01:27 ↗ situation and I think the

2:01:30 ↗ me the issue is I'd rather stick with

2:01:32 ↗ styles recommended for the existing

2:01:35 ↗ district and see what additional

2:01:37 ↗ modifications could be made since they

2:01:39 ↗ have made this investment and I and

2:01:41 ↗ let's face it the the Ford has the hand

2:01:45 ↗ if if that's the case and and we can

2:01:48 ↗ argue all we want but they're probably

2:01:50 ↗ not going to change so we have to make a

2:01:52 ↗ choice do we want to stop and just say

2:01:54 ↗ no we don't approve it or do we go

2:01:56 ↗ forward and see if some modifications

2:01:58 ↗ can be made to do the best we can to

2:02:01 ↗ reflect the style that is currently

2:02:03 ↗ identified I would be inclined to accept

2:02:05 ↗ the Northwest Revival with exceptions

2:02:08 ↗ and I think that sets well I think it

2:02:12 ↗ sets a worse precedent to accept a style

2:02:14 ↗ that's not allowed me to not to men so

2:02:17 ↗ what follows is so this is the lesser of

2:02:21 ↗ the evils yeah that's kind of where I am

2:02:23 ↗ to the and and I think in I guess a

2:02:25 ↗ couple more questions and part of this

2:02:27 ↗ is the code on struck that we're working

2:02:30 ↗ in and how we deal with this and whether

2:02:32 ↗ or not we even have the authority to do

2:02:34 ↗ this I mean because we're talking about

2:02:35 ↗ an exception to the design style and

2:02:38 ↗ we're there and can we through our

2:02:43 ↗ findings and facts you know articulate

2:02:46 ↗ why we're doing what we're doing because

2:02:48 ↗ it's dealing with that precedent

2:02:49 ↗ question so that there's a record that

2:02:51 ↗ says well here's why we did it

2:02:53 ↗ these are the factors that were

2:02:54 ↗ considered I'm comfortable with that

2:02:57 ↗ although I want to keep pushing on are

2:02:59 ↗ there some things that we can do to make

2:03:01 ↗ sure we've done what we can to reflect

2:03:03 ↗ this the allowed style here but I guess

2:03:07 ↗ that's something we need to understand a

2:03:09 ↗ little bit more too about where the

2:03:10 ↗ boundaries of flexibility that we have

2:03:13 ↗ here to do this the consultant that we

2:03:19 ↗ hired to help us develop the design

2:03:21 ↗ guide was black and white and I think

2:03:23 ↗ everybody on the Commission realized

2:03:25 ↗ that life is not black and white and so

2:03:27 ↗ they were going to have to be

2:03:29 ↗ modifications and changes and exceptions

2:03:31 ↗ and those kind of things in this case

2:03:34 ↗ there's some pretty big exceptions right

2:03:36 ↗ I mean we're looking at some pretty big

2:03:38 ↗ changes to what the current stuff

2:03:40 ↗ the recommended style would be but it

2:03:42 ↗ still seems impaired and most important

2:03:45 ↗ to me to maintain until we until we get

2:03:48 ↗ a chance to go through a number of these

2:03:49 ↗ things we're going to be more in

2:03:51 ↗ jeopardy if we just add another style

2:03:53 ↗ because it makes it a lot easier as

2:03:55 ↗ opposed to sticking with the style and

2:03:57 ↗ explaining away the exceptions for the

2:03:59 ↗ reasons that we might explain but I

2:04:02 ↗ guess the question will come up if we if

2:04:04 ↗ we allow metal panels on a building

2:04:06 ↗ there'd be a pretty big metal panel and

2:04:09 ↗ then and then the next person comes

2:04:13 ↗ along and says in this area says I'm due

2:04:15 ↗ Northwest revival and we're gonna have a

2:04:16 ↗ very large metal animal in front of our

2:04:19 ↗ building what would we say we would say

2:04:23 ↗ what is the motivation for doing that

2:04:25 ↗ and if the motivation was that the

2:04:26 ↗ corporate office said this is the style

2:04:29 ↗ and I think we're that we have some

2:04:31 ↗ ground to be able to I don't think

2:04:33 ↗ there's anything our code that talks

2:04:35 ↗ about corporate style being an exception

2:04:38 ↗ well can we limit it to the zone this is

2:04:42 ↗ the commercial I think you know this is

2:04:47 ↗ part of the discretion that comes with

2:04:49 ↗ entitlements I mean it's not black and

2:04:52 ↗ white so you've got think about the

2:04:55 ↗ context that this is in kind of the

2:04:58 ↗ surrounding properties what's happening

2:05:00 ↗ you know the issue around the economic

2:05:04 ↗ development interest of the city and the

2:05:07 ↗ need for corporation to have its

2:05:09 ↗ branding important I mean oh there are a

2:05:11 ↗ number of different variables we just

2:05:14 ↗ need to make sure that if we're going to

2:05:15 ↗ wander from what code is providing some

2:05:18 ↗ fairly clear direction on that there is

2:05:19 ↗ justification and we're clear about what

2:05:21 ↗ that is yeah and we need just come in

2:05:23 ↗ we're gonna vote on it at the end so we

2:05:26 ↗ just need to decide what that looks like

2:05:27 ↗ so I might add a brief thought here to

2:05:32 ↗ out that it might help this conversation

2:05:33 ↗ a little bit so we took all of the

2:05:38 ↗ intensive commercial out of Central

2:05:40 ↗ except for this parcel and about the

2:05:45 ↗ boat dealership across the way right and

2:05:47 ↗ part of the reason why we selected to

2:05:51 ↗ leave those two

2:05:53 ↗ in central is just right what we're

2:05:56 ↗ talking about right now because if this

2:05:59 ↗ was not in central we wouldn't be having

2:06:01 ↗ any of this conversation

2:06:03 ↗ you know architecture there is no

2:06:05 ↗ architectural guidelines for out for IMC

2:06:09 ↗ for the intents of commercial area and

2:06:11 ↗ so so we gave ourselves an extra tool

2:06:14 ↗ and I think you know one of the things

2:06:18 ↗ just to go back you know we were very

2:06:20 ↗ happy to finish the architectural manual

2:06:23 ↗ because it was a hard conversation we

2:06:25 ↗ did something we didn't have before I

2:06:27 ↗ think if we were to go back and do it

2:06:29 ↗ again there would be more conversation

2:06:32 ↗ about some flexibility because it's very

2:06:34 ↗ it's a very rigid document and we're

2:06:36 ↗ dealing with that right now

2:06:39 ↗ so I guess I would again encourage you

2:06:42 ↗ guys to you know you you're doing a good

2:06:46 ↗ job deliberating on which direction you

2:06:48 ↗ want to bend and then let us work with

2:06:51 ↗ the applicant to see if we can do

2:06:54 ↗ anything else depending on which

2:06:57 ↗ direction you want to go and then we'll

2:06:58 ↗ come back in the next meeting and make

2:07:01 ↗ the best case we can and then you guys

2:07:03 ↗ can decide what you want to do with that

2:07:04 ↗ I mean I think that's the best we can do

2:07:06 ↗ with this right now note I just remind

2:07:08 ↗ us the the fact is our consultant

2:07:10 ↗ encouraged us to be rigid I mean there

2:07:12 ↗ there were some of us that were

2:07:14 ↗ realizing pretty quickly that it wasn't

2:07:16 ↗ you know it's not rigid I it's nice it

2:07:19 ↗ would be sent it would be great if you

2:07:21 ↗ could have the fish to do it but we

2:07:22 ↗ don't there was there were some very

2:07:24 ↗ good things about being very forceful

2:07:28 ↗ with their vision and I think we're

2:07:31 ↗ seeing some of the the counter sides to

2:07:33 ↗ that as well we potentially could limit

2:07:37 ↗ to in intensive commercial knowing that

2:07:41 ↗ there is no more intensive commercial

2:07:42 ↗ therefore that it therefore it wouldn't

2:07:46 ↗ happen you know I mean that's the

2:07:48 ↗ president where we're conditioned we

2:07:50 ↗ could put on it is that is that just

2:07:54 ↗ think will massage that I'm sure then

2:07:56 ↗ then these exceptions can occur and

2:07:59 ↗ there's no more so a press and I can't

2:08:02 ↗ carry forward

2:08:04 ↗ I don't know really so that's great I

2:08:09 ↗ mean it's part of the case we would make

2:08:12 ↗ so commissioner do you have additional

2:08:15 ↗ requirements a request of the city to

2:08:19 ↗ prepare for us to come back I have a

2:08:21 ↗ couple couple comments the things I'd

2:08:23 ↗ like to see the I would I think there

2:08:28 ↗ does need to be something that prevents

2:08:30 ↗ cars from overhanging into the buffer

2:08:31 ↗ zone that we want to make sure we see

2:08:33 ↗ something like that on the plan my

2:08:37 ↗ preferences make sure we see that

2:08:40 ↗ something from smash plateau water and

2:08:43 ↗ sewer that they're happy with this

2:08:45 ↗ because I think there's nothing more

2:08:47 ↗ important than our drinking water

2:08:48 ↗ I guess the air we breathe is so the

2:08:50 ↗ first thing but the waters next and I

2:08:53 ↗ think that's super critical to make sure

2:08:55 ↗ we're happy that our aquifer is going to

2:08:57 ↗ be okay and then I'd like to see more

2:09:00 ↗ about the garage screening you know this

2:09:02 ↗ was a big issue with the Costco garage

2:09:04 ↗ and what that was going to look like and

2:09:06 ↗ so forth I think with any garage that's

2:09:08 ↗ really critical to see what that

2:09:10 ↗ screening is of those cars themselves

2:09:13 ↗ what look it is because I love cars but

2:09:17 ↗ we don't necessarily want to see parked

2:09:19 ↗ cars in the garage so much and then

2:09:22 ↗ other than ones that are on display and

2:09:24 ↗ then finally I think the they're mean

2:09:27 ↗ when the big things would be the

2:09:28 ↗ lighting plan that we would have to see

2:09:30 ↗ the lighting plan before I feel

2:09:33 ↗ comfortable approving it I I think one

2:09:36 ↗ of the really bad lighting plans I've

2:09:39 ↗ seen is the Nissan dealership on East

2:09:42 ↗ Gate and if you drive through there when

2:09:43 ↗ it's dark it's it's it's like Las Vegas

2:09:47 ↗ or something and this is going to be I

2:09:50 ↗ appreciate the need for lighting but I

2:09:52 ↗ think it's want to make sure that we

2:09:55 ↗ don't have a lighting plan that's

2:09:58 ↗ there's a problems see from the space

2:10:01 ↗ station to to a question we don't

2:10:09 ↗ typically develop a lighting plan

2:10:10 ↗ I'm I'm not I'm not saying no I just

2:10:13 ↗ want to understand what at a land-use

2:10:15 ↗ level would be appropriate

2:10:17 ↗ we have our or not appropriate respond

2:10:20 ↗ to your your request I just want you to

2:10:25 ↗ know that we have been working with our

2:10:26 ↗ lighting consultant to discuss lighting

2:10:30 ↗ levels the requested levels by the

2:10:32 ↗ applicant were higher than we were

2:10:36 ↗ hoping to see and our lighting

2:10:38 ↗ consultant has been looking at the

2:10:40 ↗ International engineering lighting I'm

2:10:43 ↗ not getting the name right it's the eye

2:10:45 ↗ enas or something like that so that

2:10:52 ↗ document is setting the lighting the

2:10:54 ↗ maximum lighting levels so is it the

2:10:58 ↗ lighting levels the the location of the

2:11:02 ↗ standards I mean what is it what would

2:11:04 ↗ be I guess the levels in the in the

2:11:07 ↗ overflow of out spill the directional

2:11:10 ↗ nature of it and and just so you know

2:11:13 ↗ that they're not allowed to spill more

2:11:15 ↗ less than it's like 0.3 foot candles

2:11:18 ↗ into the critical area so we'll we'll

2:11:21 ↗ work on on helping to understand that

2:11:23 ↗ and and the other thing I wanted you to

2:11:25 ↗ know is we will protect the aquifer even

2:11:29 ↗ if the district hadn't written that

2:11:30 ↗ letter so we will provide more

2:11:33 ↗ information but I had another item to I

2:11:39 ↗ think we talked about it already but the

2:11:42 ↗ pavilion and how we're going to respond

2:11:43 ↗ to that bill to line condition and a

2:11:47 ↗ little more about wasn't clear and maybe

2:11:50 ↗ you need to study the plan a little bit

2:11:51 ↗ more closely but what that facade looks

2:11:53 ↗ like as estrogens and cars are coming by

2:11:56 ↗ and is it is it glass and is it you know

2:12:00 ↗ what's what's it going to it's the

2:12:02 ↗ visual going to look like to somebody

2:12:04 ↗ Northwest revival yes

2:12:08 ↗ well it doesn't have any franchise

2:12:10 ↗ requirements that's so good so and then

2:12:14 ↗ I think you mentioned it I'm not sure

2:12:16 ↗ but the rooftop landscaping and

2:12:17 ↗ screening a little bit more information

2:12:19 ↗ about her going to accomplish we're

2:12:21 ↗ going to accomplish that you got the

2:12:24 ↗ rest of my biggest concerns were

2:12:29 ↗ protecting the water and is yeah

2:12:33 ↗ screening in more details on the garage

2:12:35 ↗ I think I've always my concern thank you

2:12:42 ↗ well I just wait to see the design

2:12:45 ↗ miracle the transform survival for me

2:12:48 ↗ I'll be happy thank you I think I said

2:12:52 ↗ my part I'm good

2:12:52 ↗ thank you so so so two things when we

2:13:04 ↗ completed the public comment section we

2:13:06 ↗ haven't actually closed it it will

2:13:08 ↗ remain open so that we can take comments

2:13:11 ↗ at the next meeting and we had two

2:13:16 ↗ possible dates for our next meeting I

2:13:19 ↗ think we would like to use the June 5th

2:13:24 ↗ meeting which gives us a little more

2:13:26 ↗ time to work through some of these

2:13:28 ↗ things and potentially prepare some

2:13:30 ↗ additional exhibits so as it stands

2:13:35 ↗ right now I just will run through and

2:13:37 ↗ this is from memory so we have June May

2:13:41 ↗ 7th which is another shelter meeting May

2:13:47 ↗ 15th which is another shelter meeting I

2:13:50 ↗ believe you gotten the announcement

2:13:52 ↗ today for May 29th which is a P P CDC

2:13:58 ↗ joint training session which is required

2:14:02 ↗ I don't believe I got that okay good to

2:14:06 ↗ know

2:14:12 ↗ yes and then June 5 for this that's busy

2:14:20 ↗ yeah and and we may need to add May 22nd

2:14:24 ↗ because I think after last night it

2:14:26 ↗ doesn't look like a shelter meeting

2:14:28 ↗ there's some buying I'm buying sparklers

2:14:31 ↗ because I think we'll be here July 4th

2:14:35 ↗ Louie just so you know now I would not

2:14:37 ↗ be able to make the 22nd okay well we'll

2:14:40 ↗ send out we were going to send out some

2:14:41 ↗ queries and so thank you we don't have

2:14:44 ↗ to work through all of that right now

2:14:45 ↗ but thanks for letting me know that I'd

2:14:49 ↗ like to express my appreciation for the

2:14:51 ↗ staff going through this and everything

2:14:53 ↗ you're doing this on this first sort of

2:14:55 ↗ guinea pig and also the applicant and

2:14:56 ↗ all the work they've done going through

2:14:59 ↗ this and them as you can see it's not an

2:15:02 ↗ easy process for us either with this

2:15:04 ↗ first one so thank you yeah thank you

2:15:07 ↗ and I think it's important to be

2:15:09 ↗ empathetic to the owner too and I asked

2:15:11 ↗ early on did they know about this on the

2:15:14 ↗ onset when they bought this lot so so I

2:15:16 ↗ don't think they anticipated this so I

2:15:18 ↗ can appreciate how challenging this is

2:15:21 ↗ but we're charged with a certain job and

2:15:24 ↗ the staff is at this point so thank you

2:15:27 ↗ for making it through yeah and as always

2:15:32 ↗ as even though it was minimal we always

2:15:35 ↗ appreciate public comment because it's

2:15:36 ↗ the greatest opportunity to be able to

2:15:38 ↗ have some input into what's happening to

2:15:39 ↗ this great city so we appreciate that

2:15:42 ↗ and with that I think we probably ought

2:15:45 ↗ to adjourn our meeting thank you very

2:15:47 ↗ much thank you

2:15:59 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Brooke Shore David Estes

Strotkamp Architects Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Mark Graff

SCJ Studio Mark Rigos

Alternate Mallory Dobbs

SCJ Alliance Arthur Schulte

Alternate Nischitha Venkatesh

Alternate