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 (10)

Richard Sowa

Mel Morgan

Michael Brennan

Kevin Price

Ben Rush

Richard Sanford

Brooke Shore

Mark Rigos

Arthur Schulte

Nischitha Venkatesh

Staff (4)

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Mgr.

Keith Niven, Econ Dev & Dev Srvc Dir.

Katie Cote, Planning Consultant

Stacey Rush, Senior Engineer

Guests (3)

David Estes, Strotkamp Architects

Mark Graff, SCJ Studio

Mallory Dobbs, SCJ Alliance

Recommendations & actions (2)

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

a) MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY BRENNAN that minutes of the Development Commission meeting on October 3, 2018, be approved as presented.
Sloman said there isn’t much question that it wouldn’t be approved.