Development Commission · Wednesday, December 4, 2019 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land 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 November 20, 2019

packet pp.5–7

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 11-20-19 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Consultation on Revisions to Inneswood Apartment Site Development Permit, Application No. SDP16-00006; ASDP19- Recommendation

Valerie Porter, Associate Planner Ric Tolleshaug, Milbrandt Architects · packet pp.9–31

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

On November 2, 2016 and December 7, 2016, the Development Commission reviewed Site Development Permit (SDP16-00006) during two public hearings. The request was to allow for the construction of two multi-family buildings with a total of 93-units on approximately 5.72 acres.

4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next meeting is scheduled for December 18, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way

2093 segments .txt ↗

0:22 ↗ evening ladies and gentlemen I'd like to

0:24 ↗ welcome you to the development

0:27 ↗ commission meeting on the consultation

0:29 ↗ of revisions on revisions to the Ennis

0:31 ↗ what apartment site development

0:32 ↗ permitting SDP 1600 0:06

0:38 ↗ now we have some administrative business

0:40 ↗ first I'd like to the minutes were sent

0:44 ↗ out prior to the meeting I'm assuming

0:46 ↗ that you all had a chance to read them

0:47 ↗ does anybody have any Corrections or

0:50 ↗ changes no anything will presume that

0:53 ↗ they are approved by consent minutes are

0:56 ↗ approved for the November 20th 2019

0:59 ↗ meeting and so we're gonna have a staff

1:02 ↗ presentation I think all right hi

1:17 ↗ everyone my name is Valerie Porter I'm

1:20 ↗ an associate planner in the development

1:22 ↗ services department so we're here to

1:25 ↗ discuss the Ennis wood apartments

1:27 ↗ project this project was previously

1:30 ↗ approved back in 2016 by the Development

1:33 ↗ Commission you may notice that we're

1:37 ↗ here talking about an administrative

1:39 ↗ site development permit these types of

1:41 ↗ permits are typically reviewed by city

1:44 ↗ staff instead of the site development

1:47 ↗ permits that your guys are used to

1:49 ↗ so in this public meeting we are going

1:52 ↗ to be discussing design changes that

1:55 ↗ occurred after the site development

1:57 ↗ permit was approved staff is asking for

2:00 ↗ input from the development commission on

2:02 ↗ the extent of the changes so the

2:05 ↗ planning director has made the

2:06 ↗ determination that the changes are minor

2:08 ↗ and do not require a amendment to the

2:12 ↗ approved site development permit

2:14 ↗ therefore the decision roof falls back

2:16 ↗ on staff but staff feels that the extent

2:20 ↗ of changes are very noticeable and we

2:23 ↗ would like to be transparent with the

2:24 ↗ development Commission so we're here to

2:26 ↗ ask for guidance in determining if the

2:29 ↗ new proposal meets the

2:31 ↗ ten of the approved site development

2:32 ↗ permit and should be approved so just to

2:38 ↗ make sure that we're all on the same

2:39 ↗ page and to provide a refresher I'm

2:41 ↗ gonna provide a brief description of the

2:43 ↗ project the site is located in central

2:45 ↗ Issaquah in the Gilman neighborhood

2:48 ↗ right over here the project is located

2:56 ↗ at the intersection of Newports way in

2:59 ↗ juniper Street across from the King

3:01 ↗ County Library the site consists of

3:08 ↗ three parcels at total 5.72 acres ninety

3:14 ↗ three units are to be constructed within

3:16 ↗ two multifamily buildings the first

3:18 ↗ building will contain 86 units with 12

3:21 ↗ townhomes that will gain access direct

3:25 ↗ actives from Newport way and the second

3:27 ↗ building will have seven units so the

3:33 ↗ Ennis wood project was reviewed by the

3:34 ↗ Development Commission during public

3:37 ↗ hearings which were held in 2016 on

3:39 ↗ November 2nd and December 2nd 7th on

3:42 ↗ December 8th the project was approved

3:44 ↗ with conditions and in June 2017 the

3:48 ↗ applicant submitted for building permits

3:50 ↗ and those permits are still under you by

3:52 ↗ city staff so to ensure that

3:58 ↗ construction drawings reflect the land

4:00 ↗ use approval staff typically compares

4:03 ↗ the drawings to the land use drawings it

4:06 ↗ was during the building review that

4:07 ↗ staff noticed several changes had been

4:09 ↗ made to the exterior and we we just

4:16 ↗ wanted to basically come back to the

4:18 ↗ Development Commission to make sure

4:19 ↗ everything was that the intent was being

4:22 ↗ met so no changes were being proposed to

4:24 ↗ the building setback from the property

4:26 ↗ line the height the material or the

4:29 ↗ overall style of the building there were

4:32 ↗ several modifications to the window

4:35 ↗ layout the floor plan the roofline the

4:38 ↗ building step back and building

4:40 ↗ modulation it is common to see a handful

4:44 ↗ of changes which

4:45 ↗ a land-use process in the construction

4:48 ↗ permit but a lot of changes were made

4:53 ↗ which kind of alters the appearance of

4:55 ↗ the building and it warranted an

4:57 ↗ additional land use review so before the

5:03 ↗ meeting you guys all received a list

5:05 ↗ identifying all of the changes that

5:07 ↗ occurred to building 1 and 2 every

5:10 ↗ change will not be addressed in this

5:12 ↗ meeting today instead the applicant and

5:13 ↗ I would like you guys to focus on the

5:16 ↗ repeated changes in the most perceptible

5:18 ↗ design changes so try to understand the

5:21 ↗ type of changes that were made

5:22 ↗ I took a snippet from the site

5:26 ↗ development proposal and the

5:27 ↗ construction proposal to identify some

5:30 ↗ of the changes so in this image you'll

5:33 ↗ see there you go in the site development

5:37 ↗ permit the window pane changed so it

5:40 ↗ went from one single window to two

5:42 ↗ separate windows additional windows were

5:45 ↗ added in the layout of where the windows

5:49 ↗ were a place has changed the balcony

5:52 ↗ over the second floor has been moved to

5:55 ↗ the outer edge of the building so this

5:59 ↗ change then made the balcony no longer

6:02 ↗ protruding out but recessed in and also

6:06 ↗ reduced the building modulation in this

6:08 ↗ area you'll also notice that the scoring

6:12 ↗ along the building has changed

6:15 ↗ and new elements have been added so in

6:18 ↗ this case if you look at the canopy over

6:21 ↗ the door it has now been changed to a

6:24 ↗ inaccessible balcony so before I hand

6:27 ↗ things over to the applicant I'd like to

6:30 ↗ consider I would like you guys to

6:31 ↗ consider a few questions that will help

6:33 ↗ to guide our discussion which we're

6:36 ↗ going to have after the applicant makes

6:39 ↗ a presentation so the first one is is

6:42 ↗ the new proposal consistent with the

6:44 ↗ intent of the proof site development

6:46 ↗ permanent elevations is removing or

6:50 ↗ noticeably altering an exterior elements

6:53 ↗ such as window design and our layout

6:55 ↗ considered a significant change to the

6:58 ↗ building exterior does the Development

7:03 ↗ Commission generally view increases to

7:06 ↗ exterior elements such as window size

7:08 ↗ and shape as an improvement to the

7:10 ↗ overall building facade and what are the

7:15 ↗ development Commission's expectations in

7:17 ↗ regards to mitigating design changes

7:19 ↗ that are prompted by building and/or

7:21 ↗ structural code requirements so before I

7:25 ↗ hand it over to the applicant do you

7:26 ↗ guys have any general questions nope

7:31 ↗ okay perfect

7:41 ↗ I guess I do okay in just thinking about

7:46 ↗ it and thinking about design manual

7:51 ↗ design handbook that we developed for

7:53 ↗ different areas within the city does you

7:57 ↗ know my concern would be any changes to

7:59 ↗ the exterior that would alter the

8:02 ↗ consistency of that facade to the

8:05 ↗ recommended facade that should be in

8:07 ↗ that part of the city and so it the

8:10 ↗ question was what would we consider to

8:13 ↗ be important too what would we consider

8:18 ↗ an important change and that would be an

8:20 ↗ important change to me so that's all I'm

8:22 ↗ saying it's and well I think you know

8:27 ↗ you're bringing up a great point Richard

8:30 ↗ which is there's a lot more requirements

8:33 ↗ associated with the design manual yeah

8:36 ↗ it doesn't apply to this project but

8:40 ↗ going forward that's going to be a

8:41 ↗ consideration that probably gives less

8:47 ↗ flexibility and then we have that was

8:52 ↗ money that was my only concern yeah and

8:55 ↗ following on on that question then the

8:57 ↗ rest of the SIDS does apply to this

8:59 ↗ project correct but chapter 18 the

9:01 ↗ architecture and urban design manual

9:03 ↗ would not write chapters 1 through 17

9:06 ↗ apply but not chapter 18

9:09 ↗ thank you call the applicant up now good

9:28 ↗ evening for the record Rick Tallis L

9:32 ↗ Milburn architects David Burnett

9:35 ↗ Bill Brown architects I want to thank

9:40 ↗ Lucy and Valerie for all their support

9:43 ↗ and help in preparation for tonight's

9:45 ↗ meeting I will start with a brief

9:49 ↗ background myself reiterating what

9:52 ↗ Valerie has said we received site

9:55 ↗ development approval in December of 2016

9:58 ↗ about exactly three years ago there were

10:02 ↗ 55 conditions attached to the approval

10:07 ↗ all those conditions have been addressed

10:10 ↗ and signed off absolutely after

10:15 ↗ receiving STV approval we began the

10:18 ↗ design and development phase followed by

10:21 ↗ construction document preparation

10:23 ↗ together these two phases took

10:25 ↗ approximately a year and a half and

10:27 ↗ represent thousands of person person

10:29 ↗ hours working across nearly a dozen

10:31 ↗ disciplines it is during these two

10:34 ↗ phases that architects and engineers

10:36 ↗ work out all the details of the building

10:39 ↗ responding to often competing forces

10:41 ↗ engineering constructability municipal

10:45 ↗ requirements envelope performance to

10:47 ↗ name just a few

10:49 ↗ evolution is inevitable during these

10:51 ↗ phases but it's the architects job to

10:55 ↗ not let these forces push design

10:57 ↗ sensibilities to the side and we fully

11:00 ↗ respect the effort the time thought that

11:03 ↗ the development commission and the city

11:05 ↗ staff put into the SDP process and I can

11:08 ↗ honestly say that throughout we always

11:12 ↗ tried to honor the process by staying

11:14 ↗ true to the design concept approved by

11:17 ↗ the Commission that's a request of city

11:21 ↗ staff

11:23 ↗ no Arnie yeah that is our slide that is

11:30 ↗ our slide at the request of city staff

11:32 ↗ no Brown architects documented all

11:34 ↗ facade changes that occurred during

11:36 ↗ design development and construction

11:37 ↗ drawing phases an inventory of the

11:40 ↗ facade changes has been prepared by city

11:43 ↗ staff and provided to the Commission

11:44 ↗ form of a spreadsheet accompanied by

11:47 ↗ elevation drawings in which each item is

11:49 ↗ on the spreadsheet is keyed excuse me

11:54 ↗ city staff has classified each change

11:57 ↗ using three categories changes that

11:59 ↗ improve the facade changes that impact

12:02 ↗ whose impact is neutral to the facade

12:05 ↗ and changes his impacts diminishes the

12:07 ↗ facade changes following into this last

12:10 ↗ category diminish will be presented in

12:13 ↗ greater detail here allowing for more

12:15 ↗ thorough evaluation by the Commission in

12:20 ↗ addition to memorandum was provided by

12:21 ↗ city staff which summarizes the kind of

12:24 ↗ changes that occurred in sites numerous

12:27 ↗ examples in this presentation we will

12:29 ↗ also examine two changes highlighted in

12:32 ↗ the memorandum which are classified in

12:34 ↗ neutral but the area of impact is of

12:37 ↗ notable size we felt it was important to

12:39 ↗ explain what drove these changes as well

12:44 ↗ for original sdp cement we developed and

12:48 ↗ maintained 3d computer models of our

12:51 ↗ proposed designs for buildings one end

12:53 ↗ to from which we produce perspective

12:55 ↗ images for presentation to the

12:57 ↗ development Commission in preparation

13:00 ↗ for this meeting we've done the same

13:01 ↗ with the finalized designs of buildings

13:03 ↗ one and two as represented in the

13:06 ↗ construction drawings we will present

13:08 ↗ prospective images in a split-screen

13:10 ↗ format with identical viewpoints for

13:13 ↗ easy comparison of the facades from the

13:15 ↗ approved SDP versus the construction

13:18 ↗ drawings we will start with building one

13:21 ↗ and conclude with building two here is a

13:25 ↗ comparison of the street facades for

13:27 ↗ building one and the approved SDP facade

13:31 ↗ is at the top and it's heading in

13:33 ↗ read the construction drawing cesari's

13:35 ↗ at the bottom with its heading in blue

13:37 ↗ this format is used throughout this

13:39 ↗ presentation in in the case of a

13:41 ↗ side-by-side comparison the SDP facade

13:44 ↗ will be on the left in the construction

13:46 ↗ drawing facade on the right now look

13:50 ↗ more closely at two changes to building

13:52 ↗ one Street facade that were classified

13:54 ↗ diminish as well as one change

13:56 ↗ classified neutral but the area impacted

13:59 ↗ was of notable size shaded in shaded in

14:03 ↗ blue is the area identified as L on the

14:06 ↗ staff prepared spreadsheet is the first

14:08 ↗ of two areas we will discuss on the

14:11 ↗ street facade that were classified

14:13 ↗ diminish due to a two and a half foot

14:20 ↗ expansion of the building's core on

14:22 ↗ floors three through six an entire Bank

14:25 ↗ of dwelling units were shifted northward

14:27 ↗ as a result the most northern window bay

14:30 ↗ component is now narrower and its

14:33 ↗ windows are now positioned eight inches

14:35 ↗ from the inside corner when seen with

14:38 ↗ respect to the overall facade despite

14:41 ↗ being narrower this module remains

14:44 ↗ prominent enough to successfully

14:46 ↗ maintain the established articulation

14:48 ↗ and rhythm of a street facade next is a

14:54 ↗ change that occurred to the far left

14:56 ↗ Town Hall and has shaded in blue here

14:59 ↗ this change is identified as a on the

15:02 ↗ staff prepared spreadsheet and is

15:03 ↗ highlighted in the memorandum as well

15:05 ↗ although classified neutral it is of

15:08 ↗ notable size so we will take a closer

15:11 ↗ look the previous design of this far

15:15 ↗ left townhome had many aspects that were

15:17 ↗ we felt were not ideal we were confident

15:21 ↗ we could improve on its interior layout

15:23 ↗ as well as bring his Street facades

15:25 ↗ specifically the design of its roofline

15:27 ↗ its entry ports and canopy into better

15:30 ↗ alignment with the rest of the townhomes

15:32 ↗ we took the opportunity to redesign this

15:35 ↗ townhome achieving a result that not

15:37 ↗ only remains consistent with the overall

15:39 ↗ style but represents a general

15:41 ↗ improvement by expressing a building

15:44 ↗ form that is more interesting more Kohi

15:46 ↗ and consistent with the remaining

15:48 ↗ townhall units fronting the street next

15:55 ↗ is a change that occurred two floors

15:57 ↗ three through six directly above the

16:00 ↗ previously discussed townhome this

16:02 ↗ change is identified as beyond the staff

16:05 ↗ prepared spreadsheet and highlighted in

16:07 ↗ the memoranda

16:08 ↗ this is the second of two areas on the

16:10 ↗ street facade classified diminish we'll

16:14 ↗ take a closer look to better understand

16:17 ↗ what drove the change to these upper

16:20 ↗ floors we need to look at the South

16:22 ↗ upper floor plans from the approved SDP

16:24 ↗ versus the construction drawings the

16:27 ↗ approved SDP design had a studio unit

16:29 ↗ extending out over the top of the

16:31 ↗ townhome at the south end of building

16:33 ↗ one this was the only condition where

16:36 ↗ the upper residential floors overlapped

16:38 ↗ the lower residential floors to this

16:40 ↗ degree and it presented two major

16:42 ↗ problems not revealed until design

16:45 ↗ development it complicated our ability

16:48 ↗ one it complicated our ability to

16:51 ↗ provide clearly defined horizontal and

16:53 ↗ vertical fire rated assemblies in this

16:55 ↗ area such as some ways are required by

16:58 ↗ billing code to separate different uses

17:00 ↗ and can factor into the allowed number

17:03 ↗ of storeys and type of construction in

17:05 ↗ mixed occupancy buildings the building

17:09 ↗ official made this an area of emphasis

17:10 ↗ in our pre-op meeting - it greatly

17:14 ↗ complicated the structural engineering

17:16 ↗ in this area floors three through six

17:19 ↗ are built on top of post-tensioned

17:21 ↗ concrete slab that covers the concealed

17:24 ↗ parking garage with the post engine

17:26 ↗ syllabic staying well over the top of

17:28 ↗ the townhome beyond what you can

17:31 ↗ cantilever supporting concrete columns

17:34 ↗ and concrete sheer walls would be

17:35 ↗ required inside the townhome below

17:38 ↗ increasing the step-back of floor

17:41 ↗ through three through six at this area

17:43 ↗ of the building eliminated this outlier

17:45 ↗ condition which in turn greatly

17:47 ↗ simplified the structural engineering

17:49 ↗ for this area as well as our ability to

17:51 ↗ demonstrate well-defined occupancy

17:53 ↗ separations this increased step-back

18:00 ↗ two floors three through six impacted

18:01 ↗ more than just the front studio unit it

18:03 ↗ ultimately required the redesign of

18:05 ↗ three units occurring at this end of

18:07 ↗ building one previously the SDP design

18:10 ↗ had two studio units which you'll see in

18:12 ↗ green one two bedroom plus den unit in

18:16 ↗ magenta in their place now the

18:19 ↗ construction drawings have one studio

18:21 ↗ unit one one bedroom unit in red and one

18:26 ↗ two bedroom unit in blue in addition to

18:30 ↗ solving the two issues mentioned the new

18:32 ↗ layout resulted in more efficient and

18:34 ↗ more marketable units now let's examine

18:37 ↗ the impact this floorplan change had to

18:40 ↗ the facades here is a comparison of the

18:44 ↗ street facades for this portion of

18:46 ↗ building one looking at this 2p facade

18:49 ↗ you can see a window Bay component to

18:51 ↗ the left and a balcony component to the

18:53 ↗ right both extend out over the townhome

18:56 ↗ below the stacked balconies are entirely

18:59 ↗ outboard of the primary building

19:01 ↗ envelope supported by two columns open

19:04 ↗ on three sides this balcony

19:06 ↗ configuration was entirely unique it did

19:10 ↗ not occur anywhere else in the project

19:12 ↗ looking at the construction drawings

19:14 ↗ facade essentially the window Bay and

19:17 ↗ the balcony components have been swamped

19:19 ↗ the window bay is now positioned away

19:21 ↗ from the corner replaced by a balcony

19:23 ↗ component that now is more integral to

19:25 ↗ the building open primarily on two sides

19:29 ↗ having the balconies position here

19:32 ↗ results in a cut away at the building

19:33 ↗ corner adding interest to the building

19:36 ↗ form when seen in the overall context of

19:40 ↗ the entire Street facade this area now

19:44 ↗ closely follows the articulation and the

19:46 ↗ rhythm established along the rest of the

19:48 ↗ street facade as we again look at the

19:52 ↗ two street facades and evaluate the

19:55 ↗ impact these three changes have on the

19:57 ↗ overall facade we propose that despite

20:00 ↗ these changes the construction drawings

20:02 ↗ facade remains substantially similar to

20:04 ↗ the approved SDP facade as a remain

20:08 ↗ changes the Street facade are classified

20:11 ↗ neutral

20:11 ↗ improve and our relatively minor in

20:14 ↗ scope we will now move on to another

20:18 ↗ facade we now turn the corner working

20:24 ↗ our way around the left end of building

20:26 ↗ one and see a comparison of the south

20:28 ↗ facades as a result of the increased

20:31 ↗ step back to four three through six and

20:33 ↗ floor plan changes discussed previously

20:35 ↗ the overall building pattern of the

20:37 ↗ South facade has been modified

20:39 ↗ identified as cue on the staff prepared

20:42 ↗ spreadsheet

20:42 ↗ this changes the only item classified

20:45 ↗ diminished for this facade when

20:47 ↗ redesigning this facade every effort was

20:49 ↗ made to carry forward the same language

20:51 ↗ utilize the same articulation and apply

20:54 ↗ materials and colors in such a way that

20:56 ↗ the result was significantly different

20:58 ↗ than previous maintains the character of

21:02 ↗ the original conceptual design since all

21:05 ↗ remain changes to the South facade are

21:07 ↗ classified neutral or improve and are a

21:10 ↗ relatively minor in scope we will now

21:12 ↗ move on to another facade continuing

21:16 ↗ around building one this slide shows the

21:19 ↗ comparison of the rear facades it is

21:21 ↗ important to note there are no changes

21:23 ↗ classified diminish on building ones

21:25 ↗ rear facade all changes are classified

21:28 ↗ neutral or improve staff highlighted one

21:31 ↗ notable change the rear facade in the

21:33 ↗ memorandum which we will show in more

21:35 ↗ detail shaded in blue and is the area

21:42 ↗ identified as AF on the staff prepared

21:44 ↗ spreadsheet this change is classified in

21:47 ↗ neutral but is of notable size and can

21:51 ↗ be found referencing staffs memorandum

21:53 ↗ so let's take a closer look this facade

21:57 ↗ change is also the result of the

21:59 ↗ increased step back to floors 3 through

22:01 ↗ 6 and the previously discussed 4 planned

22:03 ↗ changes where there existed a single two

22:06 ↗ bedroom plus den unit now there are two

22:08 ↗ units a one-bedroom and a studio unit in

22:11 ↗ its place as a result an additional

22:15 ↗ window Bay component and an additional

22:18 ↗ balcony component replace a group of

22:20 ↗ less dominant window wall

22:22 ↗ every effort was made to utilize the

22:25 ↗ same language and apply materials and

22:26 ↗ colors in such a way that the result

22:28 ↗ well notably different than previous

22:31 ↗ remains consistent with the overall

22:33 ↗ style as seen and when seen in the

22:41 ↗ overall context of the entire rear

22:43 ↗ facade you can see the changes to this

22:45 ↗ area are consistent in their expression

22:47 ↗ in execution with those established

22:49 ↗ along the rest of the rear facade since

22:52 ↗ remaining changes to the rear facade are

22:54 ↗ classified neutral or improve and our

22:56 ↗ minor in scope we will now move on to

22:58 ↗ building ones last facade continuing

23:08 ↗ around here you see a comparison of the

23:11 ↗ north facades it is important to note

23:13 ↗ that there are no changes classified

23:15 ↗ diminish on building ones North facade

23:17 ↗ all changes are classified in neutral or

23:19 ↗ improve the most apparent change to this

23:23 ↗ facade was the exterior wall at the

23:25 ↗ upper parking structure this area is now

23:27 ↗ finished in a manner consistent with

23:29 ↗ similar walls elsewhere in the project

23:32 ↗ the screen walls seen at the lower left

23:34 ↗ the construction drawings facade was a

23:36 ↗ condition of SDU approval and directed

23:38 ↗ by planning it was not a change made by

23:43 ↗ the design team now let's examine

23:47 ↗ billing - and compared compare facades

23:50 ↗ from the approved SDP vs construction

23:52 ↗ drawings the bulk of billing twos

23:54 ↗ facades changes were in response SDP

23:58 ↗ approval conditions any remaining

24:01 ↗ changes were minor mostly adding and

24:04 ↗ relocating or resizing windows it is

24:07 ↗ important to note the building - has no

24:09 ↗ changes classified diminish all changes

24:11 ↗ that occurred with building twos facades

24:14 ↗ all four facades are classified neutral

24:16 ↗ or improved here is a comparison of

24:20 ↗ billing to street facades again the more

24:25 ↗ apparent difference is seen in this

24:26 ↗ comparison where SDP approval conditions

24:28 ↗ not changes made by the design team as

24:31 ↗ illustrated here the construction

24:33 ↗ drawings street facade

24:35 ↗ remains substantially similar to the

24:38 ↗ approved SDP Street facade and turning

24:42 ↗ the corner working our way around the

24:44 ↗ left end of billing - you can see here a

24:46 ↗ comparative comparison of the south

24:48 ↗ facades a few windows were added or

24:51 ↗ modified based on internal space

24:53 ↗ planning adjustments

24:54 ↗ additionally some material transitions

24:56 ↗ were shifted to be consistent with

24:58 ↗ similar conditions elsewhere in the

25:00 ↗ project as evident by this comparison

25:02 ↗ the construction drawings South facade

25:04 ↗ remains substantially similar to the

25:07 ↗ approved SDP South facade this slide

25:13 ↗ shows the comparison building two's rear

25:15 ↗ facades as you can see the construction

25:17 ↗ drawings rear facades remains

25:19 ↗ substantially similar to the approved

25:21 ↗ SDP rear facade now let's move on to

25:25 ↗ building two's final facade this slide

25:32 ↗ shows a comparison of the north facades

25:34 ↗ for building to the changes to this

25:37 ↗ facade include adding code required

25:39 ↗ access to utility rooms changing

25:42 ↗ modulation widths due to interior room

25:44 ↗ adjustments and adding decorative metal

25:46 ↗ grates at the request of the plans

25:48 ↗ examiner despite these changes the

25:51 ↗ construction drawings North facade

25:53 ↗ remains substantially similar to the

25:55 ↗ approved SDP north facade this concludes

26:01 ↗ our presentation we hope it was helpful

26:03 ↗ explaining the design evolution that

26:05 ↗ occurred after SDP approval and the

26:08 ↗ minor impacts that occurred to the

26:10 ↗ facades as evident evidence by the

26:13 ↗ comparisons we believe the facades

26:15 ↗ represented by the construction drawings

26:17 ↗ have remained substantially similar to

26:19 ↗ the SDP approved facades thank you so do

26:29 ↗ we have anybody from the public any

26:31 ↗ members the public would you wish to

26:32 ↗ speak would you please step to the dais

26:36 ↗ and state your name and Lauren Campbell

26:41 ↗ I live at 750 Northwest Everwood Drive

26:45 ↗ we've lived there for 10 years prior

26:48 ↗ that we lived on Mount Olympus Drive for

26:50 ↗ 17 years prior to that we lived in the

26:53 ↗ Kalani apartments for a year I've been

26:55 ↗ in news requests since 1992 my current

26:58 ↗ residence is immediately above this

27:02 ↗ monstrosity I participated three years

27:06 ↗ ago and four years ago when there was

27:08 ↗ discussion of this development I

27:10 ↗ participated when there was discussion

27:12 ↗ about the houses that were built to be

27:14 ↗ neatly behind Morgan's Ridge at that

27:17 ↗ time one of the members of this board

27:20 ↗ tossed out a comment at me that I didn't

27:23 ↗ understand modern development that was

27:25 ↗ my reward for participating in this

27:27 ↗ process what I didn't think to tell them

27:30 ↗ at that time is yes I do

27:32 ↗ I do understand modern development I see

27:35 ↗ talus

27:35 ↗ I see the Highlands and I choose not to

27:38 ↗ live there when we moved ten years ago I

27:41 ↗ chose to live in Morgan's view and I

27:43 ↗ chose that community because there were

27:45 ↗ wooded Lots nearby the streets were wide

27:48 ↗ the sidewalks were wide the Lots were

27:50 ↗ generous look out my back window I see

27:53 ↗ woods and a critical slope also with

27:58 ↗ those meetings Jerry Lind who I don't

28:00 ↗ know if he still works for the city or

28:02 ↗ not said that quote the city violates

28:06 ↗ the critical slope ordinance all the

28:08 ↗ time and there has never been any

28:09 ↗ negative consequence I want to point out

28:12 ↗ at this time I'm sure this is not the

28:14 ↗ correct form but I want to have on

28:16 ↗ public record that we have ample

28:18 ↗ evidence that the city has violated the

28:20 ↗ critical slope ordinance multiple times

28:22 ↗ and there has been a consequence my tax

28:25 ↗ dollars are being spent to do a million

28:27 ↗ dollar repair and tell us right now that

28:29 ↗ a developer got approved so I want to

28:32 ↗ have on record that if there is any

28:36 ↗ movement on my property as a result of

28:39 ↗ this construction I will be coming after

28:41 ↗ the city I do not believe that this

28:44 ↗ should have been approved I never

28:45 ↗ believe that this part of the city

28:47 ↗ should have been in the CIP it's

28:49 ↗ ridiculous absolutely ridiculous that

28:52 ↗ said I recognize that we're on down the

28:55 ↗ road and that this thing is going to

28:57 ↗ happen

28:59 ↗ you know I I begged and pleaded when

29:02 ↗ those houses were built in front of this

29:04 ↗ board that they built in a manner that

29:06 ↗ was consistent with the neighborhood

29:08 ↗ they were being built in that didn't

29:10 ↗ happen every single tree was cut down in

29:13 ↗ that neighborhood I watched a family of

29:15 ↗ Bobcats including kits roam homeless for

29:18 ↗ the summer in my backyard and I watched

29:21 ↗ my neighbor's wife

29:22 ↗ quite literally sob in her driveway as

29:25 ↗ every tree adjacent to their property

29:28 ↗ was cut down in a house was built eight

29:30 ↗ feet off their property line again I

29:33 ↗ understand this is modern development I

29:35 ↗ chose to not move into a neighborhood

29:38 ↗ with modern development pertinent to

29:42 ↗ this I'm glad that we got to see the

29:44 ↗ rear elevation I have never ever seen a

29:46 ↗ drawing of what I'm going to be staring

29:48 ↗ at for the rest of the time that I live

29:50 ↗ in this residence

29:51 ↗ I think it's an eyesore it looks like it

29:53 ↗ was painted from the mismatched shelf at

29:55 ↗ Lowe's I would ask that we consider not

30:00 ↗ painting the back of the property like

30:02 ↗ that make it blend because no one is

30:05 ↗ gonna see it except me in my immediate

30:07 ↗ neighbor whom I begged and pleaded to

30:09 ↗ come to this meeting tonight and was

30:11 ↗ told why should I waste my time it

30:14 ↗ doesn't make any difference and I would

30:16 ↗ say that the time and energy that I have

30:19 ↗ spent here and in the city meetings

30:22 ↗ that's been my experience too it doesn't

30:25 ↗ make any difference the last one of

30:27 ↗ these meetings I I came to there was a

30:29 ↗ discussion about the trail going down

30:32 ↗ behind our houses to pass what's the

30:36 ↗ rear of this apartment building this

30:38 ↗ board said before we left I think we can

30:41 ↗ dispense with the trail conversation

30:43 ↗ about this property lo and behold

30:45 ↗ there's a trail so it got built anyway

30:48 ↗ after I walked out of the meeting and

30:50 ↗ was told that it wouldn't be an issue so

30:52 ↗ I now have people wandering around in my

30:54 ↗ backyard who never used to wander around

30:56 ↗ in my backyard now I get a put up a

30:59 ↗ fence or put up signs or be a grumpy

31:01 ↗ person and tell people to get out of my

31:03 ↗ yard this is not why I moved to Issaquah

31:06 ↗ this is not why I came here I could have

31:08 ↗ moved to Redmond

31:09 ↗ could have moved to Bellevue and been a

31:11 ↗ part of modern development back then

31:13 ↗ I chose Issaquah but also worked to

31:18 ↗ request that there be some kind of

31:19 ↗ screen trees something replanted back

31:22 ↗ there so that I'm not staring onto

31:25 ↗ people's decks and people on their decks

31:27 ↗ are not staring into my backyard again I

31:31 ↗ bought that piece of property knowing

31:33 ↗ very well that it was adjacent to

31:35 ↗ critical slope assuming that the city

31:37 ↗ would not allow buildings to be built on

31:39 ↗ critical slope and that I wouldn't be

31:41 ↗ staring into people's houses the other

31:44 ↗ apartments that are along Newport Way

31:46 ↗ are built much lower I assume that there

31:51 ↗ would probably be building along the

31:52 ↗ Newport way below me but that it would

31:54 ↗ be consistent with what's already there

31:56 ↗ obviously we're not doing that anymore

31:58 ↗ in this city we're not building

31:59 ↗ consistently in neighborhoods we're

32:01 ↗ doing something otherwise I respect that

32:04 ↗ you've spent a lot of time on this I

32:05 ↗ don't think that that effort or time is

32:09 ↗ relevant and considering whether or not

32:10 ↗ they need to go back for a new permit

32:13 ↗ effort does not mitigate development

32:16 ↗ rules I'm not an expert on those rules I

32:18 ↗ won't pretend to be but I don't think

32:21 ↗ that they whether or not they spend a

32:22 ↗ thousand hours or ten thousand hours or

32:24 ↗ 50 hours it should be pertinent to

32:26 ↗ whether or not they need to follow the

32:27 ↗ development rules whatever they are

32:30 ↗ and again I'll stand here and ask you

32:33 ↗ what I asked you last time I would just

32:36 ↗ love to see you developers architects

32:38 ↗ building things that are cohesive with

32:40 ↗ the neighborhoods that your buildings

32:42 ↗ are going into not pillaging and getting

32:46 ↗ as much money out of these projects as

32:47 ↗ you possibly can and I want to remind

32:51 ↗ the board that appointees employees and

32:55 ↗ elected officials are here to represent

32:58 ↗ the citizens of this community not to

33:02 ↗ extract the most dollars out of

33:04 ↗ development that they possibly can we

33:07 ↗ seem to have lost our way in this city

33:09 ↗ the developers seem to get to run

33:11 ↗ roughshod over things and because it

33:14 ↗ never seems to make any difference look

33:17 ↗ at the public participation here I'm

33:20 ↗ guessing that there are quite a few

33:21 ↗ folks in the city who would prefer

33:23 ↗ there is no public participation it sure

33:25 ↗ makes things go smoother and makes your

33:28 ↗ jobs easier you get to develop your

33:30 ↗ property however you want you get build

33:32 ↗ whatever you want but that's not why

33:36 ↗ you're here

33:37 ↗ I shouldn't have to come in battle to

33:40 ↗ get some screen trees

33:41 ↗ I shouldn't have to come in battle to

33:43 ↗ not have circus paint on the backside of

33:46 ↗ a building that faces only my house in

33:48 ↗ my neighbor's house that's what you're

33:51 ↗ here to do you're here to look out for

33:53 ↗ the citizens of this city whose tax

33:57 ↗ dollars pay the salaries of the

33:59 ↗ employees pay this stipends of the

34:02 ↗ elected officials pay for this building

34:04 ↗ pay for all that electronics that you're

34:07 ↗ all staring at new tonight I hear I just

34:10 ↗ want to remind you that that's why

34:12 ↗ you're here to protect the integrity of

34:15 ↗ the city and to represent the people who

34:17 ↗ live here not to let these guys do their

34:21 ↗ job as quickly and cheaply and most

34:22 ↗ profitably thank you thank you

34:33 ↗ so this is an opportunity for the

34:37 ↗ commissioners to ask questions question

34:42 ↗ for the applicant I didn't see I don't

34:44 ↗ think I saw like an official site plan

34:47 ↗ representing the building on the site I

34:49 ↗ saw the perspective at the beginning can

34:53 ↗ you quickly just give us an overview in

34:55 ↗ terms of which elevations we're going to

34:58 ↗ be seen from the street I I guess I

35:02 ↗ understand the rear facade faces the

35:03 ↗ hillside I was trying to better

35:07 ↗ understand what was happening in terms

35:09 ↗ of the street frontage and the

35:11 ↗ development that was going on there so

35:13 ↗ if we're driving up Newports way or we

35:15 ↗ we seen the south north and east

35:18 ↗ elevations fairly clearly here this is

35:24 ↗ the East facade of the larger building

35:28 ↗ building one this is the facade that

35:30 ↗ faces Newport Way

35:42 ↗ this would be if you were looking at the

35:45 ↗ front of building one the facade we were

35:47 ↗ just looking at this would be to the

35:48 ↗ left side coming around the left side so

35:51 ↗ this is the South facade of building one

35:57 ↗ by the way building 2 is south of

35:59 ↗ building 1 so the facade that we were

36:03 ↗ just talking about not this one the

36:06 ↗ previous one is the facade that faces

36:08 ↗ billing to this is the North facade of

36:13 ↗ building 1 the larger of the two

36:15 ↗ buildings so the South facade of

36:18 ↗ building 1 is that partially or fully

36:22 ↗ blocked by building 2 is that it's

36:24 ↗ partially a block but there's quite a

36:26 ↗ bit of space because there's an area of

36:30 ↗ some of that sense of slope area comes

36:33 ↗ down between the two buildings so do you

36:35 ↗ remember David how much space between

36:36 ↗ the two buildings off the top of your

36:38 ↗ head between the two buildings would you

36:47 ↗ like us to pull up a site plan and we

36:50 ↗ can do that Oh that'd be great if it's

36:52 ↗ not too much of a hassle

37:00 ↗ that's my mouse

37:32 ↗ you

37:34 ↗ you

37:45 ↗ you

38:24 ↗ so I think I'm just gonna step in here

38:27 ↗ while we're trying to figure out how to

38:29 ↗ manage our technology and speak directly

38:32 ↗ to mr. Campbell it's it's always

38:37 ↗ discouraging to me when members of the

38:39 ↗ public feel like their comments or

38:41 ↗ interest or input is invalid or not to

38:45 ↗ pay attention to the reality of where we

38:48 ↗ are today is the purpose of this meeting

38:50 ↗ was to be able to have some dialogue

38:51 ↗ over some changes that were made from

38:55 ↗ the approval the approved site

38:58 ↗ development plan to to make sure from

39:01 ↗ the city staff that we did the

39:03 ↗ Commission didn't feel like those

39:05 ↗ changes were significant enough to

39:07 ↗ warrant some kind of change but as

39:10 ↗ you'll hear if you if you bear with us a

39:13 ↗ little bit there you've raised some

39:14 ↗ valid points and we've got some

39:16 ↗ questions about that so I just want I

39:19 ↗ just want to make sure that anybody that

39:21 ↗ might be paying attention or listening

39:23 ↗ this we we really do appreciate the

39:25 ↗ public we are our biggest frustration

39:28 ↗ sometimes is we can't get enough members

39:30 ↗ of the public to come and be able to

39:32 ↗ voice their opinions early enough on

39:33 ↗ that we can really be able to

39:35 ↗ incorporate or address or or make that

39:37 ↗ work and sometimes we can you know

39:39 ↗ sometimes we're following code and rules

39:40 ↗ and regulations and while that's a

39:42 ↗ little frustrating there's a reality to

39:44 ↗ that but often we can make adjustments

39:47 ↗ especially minor ones and so bear with

39:49 ↗ us that I I just appreciate I appreciate

39:52 ↗ your taking your time to do that on a

39:57 ↗ similar note I would like to point out

39:59 ↗ because you were talking about screen

40:02 ↗ trees so as as you've mentioned there is

40:06 ↗ some critical slopes in this area and so

40:10 ↗ there is certainly a good chunk of this

40:13 ↗ property that we are not building on and

40:16 ↗ so we don't have

40:19 ↗ the simple drawings go into it in much

40:21 ↗ more detail but the area back here which

40:25 ↗ is with certainly within the lot will

40:27 ↗ have all of the trees maintained those

40:29 ↗ are not being touched and so you will

40:31 ↗ have a significant amount of screen

40:33 ↗ trees there and then to answer your

41:03 ↗ question so yes this is this is the -

41:08 ↗ elevation or the distance between them

41:13 ↗ around about here that will be developed

41:17 ↗ and in tandem with this project and then

41:21 ↗ that's the smaller building - over here

41:24 ↗ thank you for the vigil is that

41:26 ↗ roundabout located between the

41:27 ↗ elementary school and that I guess the

41:30 ↗ tech Wando studio or the King County

41:33 ↗ Library yeah yeah so where the hand is

41:40 ↗ right now yeah is where the is Valley

41:44 ↗ Elementary is and where the North arrow

41:47 ↗ is approximately is where the King

41:49 ↗ County a library administration building

41:52 ↗ is not it not from there please

42:02 ↗ introduce yourself

42:03 ↗ thank you my name is Bob Wenzel I'm the

42:06 ↗ owner and developer of the project and I

42:09 ↗ believe that the the roundabout is at

42:13 ↗ the intersection of Jupiter and Newport

42:15 ↗ and the elementary school is several

42:18 ↗ hundred feet north towards the city from

42:20 ↗ that so that roundabout is really right

42:22 ↗ at that intersection of Jupiter juniper

42:24 ↗ correct

42:25 ↗ juniper yes he's absolutely right I

42:28 ↗ confused my roundabouts

42:30 ↗ this is the storage building they

42:33 ↗ correct to where the arrow was is where

42:36 ↗ the storage building is and then it went

42:38 ↗ that red building which may be the

42:40 ↗ Taekwondo or was an old car building for

42:45 ↗ a while and then it goes to grade school

42:47 ↗ so okay we're a ways away from now and I

42:49 ↗ don't know if the city's planning

42:51 ↗ another roundabout at the school but I

42:52 ↗ it may be that there's another

42:54 ↗ roundabout planned there okay no thank

42:57 ↗ you for the clarification

42:57 ↗ and I think Valerie's gonna pull back up

43:00 ↗ her PowerPoint because in that just for

43:05 ↗ context project site in County Library

43:15 ↗ here's the intersection to Jupiter right

43:18 ↗ juniper right here so the roundabout is

43:20 ↗ right here okay so I think there's this

43:22 ↗ little RIT look so you it's a ways away

43:26 ↗ not a ways but from the school as you

43:28 ↗ can see where there's a cappella

43:29 ↗ elementary is yeah I see okay great

43:32 ↗ thank you yeah can you pull up the

43:34 ↗ perspective before one second before you

43:36 ↗ stop that could if you have that one if

43:38 ↗ you mr. Campbell could you sort of tell

43:42 ↗ us which one of these Lots is where your

43:44 ↗ house would be it's right there yep

43:48 ↗ right there at that corner okay thank

43:50 ↗ you

43:52 ↗ GPA you will be right here um that's a

43:55 ↗ native growth protection area and just

43:59 ↗ for the Planning Commission's I've been

44:02 ↗ working Lucy's been extraordinarily the

44:04 ↗ whole staff has been good but you know

44:06 ↗ in the global part of this project we

44:08 ↗ kept a farm or trees even in the native

44:11 ↗ growth protection area than we were we

44:13 ↗ could have taken out a bunch of trees

44:15 ↗ but in the global concept of this

44:17 ↗ project we left more trees in that in

44:19 ↗ that tract area than we we could have

44:21 ↗ taken some more down but we left we

44:23 ↗ wanted to be very conscientious about

44:25 ↗ the trees in that area

44:30 ↗ are there any new trees being planted in

44:33 ↗ the rear or you guys just maintaining

44:36 ↗ existing trees and if so do you have

44:39 ↗ Heights for those you know what Heights

44:41 ↗ will those eventually reach if there's

44:43 ↗ anything new planted back there I don't

44:45 ↗ see the landscape plan that there's any

44:47 ↗ in the back but we are maintaining of

44:50 ↗ course everything is there even

44:52 ↗ including building the the connecting

44:55 ↗ trail that's all gonna be done by hand

44:58 ↗ or small equipment where there's there

45:00 ↗ we going kind of meandering around that

45:03 ↗ to preserve that area okay Isaac Lee

45:06 ↗ walked up and down there several times

45:08 ↗ to see how that trail works and and how

45:09 ↗ the trees are there so it's very

45:11 ↗ conscientious about that thank you I

45:16 ↗ have a question

45:18 ↗ topic a so there's balconies that were

45:26 ↗ created on the townhouses false

45:27 ↗ balconies

45:28 ↗ why are those false balconies and why

45:31 ↗ wouldn't they be actual balconies is

45:33 ↗ something about the floorplan dictating

45:35 ↗ that those wouldn't be actual activated

45:38 ↗ spaces sure so this is just isolated to

45:42 ↗ that one that one unit at the end where

45:46 ↗ we have the en accessible faux balcony

45:50 ↗ so that that unit does have a balcony

45:53 ↗ off to the South elevation and that is a

45:58 ↗ fully active one the the interior

46:05 ↗ elements that are there is a bathroom

46:06 ↗ and a walk-in closet which really don't

46:09 ↗ lend itself well to having just about

46:12 ↗ coming off of it and largely that was

46:17 ↗ that change was kind of brought to bring

46:20 ↗ it in line with with the rest of the see

46:28 ↗ I'm sorry trying to bring this up so you

46:33 ↗ can see here these all have that

46:37 ↗ consistent kind of balcony off the front

46:40 ↗ above the entry at a 45

46:43 ↗ and this one really departed from that

46:46 ↗ that design we're here we kind of

46:50 ↗ brought it much more in line with the

46:51 ↗ rest of the townhomes creating a kind of

46:54 ↗ more consistent rhythm and design

46:58 ↗ language so this this balcony here would

47:01 ↗ be the only inaccessible one but you can

47:04 ↗ see that it's peeking out you bring the

47:06 ↗ enlarged elevation and back up I think

47:08 ↗ it's the next slide there so on the

47:13 ↗ proposed on the construction proposal

47:15 ↗ you've got a blank wall now that appears

47:18 ↗ help me understand what's going on there

47:20 ↗ and what's the treatment of that wall

47:25 ↗ that is the that is the access to the

47:31 ↗ stair that is the the stair shaft for

47:37 ↗ the building that goes along here it

47:39 ↗ comes out there it it does talkback

47:42 ↗ largely just because of the the kind of

47:44 ↗ oblique view that this one has but I'm

47:51 ↗ not sure yeah we'll check the drawings

47:55 ↗ are not sure is a conk rendering is is

47:58 ↗ correctly representing that wall yeah

48:03 ↗ because that treatment is inconsistent

48:04 ↗ with what we're seeing elsewhere it

48:06 ↗ stands out so yeah I see what you're

48:09 ↗ seeing it wouldn't it well yeah because

48:20 ↗ you know when you're looking in two

48:22 ↗ dimensions on construction drawings we

48:25 ↗ unless we took a section through there

48:27 ↗ we wouldn't even represent that wall

48:29 ↗ necessarily the construction drawings so

48:33 ↗ but I will say this I it does not make

48:36 ↗ sense to just end sighting and not put

48:40 ↗ any cladding or any siting on that wall

48:42 ↗ will have to need some sort of treatment

48:46 ↗ obviously it's consistent with the

48:48 ↗ treatment on the adjacent spaces just so

48:51 ↗ it matches up in the in the SDP version

48:55 ↗ there's that the

48:56 ↗ yellow paint wraps around the corner and

49:00 ↗ then there's the the darker face my

49:02 ↗ other side like a canopy that's partway

49:04 ↗ up maybe covering that walkway in there

49:08 ↗ these are not intended to be

49:11 ↗ construction supplements or anything

49:13 ↗ like that this is this was made after

49:16 ↗ our construction documents were were

49:18 ↗ generated and we were kind of we were

49:23 ↗ aiming to get into this meeting and so

49:25 ↗ it was a significant effort to get all

49:29 ↗ of these grinds done so these will not

49:31 ↗ be a hundred percent representative of

49:33 ↗ the CDs so I think your keen eyes have

49:36 ↗ certainly caught one area that it's not

49:40 ↗ representative of the CDs excuse me so

49:45 ↗ we're in the East elevation here is that

49:47 ↗ correct Kirk's because we're seeing a

49:50 ↗ little different representation our

49:52 ↗ packets right from what you've had here

49:54 ↗ our packets have it's a bit of apples

49:57 ↗ noir just because our packets have the

49:59 ↗ line drawings on the bottom and they

50:01 ↗ like the color that you have and they

50:03 ↗ also have lots of call-outs on them and

50:06 ↗ I'm referring to a call-out in the

50:08 ↗ original packet on the East elevation of

50:10 ↗ GA and there are other call-outs like

50:13 ↗ this that recur throughout this plan and

50:15 ↗ in certain areas like this windows have

50:18 ↗ been added in areas like that and I'm

50:21 ↗ wondering if those are stairwell areas

50:24 ↗ you mentioned stairwell areas a minute

50:27 ↗ ago regarding all Afghan to the east

50:29 ↗ elevation I'm wondering if J is a

50:31 ↗ stairwell set of stairwell so I don't

50:35 ↗ know if you remember but we were talking

50:38 ↗ a bit about this babying shrunk a little

50:41 ↗ bit and that was a direct result of the

50:49 ↗ increase in this one so this is actually

50:53 ↗ resident storage that we it was a narrow

50:58 ↗ space that we allocated to resident

50:59 ↗ storage but once you accounted for

51:02 ↗ accessibility requirements it became in

51:07 ↗ functional and so we couldn't allocate

51:10 ↗ it and so that's that two and a half

51:12 ↗ foot increase that we spoke of earlier

51:14 ↗ was added to this and during that time

51:18 ↗ we were able to also add in those

51:21 ↗ windows to enliven that that area okay

51:23 ↗ and behind my question I'm wondering in

51:26 ↗ areas like that where windows have been

51:28 ↗ added in the new versions another one is

51:30 ↗ AI and in our plans I'm wondering what

51:34 ↗ the lighting is behind those windows is

51:36 ↗ that bare stairwell lighting that's

51:39 ↗ visible from the street or what kind of

51:41 ↗ lighting in general is behind those

51:43 ↗ windows that have now been added so this

51:48 ↗ one here as I said is resident storage

51:51 ↗ it could take a quick look at the floor

51:57 ↗ plan to see if it would be the interior

51:58 ↗ hall I think it actually might be the

52:00 ↗ inside of a resident storage unit and

52:03 ↗ then the other one the AI that you're

52:05 ↗ talking about that is a living unit that

52:08 ↗ is a bedroom someone's bedroom okay so

52:10 ↗ these are not new stairwells that are

52:13 ↗ gonna be exposed lighting from the

52:14 ↗ street these are not new sterile it's

52:16 ↗ okay thank you

52:23 ↗ can you give me a sense of relief

52:26 ↗ between the ground floor of this

52:29 ↗ building and then it rises 60 feet 60

52:32 ↗ odd feet and thats relationship to the

52:35 ↗ homes behind it or the homes behind it

52:38 ↗ above the top of the roof you have a

52:43 ↗ sight section or anything like that let

52:48 ↗ me pull something

53:23 ↗ you

54:10 ↗ I'm gonna guess that looking at the

54:12 ↗ city's lidar that mr. Campbell's home is

54:17 ↗ maybe at elevation 210 and at the front

54:22 ↗ of the site is at about less than 80 so

54:29 ↗ there's a fair amount of vertical

54:34 ↗ elevation change so the building is

54:38 ↗ fairly significantly below it and I was

54:44 ↗ just gonna say at some point I don't

54:46 ↗ know that we have a landscape plan or

54:50 ↗ construction but I have the site

54:52 ↗ development permit plan with the

54:55 ↗ landscape plan from that that does give

54:58 ↗ a sense of the trees that were being

55:00 ↗ planted on that if the project on the

55:06 ↗ site that's not on the roof and I guess

55:08 ↗ what I was driving at is is this roof

55:10 ↗ highly visible and and yeah I assume

55:14 ↗ it's a flat roof that's a membrane of

55:18 ↗ some sort mechanical equipment and then

55:22 ↗ that's screen but that screen from

55:25 ↗ perspective of a person's view on the

55:29 ↗ street or it's at a distance or it's

55:31 ↗ screened okay but if you are above it

55:37 ↗ looking down at this building you just

55:40 ↗ see the top of the building I'm just

55:42 ↗ trying to get a sense of that

55:43 ↗ perspective more than anything from from

55:48 ↗ there 2016 we did kind of address this

55:53 ↗ back at that point and the tree line is

55:58 ↗ a was kind of a agreed that that would

56:02 ↗ act as the the screen for stuff I mean

56:06 ↗ there's only so much screening that you

56:08 ↗ can do from a high elevation I mean you

56:11 ↗ can eventually see the top of the roof

56:12 ↗ we we did go into a significant detail

56:15 ↗ about the exact color of the roof not

56:20 ↗ there are certain Issaquah standards

56:22 ↗ that

56:23 ↗ prevent heat island effect but so that

56:26 ↗ also makes a very bright roof but we

56:30 ↗ tried to compromise between a low or a

56:33 ↗ high SR I solar reflectance index and a

56:37 ↗ not glaring bright white roof at you and

56:41 ↗ so we did take significant effort to

56:45 ↗ kind of

56:48 ↗ Gallants those balances and that was

56:50 ↗ really my next questions what color is

56:52 ↗ that roof is it highly reflective is it

56:54 ↗ bright yeah it's a kind of middle green

56:59 ↗ light grey yeah so okay thank you

57:07 ↗ in addition to that I are there large

57:12 ↗ HVAC units up on the roof and will those

57:14 ↗ be screened I mean yes there are some

57:17 ↗ HVAC units on the roof all of those have

57:22 ↗ been screened some of the staff comments

57:25 ↗ or some of those call-outs reference

57:29 ↗ raised parapets

57:31 ↗ and the reasoning behind those rates

57:34 ↗ parapets is for to properly screen do

57:37 ↗ HVAC units so we've either positioned

57:41 ↗ them centrally in the roof in some areas

57:44 ↗ and those that we had to position

57:47 ↗ somewhat close to the edge I mean we

57:49 ↗ didn't throw it up on the edge but any

57:52 ↗ any proximity to it we made sure that

57:54 ↗ the parapet was able to screen those

57:59 ↗ thank you more questions to us I

58:15 ↗ understand we're not you know we're not

58:16 ↗ intended to go through every line item

58:18 ↗ of the table of the changes but I if you

58:22 ↗ don't mind I had a couple questions on

58:24 ↗ those that I didn't I didn't understand

58:26 ↗ and this would be on building two and

58:30 ↗ it's item J a page 23 of 31 an item J

58:38 ↗ I'm trying to figure out

58:44 ↗ what that means all right we're playing

58:56 ↗ with technologies so we just put that up

58:58 ↗ on your screen so you can see it so are

59:24 ↗ you questioning whether like what that

59:26 ↗ changes actually I'm just I'm trying to

59:29 ↗ understand

59:31 ↗ I understand both the original and what

59:33 ↗ the change is so the roof over the

59:35 ↗ second-floor unit is low sloped roof

59:37 ↗ with no parapet I was actually just

59:40 ↗ trying to find that basically what

59:44 ↗ happened was the roof basically just the

59:49 ↗ height increased that was it it's very

59:52 ↗ minimal but that way you're showing

59:55 ↗ there is actually the roof okay yes yeah

59:59 ↗ so you can see here that just the

1:00:07 ↗ side-by-side comparison you can see that

1:00:09 ↗ this just raised a little bit for the

1:00:11 ↗ parapet we just needed additional height

1:00:14 ↗ at the roof a level 2 - hi

1:00:18 ↗ to conceal the cricketing and whatnot

1:00:20 ↗ they needed to drain the roof properly

1:00:23 ↗ so something that we we modeled very

1:00:26 ↗ quickly or not very quickly but we

1:00:28 ↗ modeled quickly before the the sign

1:00:31 ↗ development permit and then when you get

1:00:33 ↗ into the more specifics of where does

1:00:36 ↗ the rain flow what sort of clearances do

1:00:38 ↗ you need before you can terminate the

1:00:40 ↗ parapet all of that so I just required

1:00:44 ↗ bringing that pair pit height just up a

1:00:48 ↗ little bit okay thank you and in then

1:00:50 ↗ item

1:00:54 ↗ which is also on the south side building

1:01:02 ↗ to south beside so I believe that one is

1:01:11 ↗ just referencing the difference in how

1:01:15 ↗ the material treatment was yeah so in

1:01:19 ↗ which location this one right here

1:01:23 ↗ okay so we've just kind of treated

1:01:29 ↗ treated it a little bit differently

1:01:31 ↗ trying to get it consistent where we

1:01:34 ↗ didn't split the color on a window edge

1:01:36 ↗ which we in the SDP we we did but tried

1:01:41 ↗ to bring it more consistent with the

1:01:43 ↗ rest of the project where we don't split

1:01:45 ↗ a color on the window edge yeah thank

1:01:49 ↗ you

1:01:49 ↗ NYC man well we're still on South

1:01:52 ↗ elevation building two in our drawings

1:01:55 ↗ which I think you had on the other slide

1:01:56 ↗ there the original rendition we received

1:02:00 ↗ it there appears to be a kind of it

1:02:02 ↗ looks like almost an overhang yeah was

1:02:06 ↗ yeah right there

1:02:10 ↗ South elevation building two I'm looking

1:02:17 ↗ the original right above it up there

1:02:20 ↗ there appears to be you see there's kind

1:02:22 ↗ of an overhang there on the lower right

1:02:25 ↗ there appears to be an overhang yes and

1:02:28 ↗ I don't know if that's an entrance

1:02:29 ↗ associated with that I wonder what

1:02:32 ↗ happened to that I don't lower that

1:02:35 ↗ still exists it's just the the previous

1:02:39 ↗ iteration was drawn 3d and model

1:02:42 ↗ exported into various forms perspectives

1:02:46 ↗ as well as these 2d elevations and so

1:02:48 ↗ there actually are a number of artifacts

1:02:51 ↗ where that's that's actually the front

1:02:53 ↗ entry that you see up in the upper left

1:02:56 ↗ corner there to back so it's just it's a

1:02:59 ↗ hundred feet back okay we didn't draw a

1:03:02 ↗ line by line in dekat

1:03:05 ↗ an autocad version thanks for clear they

1:03:07 ↗ were young yeah that was yeah it was a

1:03:09 ↗ challenge because the drawing

1:03:11 ↗ conventions from an SDP level drawing is

1:03:15 ↗ going to they're going to show some of

1:03:17 ↗ those those features that are further

1:03:19 ↗ away right when they're drawing it but

1:03:22 ↗ when they're doing the building drawings

1:03:24 ↗ they're not trying to show they're

1:03:27 ↗ trying to show the actual facade not

1:03:29 ↗ some of those things that are further

1:03:31 ↗ away and so I think that's why they

1:03:34 ↗ produce that other set of drawings that

1:03:36 ↗ they've been using tonight because

1:03:38 ↗ they're drawn more consistently and so

1:03:41 ↗ you don't have those things that

1:03:43 ↗ appeared to be disappearing what we're

1:03:44 ↗ hearing yes it's when it's just a change

1:03:47 ↗ in drawing convention thank you well

1:03:50 ↗ said also I'm building to a question for

1:04:00 ↗ staff let's see call-out you you was

1:04:04 ↗ referred to in the table in the West

1:04:07 ↗ elevation I can't find that label on the

1:04:09 ↗ drawings was that omitted or am I just

1:04:12 ↗ not seeing it that would be the West

1:04:14 ↗ elevation of building - I believe s was

1:04:19 ↗ duplicated there are actually two S's

1:04:21 ↗ I've there's an S on the other elevation

1:04:25 ↗ I believe that s is intended to be the

1:04:27 ↗ you that's the you okay okay yeah I

1:04:29 ↗ could be wrong but this is my assumption

1:04:31 ↗ okay I thought it was just referring to

1:04:34 ↗ a similar structure in both that's why

1:04:36 ↗ you had the two S's but it was just

1:04:38 ↗ duplicated yeah okay thank you

1:04:41 ↗ and we assume there is no rooftop use

1:04:44 ↗ here

1:04:45 ↗ is that correct correct and that's the

1:04:54 ↗ same case for retail I imagine right

1:04:55 ↗ this is all yeah residential retail you

1:05:03 ↗ explained on East elevation building one

1:05:06 ↗ letter G what the reasoning of the

1:05:10 ↗ removal of that landscaping was I'm

1:05:12 ↗ looking at the before and after and

1:05:14 ↗ maybe the after is not colored and

1:05:17 ↗ that's why I'm not seeing it but it

1:05:18 ↗ looks like it's been removed is that

1:05:19 ↗ correct yes I think that goes back to

1:05:23 ↗ the design conventions or just drawing

1:05:27 ↗ conventions this the the landscaping is

1:05:31 ↗ not really within the architectural

1:05:34 ↗ design and so that is within the the

1:05:39 ↗ landscape design drawings but we don't

1:05:42 ↗ show it here because it's not under our

1:05:45 ↗ purview

1:05:45 ↗ so that planter is still there yeah the

1:05:49 ↗ planter yeah I can show it a little bit

1:05:59 ↗ in them so this is showing the the two

1:06:06 ↗ versions here so you were seeing plants

1:06:10 ↗ along this edge here and then here that

1:06:14 ↗ that same condition exists this has been

1:06:16 ↗ a more developed courtyard it was one of

1:06:20 ↗ the SDP approval conditions to develop

1:06:23 ↗ this to kind of the the city staff

1:06:28 ↗ standards so we we worked with amy tarce

1:06:31 ↗ at the time very thoroughly to come up

1:06:35 ↗ with this solution and then i can show

1:06:38 ↗ you one more photo that kind of shows it

1:06:40 ↗ off whoops

1:06:49 ↗ so that's kind of okay shows you a

1:06:54 ↗ different angles of that same courtyard

1:06:55 ↗ so this is this is the construction

1:06:58 ↗ drawing version thank you

1:07:03 ↗ we're not showing the vertical plant

1:07:05 ↗ elements that would be there we're just

1:07:07 ↗ kind of showing a generic dream paint

1:07:09 ↗ but using a little imagination you can

1:07:13 ↗ do that there definitely will be some

1:07:14 ↗ vertical greenery that happens okay

1:07:19 ↗ did we go back to building one South

1:07:21 ↗ elevation for a moment I'm looking at

1:07:25 ↗ the packet drawings that we received

1:07:28 ↗ I'll be referring to those okay and do

1:07:42 ↗ you have our packet rendition of that

1:07:45 ↗ the 2ds line drawing yeah great thank

1:07:49 ↗ you so down in the lower right the T and

1:07:53 ↗ u area of that South elevation when I

1:07:56 ↗ saw it just on the line drawing it looks

1:07:58 ↗ like there's a lot going on in there I

1:08:00 ↗ couldn't really decode with that area

1:08:01 ↗ what that was about

1:08:03 ↗ so probably your color rendition would

1:08:07 ↗ be helpful and again it looks like above

1:08:11 ↗ it there's an overhang there that

1:08:13 ↗ doesn't appear below and is that the

1:08:15 ↗ same kind of condition that we had

1:08:16 ↗ before it's a result of a CAD export yes

1:08:19 ↗ yeah okay so it's actually recessed just

1:08:26 ↗ that whole tu area look not as

1:08:28 ↗ harmonious to me as some of the rest of

1:08:30 ↗ the design no we're trying to get it to

1:08:33 ↗ full screen so there was a few things

1:08:44 ↗ that happened to the South facade the

1:08:46 ↗ kind of floors three through six thing

1:08:51 ↗ that we went into detail about the unit

1:08:54 ↗ changing and whatnot but yes this

1:08:57 ↗ townhome did change a bit the grading

1:09:01 ↗ was the large proponent of what happened

1:09:04 ↗ to this South facade here as you can see

1:09:09 ↗ we kept the grade fairly consistently

1:09:12 ↗ low for a while and then started to kind

1:09:15 ↗ of climb based on a fire marshals

1:09:21 ↗ requirement that we provide a a path not

1:09:25 ↗ only on this side earning me not only on

1:09:27 ↗ the the far side the north side but on

1:09:29 ↗ this side as well that we

1:09:32 ↗ it's a full full path around it we had

1:09:37 ↗ to regrade this area

1:09:39 ↗ and that did kind of eat away a little

1:09:44 ↗ bit of our ability to Fenna straight or

1:09:48 ↗ add Windows to this this section that

1:09:52 ↗ then now becomes kind of subgrade so in

1:09:56 ↗ the new version that's a townhome on the

1:09:58 ↗ far right that we're looking at there

1:10:00 ↗ then yes okay all right thank you

1:10:05 ↗ what is that transition between yellow

1:10:08 ↗ and white does that a reveal a vertical

1:10:11 ↗ reveal will show that transition or is

1:10:14 ↗ it just paint a paint it is a vertical

1:10:17 ↗ revealed yeah it's a it's a reg let's

1:10:21 ↗ order this would be kind of Hardy panel

1:10:24 ↗ fibrous cements asks material and the

1:10:29 ↗ that would just be some reg let holder

1:10:34 ↗ that is transitions between the two

1:10:39 ↗ well building one the North elevation

1:10:43 ↗ and there's an addition of a screen wall

1:10:46 ↗ so on our plan it's it's number V yeah

1:10:54 ↗ this is a new wall that's at the very

1:10:58 ↗ north end of the project then as your so

1:11:01 ↗ as you're driving south on Newports way

1:11:03 ↗ you would see this this green wall okay

1:11:07 ↗ kid yes and that was a commission

1:11:09 ↗ requirement condition of approval okay

1:11:12 ↗ and then and that's where the sign is

1:11:14 ↗ created on where the sign is proposed we

1:11:19 ↗ haven't done a sign permit yet you have

1:11:28 ↗ a 3d that would show where that sign is

1:11:31 ↗ then we do not the the sign itself is a

1:11:38 ↗ has to be submitted under a separate

1:11:41 ↗ permit so we chose to omit that to

1:11:44 ↗ clarify what what is under this permit

1:11:48 ↗ that we're seeking as opposed to

1:11:50 ↗ something that may or may not get

1:11:53 ↗ approved later on so okay yeah so on so

1:11:57 ↗ on the East elevation it's shown as a do

1:12:02 ↗ you have a shot of the East elevation

1:12:03 ↗ and I'm just gonna switch over cuz yeah

1:12:15 ↗ and so this is representative I guess of

1:12:20 ↗ these materials the materials did shift

1:12:23 ↗ between this this one here we've

1:12:26 ↗ actually we did model this as a as that

1:12:34 ↗ kind of tan hardy panel sidle sighting

1:12:38 ↗ option it and unfortunately did did not

1:12:42 ↗ look within the this 2d CD drawings it I

1:12:49 ↗ think it looks fairly okay but when we

1:12:51 ↗ modelled it here and had it

1:12:52 ↗ the 3d it just it was surprising to us

1:12:56 ↗ how unfitting it was so that's something

1:12:59 ↗ that we wanted to present our best foot

1:13:02 ↗ forward and since this was something new

1:13:04 ↗ to the design commission it was

1:13:06 ↗ something that we were going to move

1:13:07 ↗ forward with into the the CDs when we

1:13:11 ↗ submit for our third round of planchette

1:13:14 ↗ connection Corrections in terms of what

1:13:16 ↗ this wall will look like yes green wall

1:13:19 ↗ okay yeah and is it two different would

1:13:22 ↗ it be two different materials like it's

1:13:23 ↗ shown so the stone here is actually so

1:13:37 ↗ yes you're actually seeing this

1:13:40 ↗ transition here where yeah yeah both

1:13:44 ↗ kind of showing the same book in here so

1:13:46 ↗ you're you're seeing part of the screen

1:13:47 ↗ wall and then part of the the retaining

1:13:49 ↗ told me okay I thought it was all part

1:13:52 ↗ of this thing yeah I think this is the

1:13:54 ↗ screen was that stone don't you look

1:13:59 ↗ that we had yes okay so that that screen

1:14:03 ↗ wall is still subject to staff approval

1:14:05 ↗ and what that looks like and that right

1:14:09 ↗ yes right word I mean we're implementing

1:14:13 ↗ your approval can do yeah I mean we can

1:14:20 ↗ okay we can at this point either either

1:14:23 ↗ option is certainly something that we

1:14:27 ↗ can do where we can do the panel siding

1:14:29 ↗ and that tan color we we felt that the

1:14:33 ↗ best presentation was that kind of dark

1:14:36 ↗ gray lap and that that presented the

1:14:39 ↗ best aesthetic I think in the SDP

1:14:43 ↗ approval condition stating this it had

1:14:47 ↗ to be a screen wall consistent with the

1:14:51 ↗ materials of the building so we did use

1:14:54 ↗ the the materials either the the tan

1:14:57 ↗ panel but when we were looking at it it

1:15:01 ↗ still was a little jarring between the

1:15:03 ↗ two having that one down down

1:15:06 ↗ on the ground level where it doesn't

1:15:07 ↗ exist anywhere else like that it's

1:15:09 ↗ always at the higher levels so that's

1:15:13 ↗ where we kind of pivoted what we felt

1:15:17 ↗ was a better aesthetic to present to you

1:15:19 ↗ it could be a section in the middle as

1:15:22 ↗ the background for whatever your signage

1:15:23 ↗ is yeah another question on a building

1:15:44 ↗ to South elevation its marked chi in our

1:15:50 ↗ packet I don't see a rating on that I

1:15:54 ↗ assume it's not a diminish anyway I

1:16:02 ↗ think you were asking about stairwells

1:16:05 ↗ that is actually windows added to some

1:16:09 ↗ stairwells here right I apologize I was

1:16:13 ↗ not trying to slide this one under the

1:16:15 ↗ radar I forgot about it

1:16:17 ↗ yeah I assumed that that's that was what

1:16:20 ↗ it was it's directly positioned over the

1:16:21 ↗ door there and it was and those windows

1:16:23 ↗ are radically right aligned so it had to

1:16:25 ↗ be over something probably like a

1:16:27 ↗ stairwell mm-hmm so is lighting visible

1:16:30 ↗ through those from the end so I think

1:16:33 ↗ first off I would like to say that this

1:16:36 ↗ element here comes out I can't give an

1:16:43 ↗ exact figure but I believe it comes out

1:16:44 ↗ maybe about four feet or so and those

1:16:47 ↗ windows are tucked kind of hard to that

1:16:51 ↗ side so from the from the street

1:16:54 ↗ perspective I'm not sure how much you're

1:16:58 ↗ going to be able to see these windows

1:16:59 ↗ and six and a half feet back so this

1:17:04 ↗ this wall comes out six and a half feet

1:17:08 ↗ proud of this wall here so from this

1:17:12 ↗ street perspective those may be

1:17:14 ↗ invisible windows we we've added it for

1:17:19 ↗ for aesthetic of the building and a hole

1:17:22 ↗ as a whole but that may be minimal value

1:17:27 ↗ to passerby okay and only to the

1:17:31 ↗ resident and occupants okay

1:17:35 ↗ I noticed in the before drawings which

1:17:39 ↗ are the color drawings on the North

1:17:42 ↗ facade and I guess really the South

1:17:43 ↗ facade - I'm seeing a solid garage door

1:17:47 ↗ verse the construction drawings are

1:17:49 ↗ shown in a mesh is that an open mesh I

1:17:51 ↗ mean are we seen into the garage so

1:17:54 ↗ these ones are actually this is a open

1:17:58 ↗ garage in the approved STP and then we

1:18:03 ↗ ended up screening that so that is a

1:18:07 ↗ mesh metal mesh I what's that okay

1:18:16 ↗ I'm sorry it's called a metal grille on

1:18:17 ↗ our charts and drawings yeah okay

1:18:21 ↗ so prior to that it was open we did have

1:18:25 ↗ a more I think in the initial drawings

1:18:29 ↗ before it even came to the Commission we

1:18:32 ↗ had a more open garage where there was

1:18:34 ↗ multiple entry points we ended up

1:18:37 ↗ closing that out through various staff

1:18:41 ↗ input along the front elevation and so

1:18:45 ↗ once we kind of created this area we

1:18:47 ↗ wanted to fully secure it since there

1:18:50 ↗ wasn't multiple eyes on the street

1:18:53 ↗ viewpoints

1:18:56 ↗ while we're on this elevation regarding

1:19:00 ↗ lighting are there actual poles along

1:19:05 ↗ the stairwell leading up to the rear of

1:19:08 ↗ the building I'm trying to picture what

1:19:10 ↗ I'm seeing during the night time for mr.

1:19:12 ↗ Campbell's perspective or is it really

1:19:15 ↗ just you know wall pax on the you know

1:19:18 ↗ above the doors and the garage door are

1:19:21 ↗ there actual you know pote like posts or

1:19:25 ↗ you know the stairwell the Lance are you

1:19:28 ↗ you're saying the interior stairwell or

1:19:30 ↗ this exterior the exterior with the is

1:19:33 ↗ the fire so the landscape lighting is

1:19:36 ↗ handled within the the landscaping plans

1:19:39 ↗ I can pull those up but I don't have

1:19:42 ↗ information up in my brain on that one

1:19:45 ↗ so just write a better scene I've done

1:19:49 ↗ the lighting with you yet okay because

1:19:53 ↗ there are critical areas there and

1:19:56 ↗ neighbors that might very well be motion

1:20:01 ↗ sensors so that it isn't on all night so

1:20:07 ↗ that would certainly be something they

1:20:12 ↗ would have to do it at some point

1:20:14 ↗ I see okay thank you

1:20:23 ↗ more questions I don't know this this

1:20:28 ↗ isn't pertaining to the changes have

1:20:30 ↗ been made but the question the mr.

1:20:32 ↗ Campbell brought up of the colors of the

1:20:34 ↗ building on the hillside and seems like

1:20:38 ↗ our code is written and things have been

1:20:39 ↗ drawn out so then when we when we look

1:20:42 ↗ at things like this we see like if it

1:20:44 ↗ was open to all sides in reality this

1:20:47 ↗ building just faces a hill and truly the

1:20:50 ↗ only people I think they would ever see

1:20:52 ↗ that side would be the neighbors up

1:20:53 ↗ above a question that I guess would it

1:20:56 ↗ would it be possible to have a more

1:20:59 ↗ muted paint scheme on the west side of

1:21:02 ↗ the building and we have on the street

1:21:04 ↗ side even those differences and I you

1:21:08 ↗ know maybe it's something we should have

1:21:09 ↗ discussed and are you're gonna prove

1:21:11 ↗ over whatever but yeah I think it brings

1:21:13 ↗ up an interesting point one here would

1:21:15 ↗ you think about that um I I think well I

1:21:21 ↗ don't think we talked about that before

1:21:25 ↗ mr. Campbell brought it up I don't

1:21:27 ↗ remember but his memory of three years

1:21:29 ↗ it was better than mine not asking you

1:21:36 ↗ to I'm just I'm just trying to be

1:21:38 ↗ respectful of that I don't remember all

1:21:41 ↗ of your comments and I may not have

1:21:44 ↗ attended it you were so I think that

1:21:52 ↗ there are I'm trying to remember before

1:21:56 ↗ the design manual um I don't I don't

1:21:59 ↗ think there are requirements for this

1:22:02 ↗ some of the some of the color division

1:22:05 ↗ but that happens at the third floor

1:22:09 ↗ between the third and the fourth floor I

1:22:11 ↗ believe that is a requirement but what

1:22:17 ↗ the material or color change at that

1:22:21 ↗ point is it just has to be

1:22:24 ↗ [Music]

1:22:25 ↗ the word visible or perceptible it

1:22:30 ↗ doesn't necessarily have to be to this

1:22:33 ↗ extent so I think that's missionary I

1:22:39 ↗ think when we were developing this and

1:22:42 ↗ going through the kind of coordination

1:22:44 ↗ and back and forth with the the city

1:22:48 ↗ staff at the time there was an effort to

1:22:51 ↗ not ignore this rear facade and to give

1:22:55 ↗ it as as much viewing and attention as

1:23:01 ↗ the the other facades and so we we did

1:23:05 ↗ try and create a cohesive facade and not

1:23:07 ↗ have this be a blank wall because we

1:23:09 ↗ that was that was certainly something

1:23:11 ↗ that we couldn't do is just make a

1:23:14 ↗ straight flat blank wall make it cheap

1:23:16 ↗ make it easy and and just paint it one

1:23:19 ↗ color that's I mean it's not something

1:23:22 ↗ we wanted to do but it was also

1:23:24 ↗ something that we we couldn't do through

1:23:27 ↗ the central secret of central is quad

1:23:29 ↗ design standards so I think with this

1:23:35 ↗ one you can see that we we definitely

1:23:37 ↗ tried to create and maintain a cohesive

1:23:40 ↗ facade and design standard design

1:23:43 ↗ language between all four facades of

1:23:45 ↗ this building is there any is there any

1:23:49 ↗ is it all because of materials or is

1:23:52 ↗ there any chance that you would be able

1:23:53 ↗ to reduce the number of colors on the

1:23:58 ↗ backside of the building I mean I

1:24:00 ↗ appreciate essentially everything you've

1:24:02 ↗ said and in terms of the modulation and

1:24:05 ↗ it's all very attractive but

1:24:08 ↗ if I made Bob wins all the developer in

1:24:12 ↗ it you may not recollect but when we

1:24:15 ↗ talk in a specifically about the color

1:24:17 ↗ of the building when we first came to

1:24:20 ↗ the Planning Commission we spent several

1:24:23 ↗ hours going through the specific cues

1:24:26 ↗ and colors of the each and every

1:24:28 ↗ component of the building with the

1:24:31 ↗ Planning Commission to come up with a

1:24:32 ↗ scheme like this we we we probably had

1:24:35 ↗ six different colors of the mustard of

1:24:38 ↗ the yellow that the Planning Commission

1:24:39 ↗ looked at reviewed we'd Gurjit ated that

1:24:43 ↗ for a long time so we are fine with with

1:24:48 ↗ changing but we spent an enormous amount

1:24:50 ↗ of time coming up with this specific

1:24:53 ↗ color scheme just and I guess I'm I'm

1:24:55 ↗ thinking that that we looked at it

1:24:57 ↗ perhaps much more from the Newport way

1:24:59 ↗ aha view of it and people going north

1:25:01 ↗ and south and we spent a lot of time

1:25:04 ↗ considering what was behind and as much

1:25:08 ↗ as I and I've been up with the new

1:25:10 ↗ houses also and I think we even drove up

1:25:15 ↗ there to kind of get a view and the view

1:25:17 ↗ changes from from spring to winter there

1:25:19 ↗ because there is a fair amount of

1:25:21 ↗ deciduous trees in the open space so as

1:25:24 ↗ the you know leaves come off you're

1:25:26 ↗ going to see more of the building than

1:25:29 ↗ you do in the summer but we spent a lot

1:25:31 ↗ of time on the color but we can still we

1:25:33 ↗ can you know make it I'm not sure if

1:25:36 ↗ softer is the word but you know we can

1:25:41 ↗ we can manage that but we did spend a

1:25:43 ↗ tremendous amount of time on and I guess

1:25:45 ↗ at this point I wouldn't you know we've

1:25:47 ↗ approved this with this color scheme and

1:25:49 ↗ everything so I don't think it's our

1:25:51 ↗ point to come back and say no we want to

1:25:52 ↗ change that now but if there was

1:25:54 ↗ something you came up with it he felt

1:25:57 ↗ was softer or you were a color something

1:26:01 ↗ that the neighbors would appreciate I

1:26:04 ↗ guess I would encourage that yeah I'm in

1:26:10 ↗ agreement with commissioner Morgan as

1:26:12 ↗ well I think for me the the code that

1:26:14 ↗ really stands out is the yellow I would

1:26:17 ↗ encourage maybe the exploration of Tony

1:26:20 ↗ down a little bit it may not have to be

1:26:23 ↗ back right it may not have to be all

1:26:25 ↗ around the sides right maybe I just

1:26:27 ↗ perhaps the rear I'm not gonna defend

1:26:29 ↗ the yellow but I will tell you there's

1:26:31 ↗ if you're a color person I kind of

1:26:34 ↗ consider myself someone that is not what

1:26:36 ↗ we presented and we don't have the

1:26:38 ↗ actual swatch here it would be

1:26:40 ↗ interesting that is coming off very

1:26:42 ↗ bright very yellow what I've got here is

1:26:47 ↗ more of a gold goldish color again maybe

1:26:52 ↗ for some of us it's still yellow maybe

1:26:54 ↗ gold yeah but there isn't that isn't the

1:26:57 ↗ color yellow particularly shifted up

1:27:00 ↗ there with your ear display if the

1:27:06 ↗ Commission remembered we had about four

1:27:08 ↗ or five different swatches of the of the

1:27:11 ↗ mustard as I call it that's right and we

1:27:14 ↗ had we had boards that we'd painted and

1:27:16 ↗ things like that and again at least from

1:27:19 ↗ the developer side of things you know

1:27:22 ↗ I'm cognizant of the houses I build

1:27:24 ↗ houses on a residential builder also so

1:27:27 ↗ truly the only people that are gonna

1:27:29 ↗ ever see the back of this building is

1:27:31 ↗ the neighbors in some fashion and so you

1:27:37 ↗ know for me it could be a very plain you

1:27:41 ↗ know color but then we also get back to

1:27:44 ↗ the planning and design requirements

1:27:48 ↗ then how do you manage that well so can

1:28:00 ↗ i it's real quick so first of all this

1:28:04 ↗ we've approved this permit and we're not

1:28:06 ↗ reopening all aspects the permit we just

1:28:08 ↗ we were asked to way back in on some

1:28:10 ↗ design modifications book that means

1:28:12 ↗ said I think there needs clearly needs

1:28:14 ↗ to be sensitivity to what's going on

1:28:16 ↗ behind so we already heard some comments

1:28:18 ↗ about the light and glare and being

1:28:19 ↗ really creative and ensuring that and I

1:28:23 ↗ know there are standards in the city's

1:28:24 ↗ code prevent light and glare to spill

1:28:27 ↗ across property lines but

1:28:28 ↗ to make sure that that you're attentive

1:28:32 ↗ to that and you know with selection of

1:28:35 ↗ lights and or blinds etc to minimize any

1:28:38 ↗ clear that might have spill as far as

1:28:41 ↗ the color goes I mean it's it's we get

1:28:43 ↗ into discussions about color a lot and

1:28:45 ↗ everybody has an opinion it's kind of

1:28:47 ↗ like art sometimes I like it I don't

1:28:49 ↗ like it and so you know if we start

1:28:52 ↗ changing the colors to the design maybe

1:28:53 ↗ mr. Campbell would appreciate a muted a

1:28:55 ↗ more muted facade here maybe the yellows

1:28:59 ↗ or suggested others may not that see the

1:29:03 ↗ back side of this building so I'm

1:29:04 ↗ careful about if we're gonna do

1:29:06 ↗ something wanna maybe ask some other

1:29:08 ↗ folks some for some opinions but that

1:29:11 ↗ being said we've approved a project

1:29:13 ↗ already with us color scheme and so

1:29:16 ↗ let's be cautious about what we do here

1:29:19 ↗ in directing otherwise other than I do

1:29:21 ↗ agree with the point about being

1:29:23 ↗ sensitive to what the people who are

1:29:26 ↗ going to view this facade of the

1:29:28 ↗ building are going to see and

1:29:29 ↗ particularly when it comes to something

1:29:30 ↗ that's overly harsh on as far as bright

1:29:33 ↗ or particularly lighting so that that's

1:29:36 ↗ just my my take on this yeah I think

1:29:40 ↗ it's it's really important to realize

1:29:41 ↗ what we're here for right and it's not

1:29:43 ↗ to change the design it's to look at the

1:29:45 ↗ proposal that was approved and the

1:29:49 ↗ modifications that have been made

1:29:50 ↗ because the construction requirements

1:29:51 ↗ and make a decision on whether we think

1:29:54 ↗ that they are as as I've been indicated

1:29:56 ↗ neutral or less than valuable or

1:30:00 ↗ valuable and and so I do it I do

1:30:04 ↗ appreciate the the concern for the color

1:30:08 ↗ but the fact is it is approved and so if

1:30:12 ↗ there's a way to work through that I

1:30:15 ↗ don't think any of us would be too upset

1:30:18 ↗ about the back of it but I agree with

1:30:19 ↗ the comment that was made that mr.

1:30:23 ↗ Brennan that we're going in deep water

1:30:27 ↗ once we start making those changes after

1:30:29 ↗ something we've already approved or even

1:30:30 ↗ asking for those changes and so I just

1:30:33 ↗ encourage us to keep our keep our

1:30:35 ↗ comment then maybe maybe if if there

1:30:37 ↗ aren't more questions we can

1:30:39 ↗ or and our comments now to any anything

1:30:44 ↗ that we need to do to give to city staff

1:30:46 ↗ on on whether we thought these changes

1:30:48 ↗ were significant or not significant or

1:30:50 ↗ whether we whether we I appreciate the

1:30:52 ↗ the city bringing it back to us and

1:30:54 ↗ giving us the opportunity to take a look

1:30:55 ↗ at it and having that dialogue because

1:30:57 ↗ some of them were born especially the

1:31:00 ↗ ones that diminished but and it that

1:31:01 ↗ were identified as being diminishing

1:31:04 ↗ were valuable to talk about you know for

1:31:06 ↗ sure has educated us to to maybe think a

1:31:09 ↗ little bit more about how how we approve

1:31:11 ↗ designs and we've got some aids to help

1:31:13 ↗ us do that in the future but so how

1:31:15 ↗ about comments on unless there are more

1:31:18 ↗ questions

1:31:19 ↗ I wonder if we want to go through their

1:31:21 ↗ questions that they wanted us to answer

1:31:22 ↗ okay let's see what those work it

1:31:27 ↗ sounded as if maybe Valerie had a

1:31:29 ↗ different questions in the for weekend

1:31:32 ↗ they're the same baby tweets a little

1:31:35 ↗ bit

1:31:47 ↗ I think Valerie's simplified the number

1:31:51 ↗ of words to fit on a slide so the first

1:31:59 ↗ one is the per new proposal consistent

1:32:01 ↗ with the intent of the approved site

1:32:02 ↗ development permit elevations what are

1:32:06 ↗ your comments I would say yes vote agree

1:32:10 ↗ I would agree I had concerns mainly

1:32:13 ↗ about South elevation building one but

1:32:15 ↗ they were answered so I would say yes I

1:32:17 ↗ agree and we had that blank we'll also

1:32:19 ↗ the material selection just making sure

1:32:21 ↗ that we're consistent that's tear

1:32:26 ↗ willing yeah well entrance right yeah

1:32:28 ↗ and overall there was an effort to

1:32:31 ↗ reduce the appearance of blank walls and

1:32:33 ↗ be very sensitive to the articulation in

1:32:36 ↗ visual interests so I think it's a net

1:32:38 ↗ increase I agree as well I would again

1:32:43 ↗ encourage the exploration of that

1:32:45 ↗ material wrap at that southeast corner

1:32:47 ↗ so overall great improvement especially

1:32:49 ↗ on that southeast corner

1:32:58 ↗ is removing or notably altering exterior

1:33:02 ↗ elements such as the window design and

1:33:04 ↗ or layout consider a significant change

1:33:05 ↗ to building exterior I think it could

1:33:11 ↗ have been but it I don't think it was I

1:33:13 ↗ don't think it rises to the level of

1:33:15 ↗ significant especially since it's an

1:33:18 ↗ improvement

1:33:19 ↗ yeah I guess and maybe the one that does

1:33:24 ↗ not stick out anymore as the decks that

1:33:27 ↗ extended out that got wrapped around to

1:33:30 ↗ the other side and I don't think that

1:33:32 ↗ was a significant war if it was it was

1:33:36 ↗ to the better anything I agree I don't

1:33:39 ↗ think there were any significant changes

1:33:42 ↗ I appreciated taking some of the door

1:33:44 ↗ elements and adding some of the the the

1:33:47 ↗ window elements and within the doors too

1:33:49 ↗ so opening that up more agree

1:33:57 ↗ does the Development Commission

1:33:59 ↗ generally view increases to exterior

1:34:01 ↗ elements such as window size and shape

1:34:04 ↗ as an improvement to the overall

1:34:06 ↗ building facade

1:34:09 ↗ yes equal its equal or better I think

1:34:12 ↗ wasn't done

1:34:13 ↗ agreed agree and partly we're asking

1:34:17 ↗ these questions just to make sure that

1:34:18 ↗ the things that the lens that we

1:34:20 ↗ typically bring is consistent the

1:34:24 ↗ Commission to help us next time what are

1:34:33 ↗ the Commission's expectations in regards

1:34:35 ↗ to mitigating design changes that are

1:34:37 ↗ prompted by building and/or structural

1:34:40 ↗ code requirements I wonder if you could

1:34:44 ↗ give an example yeah and I wasn't quite

1:34:46 ↗ sure what that question man thinking for

1:34:49 ↗ example there was a raised parapet on

1:34:51 ↗ page 12 of 31 is that an example of what

1:34:54 ↗ we're talking about yes I believe that

1:34:56 ↗ is a code requirement of the mechanical

1:34:59 ↗ mechanical and then also there's the

1:35:02 ↗ code requirement for the garages which

1:35:06 ↗ also prompted the build the balconies to

1:35:08 ↗ switch correct or be relocated so those

1:35:25 ↗ are two examples in was a parapet

1:35:28 ↗ mechanical or was that a safety so it

1:35:31 ↗ was two things um central Issaquah

1:35:34 ↗ design standards we require that

1:35:36 ↗ mechanical equipment is screened and

1:35:39 ↗ then also there needed to be fall

1:35:42 ↗ protection so that's why they raise the

1:35:44 ↗ parapet

1:35:46 ↗ you clarify that what mitigating the

1:35:49 ↗ design changes what are you going for

1:35:50 ↗ there gating and what so just providing

1:35:53 ↗ some design solutions so in the in

1:35:55 ↗ regards to the HVAC having raised the

1:35:59 ↗ parapet that would have been considered

1:36:01 ↗ in mitigation I think sometimes the

1:36:07 ↗ requirements may result in a blank wall

1:36:12 ↗ or a different kind of like a solid door

1:36:15 ↗ instead of a decorative door and we're

1:36:21 ↗ just trying to

1:36:25 ↗ you know we hope that the applicant has

1:36:29 ↗ a good sense of you know we know they

1:36:31 ↗ have a good sense of the codes and that

1:36:33 ↗ they've anticipated these things but as

1:36:35 ↗ since many of you are architects you or

1:36:38 ↗ deal with that world know that until you

1:36:41 ↗ get in and you're having a building

1:36:44 ↗ official interpret something you may not

1:36:48 ↗ always anticipate it and so there are

1:36:51 ↗ sometimes changes that come up that

1:36:52 ↗ we're trying to figure out how to

1:36:57 ↗ mitigate and are we maintaining the

1:37:00 ↗ intent you know we're bringing our best

1:37:02 ↗ judgment trying to remember back to the

1:37:04 ↗ conversations that we've had with you

1:37:06 ↗ well at the same time not coming back

1:37:10 ↗ with every single thing as it goes we're

1:37:14 ↗ just trying to get a better sense is it

1:37:16 ↗ our X but I'm sorry is it our

1:37:17 ↗ expectation of you is that what you're

1:37:19 ↗ asking all right we're just trying to

1:37:22 ↗ understand your expectations both you

1:37:26 ↗ know with both the Costco permits and

1:37:28 ↗ this permit we've been putting a package

1:37:31 ↗ in front of you to understand how things

1:37:34 ↗ have evolved and and our standard is if

1:37:39 ↗ we're looking at a little elevation and

1:37:41 ↗ we can see changes we feel like we don't

1:37:45 ↗ want you driving by a project and saying

1:37:47 ↗ that isn't what we saw and and we're

1:37:51 ↗ learning I mean mr. Morgan identified

1:37:54 ↗ something on a Costco facade that I

1:37:56 ↗ would not have I had it called out but

1:37:59 ↗ having heard that called out that was a

1:38:01 ↗ tional to me because as soon as he said

1:38:05 ↗ it it's like yeah that is different and

1:38:07 ↗ we hadn't identified that so I I think

1:38:10 ↗ we're not trying to challenge you I

1:38:12 ↗ think we're just trying to have this

1:38:15 ↗ conversation to better understand your

1:38:18 ↗ level of sensitivities and and if you

1:38:23 ↗ don't have anything to add you it's okay

1:38:25 ↗ to say pass but we're just trying to

1:38:28 ↗ make sure that we're good stewards

1:38:31 ↗ Europe I think you are meeting our

1:38:33 ↗ expectations I was glad to see this back

1:38:36 ↗ they were significant enough that I felt

1:38:38 ↗ like it was worth it and and I also

1:38:41 ↗ thought you're critical I was important

1:38:45 ↗ in shaping it to even get it to this

1:38:47 ↗ point I'm sure so so no I think you're

1:38:50 ↗ meeting expectations I you know it's

1:38:53 ↗ it's a tough one to gauge not being on

1:38:54 ↗ your side of the fence all the time and

1:38:56 ↗ seeing how much is going on and the

1:39:00 ↗ level of detail that changes from one

1:39:02 ↗ point to the next obviously there is

1:39:04 ↗ life safety issues and building permit

1:39:07 ↗ issues mechanical issues all these

1:39:08 ↗ things that come into play you know but

1:39:10 ↗ good design and designers are you know

1:39:15 ↗ supposed to be able to feel that and

1:39:17 ↗ react and maintain the spirit in the

1:39:20 ↗ intent of the original scope especially

1:39:22 ↗ once it's been approved at this site

1:39:24 ↗ development permit level so I don't know

1:39:27 ↗ I'm rambling on a bit but I think you

1:39:29 ↗ are meeting our expectations I guess

1:39:31 ↗ well I'm comfortable too with staffs

1:39:33 ↗ ability to make the determination

1:39:35 ↗ whether these kinds of changes are

1:39:37 ↗ significant enough to bring to us and

1:39:39 ↗ tonight's a perfect example

1:39:42 ↗ I think I agree with both look

1:39:46 ↗ commissioners did you spoke but I think

1:39:48 ↗ for for me also thinking about the

1:39:51 ↗ original discussion and the approval and

1:39:53 ↗ the areas where we spent most of our

1:39:56 ↗ time and focus you know if there are

1:39:58 ↗ changes that happen in those areas

1:40:00 ↗ probably higher level of sensitivity

1:40:03 ↗ around changes but also saying that

1:40:07 ↗ there are as the project continues to go

1:40:09 ↗ through the construction and development

1:40:11 ↗ process and construction drawing

1:40:13 ↗ development there may be opportunities

1:40:14 ↗ to actually enhance the quality of the

1:40:17 ↗ design overall that you know maybe we

1:40:20 ↗ didn't see when we were here and so I

1:40:22 ↗ don't want to strap the hands of the

1:40:24 ↗ architects and the city staff either by

1:40:26 ↗ saying well don't let them change

1:40:27 ↗ anything when in fact they could be it

1:40:30 ↗ could be opportunities to make it better

1:40:31 ↗ that weren't available when it was in

1:40:34 ↗ front of us so that that is kind of a

1:40:37 ↗ bad looking back to the balance and

1:40:39 ↗ trying to use your judgment I think

1:40:41 ↗ there were enough changes and

1:40:42 ↗ significant enough changes in this

1:40:44 ↗ packet that warranted another discussion

1:40:46 ↗ here but I think the direction that it

1:40:49 ↗ went was consistent with what we would

1:40:50 ↗ expect well and I think you're bringing

1:40:53 ↗ up a good point

1:40:54 ↗ sure Brennan because it wasn't that we

1:40:58 ↗ necessarily viewed these as bad but they

1:41:01 ↗ it was just that there were a lot of

1:41:03 ↗ them and they were perceptible if you've

1:41:05 ↗ gone if you are the kind of person who

1:41:08 ↗ gives your packets or um goes back and

1:41:11 ↗ looks in the archive it just were they

1:41:14 ↗ were changes and we you know when you

1:41:16 ↗ swap one bay with a balcony bay with a

1:41:19 ↗ window bay it's not necessarily bad it's

1:41:22 ↗ just perceptibly different and I think

1:41:25 ↗ that's part of why it was important

1:41:29 ↗ one thing I think the you know the chart

1:41:32 ↗ of the changes and the improve neutral

1:41:35 ↗ diminished was very helpful and I think

1:41:37 ↗ especially for me to go through one by

1:41:40 ↗ one and see where I came down and and I

1:41:43 ↗ found that there was there was nothing

1:41:45 ↗ where I was I guess lower than you worse

1:41:48 ↗ than you where if you thought it was

1:41:50 ↗ improved and I thought it was just

1:41:51 ↗ neutral everything that was the same as

1:41:53 ↗ your judgment or I thought it was

1:41:55 ↗ improve or or neutral so that helped me

1:41:58 ↗ a lot both understanding all the changes

1:42:01 ↗ and sort of how I felt about him in

1:42:03 ↗ thinking we were pretty much in lying so

1:42:04 ↗ yeah I tallied up the checklist here

1:42:10 ↗ there's 21 improves it's exciting and

1:42:13 ↗ there was 30 neutrals and three negative

1:42:14 ↗ so I think it's a it's a net positive

1:42:17 ↗ when viewed through that lens so I think

1:42:19 ↗ it became a better project through that

1:42:22 ↗ process so I'm in agreement with my

1:42:26 ↗ fellow commissioners as well I you know

1:42:28 ↗ I appreciate you know the transparency

1:42:31 ↗ in the documentation that goes through

1:42:33 ↗ all this and you know keeps everything

1:42:35 ↗ in order I understand sometimes and

1:42:38 ↗ struggles that the applicants have in

1:42:40 ↗ terms of structural code building codes

1:42:42 ↗ and and I know they weigh their options

1:42:44 ↗ right they explore their options and

1:42:46 ↗ sometimes one option is the only option

1:42:49 ↗ left to proceed with so so I respect

1:42:53 ↗ that and I mean obviously for what we've

1:42:55 ↗ seen today there are a lot more positive

1:43:00 ↗ changes that have come as a result of

1:43:03 ↗ the differences we've looked at

1:43:06 ↗ especially the southeast corner to I

1:43:08 ↗ think that it's a much better better

1:43:10 ↗ revised corner so again just a perfect

1:43:13 ↗ example of how things change evolve and

1:43:16 ↗ you know as the real world does right

1:43:18 ↗ and we just have to be a little bit more

1:43:20 ↗ receptive for them to that I think so

1:43:22 ↗ so thank you staff and applicant

1:43:27 ↗ all right those are all the questions I

1:43:31 ↗ want to thank you guys for your time

1:43:35 ↗ just to make sure I caught everything I

1:43:37 ↗ want to go to a couple items that I

1:43:40 ↗ think the applicator I need to go back

1:43:42 ↗ and address one of those as the

1:43:45 ↗ treatment on the wall next to the faux

1:43:48 ↗ balcony that entrance so they're showing

1:43:52 ↗ a blank wall that needs some kind of

1:43:53 ↗ treatment to eliminate that okay and I

1:44:01 ↗ think it had some kind of cover on that

1:44:03 ↗ that extended out yes oh now that it

1:44:06 ↗ goes all the way back without any kind

1:44:08 ↗ of cover

1:44:08 ↗ oh okay so you'd also like to see

1:44:13 ↗ possibly a cover over that although

1:44:15 ↗ there may just be there it looks to me

1:44:18 ↗ like there is a cover but it's tucked

1:44:19 ↗ further go down a little bit here right

1:44:21 ↗ there yeah oh just talked it's just a

1:44:26 ↗ question so it may be treating the walk

1:44:28 ↗ primarily treating the walls

1:44:33 ↗ we need to ensure that the HVAC

1:44:35 ↗ equipment is properly screened we also

1:44:44 ↗ need to address lighting make sure that

1:44:48 ↗ we're attentive to light and glare that

1:44:52 ↗ may be be seen from off-site we should

1:44:57 ↗ probably consider some motion sensors or

1:44:59 ↗ something of that nature and should and

1:45:05 ↗ we should also be looking at the rear

1:45:07 ↗ facade the colors on there possibly

1:45:10 ↗ reducing the number of colors or at

1:45:12 ↗ least limiting that yellow or mustard

1:45:14 ↗ color and that was our apologies Valerie

1:45:19 ↗ and I turned to each other and said we

1:45:20 ↗ should have brought the materials are

1:45:26 ↗ there any other takeaways that we should

1:45:29 ↗ eat not've alright well thank you again

1:45:35 ↗ for your time oh yes

1:45:40 ↗ so my question is if we do take a look

1:45:44 ↗ at kind of that rear elevation and those

1:45:46 ↗ colors we went through a significant

1:45:49 ↗ effort on the first time are you then

1:45:53 ↗ proposing that we come back to this and

1:45:57 ↗ the projects approved yeah okay projects

1:46:00 ↗ already been approved and what working

1:46:02 ↗ with staff is what we were suggesting we

1:46:04 ↗ have a good sense of what Commission's

1:46:07 ↗ okay thank you

1:46:11 ↗ um would you like to see that so I

1:46:22 ↗ failed to one of the requirements I have

1:46:25 ↗ is to identify unexcused unexcused board

1:46:29 ↗ commission members and we have to mark

1:46:31 ↗ rigs and Nishida venkatesh those are not

1:46:36 ↗ excused absences we have two other

1:46:39 ↗ people not here

1:46:40 ↗ Brook Shore and Ben Rusch both of those

1:46:42 ↗ are excused so just to get that on the

1:46:44 ↗ record we do really appreciate you know

1:46:48 ↗ I think your presentation from the

1:46:50 ↗ applicant was very good and we really

1:46:52 ↗ appreciate that our member of the public

1:46:57 ↗ made some good points and you've

1:46:59 ↗ educated us in a way that part may or

1:47:03 ↗ may not help you but it's going to help

1:47:05 ↗ us in the future and once again I want

1:47:07 ↗ to reiterate how valuable we we as a

1:47:11 ↗ commission feel public input is and

1:47:15 ↗ sometimes we're comes constrained by law

1:47:17 ↗ and rules and regulations and that we're

1:47:21 ↗ comfortable with that we're okay with

1:47:22 ↗ that but when we can when we can be more

1:47:26 ↗ user friendly if you will we try real

1:47:28 ↗ hard to do that so thank you I think

1:47:32 ↗ with that unless there any further

1:47:34 ↗ comments or concerns we'll consider our

1:47:37 ↗ meeting adjourned

1:47:46 ↗ you

1:47:50 ↗ 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 (11)

Administration/Staff: Richard Sowa

Lucy Sloman

Land Development Mgr. Mel Morgan

Valerie Porter

Associate Planner Michael Brennan Kevin Price Others Present: Richard Sanford Ric Tolleshaug

Milbrandt Architects Arthur Schulte

Alt. David Burnett

Milbrandt Architects Commissioners Not Present: Bob Wenzel

Inneswood Apartments Ben Rush (Excused) project owner Brooke Shore (Excused) Mark Rigos

Alt. (Not Excused) Nischitha Venkatesh

Alt. (Not Excused)