← Back to City Council Digest

Development Commission Auto captions

Wednesday, February 2, 2022

7:00 PM · 1h 53m
Topic tracked across meetings:
Site Development Permit Application for Park Place Townhomes, Quasi-Judicial AB 6970 18/25
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.3
Staff report:
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Staff Liaison Lucy Sloman, Land About Development Manager Created in 1983, this commission reviews all Email Lucy Sloman land use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Commission further serves as an advisory Regular Members board to the City Council on land use actions 2022 – Michael Brennan requiring council approval (Level 5 review). 2022 – Richard Sanford 2022 – Richard Sowa The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2023 – Patty Dillon Development Commission members and City 2023 – Brooke Shore Council members from discussing the merit of 2024 – Kevin Price specific land use development applications 2024 – Arthur Schulte outside of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, however, may discuss any issue with Alternate Members the City's Development Services
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of February 5, 2020
packet pp.5
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 2-5-2020 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]
2b
Minutes of February 10, 2020
packet pp.7–13
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 02-10-20 Development Commission Minutes Page [0000]
2c
Minutes of February 12, 2020
packet pp.15–20
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES c) 02-12-20 Development Commission/PPC Minutes Page [0000]
2d
Minutes of October 28, 2021
packet pp.21–26
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES d) 10-28-21 Joint Planning Policy Commission & Page [0000] Development Commission (Special) Minutes
2e
Minutes of January 20, 2022
packet pp.27–32
Staff report:
MINUTES Special Joint Meeting PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. -Thursday, January 20, 2022
3. PUBLIC HEARING
3a
Site Development Permit for Brown Bear Car Wash - Quasi-judicial, (A) Decision
Valerie Porter, Associate Planner Nick Wecker, Barghausen Consulting Engineers · packet pp.33–439
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
Table of Contents I. Application Information 3 II. Site Conditions Description 4 III. Project Description 4 IV. Background 4 V. Public Notification 5 VI. Review Process 5 VII. City Department Review 5 VIII. Site Development Permit Review 6 1. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ....................................................................................................... 6 2. Development and Design Standards ................................................................................................. 6 3. Transportation Concurrency............................................................................................................ 12 4. Impact and Mitigation Fees ............................................................................................................. 13 IX. SEPA Review 13 X. Public Comments 13 XI. Administration’s Recommendation 13 XII.
5. REPORTS
5a
Council Updates
Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager
6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
6a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.441
Staff report:
2022 Development Commission Schedule (tentative) (updated 12/14/2021)
0:01 so good evening everyone i'd like to
0:03 call to order the february 2nd meeting
0:06 of the issaquah development commission
0:07 it is 703.
0:10 uh welcome and due to virtual format at
0:12 tonight's meeting like to start by just
0:14 providing a few guidelines to help us
0:17 navigate our way through this meeting we
0:19 have participants attending by a
0:20 computer and others who may be attending
0:23 by phone
0:24 so for all meeting attendees please
0:26 speak clearly and pause frequently state
0:30 your name each time before speaking
0:32 please mute your microphone when you're
0:34 not speaking and if you are having
0:36 technical difficulties you can try
0:38 joining using a different device like a
0:40 smartphone or a tablet and then there's
0:42 always the option to call in
0:44 uh on the phone line that you can find
0:47 uh in the meeting information
0:49 so overview for tonight's meeting um we
0:52 have one agenda item it's a public
0:54 hearing for the brown bear car wash and
0:56 this is a quasi-judicial matter so the
0:59 development commission is the decision
1:00 maker
1:01 for this permit application
1:04 uh so
1:05 we need to go through roll call so lucy
1:08 if you would please call roll
1:10 commissioner brennan oh please unmute
1:13 and and say here
1:14 uh commissioner brennan
1:16 i am here
1:18 commissioner sanford here
1:21 commissioner sila
1:23 here
1:24 commissioner dylan
1:26 here
1:28 commissioner shore is excused this aft
1:30 this evening
1:32 commissioner price
1:35 commission uh commissioner schulte is
1:37 excused this evening
1:39 commissioner ikeda
1:43 commissioner morgan
1:44 here
1:49 thank you lucy um
1:52 just note that um we have
1:55 both alternate commissioners morgan and
1:58 ikeda who are serving as regular
2:00 commission members this evening
2:02 due to the absence of two of our regular
2:05 members
2:06 so we have a number of meeting minutes
2:08 uh to approve
2:10 um and that's because through an audit
2:12 the administrative staff identified that
2:13 there were several
2:15 sets of minutes from 2020 that had not
2:17 been approved by the commission
2:20 the february 5th february 10th
2:23 um the feb and february 12th
2:26 so um a number of the current
2:28 commissioners weren't um on the
2:30 commission back then
2:31 uh when these meetings took place but we
2:33 can't approve the minutes
2:35 this evening or if commissioners are
2:37 uncomfortable doing so we could post the
2:39 minutes as unapproved so
2:42 we need to decide how we want to proceed
2:44 with those meeting minutes from the 2020
2:47 uh meetings held by the commission if
2:50 you have questions or comments just use
2:51 the chat to post the question or comment
2:54 and then we can
2:56 kind of handle it that way if commission
2:58 members are comfortable proceeding with
3:00 approving those meeting minutes we can
3:02 go ahead and do that
3:06 any questions or comments
3:14 i am
3:16 not seeing um
3:19 any questions or comments so i'm going
3:20 to assume
3:22 people are comfortable proceeding with
3:25 there are actually several chats
3:29 that's all right um commissioner morgan
3:31 had a comment
3:33 um i note that someone asked about
3:35 abstaining i just want to let you know
3:37 that an abstention is the same as a vote
3:40 for yes
3:43 so uh it
3:47 those are the comments so far okay
3:48 commissioner morgan
3:50 um i would suggest since i believe we
3:52 have somebody
3:53 uh in attendance tonight at each
3:56 of the meetings that was there so i
3:58 would suggest we can approve the minutes
4:01 with any potential changes possibly
4:06 anybody object with proceeding also be
4:08 helpful on the two when you're doing the
4:11 chat if you if you list all panelists so
4:13 that we can all see who's
4:15 who's weighing in
4:16 to comment our question
4:20 so hearing none
4:23 we will proceed ahead so
4:25 first of all
4:27 are there any corrections
4:30 to the february 5th 2020 meeting minutes
4:39 hearing none
4:40 are seeing that the meeting minutes from
4:43 february 5th 2020 are approved
4:47 are there any corrections for the
4:49 february 10th
4:51 2020 meeting minutes
4:58 again seeing none
5:00 the february 10th 2020 meeting that's
5:02 are approved
5:04 are there questions or corrections for
5:07 the february 12 2020 meeting minutes
5:15 again seeing none
5:17 the february 12 2020 meeting minutes are
5:20 approved we also have a couple of more
5:23 recent meeting minutes
5:25 from
5:26 latter part of 2021 and early 2022
5:31 so in your packet were the meeting
5:33 minutes for october 28 2021 are there
5:37 any corrections to the october 28th
5:40 meeting minutes
5:46 i'm seeing none so the meeting minutes
5:49 from october 20 28 are approved by
5:51 consensus
5:52 similarly are there any meeting minutes
5:55 or any corrections to the january 20
5:59 2022 meeting minutes
6:03 also included in the packet
6:09 okay seeing none the meeting minutes
6:11 from january 20th 2022 are also approved
6:16 all right thanks we tracked through
6:18 those pretty quickly so
6:21 um i want to open the the um the meeting
6:25 for any members of the community that
6:28 would like to comment on topics that are
6:30 not before the commission at tonight's
6:32 public hearing if you have comments
6:34 related to the public hearing we'll ask
6:36 you to hold those until we do have
6:38 comment period during the public hearing
6:40 process but if you are on the phone and
6:43 not on a computer and would like to make
6:44 a comment on something that's not on the
6:46 agenda please press star 3 on your phone
6:50 or if you're on a computer you can raise
6:51 your hand your virtual hand
6:54 lucy do you see anybody wanting to
6:57 comment outside the public hearing
7:01 not yet
7:05 i don't believe there anyone anyone's
7:07 commenting
7:08 okay
7:09 then we will
7:11 move along
7:12 so um we have one agenda item tonight so
7:15 the purpose of the tonight's public
7:17 hearing is for the commission to review
7:19 and make a decision if we are ready on
7:22 the site development permit sdp one nine
7:26 zero zero zero two four for the brown
7:28 big
7:29 brown bear car wash and the proposal
7:31 contains
7:33 125 square feet of car wash and an auto
7:37 sentry canopy
7:38 on a 0.42 acre site near the
7:41 intersection of gilman boulevard in
7:42 front street so the or for everybody on
7:46 the commission and and for
7:48 uh those that are listening in the order
7:50 of the public hearing will be first lucy
7:54 will go through the appearance of
7:55 fairness disclosures which we'll get to
7:57 in just a minute
7:58 we'll open the public hearing then there
8:00 would be the staff the typical staff
8:02 presentation
8:04 the applicant also has an opportunity
8:06 following the staff presentation to make
8:07 a presentation we would accept public
8:10 comment and there is an opportunity for
8:13 rebuttal by the applicant and or staff
8:16 uh if there are uh any uh comments to a
8:19 rebuttal
8:20 and then there's the we would close the
8:23 public hearing
8:24 uh giving the commissioners an
8:26 opportunity to deliberate and if we are
8:28 comfortable the final action would be to
8:31 act on the application this evening
8:34 so with that we will move to the
8:35 appearance of public fairness disclosure
8:38 so lucy if you'd go ahead and proceed
8:40 with the questioning for commissioners
8:42 regarding the the
8:44 appearance of public affairs fairness
8:46 disclosures
8:53 can you see my screen
8:55 yes we can okay wonderful
8:57 um for uh you long time commission
9:00 members i just want to let you know that
9:01 these are revised somewhat from what
9:04 you've seen before
9:06 um so um because tonight's public
9:09 hearing is a quasi-judicial matter uh
9:13 we're going to go through this uh
9:15 disclosure proceedings um because we are
9:18 required to have profit proceedings uh
9:21 that are fair in both fact and
9:23 appearance which is similar to a
9:25 courtroom setting
9:26 ex-parte contacts are prohibited
9:30 those are communications that take place
9:32 outside of the hearing between a
9:33 decision maker and an opponent or
9:35 proponent of the matter at hand if such
9:39 communications have occurred record of
9:41 the substance of the communication must
9:43 be placed on the record to allow other
9:45 interested parties the right to rebut
9:47 the substance of the communication
9:49 the test would be would a disinterested
9:52 person having been apprised of the
9:54 totality of a decision maker's personal
9:56 interest in a matter being acted upon be
10:00 reasonably justified in thinking that
10:02 partiality may exist decision makers who
10:05 have have personal interest pre-judgment
10:08 of issues or partiality are disqualified
10:10 from the proceedings
10:12 so i would ask that the commissioners
10:15 read through the first slide and in a
10:18 moment i will
10:21 call each of your names ask you to
10:23 unmute and let me know if you
10:26 if all the answers are no or if some are
10:29 yes
10:44 if you would just raise your real hand
10:46 when you're done
10:49 okay
10:50 um commissioner brennan
10:54 the answers to all the questions for me
10:55 is no
10:56 okay
10:57 commissioner sanford
10:59 no to all
11:02 commissioner
11:03 no to all
11:05 commissioner dylan
11:06 no to all
11:08 commissioner price
11:10 i actually i do have a disclosure i'd
11:12 like to make
11:14 i think it's important to point out that
11:16 one of the letters we received tonight
11:19 from the public uh comments
11:22 that were submitted to the development
11:24 commission was authored by my wife
11:26 rachel wright she serves on the arts
11:28 commission
11:30 and uh we we have had no dialogue or ex
11:33 parte communications
11:35 about this application but i was made
11:37 aware uh
11:38 when i
11:40 saw the letter that she was
11:42 who's submitting a letter to the the
11:44 commission
11:48 thank you um commissioner ikeda
11:55 commissioner morgan
11:57 uh the only thing i can think of that
11:59 might qualify as i do pay for an annual
12:02 brown bear car wash membership
12:06 okay so then the second part
12:10 please
12:11 read through
12:12 this and then i will
12:16 ask all of you
12:19 again
12:30 hands up if you're ready
12:33 commissioner brennan
12:45 yes yes i'm sorry i'm mute that's all
12:47 right commissioner sanford yes
12:51 commissioner
12:52 yes
12:53 commissioner dylan yes
12:56 commissioner price
12:58 yes commissioner aka
13:00 yes
13:01 commissioner morgan
13:03 yes
13:07 does anyone in attendance wish to
13:10 challenge the participation of
13:13 any of the commissioners
13:21 i'm just going to quit
13:23 sharing because i can't see if someone's
13:26 um raising their hand
13:27 if any of the attendees wish to
13:29 challenge any of the commissioners
13:31 please raise your virtual hand
13:35 i see none i see no challenges thank you
13:45 great thanks lucy um
13:49 so um i believe the next step in our
13:52 process will be for the staff report
13:56 first we will um
13:58 i guess before that the officially
14:00 opened the public hearing
14:02 and the first step in the public hearing
14:04 would be the staff report so
14:07 lucy are you providing staff report this
14:09 evening
14:11 i am not um
14:14 i am uh it would be associate planner uh
14:17 valerie porter and i'm making her a
14:19 presenter now
14:26 did that show up valerie
14:28 yeah
14:29 thank you
14:45 battery if you're speaking you're muted
14:46 we i can't see you so it's hard to see
14:56 sorry not muted just not used to webex
15:00 okay
15:01 one second
15:08 lucy can you see my
15:10 screen i can and it looks um just the
15:14 presentation
15:15 great thank you you're welcome hello
15:18 everyone my name is valerie porter and
15:20 i'm an associate planner here with the
15:21 city and tonight we're going to be
15:23 talking about the brown bear
15:25 project so the applicant has submitted a
15:27 site development permit and that
15:29 applicant is bark housing consultant
15:30 engineers
15:31 so to start off i'm going to briefly go
15:33 over the project details some of the
15:35 scope of work and so i'm going to ask
15:38 that
15:38 all questions be saved to the end of my
15:40 presentation
15:46 so for
15:47 context the site is located um south of
15:50 gilman boulevard along the east side of
15:53 first avenue northwest so i know some
15:56 are wondering why this project is being
15:58 brought to the development commission
15:59 for review and the reason is in 2018 the
16:03 sub area boundary line was changed and
16:06 this parcel was relocated from the
16:08 central issaquah sub-area to the
16:11 issaquah sub-area so now the project is
16:13 regulated by the issaquah municipal code
16:16 and there is a provision in the code
16:17 that states that if a parcel abuts a
16:20 defined major street so in this case
16:22 that would be
16:23 gilman boulevard the project must go
16:25 through a level three review which will
16:27 require a decision from the development
16:29 commission
16:30 so although the sub area has changed the
16:34 zoning still remains mixed used and is
16:36 still
16:37 consistent with the comprehensive plan
16:42 so the applicant is proposing to
16:45 construct a car wash facility on a 0.42
16:48 acre lot that is currently vacant
16:50 the project is proposing to construct a
16:53 500 405
16:55 540 square foot canopy over two pay
16:58 stations and um an automatic tunnel car
17:01 wash that is slightly over 2100 square
17:04 feet
17:05 along with five parking stalls that
17:07 could be and three they would be used
17:09 for um vacuum stations
17:11 so the project will also construct
17:13 frontage improvements which will consist
17:15 of installing curb and gutter around the
17:17 site extending the existing sidewalk
17:20 along first avenue
17:21 installing lights and other utilities
17:24 and adding remediation equipment to the
17:26 site
17:29 so remediation equipment is needed
17:30 because the project site and the
17:32 adjacent right-of-way um are currently
17:35 contaminated with high levels of
17:37 petroleum and benzene so a super review
17:40 was conducted by staff and a revised
17:42 mitigation determination of
17:44 non-significance was issued in november
17:46 of 2021 and this aligns with the
17:48 conditions of the site development
17:50 permit
17:50 the combined common and appeal period
17:53 for the super review
17:55 has ended and no appeals were received
17:58 so the applicant has been taking steps
18:00 to clean up the site and has proposed a
18:02 two-phase cleanup process
18:04 the first phase began in summer of 2019
18:08 which consisted of removing all above
18:10 ground structures in any underground
18:13 starch tanks present on site and the
18:15 second phase will consist of installing
18:17 remediation equipment and this will
18:19 occur with the construction of the car
18:21 wash
18:22 so the applicant is working with the
18:24 washington state pollution liability
18:26 insurance agency also known as plia
18:29 and in coordination with city staff to
18:31 ensure cleanup is in compliance with
18:33 state environmental regulations
18:36 so although the
18:38 cleanup is
18:39 part of the scope of work the method
18:42 of cleanup is not part of the
18:44 development
18:46 purview it's actually going to be
18:48 approved by pleia but
18:51 there are some above ground remediation
18:54 equipment that still needs to comply
18:55 with city codes so for instance there is
18:59 an enclosure located on the north side
19:01 of the parcel that will house
19:03 remediation equipment and it's needed to
19:06 reduce
19:07 some of the noise that will be generated
19:08 by the system that enclosure will still
19:10 need to be properly screened
19:16 so as you can see from this layout the
19:18 space is limited so how vehicles move in
19:21 and out of the site is extremely
19:23 important so the project is proposing
19:26 three driveways two along the alley and
19:29 one along first avenue northwest
19:32 so primary access to the site will be
19:34 gained from the alley the driveway along
19:36 first avenue will be used
19:39 right over here will be used as an exit
19:41 only driveway should any vehicle need to
19:44 exit prior to entering the car wash
19:47 for car washes the
19:49 issaquah municipal code requires that
19:51 the site provides six stacking spaces
19:53 per drive through
19:55 entrance with an additional stall for
19:58 one employee at the maximum shift so the
20:01 project is proposing to install two
20:03 payment stations
20:06 and to service the single drive-through
20:08 and so vehicle stacking has been
20:10 measured from the canopy and allows for
20:12 queuing beyond the
20:16 six stacking stations so city street
20:18 standards does not support three
20:20 driveways and queuing is a major factor
20:22 of how vehicles will enter and exit the
20:24 site so the applicant will continue to
20:26 work with staff to determine the best
20:28 circulation plan and ensure car wash
20:30 operations do not impact surrounding
20:32 businesses and all car wash activities
20:35 including parking and queuing do not
20:37 overflow until they adjacent right away
20:39 so this may result in the loss of a
20:41 driveway or driveway widths
20:44 reducing and even driveway locations
20:47 shifting
20:52 with the design of this project aware
20:55 situation came about so first i'm going
20:57 to explain why a lighting condition was
21:00 created
21:01 so typically lights not on a project
21:03 site
21:04 in the right-of-way usually illuminate
21:07 the sidewalk and the the streets and
21:09 they're regulated by the city street
21:11 standards and light fixtures located on
21:13 the project site are regulated by the
21:15 issaquah municipal code and are not
21:17 intended to illuminate the streets but
21:19 objects or elements areas on the project
21:22 site
21:23 the applicant requested a street
21:25 deviation to match existing conditions
21:27 and extend the existing sidewalk not and
21:30 not to construct the landscape strip
21:32 which was approved by the public works
21:34 department so because the landscape
21:36 strip was not um
21:38 was not installed which this um the
21:40 landscape usually house lighting and
21:43 other utilities um the lighting fixture
21:46 illuminating the street will need to be
21:47 placed on the project site
21:50 so both the street standards in the
21:51 issaquah municipal code does not they
21:54 don't have standards for alleys and they
21:56 don't have um provisions for situations
21:59 like this so as a solution the
22:01 administration is recommending the
22:02 lighting levels comply with the local
22:04 street provisions outlined in the city
22:06 street standards seeing how the lights
22:08 will be illuminating the streets in the
22:10 alley
22:11 so this definition is most fitting
22:14 so um next i'm going to describe the
22:17 conditions so on the slide you'll see
22:19 the original condition that was in the
22:21 staff report and then a revised
22:22 condition so after the staff report was
22:25 issued it was discovered that the mixed
22:27 use zone um which this parcel is located
22:31 in is actually not listed in the um
22:35 outdoor lighting standard section of the
22:37 issaquah municipal code so to give the
22:40 applicant a path forward staff is
22:42 recommending the change in red which
22:44 will require the site to comply with the
22:46 commercial retail and office lighting
22:48 standards for all lights not lighting
22:51 any of the adjacent streets
22:56 so the site complies with all district
22:58 standard requirements including setbacks
23:00 and the impervious surface rate ratio
23:03 but there is one um separate condition
23:05 that was not completed prior to
23:07 tonight's meeting which is the
23:09 which is to have an environmental
23:11 identification agreement in place prior
23:13 to site development approval
23:15 so if the commission should choose to
23:17 approve the project the administration
23:19 is asking that the notice of decision
23:21 not be issued until this agreement is in
23:23 place
23:25 so the administration has reviewed the
23:27 proposal and believes the project is
23:29 feasible and is recommending approval
23:31 with conditions outlined in the staff
23:32 report and the proposed condition just
23:34 mentioned so this concludes my
23:36 presentation are there any questions
23:39 for me before the applicant presents
23:43 thank you mr porter are there any
23:44 questions from
23:46 commissioners on the information
23:48 provided in the staff report
23:55 type
23:56 comment or question or question i guess
23:58 in the chat if you've got it
24:02 commissioner morgan has a question
24:06 richard morgan
24:09 uh thank you sure brennan
24:11 um i'm wondering why the
24:14 i guess the question is are the design
24:16 criteria
24:18 um elements
24:21 uh supposed to be met for this and
24:23 should we be looking through those
24:27 yes the are you referring to the design
24:30 criteria checklist correct
24:33 yes that was um review the project was
24:35 reviewed against that and that should be
24:37 part of your review
24:42 and then and then that's it for us to
24:44 decide if we would agree with that
24:47 correct yeah okay
24:53 commissioner sanford has a question
24:57 mr stanford
25:00 thank you just to clarify on that uh
25:02 we're not talking about the architecture
25:04 and urban design criteria for central
25:07 issaquah correct because this has now
25:09 been moved outside the central issaquah
25:12 area that's correct so the uh
25:16 development design or the architectural
25:19 design stands for um central institute
25:21 do not apply here
25:28 are there any other questions from the
25:30 commissioners
25:35 commissioner ikeda has a question
25:37 thank you
25:38 johnny commissioner a question on
25:41 environmental indemnification
25:44 does that occur after the site's been
25:46 monitored for
25:47 for contamination are there monitoring
25:49 wells that are being checked or how does
25:51 when does that occur
25:54 the agreement is um to basically um
25:59 absolve the city of any responsibility
26:01 in regards to the contamination and so
26:04 um the monitoring of um
26:07 the equipment is going to happen after
26:10 the equipment is installed um and i
26:12 think the applicant will um talk a
26:14 little bit about that
26:17 okay did i answer your question
26:20 sort of so so when when i guess those
26:22 finding you know something so no
26:24 significant impact
26:26 that's a result of the testing
26:29 and then this this is
26:32 uh like a
26:34 remediation mitigation
26:36 uh activity after after the uh
26:39 considering construction and as part of
26:41 the design again i'm kind of rambling
26:42 here but i'm just trying to
26:44 understand
26:46 so um
26:48 an environmental review was done because
26:50 the site is contaminated and so as part
26:53 of the review um reports were submitted
26:55 to staff to kind of understand the
26:57 extent of contamination and if the um
27:01 the contamination was um
27:05 had significant adverse impacts and
27:07 whether it it could be mitigated or not
27:10 and so staff reviewed everything and
27:12 determined that the um
27:16 the work that they're proposing could be
27:17 mitigated or the the impact to the
27:19 environment could be mitigated which is
27:22 why we issued a mitigated determination
27:24 determination of significance with um
27:27 conditions and so um one of the
27:31 ways that the applicant is proposing to
27:33 mitigate
27:34 um the or to address the cleanup is to
27:37 install the remediation equipment um and
27:41 it just happens that the equip the type
27:43 of cleanup method that they're proposing
27:46 just needs to be constructed in
27:48 conjunction with the car wash and so
27:50 once it's constructed um that's when
27:54 um we'll start to see how well the
27:56 cleanup um
27:58 occurs but this will be in conjunction
28:00 with plia
28:01 and will take several years
28:04 thank you
28:07 commissioner sanford has a question mr
28:09 sanford go ahead
28:11 thank you this is richard sanford uh i
28:14 have a couple of questions about the
28:15 rest of the staff report is but
28:18 they're not really related to the
28:20 presentation that we just saw
28:23 is it appropriate to ask those now or
28:26 should i be saving these until after the
28:29 presentation by the applicant
28:32 i think if you have questions for staff
28:34 now is it probably a good time to ask
28:36 those questions okay i'll go ahead
28:40 okay thanks uh in the staff report it
28:42 says
28:43 i think this is in the environmental
28:45 protection area to ensure hazardous
28:48 chemicals do not infiltrate or run off
28:50 the site
28:51 it suggested that a secondary
28:53 containment be built into the chemical
28:54 storage area for additional details and
28:57 required mitigation measures please see
28:59 sipa determination
29:01 and then there is reference to
29:02 conditions three and four
29:07 i assume that that's referring to
29:09 conditions three and four in at the end
29:12 of the staff report
29:14 and the use of the word suggested
29:17 is it are these measures whatever they
29:20 are required or simply suggested and if
29:24 you could walk through those conditions
29:25 three and four i would appreciate that
29:34 so these are conditions that were placed
29:36 um in the staff report by the engineer
29:38 so i'm going to do my best to try to
29:40 answer your question
29:42 so i believe the second containment is
29:44 in regards to
29:47 the
29:48 contamination
29:51 hazardous materials
29:52 and um
29:56 this level of detail of how there can um
29:59 how the car wash is going to be storing
30:01 some of their hazardous materials wasn't
30:03 presented at the time it is something
30:05 that staff will review um during the
30:07 construction review process
30:10 and so um
30:11 i don't i think the hazardous
30:13 construction list is required but
30:17 because we don't know everything that
30:19 they're proposing we just want to kind
30:21 of give them some guidance
30:23 okay yeah i see in condition three all
30:26 of those three sub items are required
30:29 storm water from the site must not be
30:31 infiltrated all vehicle repair shall be
30:34 conducted indoors over imperial pads and
30:37 best management practices are required
30:40 so it looks to me as those those are all
30:42 requirements correct and not just
30:44 guidance
30:45 yes those are requirements um i was
30:48 referring to the hazardous material
30:50 construction inventory list that's
30:52 required but there are some i think
30:54 again once you get into that level of
30:56 detail of like you know the soaps and
30:58 things like that
31:00 we're unsure of you know what they're
31:02 proposing so that's why we're asking
31:04 okay thank you
31:05 and if i might the second question
31:08 uh and i think the applicant will
31:10 probably address this in more detail um
31:12 valerie you just addressed that a bit in
31:14 terms of circulation
31:16 but i see that the traffic report says
31:19 that based on the data collected on the
31:21 sammamish brown bear car wash
31:24 on 228th avenue
31:27 over a three-day period
31:29 is used as projection criteria for this
31:32 project
31:33 and this project brown bear
31:36 the report says is expected to generate
31:38 679
31:40 vehicles during an average weekday i
31:42 assume that means car trips
31:45 and 526 vehicles on a saturday
31:50 uh first of all those numbers are pretty
31:52 concerning to me but um i'll save that
31:55 but my question would be
31:58 would this intersection still have to
32:00 remain level of service d then
32:03 to pass traffic and currency on this
32:06 and i was wondering why sammamish was
32:08 chosen as a comparable
32:10 and i have in mind the relative
32:12 densities of those two areas
32:14 especially considering that
32:17 this is at right outside central issagua
32:20 where we're planning to put all or most
32:23 of our future density
32:24 so i guess a couple of things must be
32:26 losd correct and why was the mammoth
32:28 chosen as a comparable
32:31 so um i'm going to you're right that the
32:34 applicant is going to most likely get
32:36 into a little bit more about this um i
32:39 do know that the reason why i've said
32:41 amish was um used was because i think
32:44 typically you see car washes um in
32:47 connected to like a gas station or some
32:49 other um facility and this one is just
32:53 primarily going to be a car wash and so
32:57 they provided the applicant provided the
32:59 sammamish numbers so that we could kind
33:02 of get an idea of how many trips
33:05 this would generate
33:07 i can say that staff so the engineers
33:10 both the public works department as well
33:12 as the engineers within um
33:15 within the
33:17 cpd department were
33:19 are still evaluating this and working
33:21 with staff to ensure that
33:23 the levels of service are correct and
33:25 this will not overflow in
33:27 impact gilman boulevard
33:29 thank you
33:32 commissioner dillon
33:38 thank you uh i i had one
33:41 question or clarification on the
33:44 contamination status and you mentioned
33:46 that the
33:48 the finding was that the the use would
33:50 not
33:51 i believe would not cause additional
33:53 contamination or what would mitigate for
33:56 for its impacts is there
33:58 a responsibility for cleanup of the site
34:02 that's already previously been
34:03 identified as
34:05 as contaminated
34:10 can you repeat the question
34:12 i i guess i'll try to rephrase it um
34:16 the site has previously been identified
34:18 as contaminated and has been sitting
34:20 empty for for a number of years
34:21 presumably because of that
34:24 and
34:25 i wonder if you have any information on
34:28 what the regulations are if there is
34:31 responsibility for
34:33 for the new site owner to
34:36 to have to
34:38 immediate remediate that contamination
34:40 of the site which it seems that the
34:41 project is managing
34:44 is has been found that it should manage
34:45 its own impacts but it's not clear that
34:49 it will be improving the the
34:51 pre-existing site condition
34:54 so yes you're correct the site has been
34:56 contaminated for several years
34:58 when the property owner took on this
35:00 site um they also kind of took on that
35:03 um that responsibility of uh
35:06 cleaning up the site and so they have
35:08 been taking steps to do this so like i
35:10 said uh it's a two-phase process so the
35:12 first phase was um
35:14 uh removing you know
35:16 all the underground storage tanks and um
35:18 structures on site and part of that was
35:20 also kind of cleaning up um or removing
35:23 some of the contaminated soil and that
35:25 was necessary because it was helpful to
35:27 kind of understand the extent of
35:28 contamination sometimes you're not able
35:31 to you know they did request
35:33 monitoring wells around the site but
35:35 sometimes you just kind of need to open
35:37 up the site and actually understand um
35:39 what's going on so yes they are taking
35:42 necessary steps and um
35:44 did i i think they were the second part
35:46 did i get address the second part
35:50 yeah i think so so basically there is a
35:53 recognition that they do take on that
35:55 responsibility and
35:56 per the staff review they they are
35:58 following the steps uh yes that they're
36:00 required to
36:02 one one other question i noted in the um
36:06 in the staff report and maybe this is
36:07 something that the applicant will
36:09 address as well that the storm plan was
36:12 found to not be compliant with with uh
36:15 standards and requirements for
36:17 stormwater
36:20 is the path forward that the the
36:21 applicant needs to
36:23 make changes to their their proposal to
36:25 address that
36:26 yes um they are required to come into
36:28 compliance so during this phase staff
36:31 review the project for feasibility and
36:32 we believe that the project is feasible
36:35 but it cannot um they're definitely not
36:37 going to be approved as it is now they
36:38 will definitely need to come into
36:40 compliance
36:42 thank you
36:44 commissioner morgan has a question
36:47 um yeah i'm
36:49 sorry that that um if i'm not fully
36:52 understand this correctly but the the
36:53 report talks about it covers development
36:55 standards
36:57 and then it mentions design standards
37:01 i'm trying to see when i look at the
37:04 1807
37:06 uh the design criteria checklist in
37:08 appendix 2
37:11 like the design harmony and
37:13 compatibility section c that talks about
37:16 scale and
37:18 durability and design components like
37:20 colors modulation
37:22 ground level
37:24 i don't i guess i didn't see where any
37:26 of that seemed to be covered in the
37:28 staff report
37:29 or discussed am i just missing that
37:31 somewhere
37:38 no the building design is pretty simple
37:41 um and so i think um it was just um
37:45 maybe not um
37:48 as uh overtly addressed
37:50 but um we did um consider it as part of
37:54 the review
37:56 okay because i guess i've i've gotta
37:59 this i don't wanna get into comments i
38:01 guess at this point but i do have a
38:02 question about the ground level
38:04 one of the requirements is avoid blank
38:06 walls at the ground level and there
38:07 seems to be a
38:09 fairly large blank wall on the east side
38:11 of the building so
38:13 which is a concern for me but
38:15 um so i guess maybe that comes up in
38:17 discussion later
38:19 um so again the the project is still
38:22 kind of in the feasibility stage and so
38:25 if there's any blank walls or
38:28 um storm water requirements or
38:31 signage is another one if the project
38:34 doesn't look like it's
38:35 complying now before it gets constructed
38:39 the applicant will be required to come
38:40 into compliance
38:42 so that could be a condition we could
38:44 add to the
38:45 approval then
38:47 yes i believe so um i'm gonna defer to
38:50 lucy just because again the reason why
38:53 it's already in code so we would say
38:55 that they had to do it regardless um
38:58 so like i said i'll defer to lucy on on
39:01 if that should be a condition
39:04 uh i think that it's um i think it's
39:07 appropriate to add conditions if you
39:10 feel that there are elements of the
39:12 design criteria checklist
39:15 that need to be further addressed to
39:17 ensure that that expectation is clear
39:20 moving forward
39:23 great
39:24 thank you valerie thank you lucy
39:28 are there any other questions from
39:30 commissioners to staff
39:38 okay seeing then we'll proceed with the
39:40 applicant's presentation um
39:43 and if they would provide
39:45 kind of the
39:47 names of their team members um and
39:49 please
39:50 note who you are before you speak
39:52 and if the commissioners would hold your
39:54 questions until the end of their
39:55 presentation they'll have an opportunity
39:57 to ask
39:58 the applicant team uh questions so
40:01 um if the applicant team would like to
40:03 proceed
40:04 i just need to know who to make the
40:06 presenter
40:08 yeah lucy uh this is this is nick with
40:10 barcasm if you'll make me the presenter
40:13 okay just a moment
40:18 and with me today i have um lance
40:20 otterman representative uh the property
40:23 owner brown bear
40:24 and uh
40:26 brain grier as well with uh aspect um
40:29 working on the environmental
40:32 side of things in terms of remediation
40:35 and so um you know
40:38 bradley did a wonderful job on the
40:40 powerpoint presentation that she had and
40:42 kind of doing an overview of projects so
40:44 i'll try not to duplicate a lot of the
40:46 same information but we'll go into more
40:48 about operations of the site and some
40:50 other details and we'll talk about
40:52 architecture as well
40:54 so i'll share my screen i have a
40:57 short powerpoint
41:12 okay
41:13 and i think you can see the powerpoint
41:15 now
41:19 i just see a blank i see something's
41:21 trying to open i see just a blank slide
41:26 let's see
41:31 about uh
41:44 nick did you share
41:46 a screen or an application do you know
41:51 uh it's a powerpoint
41:53 you know i'll try again here
41:57 don't pick like a whole screen pick
42:00 the sharing the powerpoint
42:03 uh application i understand that
42:05 sometimes is more successful
42:09 try this
42:13 there you go
42:14 okay cool
42:19 yes a little bit about about brown bear
42:21 first um brown beer began in 1957 with
42:25 the first car wash located on 15th
42:28 avenue
42:29 in seattle's inner bay
42:31 neighborhood
42:32 and that location that original location
42:34 is still open and successful today
42:38 since then
42:39 brown bear has now grown to a total of
42:41 50 locations throughout the puget sound
42:45 featuring a combination
42:48 automatic conveyor town washes like our
42:50 project proposes today
42:53 and in addition there's facilities that
42:55 have touchless washes and then also
42:58 self-serve bays
43:00 as well
43:05 brown bear is committed to the
43:06 protection of the environment
43:09 implementation of their their wash green
43:11 program
43:12 they utilize eco-friendly detergents
43:15 that are specifically formulated
43:18 for this region and that are
43:20 biodegradable and contain no phosphates
43:25 the facilities also utilize a reclaim
43:27 system
43:28 that captures pollutants that accumulate
43:31 from everyday driving
43:33 which filters the water and then
43:35 recycles the water back through the
43:37 tunnel to be reused again and so those
43:40 are some of the features that this car
43:41 wash
43:43 that we're posing today
43:44 will have
43:48 valley covered
43:49 an aerial and kind of where the site is
43:51 but
43:52 the site is bordered by
43:54 really two roads
43:56 including first outing northwest
43:58 to the west
43:59 and then also first place northwest
44:03 as well on the north and uh east sides
44:08 a recent fairly recent uh site photo
44:12 shows the previous use of the gasoline
44:14 service station removed from the site
44:18 in 2019 once brown bear took ownership
44:21 of the property so the site is currently
44:22 vacant
44:27 a little bit about our site plan
44:29 the tunnel wash is
44:32 about 70 feet in length
44:34 and it will feature a conveyor belt that
44:36 will bring vehicles through the wash
44:38 cycle
44:39 um the average wash cycle is about 90
44:41 seconds
44:43 and um
44:44 then we'll have a auto century canopy
44:48 on the uh south side
44:51 uh upon entering the the car wash
44:54 drive-through that allows for
44:55 contactless uh transactions um so
44:58 customers will go to one of two payment
45:01 kiosks
45:02 uh for me to drive through my uh lanes
45:05 and make their payment and based on the
45:08 select selection of a wash that they
45:10 select and then they'll proceed through
45:13 uh to the car wash um
45:15 there's some questions about humane
45:17 earlier it's notable to know
45:19 in addition to killing behind the auto
45:21 center they'll actually be vehicles that
45:22 are cued between the tunnel entrance and
45:24 the auto sentry itself
45:26 um we can have up to two vehicles in the
45:29 wash at once and then there'll be
45:31 vehicles between the off century
45:34 in the entrance and then
45:36 capacity for six vehicles behind the
45:38 outer century
45:40 as well so we can get a total
45:43 of about 10 vehicles
45:46 on site
45:47 at any one time without there being
45:50 any potential for for spillover
45:52 into the to the alleyways
45:58 next slide shows our landscape plan
46:01 we have a type 2
46:03 what the code called a visual
46:06 landscape buffer
46:07 along 1st avenue northwest
46:10 it requires a combination of deciduous
46:12 and evergreen trees
46:15 and so we'll have
46:17 trees placed approximately 25 to 30 feet
46:20 on center along first avenue northwest
46:22 in addition to a combination of shrubs
46:25 and ground cover
46:26 throughout the perimeter of the site and
46:29 some of the interior areas as well
46:35 here's a uh our west elevation this is
46:38 the elevation that faces the public
46:39 right away first avenue northwest
46:43 our building will feature a tower
46:45 element on the exit side of the wash of
46:48 the sheet metal
46:50 sheet metal pitched roof
46:53 and then we'll also have the roof will
46:55 be delineated with a
46:56 cornice on all sides of the building
47:00 this west elevation facing the facing
47:02 the right of way will also have window
47:04 glazing which will
47:06 offer clear views into the tunnel
47:09 wash bringing natural light as well into
47:12 the tunnel
47:13 and then we have a stone veneer finish
47:17 along the foundation
47:19 the opposite i should add
47:21 to respond to a couple of questions the
47:23 opposite side the east elevation faces
47:25 the interior
47:26 of the site
47:28 the mechanical room is on that side and
47:31 um to address the clown about the blank
47:33 walls there's not opportunity to put
47:35 windows there we do have
47:37 a service window where the employee
47:39 office is located on that elevation
47:42 but otherwise it's just the brick uh or
47:44 the sorry just the stone veneer with no
47:47 window glazing we can look at work with
47:49 staff you know for opportunity
47:52 to add other features like lattice or
47:54 something to
47:55 to cover more of the blank wall
47:57 but right now we understand that as the
47:59 interior side of the of the site and
48:01 it's also the mechanical room so we
48:03 featured
48:04 a lot of our architectural treatment on
48:06 this west elevation that's that's facing
48:09 the public realm
48:13 and then i'll show a recent example
48:16 this is the
48:18 new brown bear car wash in poles bow uh
48:21 we went that went through designer made
48:23 with city poles bow
48:25 and was recently constructed within the
48:27 last few years and
48:29 this is a good visual reference of what
48:31 this tunnel will look like in terms of
48:33 the glazing inside the tunnel
48:35 some of the
48:36 the cornice treatment along the roof the
48:38 tower and the stone veneer
48:41 so i wanted to provide that as well
48:44 but um
48:45 we filled the proposed grammar car wash
48:48 really enhance
48:49 the commercial character of the mixed
48:51 use district
48:52 brown bear is a successful business
48:55 in the puget sound
48:57 that's local and has facilities that are
48:59 known to be clean and well maintained
49:02 brown bear provides exceptional service
49:04 uh that will positively impact the
49:07 citizens of the of the community in the
49:09 city of israel
49:11 we're happy
49:13 to answer any any questions um that you
49:16 may have and thank you for your time and
49:18 consideration tonight
49:22 thank you mr whitford is there are there
49:24 any questions uh from the commissioners
49:26 to the applicant
49:28 or the applicant team
49:41 uh commissioner sanford
49:44 thank you chair brandon this richard
49:45 sanford i'd like to get back to the
49:47 circulation issue
49:52 i i believe it's intended that the
49:54 entrances are supposed to be off first
49:58 place and i think i saw that in the
50:00 earlier presentation
50:02 however first
50:04 avenue is there also how
50:07 do we guarantee that
50:09 vehicles entering don't take first
50:12 avenue when they take first place i
50:14 guess overall what i'd like to see is
50:16 more of the idea the circulation
50:18 involving
50:20 gilman boulevard and and the surrounding
50:22 streets how do we expect traffic to
50:24 enter that location exit from it
50:27 and
50:28 secondary concern it looked like on the
50:30 diagram cars coming directly out of the
50:32 car wash maybe
50:34 heading directly into incoming cars in a
50:36 two-way entrance there
50:38 looked like it was two-way on that one
50:41 entrance on uh first place can you walk
50:43 through how this is supposed to work
50:48 yeah so first
50:50 the driveway on that's shown on first
50:53 outing northwest
50:54 that's not a driveway that we plan to to
50:57 keep in operations more of
51:00 an escape for vehicles that are between
51:02 that auto century and the wash and you
51:04 need to leave
51:05 whether it's for safety purposes or
51:08 someone's transaction
51:09 not going through or simply changing
51:11 their mind and needing to leave and so
51:14 an attendant
51:15 on site would need to open up that
51:17 driveway for them to leave and so
51:20 our access is proposed from the allies
51:22 on the
51:24 north and east sides of the site
51:28 only and then we're working with staff
51:30 on whether we can have that driveway on
51:32 first place northwest
51:34 um because the staff has
51:37 expressed some concern with
51:39 with the potential for queuing the
51:40 blockbacks in the driveway and wanting
51:42 to have one consolidated point of access
51:45 into the site
51:47 you know the queuing that we tend to see
51:49 on site is is
51:50 really around around four vehicles
51:54 our auto center eight
51:56 can handle six just behind the outer
51:58 century not even counting the cars that
52:00 are between the office entry and the car
52:02 wash entrance so we don't anticipate
52:06 spillover we also have a tenant on site
52:08 that's able to cone off that first place
52:10 northwest driveway on the south side as
52:12 needed if queuing does
52:14 expand past that driveway which would
52:16 lead to a more consolidated point on
52:18 first place northwest
52:20 during you know
52:22 peak
52:23 business
52:25 but um
52:27 but the alleyway is where our primary
52:28 access is in terms of the
52:31 people accessing
52:33 how people are getting to the site
52:35 um you know of course it'd be from from
52:37 gilman and first avenue there was a
52:39 comment really about the
52:41 kind of piggyback on the comment earlier
52:43 about the traffic
52:44 count that's in the traffic study that
52:46 doesn't consider passed by traffic car
52:49 washes for it manual
52:51 which
52:52 are
52:53 mainly passed by traffic over fifty
52:54 percent of traffic generated for car
52:56 washes and from past by its people
52:59 on their way home from work from work to
53:01 home from home to work or home to you
53:03 know wherever they're going on the
53:04 weekend it's not a necessarily a
53:07 destination where someone leaves home
53:08 goes to the car wash and then drives
53:10 back home
53:11 it's
53:12 you know we locate these car washes in
53:13 convenient locations that can take
53:15 advantage of the pass by traveling
53:16 serving there
53:18 so for skillman
53:20 um it's going to be the main traffic
53:22 generator where we're drawing traffic
53:23 from but also um front streets they can
53:27 access the site as well
53:29 via northwest follow the street on the
53:32 on the south side
53:34 okay uh just to make sure we're we're
53:37 talking apples and apples here
53:39 uh your use of the term alley is really
53:41 is that first place northwest correct
53:45 the city yeah the city and engineering
53:47 department has labeled both the um
53:50 east and north side as classified as
53:54 alleyways
53:55 okay and first avenue northwest is the
53:58 one where cars would exit in an
54:00 emergency situation where to leave uh
54:03 before entering the wash right
54:05 yeah for specification first avenue
54:07 northwest um is where we have the escape
54:11 driveway exit
54:12 um that would only be utilized in in
54:15 urgent situations where someone needed
54:17 to leave the site after going through
54:18 the outer century
54:20 okay so cars heading
54:22 cars would head east i guess
54:24 on gilman and turn into this location
54:28 and then they're supposed to be going on
54:30 to first place northwest correct or the
54:33 alley they are not supposed to be
54:35 continuing straight on on first avenue
54:38 northwest
54:39 is that correct that's a good point yes
54:41 they would have um so off of gilman they
54:43 would head on
54:45 uh i guess they'd be taking up a
54:48 right and the left on first place into
54:50 the alley
54:54 or something planned so that we ensure
54:56 that they're directed into the alley and
54:58 they're not rolling down first place and
55:00 coming around the back of the wash
55:02 how do people orient there we can
55:04 definitely um in our sign package
55:07 include directional signage to denote
55:08 where that entrance is so that it
55:10 minimizes
55:11 traffic utilizing going all the way
55:13 south on first avenue northwest and then
55:16 going on holly and doing a complete
55:18 you know located here when you say that
55:20 that most
55:21 vehicles entering car washes are passed
55:23 by traffic so that wouldn't that mean
55:25 that most of the activity we're having
55:27 here
55:28 is during peak traffic times like
55:32 the late peak in the day
55:35 yeah yeah typically you know
55:37 during weekdays it's it's before work
55:40 and and
55:42 after work it's pretty consistent with
55:44 with
55:45 traffic patterns during weekdays um good
55:48 weekends it's a little bit more of a you
55:50 know a mix
55:55 okay thanks that's all on that for now
55:59 here's your price you have a question
56:04 hi yes thank you this is commissioner
56:06 price
56:08 we received a number of letters tonight
56:10 from members of the arts commission and
56:13 i don't know if the applicant was able
56:16 to see those or read those uh the
56:17 commission saw those uh and and most of
56:21 those letters pointed out that
56:23 this
56:24 particular site is in the creative
56:25 district and i don't know if you knew
56:28 you're in the creative district i
56:29 certainly didn't know i don't know if
56:31 any of the commissioners knew but it
56:33 stretches all the way down uh front
56:35 street in old town and then turns the
56:38 corner and returns up gilman for a
56:40 scratch
56:41 and and you know as a result this is a
56:44 this is a gateway site it's a gateway
56:46 site also
56:47 to old towns so i think it's a very
56:49 important site in that regard and and so
56:52 i guess i'm wondering what additional
56:54 measures uh could be taken
56:56 now that you're potentially aware of
56:58 of the the fact that this this site is
57:01 in the creative district
57:03 and um you know two things come to mind
57:05 right away and and maybe you've thought
57:08 about this but i don't see the bears
57:10 where are the bears what says creative
57:12 district uh
57:13 like really driving at home with
57:15 with some bronze bears um so i just
57:18 didn't see them on the landscape plan so
57:20 i'm curious if those are in play and
57:22 could you really i don't know to a
57:24 larger degree
57:27 build that up or or make that more
57:29 significant
57:30 i think secondly uh
57:33 to echo commissioner morgan's comment
57:35 about the blank wall you had addressed
57:38 it's an interior wall to the site but it
57:41 is the the wall that faces
57:44 um gilman right so it's really the face
57:46 of the building to the community and uh
57:49 is there the potential there to
57:51 uh turn this into something special you
57:53 know could it be a public commission
57:55 artwork could it be a mural could it be
57:58 something beyond just a trellis
57:59 something way beyond the blank wall
58:02 um so uh i would just love to hear your
58:04 thoughts on some of that
58:07 absolutely i didn't know it was in the
58:10 the arts uh overlay or district um but i
58:13 did receive the
58:16 the public comments received uh from
58:18 valerie and forwarded to
58:20 to be um
58:23 like yesterday afternoon and this
58:24 morning as well there's another comment
58:26 that came in on the same lines and
58:29 and so it's it's
58:31 understandable we definitely want to add
58:33 the bear statues um to this site
58:37 and we'll work with staff on on the best
58:39 location there's a couple locations that
58:41 we could
58:43 propose including the
58:45 landscape island that bounds the
58:48 kind of the ada stall close to 88 stall
58:51 in the entrance of the site um that
58:53 would be most visible to gilman or we
58:56 could do it at the corner of first place
58:58 northwest and first avenue northwest
59:01 as well which would be the
59:03 northwest corner of the site
59:06 where we're current in the show
59:07 landscape
59:08 but um you know we definitely want to
59:10 look for opportunity to add you know
59:12 bear statues
59:14 that you would see at other brown bear
59:17 locations throughout the throughout the
59:19 area
59:20 and so we can work with with um
59:24 with valerie and lucy and the arts
59:26 division to come up with some something
59:28 as part of our our sign package to be
59:30 approved for the site
59:37 are there any other questions
59:40 for the applicant team from the
59:41 commission
59:47 commissioner morgan
59:50 uh thank you chair brandon um is it
59:52 possible
59:53 um mr worker to pull up the site a
59:56 preliminary site plan
59:59 yeah yeah absolutely
1:00:14 yeah should have that
1:00:17 that's great thank you
1:00:20 one of the questions i have the the
1:00:22 rectangular
1:00:24 structure at the um what would be the
1:00:27 the north and there
1:00:29 um that's the
1:00:31 the av sve enclosure is that correct
1:00:35 yeah that's correct
1:00:39 and that's uh
1:00:42 and they it the only thing i saw was
1:00:44 maybe on the
1:00:46 uh one of the street
1:00:48 signs kind of looked like maybe it's
1:00:51 four or five feet tall or something like
1:00:53 that and i think in the report it talked
1:00:54 about screening that
1:00:57 but i didn't see much else about what
1:00:58 that structure looks like
1:01:01 yeah it's similar aesthetically to like
1:01:05 a city
1:01:06 approved trash trash enclosure or it
1:01:09 should be cmu on three of the sides and
1:01:11 have some gate access to be able to
1:01:13 access the equipment
1:01:16 we still need to get the approval from
1:01:18 employer and generate what those
1:01:20 elevations are going to look like and
1:01:22 work with planning department staff to
1:01:23 make sure it's screened appropriately
1:01:25 we're using the right materials
1:01:28 we'll obviously have the landscape
1:01:30 buffer along the street of first avenue
1:01:33 northwest but
1:01:35 we're able to do some additional
1:01:37 enhanced screening as well
1:01:39 um it's a mutual interest of brown bear
1:01:42 and to use the quad in our office to
1:01:45 make sure it's not a
1:01:46 an eyesore or distract from the site
1:01:50 so minimizing that as much as possible
1:01:53 um all of our interests and and
1:01:56 something we'll be doing upon
1:01:58 approval
1:01:59 that aspect is working through with with
1:02:00 plea and putting together a screening
1:02:03 plan uh with valerie in the planning
1:02:05 department
1:02:06 and is that a is that an open air
1:02:09 type structure or is it covered
1:02:13 um i believe they're
1:02:15 typically covered um
1:02:17 brain with aspect may be able to answer
1:02:20 that better than an ipm yeah i can speak
1:02:23 to that so um the preliminary
1:02:26 configuration for
1:02:28 a system like this especially uh so
1:02:31 close to the property line is that it
1:02:32 would be enclosed in some sort of
1:02:35 noise enclosure and we would rate the
1:02:40 basically the thickness and the material
1:02:42 of the noise enclosure by the size of
1:02:45 the blower but you can put any sort of
1:02:47 exterior
1:02:48 around that um that's approved by the
1:02:50 city like whatever would be commonly
1:02:53 around um a dumpster enclosure would be
1:02:57 applicable to this as an exterior so
1:03:00 what's it so are there fans in there
1:03:01 that are like blowing 24 7.
1:03:05 generally yes um we have built some that
1:03:09 run only like eight to six or or
1:03:12 something like that but usually we rate
1:03:14 them such that they meet the city
1:03:16 noise ordinances for a 24-hour operation
1:03:20 okay so i take it would that mean that
1:03:21 it's an open air structure in the top so
1:03:25 air can be blown out
1:03:28 there will be venting yes in the
1:03:30 soundproofing enclosure yeah okay but
1:03:33 you couldn't you couldn't put something
1:03:34 on top like say a bear sculpture
1:03:38 uh theoretically if it could fit with
1:03:40 the vent you could fit a bear sculpture
1:03:43 up there also yes
1:03:46 um i'm just thinking that's a very
1:03:48 prominent location and
1:03:50 maybe two birds with one stone but the
1:03:52 other question was the the arrangement
1:03:54 of it
1:03:57 parallel the first place northwest is
1:03:59 there a reason
1:04:01 that it has did it
1:04:03 i guess it could not be turned 45
1:04:05 degrees to be
1:04:07 parallel to the first avenue northwest
1:04:11 are there any setback issues or
1:04:15 and and the reason all i'm asking that
1:04:18 it's also raising the question um is
1:04:20 commissioner
1:04:25 i'm um to remember it wasn't kevin um
1:04:28 sanford had mentioned that the access
1:04:31 issue
1:04:32 to me is the
1:04:33 i have this the real problem
1:04:36 thinking about the cars that are
1:04:38 entering at an angle from first place
1:04:40 northwest
1:04:42 into the site if you can pull up the
1:04:45 sight plane again nick
1:04:49 cars pulling in from the
1:04:52 first place northwest and the cars
1:04:54 pulling out of the tunnel
1:04:57 at almost the same angle and they're all
1:04:59 i just
1:05:01 seems real problematic to me and i even
1:05:03 wondered could you have the tunnel if
1:05:06 you turned the
1:05:07 enclosure 45 degrees to to be
1:05:10 north-south could the cars come out of
1:05:13 the tunnel have their own exit to first
1:05:15 place northwest
1:05:17 and then some distance to the southeast
1:05:20 at the entrance for cars from first
1:05:23 place northwest
1:05:24 into the queue
1:05:27 to create
1:05:28 yes more
1:05:34 sight distance into into the driveway
1:05:37 the only thing and we have to maintain a
1:05:40 13-foot setback plus the 10-foot
1:05:43 landscape um
1:05:45 buffering first having northwest is my
1:05:47 understanding and so i think a lot of
1:05:48 that dictated the
1:05:50 location of that that enclosure
1:05:54 the height of it
1:05:55 you know minimizing the height of it
1:05:57 will help as well for traffic coming
1:06:00 into from first place northwest
1:06:03 so we can probably shift at an angle to
1:06:05 help increase um sight distance as well
1:06:09 so that it's not right up against um
1:06:12 first place northwest
1:06:16 could it be two separate driveways there
1:06:20 an exit driveway
1:06:22 closer to the tunnel exit and then an
1:06:24 entrance driveway
1:06:26 further to the southeast
1:06:29 yeah that's kind of how we anticipate a
1:06:30 lot of the traffic going through this
1:06:32 driveway as well
1:06:34 um straight into the auto century
1:06:38 um there was some concern we may not get
1:06:40 both of those drivers and so then this
1:06:42 would be you know we have this shown
1:06:44 extra wide in case that we need to
1:06:47 delineate this to show exit and entrance
1:06:51 traffic
1:06:52 to help
1:06:53 minimize that conflict
1:06:55 um but it's something we'll look at in
1:06:58 terms of even providing directional
1:06:59 signage to denote that this is the the
1:07:02 main entrance to
1:07:03 to the car wash plus adding striping to
1:07:05 the lining you know
1:07:07 the pathway for people exiting versus
1:07:09 entering
1:07:10 because i would think if there if
1:07:12 there's one driveway and maybe it's just
1:07:14 me but if there's one driveway and i'm
1:07:16 entering from first place northwest i'll
1:07:17 enter
1:07:19 uh i think
1:07:20 to the right side of it i won't go to
1:07:22 the left i'll try to go to the right
1:07:23 side of it
1:07:26 i just don't i know when when i was in
1:07:28 england i learned to drive on the left
1:07:30 side of the road on vacation but the one
1:07:31 thing i couldn't get right was going in
1:07:33 and out of parking lots i'd still go in
1:07:35 on the right side of the parking lot
1:07:38 and that was wrong and so i just get
1:07:39 concerned those people coming in and
1:07:41 they'll think i'm turning into a
1:07:42 driveway i turn on the right side of it
1:07:44 not the left unless they were separated
1:07:47 um yeah and i think i got i think
1:07:49 striping will make a big difference to
1:07:51 delaney where that entrance lane is at
1:07:54 um honestly on that but also keeping
1:07:57 this driveway open will help as well
1:08:00 because it provides more direct access
1:08:02 to the insurance a lot of our sites have
1:08:05 driveway that's primary access and our
1:08:07 primary entrance and one that's primary
1:08:10 exit so we try to do that here
1:08:12 but knowing that most people are going
1:08:14 to be heading you know in this direction
1:08:16 along first place
1:08:18 northwest
1:08:19 passing this driveway first
1:08:21 and so we have created some additional
1:08:22 width there um
1:08:24 and with with some striping that will
1:08:26 hopefully be able to delete between the
1:08:28 entrance and cars exiting to minimize
1:08:30 confluence as much as possible
1:08:33 okay and um and i also want to um echo
1:08:38 commercial prices comments about uh both
1:08:41 the bears and the and then the idea for
1:08:43 some kind of artwork murals along that
1:08:46 blank wall is one way to
1:08:48 to address it a perfect opportunity to
1:08:51 to give some artists a
1:08:54 a blank canvas to work with in the
1:08:57 creative district and
1:08:58 not have to change the building so
1:09:01 um and okay and
1:09:03 i i guess in my mind that blank wall is
1:09:06 going to be something that i think we
1:09:07 would need to condition
1:09:09 um and in my mind the condition could be
1:09:11 either to do something to the wall or
1:09:13 actually
1:09:14 add art to it
1:09:18 which i think could be much more fun
1:09:20 because i do agree that a lot of people
1:09:22 from gilman will be looking at that wall
1:09:24 so thank you
1:09:26 okay understood
1:09:29 commissioner arcada
1:09:31 thank you commissioner brown uh just a
1:09:33 couple questions this um on the
1:09:35 environmental side of this
1:09:37 i think the sve soil vapor extraction is
1:09:40 that is that essentially
1:09:42 pressurizing the the subgrade
1:09:45 yeah i'm off mute i can answer this one
1:09:47 unless you want to nick
1:09:49 oh no go for it please sure
1:09:51 so um
1:09:53 soil vapor extraction
1:09:58 on its own it's just extraction so
1:10:01 it's actually inducing a vacuum in the
1:10:03 subsurface when combined with air
1:10:06 sparging you're actually injecting air
1:10:09 from the atmosphere
1:10:11 down simultaneously with inducing a
1:10:13 vacuum so it's both pressure and vacuum
1:10:17 so um yeah you had it you had it pretty
1:10:19 right
1:10:20 so the other question is is do you
1:10:22 monitor the um
1:10:24 uh exhaust from it for
1:10:26 for hydrocarbons yep so all of these
1:10:29 systems that i currently operate we
1:10:31 visit monthly and we keep uh running
1:10:35 annual emissions spreadsheets to track
1:10:38 to make sure that we're meeting local
1:10:39 air standards you answer my next
1:10:42 question so the following question to
1:10:44 that is if you are busting the standard
1:10:46 what what happens then
1:10:48 yep then we can design and implement a
1:10:51 couple different kinds of
1:10:53 um effluent cleaning systems uh there's
1:10:57 some that are more physical like a
1:10:59 granular activated carbon filter or if
1:11:03 emissions were really high we could
1:11:05 implement something like a catalytic
1:11:07 oxidizer um that's not expected here uh
1:11:11 not expected to be needed based on the
1:11:13 low levels of residual contamination
1:11:15 after the excavation that we completed
1:11:18 in 2019 but there are technologies
1:11:21 available should they prove necessary
1:11:24 uh last question did you test for i
1:11:26 think it's called pfas or pfas
1:11:29 no those are not contaminants of concern
1:11:32 at this site okay thank you
1:11:38 commissioner price that's the question
1:11:41 thank you chair brennan uh this is kevin
1:11:43 price speaking again
1:11:46 i don't want to beat up the circulation
1:11:48 issue but i also want to hear
1:11:50 um how
1:11:52 you envision the vacuuming process
1:11:54 playing into the sequence am i seeing
1:11:56 three of them is that correct
1:11:59 yeah that's that is correct
1:12:01 and then and then so two or along first
1:12:04 place northwest
1:12:08 and then one is is uh
1:12:11 over at the parking stalls
1:12:13 um towards the building yes
1:12:15 okay well i guess i have two questions
1:12:19 based on that so i'll just ask them both
1:12:21 at the same time and maybe you can
1:12:23 address them at the same time one is
1:12:25 just how does that work into the queuing
1:12:27 sequence it seems like it's adding
1:12:28 another layer of congestion
1:12:30 um and are we we just relying on
1:12:33 you know the the good will of people to
1:12:35 let somebody in once they they're done
1:12:37 vacuuming their car i can imagine stores
1:12:41 you know fast food bags i can imagine a
1:12:44 lot of activity occurring around that
1:12:47 and have we have we adequately addressed
1:12:50 all that activity um and
1:12:54 and the second part is
1:12:56 how are we screening those vacuum units
1:12:58 from the street i don't see them
1:13:00 illustrated on
1:13:01 um the the renderings from with the
1:13:04 street view with
1:13:05 the trees i just don't see them sort of
1:13:07 incorporated into that rendering so is
1:13:09 there some level of screening that's to
1:13:11 occur as well
1:13:14 yeah sure to answer your first question
1:13:16 so they're not like a lot of car washes
1:13:19 the vacuums are are free um to use upon
1:13:23 exiting the watch but these are you
1:13:25 still have to pay to use the the vacuums
1:13:27 they're the coin operated uh traditional
1:13:29 vacuums they don't see a whole lot of
1:13:32 volume
1:13:33 um at our at our other sites
1:13:36 we have incorporated an extra wide dry
1:13:39 vial that's wider than the
1:13:42 minimum
1:13:44 for city code for two-way traffic
1:13:46 um to be able to incorporate
1:13:48 maneuvering space to get into those two
1:13:51 parallel stalls um with the vacuums
1:13:54 um and then there's you know even wider
1:13:58 drive mile
1:13:59 behind the
1:14:01 uh nine foot wide stall in front of the
1:14:05 the building
1:14:06 as well to allow for backup space
1:14:11 for people to get in and out people that
1:14:14 do use it um
1:14:16 you know it's typically
1:14:18 after after the wash but again
1:14:21 we only have three here and we typically
1:14:24 are adding
1:14:26 less and less because there's not a
1:14:28 whole lot of volume
1:14:29 there's using the vacuum pumps
1:14:33 at the brown bear facilities
1:14:36 oh and then your your second part
1:14:38 question on the screening we don't
1:14:41 currently have any
1:14:42 um screen aside from ground cover
1:14:44 between the vacuum and the alleyway
1:14:49 we do have a combination of shrubs and
1:14:52 ground covers between between each
1:14:57 there's no
1:14:58 screening requirement along the alleyway
1:15:01 for those of those vacuum stations
1:15:08 okay can i just add a follow-up uh this
1:15:10 is more just comment i think i think
1:15:12 something should be considered on some
1:15:14 level you know i think we call this an
1:15:17 alleyway yes it's designated as an
1:15:18 alleyway but it's really it's the face
1:15:21 of this facility to the community it's
1:15:23 not it's not the back of the building
1:15:26 and you know i know how it's arranged in
1:15:28 the labels um but it's it's really the
1:15:31 front of the building so um i think
1:15:34 something needs to be done there uh
1:15:36 consideration given to it especially
1:15:38 when the renderings are a little
1:15:39 disingenuous
1:15:40 in that regard
1:15:42 i just don't see them maybe maybe
1:15:44 they're there but um i i just don't feel
1:15:46 like that's how it's gonna look
1:15:48 okay no i understood we will we will
1:15:51 work to dress up that that south um
1:15:54 itself to be the east elevation
1:15:56 of the building that um faces gilman
1:15:59 from from a distance um
1:16:02 you know we know there's a mechanical
1:16:03 room there but there's other things we
1:16:04 can do has been discussed
1:16:07 to help dress up that really in addition
1:16:09 to the to the stone linear
1:16:14 richard morgan you have a question
1:16:16 sorry one more
1:16:18 i saw a clock on the paul's bow
1:16:20 tower
1:16:21 can we get a clock in
1:16:23 his aqua tower
1:16:28 yeah lance i look like you had you were
1:16:30 about to say something too did you want
1:16:32 to answer that i one anything i may have
1:16:34 missed
1:16:35 yeah i think the clock would look good
1:16:36 there i'd be all in favor of it
1:16:40 thank you
1:16:45 are there any other questions from
1:16:47 commissioners to the applicant team
1:16:54 okay i'm i'm not seeing any so i'm going
1:16:58 to open the meeting for public comment
1:17:00 note that we also received three
1:17:03 written comments via email
1:17:06 after the staff report was in the
1:17:08 project packet was published
1:17:11 so if you are
1:17:13 interested in speaking during the public
1:17:15 hearings evening
1:17:17 if you're on a computer please raise
1:17:18 your virtual hand and if you're on the
1:17:20 phone
1:17:21 um you can press star 3
1:17:24 to raise your hand
1:17:26 when it's your turn will you you'll be
1:17:28 moved in as a panelist and and once
1:17:30 you're moved up
1:17:32 you then
1:17:33 can unmute your phone or your microphone
1:17:36 and then turn on your video
1:17:38 please state your name and then proceed
1:17:40 to make any comments or ask any
1:17:42 questions you might have
1:17:44 please meet your microphone when you're
1:17:46 done giving your comments
1:17:48 and before we get started i'm just going
1:17:50 to ask that people keep their comments
1:17:52 and questions to less than five minutes
1:17:56 it'll allow everyone who wishes to speak
1:17:57 a chance to talk we also may have
1:18:00 attendees joining us by phone so please
1:18:03 introduce yourself each time before
1:18:04 speaking
1:18:06 are there any comments from the public
1:18:09 and if so please
1:18:11 enter them in the chat um so lucy
1:18:15 um if you have anybody from the public
1:18:18 that would like to speak tonight
1:18:21 please move them up to panelists
1:18:24 this time i don't see anyone's hand
1:18:27 raised
1:18:28 there are one or two people whose names
1:18:31 i don't recognize
1:18:36 you want to speak and you're having
1:18:38 trouble getting figuring out how to
1:18:40 raise your virtual hand
1:18:41 send me a
1:18:43 chat i believe you can chat with the
1:18:45 host which is me
1:18:57 i don't see anyone asking to comment
1:19:01 right thank you wait wait
1:19:03 um okay
1:19:05 someone just did um
1:19:08 rachel wright would like to comment um i
1:19:11 cannot elevate her as a panelist but i
1:19:13 cannot unmute her so um that she can
1:19:16 comment
1:19:17 rachel you have been unmuted and um
1:19:20 please give us your comments great um
1:19:23 well i first want to thank the
1:19:24 commission for taking the time to read
1:19:26 the letter from me and from other
1:19:28 members of the arts commission
1:19:29 considering the uh the creative district
1:19:31 we really appreciate you taking the time
1:19:34 and i'm just hoping that uh going
1:19:36 forward the commission can help to
1:19:39 bring some of these issues to the
1:19:41 creative district so that we can help to
1:19:43 make sure that we have development that
1:19:45 both fits the design standards but also
1:19:48 helps in with meeting the objectives of
1:19:50 trying to create a much more pedestrian
1:19:52 friendly much more accessible walkable
1:19:56 and friendly arts district so i'm i'm
1:19:58 curious just if with the information i
1:20:01 gave you in the letter i'm wondering if
1:20:03 there's can be any discussion about the
1:20:05 variants
1:20:07 and why we can't have more planters and
1:20:09 bike space around this specific
1:20:11 development
1:20:25 so we can handle the comment or that
1:20:27 quick connect question forward as part
1:20:29 of the account the commission's
1:20:31 discussion um
1:20:33 if there are additional comments that
1:20:34 you would like to make or questions
1:20:36 you'd like to have asked please continue
1:20:38 to comment
1:20:39 uh if not
1:20:41 we can move to the next speaker if there
1:20:43 is one
1:20:44 great thank you
1:20:47 thank you miss right
1:20:49 uh lucy do we have anybody else who has
1:20:51 raised their hand seeing that
1:20:53 um i've not received a chat or see a
1:20:56 hand raised from anyone else
1:20:58 great um
1:21:05 i want to give an opportunity to does do
1:21:07 the commissioners have any additional
1:21:09 questions for the applicant before we
1:21:11 close the public hearing
1:21:16 um mr chair we should give opportunity
1:21:20 if there's any opportunity for robot uh
1:21:22 desire for rebuttal um
1:21:26 first of all to the applicant do you
1:21:28 have any
1:21:29 um rebuttal or response to the
1:21:32 question from the speaker mr wright
1:21:38 no i don't believe that's in our in our
1:21:40 purview to
1:21:43 have an answer to that question
1:21:46 also i want to give the opportunity to
1:21:48 staff
1:21:50 to provide a rebuttal response
1:21:54 um i'd like to briefly just mention that
1:21:57 part of the
1:21:59 so the parcel was located within the
1:22:01 central issaquah sub area and typically
1:22:04 um streets are reviewed by the
1:22:06 development commission
1:22:09 when projects are located in central
1:22:10 issaquah so because the sub-area
1:22:13 boundary change and it placed this
1:22:15 project or this parcel outside of the
1:22:17 central issaquah area this now means
1:22:20 that all roadway
1:22:22 you know deviations and standards should
1:22:24 comply with the street standards and in
1:22:26 the street standards um any deviations
1:22:29 are approved by the public works
1:22:31 department so um
1:22:34 they did a review all considerations
1:22:36 which is and they were incorporated into
1:22:39 design which is why we are bringing this
1:22:40 before the development commission today
1:22:45 can i just uh
1:22:47 ask a quick follow-up to that so the
1:22:50 there was a variation um
1:22:53 and this is that variation as you
1:22:56 mentioned would be decided by public
1:22:58 courts or by the public works director
1:23:04 and and
1:23:05 that process is still under
1:23:07 consideration or has that decision been
1:23:13 a decision has been made it was made a
1:23:15 couple years ago
1:23:18 so the reduction of the sidewalk width
1:23:21 and the
1:23:22 modifications of landscaping was
1:23:23 approved
1:23:25 for this
1:23:26 correct
1:23:34 so are there any other questions for the
1:23:36 uh from the commission to the applicant
1:23:39 uh lucy you have a question
1:23:41 i just um
1:23:42 valerie and i have been chatting and i
1:23:45 just want to make the point um
1:23:50 the brown bear sculpture would be
1:23:52 considered a sign
1:23:55 and so would need to be considered as
1:23:57 part of the sign package not as a
1:23:59 separate
1:24:01 art element
1:24:06 um so i say that for the commissioners
1:24:08 just so you're aware
1:24:12 right thanks for that clarification are
1:24:14 there any other questions for the
1:24:16 applicant from the commission
1:24:18 this evening
1:24:21 and i'm
1:24:23 not seeing any
1:24:25 so um
1:24:26 as it are now the commissioners do any
1:24:28 of the commissioners object to closing
1:24:30 the public hearing
1:24:35 i see no objections so the public
1:24:37 hearing is closed once it's closed just
1:24:39 as a reminder since this is a
1:24:42 quasi-judicial action or matter no
1:24:44 additional testimony may be taken and
1:24:47 commissioners are now limited to the
1:24:49 questions to
1:24:50 staff only
1:24:52 and we can deliberate and then if we are
1:24:54 ready
1:24:55 to vote um that's
1:24:59 what we can do this evening so again
1:25:02 the public hearing
1:25:04 as there were no objections is now
1:25:06 closed so it is now our opportunity as
1:25:09 the commission to
1:25:11 deliberate
1:25:13 and when ready
1:25:14 can certainly make a motion here
1:25:18 act on this particular application so
1:25:22 are there
1:25:25 comments
1:25:27 deliberation
1:25:29 points that commissioners would like to
1:25:30 make at this point
1:25:42 uh commissioner morgan
1:25:45 i i guess i'm curious to hear what some
1:25:47 of the commissioner's thoughts are
1:25:50 on the east wall uh commissioner price
1:25:53 has discussed it
1:25:56 um it
1:25:57 to me it seems clear that it doesn't
1:26:00 that we do have a long blank wall
1:26:03 that would be visible from gilman
1:26:06 and i feel like there would need to be a
1:26:08 condition and thinking that a condition
1:26:11 could be either to
1:26:12 make changes to the wall or to add
1:26:15 artwork
1:26:17 working with the arts commission in the
1:26:20 i'm curious what other commission
1:26:22 managers might think about that
1:26:27 uh commissioner price you also
1:26:31 have a question to staff so why don't we
1:26:35 pause here since commissioner morgan was
1:26:38 asking for additional thoughts from
1:26:40 commissioners any commissioners would
1:26:42 like to add your thoughts to
1:26:44 uh commissioner morgan's comment
1:26:47 commissioner dillon
1:26:52 i i like the idea of
1:26:54 of artwork along the wall and that seems
1:26:57 like something that could probably be
1:26:59 incorporated into the design without
1:27:01 affecting function it's consistent with
1:27:04 some of the
1:27:05 the artwork that's being done on on city
1:27:08 property
1:27:10 you know decorating utility boxes larger
1:27:13 scale than that of course but um kind of
1:27:16 tying it in with some of the other
1:27:18 artistic
1:27:19 expressions around the city
1:27:22 commissioner price did you want to add
1:27:24 to the this
1:27:26 yeah i would just agree i would love to
1:27:29 see it be a condition to work with uh
1:27:32 the arts commission uh or or whoever the
1:27:35 appropriate party is
1:27:37 to just work with the community and and
1:27:40 have something done there that that
1:27:42 really
1:27:44 demonstrates um
1:27:46 you know
1:27:47 some level of
1:27:49 wanting to to put a good face towards
1:27:52 the street that is a super critical
1:27:54 corner um it's it's as i mentioned
1:27:57 before a gateway and then i would go one
1:27:59 step further as is going back to the uh
1:28:03 the um
1:28:04 the vacuum machines uh and um
1:28:09 patty you mentioned art wraps you know
1:28:11 they they wrap utility boxes and raps
1:28:14 now that's working directly with the
1:28:15 utility city partnership but i think
1:28:17 it's been a great thing to see these art
1:28:19 wraps popping up all over the community
1:28:22 so could we also see something of that
1:28:24 nature done to these vacuum machines
1:28:27 even to the point of could they build
1:28:29 their own little enclosure around it if
1:28:31 they didn't want to attach the art
1:28:32 directly to the machine uh but then do
1:28:34 the art wrap on that or erect some sort
1:28:38 of um you know even even wrought iron
1:28:41 decorative art something
1:28:43 something better than the back of a
1:28:45 vacuum cleaner so
1:28:46 that's that's what i would like to see
1:28:52 any other commissions uh and then i'll
1:28:54 jump back up to uh commissioner price
1:28:56 had a question and i believe uh
1:28:59 commissioner sanford as well so i'll
1:29:01 i'll throw my two cents in here on the
1:29:04 question about the blank wall i would
1:29:05 agree i mean we've had this situation on
1:29:08 other projects that we have reviewed
1:29:10 over the years and we have seen
1:29:12 different uh your architectural
1:29:14 treatments
1:29:15 um some forms that sometimes um breaking
1:29:18 the wall up with additional glazing
1:29:21 etc in this particular instance i would
1:29:23 agree it's a very visible kind of
1:29:26 gateway coming down goodman boulevard
1:29:28 boulevard and it is a the most probably
1:29:30 visible
1:29:31 elevation of the project um from a
1:29:34 community standpoint
1:29:36 um so the idea of architectural or
1:29:39 interesting art treatment that would
1:29:41 make sense here
1:29:42 um would be i think a good addition the
1:29:45 blank wall as as it's shown in the
1:29:47 elevations i don't believe meets the
1:29:49 standard and certainly
1:29:52 something needs to be done to address
1:29:54 that but this really is an opportunity
1:29:56 as commissioner price mentioned to
1:29:58 maybe do something that is unique i
1:30:01 understand brown bear has
1:30:03 a certain uh image that they want for
1:30:05 their facilities but again it's trying
1:30:07 to find a balance between what you're
1:30:09 trying to accomplish and what the
1:30:10 community is trying to accomplish
1:30:12 um in this particular location so
1:30:15 um certainly would like to see that as
1:30:17 far as referring to the arts commission
1:30:19 and certainly they can provide feedback
1:30:21 obviously this is a decision of the
1:30:22 development commission but certainly to
1:30:24 get thoughts and ideas um the arts
1:30:27 commission and other
1:30:29 community members and or staff
1:30:32 can provide some additional feedback on
1:30:33 that as well and what might make sense
1:30:39 any any other comments on the wall uh
1:30:44 i just am going to put something in the
1:30:46 chat that is the excerpt from the um
1:30:50 design checklist for your reference and
1:30:52 i just wanted you to know why that was
1:30:54 showing up
1:30:57 it's not there oh there it is thank you
1:31:03 so um real quick for the public that
1:31:04 can't see it design um
1:31:07 components ground level avoid blank
1:31:09 walls at the ground level utilize
1:31:12 windows trellises
1:31:14 wall articulation arcades and changes in
1:31:17 materials or other features
1:31:19 is the expectation of the design
1:31:21 expectation
1:31:22 to minimize the impact of
1:31:24 potentially
1:31:25 large blank walls
1:31:29 so uh back up to the question so
1:31:31 commissioner price had a question
1:31:35 thank you chair brennan very well put
1:31:37 you articulated it much better than i so
1:31:39 i appreciate your commentary on the
1:31:41 blank wall issue um
1:31:43 it was more about the sign that the
1:31:46 bears would fall under the sign
1:31:48 uh code and
1:31:50 you know just
1:31:52 maybe you can't comment on this right
1:31:53 now is there anything
1:31:56 off the top of your head that would um
1:31:59 not allow the bears in the sign code
1:32:01 would they meet code on some level
1:32:08 so uh
1:32:10 like lucy mentioned we have been talking
1:32:12 about this whether or not that would
1:32:14 work and
1:32:15 because the
1:32:17 the project is brown bear and adding a
1:32:20 big or a large
1:32:22 um bear sculpture that would be
1:32:24 considered as advertising now if they
1:32:26 wanted to you know place a large
1:32:28 elephant um that would not be considered
1:32:31 advertising um and lucy just in um
1:32:34 placed the definition of sign um in the
1:32:36 chat for you guys review um so that's
1:32:39 part of the reason why we would consider
1:32:41 it a sign
1:32:48 thank you i'm not going to read this one
1:32:51 but commission members can see it and it
1:32:53 is a code reference so it is um
1:32:56 provided in the city code
1:32:59 1811 if any members of the public who
1:33:02 can't see the chat are interested it's
1:33:05 the definition of sign from 1811.
1:33:12 i believe commissioner sanford had a
1:33:15 comment
1:33:17 thank you chair brandon this is richard
1:33:19 sanford
1:33:21 maybe i'm the only one concerned about
1:33:22 the number of trips that this is adding
1:33:25 but it's been vetted i assume that los d
1:33:29 is still being met by this project at
1:33:31 that intersection
1:33:33 i hope that
1:33:35 we're taking into account that
1:33:37 centralistic law is the area that we've
1:33:39 designated to add the most density in
1:33:43 the future
1:33:45 i hope that
1:33:46 the assessment and evaluation for that
1:33:49 level of service has included
1:33:52 some of our future plans there i
1:33:55 at least i would like to see a condition
1:33:57 added regarding circulation in the
1:33:59 facility
1:34:00 uh both approach the facility and within
1:34:04 i'll leave it at that and i'd be
1:34:05 interested to hear if
1:34:07 any other commissioners have concerns
1:34:09 about
1:34:10 the volume of traffic that this is
1:34:12 adding in the area
1:34:17 any other commissioners like to
1:34:20 um commissioner
1:34:23 looks like commissioner morgan
1:34:28 i would um
1:34:29 uh agree the um about i'm not so sure
1:34:34 about volume in general spilling out but
1:34:36 more about volume and circulation within
1:34:39 facility itself and if i can sneak in
1:34:41 quickly a question
1:34:44 to uh to lucy or valerie so the bear
1:34:47 that's at the brown bear car wash on
1:34:49 southeast 56
1:34:52 was considered assigned and approved as
1:34:58 there was a significant debate um
1:35:01 at the time that was installed i would
1:35:03 just point out we're under a new sign
1:35:06 um and i believe that the definition of
1:35:09 sign has changed so um
1:35:13 whether that one
1:35:15 how that one would rate under the uh
1:35:17 current sign code i don't know
1:35:19 but i i um well i shouldn't say that uh
1:35:23 what i it was you it was evaluated under
1:35:25 a different code and based on this code
1:35:28 i think with
1:35:30 the intent is that non-verbal
1:35:33 symbols are
1:35:35 as much signs as
1:35:37 words
1:35:38 thank you
1:35:42 commissioner dillon uh a comment
1:35:49 yes thanks um
1:35:52 responding to
1:35:54 commissioner sanford's um
1:35:56 comment about about traffic that that is
1:35:59 a difficult spot um it's
1:36:02 you know near the intersection of gilman
1:36:04 and front street which is
1:36:06 you know very busy a lot of the time
1:36:14 it would add i assume a fair amount of
1:36:17 traffic um potentially along
1:36:19 rainier or northwest holly street for
1:36:22 people looking for for alternate options
1:36:24 to get there so
1:36:27 only had a chance to skim the the
1:36:29 traffic assessment but i guess i would
1:36:31 like to to echo commissioner sanford's
1:36:33 contention that i hope that that was
1:36:37 reviewed reviewed and and considered and
1:36:39 that the assumptions were were validated
1:36:41 based on um
1:36:43 based on city experience
1:36:51 are there any other comments or
1:36:53 questions
1:36:54 um to staff from the commission
1:37:02 so if um if we're comfortable advancing
1:37:04 this to a decision this evening
1:37:08 i will we would need a motion
1:37:11 certainly we can
1:37:13 add additional
1:37:14 conditions
1:37:16 to the motion
1:37:18 to the conditions that are already
1:37:20 included in the staff report
1:37:23 uh commissioner price would like to make
1:37:25 a motion
1:37:28 commissioner pricier muted
1:37:32 thank you
1:37:33 i would like to make a motion to approve
1:37:45 i need to try again
1:37:49 we can't
1:37:50 i can't hear you
1:37:56 i think we lost commissioner price um
1:38:00 would somebody else like to introduce a
1:38:01 motion
1:38:08 commissioner morgan
1:38:10 mr chair i moved
1:38:12 that the development commission approved
1:38:13 the site development permit for brown
1:38:15 bear car wash
1:38:17 file number sdp 19-0003
1:38:22 as described and evaluated in the staff
1:38:24 report dated january 26 2022
1:38:28 with attachments 1 through 24
1:38:32 subject to the conditions therein and as
1:38:34 amended tonight
1:38:36 and contingent upon the applicant
1:38:38 recording the environmental
1:38:39 indemnification agreement with king
1:38:42 county
1:38:43 the environmental indemnification
1:38:44 agreement must be recorded no later than
1:38:46 march 2
1:38:49 unless an extension has been granted by
1:38:51 the city or the application will be
1:38:54 denied
1:38:57 is there a second to the motion by
1:38:59 commissioner morgan
1:39:04 you can just speak up you can unmute and
1:39:06 speak up
1:39:06 if you want to
1:39:09 so i heard a second i i don't know who
1:39:11 said that richard so a second thank you
1:39:14 richard uh commissioner so was uh second
1:39:16 into motion is there additional
1:39:18 discussion on the motion
1:39:24 commissioner sanford
1:39:28 i would like to suggest a condition
1:39:30 i don't know if this is the point of
1:39:32 order in which to do it
1:39:35 so to suggest a condition you would make
1:39:38 an amendment to the main motion um that
1:39:41 would add a condition lucy it might be
1:39:44 helpful um just for us to track it um if
1:39:47 you could
1:39:48 uh i know this is a lot to ask
1:39:50 but if it's possible to
1:39:53 kind of capture the motion
1:39:55 uh in either on a screen or on your
1:39:58 screen
1:39:59 so that we can keep track of any of any
1:40:00 amendments
1:40:02 if you'll give me just one moment
1:40:08 i'm trying to um
1:40:13 do you see the motion sheet being shared
1:40:17 we see
1:40:20 yes we see the motion sheet it's very
1:40:22 small though it's hard for us to release
1:40:24 for me
1:40:25 all right let me make it much bigger
1:40:38 so um
1:40:39 based
1:40:40 uh based on a request about blank walls
1:40:44 we began to draft something this is just
1:40:46 proposed
1:40:48 um i'm putting it in italics and
1:40:52 red so you know this is not something
1:40:54 that you all have proposed but
1:40:57 um so i will um
1:41:00 back to commissioner sanford um if you
1:41:02 want to amend the main motion to add a
1:41:04 condition um
1:41:05 feel free to do that
1:41:08 okay thank you uh chair um
1:41:11 i say
1:41:12 it regards circulation into an internal
1:41:15 to the facility so
1:41:17 i have some candidate language
1:41:19 that could be amended in itself but
1:41:22 the applicant must prepare a traffic
1:41:25 circulation plan
1:41:27 that addresses entry to the site from
1:41:29 gilman boulevard
1:41:31 by using first place northwest
1:41:34 as well as circulation within the site
1:41:36 to prevent wrong way traffic
1:41:39 the plan must include all anticipated
1:41:42 traffic striping and signage
1:41:47 and you're offering that as a motion
1:41:49 as an amendment to the main motion
1:41:51 that's correct
1:41:52 is there a second
1:41:58 is that
1:41:59 okay i heard a second i don't know again
1:42:01 who who seconded
1:42:04 mr morgan
1:42:06 thank you commissioner morgan
1:42:08 so we have uh
1:42:10 commissioner sanford be
1:42:13 willing to repeat the condition
1:42:16 sure lucia i could mail it to you if you
1:42:18 want as well or i could just go through
1:42:20 it a little slowly
1:42:21 or drop it in the chat um although i
1:42:24 think when i'm sharing my screen it's
1:42:26 hard for me to get in there better to do
1:42:27 the chat sure
1:42:41 uh lucy can you see the motion in the
1:42:48 yes yes
1:42:51 so again
1:42:53 um this is an amendment to the main
1:42:55 motion are there any questions or
1:42:57 comments
1:42:59 um regarding the amendment
1:43:07 [Music]
1:43:09 not seeing any
1:43:10 [Music]
1:43:11 buddy raise their hand to comment
1:43:13 so uh with that
1:43:16 um i will vote on the amendment to the
1:43:18 main motion of the amendment offered by
1:43:21 commissioner sanford all in favor
1:43:24 um say i i guess i guess unfortunately i
1:43:27 think we're gonna have to do this by
1:43:28 roll call
1:43:30 uh is that right lucy
1:43:32 that seems um like the best way to do it
1:43:36 let me just pull up the
1:43:40 commission
1:43:43 so for a roll call vote commissioner
1:43:45 brennan
1:43:47 uh yes
1:43:48 commissioner sanford yes
1:43:51 commissioner
1:43:53 commissioner dylan
1:43:56 commissioner price
1:43:59 commissioner ikeda yes
1:44:02 commissioner morgan
1:44:07 so the motion passes unanimously
1:44:10 uh thanks for that um
1:44:13 is there any other commission member
1:44:14 that would like to offer an amendment
1:44:17 uh commissioner morgan
1:44:20 yes um and i loosely added this to the
1:44:23 the text to the chat box
1:44:26 uh the motion would be to
1:44:28 add a condition that the applicant shall
1:44:30 work with staff to make changes to the
1:44:31 east building wall to meet the design
1:44:33 criteria checklist requirement to avoid
1:44:36 blank walls including the possibility of
1:44:39 adding artwork
1:44:42 is there a second to the motion
1:44:45 second
1:44:46 patty
1:44:49 motion seconded by commissioner dylan
1:44:51 any questions or comments about the
1:44:55 motion
1:44:58 lucy does that fit
1:45:00 the verbiage requirements
1:45:09 thank you thank you
1:45:12 i'm seeing no questions or comments
1:45:14 regarding the motion so we will
1:45:17 move to vote so uh lucy will do roll
1:45:20 call again
1:45:22 yes on the
1:45:24 second amendment to add a new condition
1:45:26 regarding blank walls
1:45:28 commissioner brennan
1:45:32 commissioner sanford yes
1:45:34 commissioner
1:45:36 commissioner dylan
1:45:39 commissioner price
1:45:42 commissioner ikeda yes
1:45:45 commissioner morgan
1:45:50 thank you um that motion also that
1:45:53 amendment also passes unanimously
1:45:55 are there any other amendments
1:45:58 to the main motion
1:46:06 are there any other amendments to the
1:46:10 motion i'm seeing none
1:46:14 so we are back to the main motion as
1:46:16 amended
1:46:18 um is there any other discussion on the
1:46:20 main motion as amended
1:46:26 i'm cnn oh excuse me uh commissioner
1:46:30 dylan
1:46:31 um i guess actually going back to
1:46:34 what i asked um asked at the best staff
1:46:37 at the beginning about stormwater my
1:46:39 understanding is that those standards
1:46:41 would have to be met regardless of us
1:46:44 putting any any condition on
1:46:47 on the acceptance is that true
1:46:49 that is correct
1:46:52 then i i'm fine unfine asses
1:46:54 and there's also conditions in the staff
1:46:56 report so it's a twofer
1:46:59 it's a twofer okay so i think we have a
1:47:01 i think we have that one covered good
1:47:03 question
1:47:04 are there any other uh comments or
1:47:07 questions
1:47:08 to the main motion as amended
1:47:13 i'm seeing that so we will move to vote
1:47:16 um lucy
1:47:18 roll call
1:47:20 roll call on the amendment to approve
1:47:23 the permit with the conditions and the
1:47:26 amendments as proposed this evening
1:47:29 uh commissioner brennan
1:47:32 commissioner sanford yes
1:47:38 commissioner dylan
1:47:41 commissioner price
1:47:44 commissioner
1:47:46 commissioner
1:47:52 thank you the the
1:47:54 motion passes um so the commission's
1:47:57 work on this
1:47:59 uh is complete on this quasi-judicial
1:48:01 matter we have approved the permit with
1:48:03 conditions commissioner
1:48:05 um yes i think i might need to do
1:48:08 another
1:48:10 motion to prepare findings
1:48:12 um mr chair i move that the development
1:48:15 commission direct the community planning
1:48:17 and development depart department
1:48:19 to prepare findings of fact and
1:48:20 conclusions
1:48:22 or review an approval by the development
1:48:24 commission chairman
1:48:25 affirming the development commission's
1:48:27 decision to approve the brown bear car
1:48:29 wash project
1:48:30 file number sdp 19-0003
1:48:35 subject to the conditions listed in the
1:48:37 staff report dated january 26
1:48:42 with attachments 1 through 24 and as
1:48:44 amended tonight
1:48:46 contingent upon the applicant's timely
1:48:48 recording of the required environmental
1:48:50 indemnification agreement
1:48:54 is there a second
1:48:59 second richard sanford
1:49:01 well uh seconded by commissioner sanford
1:49:06 uh lucy we'll have to do the roll call
1:49:08 again
1:49:09 one more time let's do it in my sleep
1:49:12 um commissioner brennan
1:49:15 commissioner sanford yes
1:49:17 mr silva yes
1:49:20 commissioner dylan
1:49:22 commissioner price
1:49:24 commissioner ikeda yes commissioner
1:49:27 morgan
1:49:30 excellent thank you commissioner morgan
1:49:32 for making sure we didn't miss any of
1:49:35 approval approval process steps there so
1:49:37 so with that uh that does conclude the
1:49:39 commission's
1:49:41 actions caused you judicial actions on
1:49:43 this permit application approved with
1:49:45 conditions so i would like to thank the
1:49:47 applicant team and staff of great
1:49:50 presentations tonight lots of questions
1:49:53 appreciated your answers i think the
1:49:55 applicant team received some good
1:49:57 feedback tonight um clearly the
1:50:00 the commission wants to see high quality
1:50:02 development and
1:50:03 have some suggestions and some
1:50:05 additional requirements that um
1:50:07 hopefully will help us accomplish that
1:50:09 so again thank you for your great work
1:50:11 and and your continued cooperation
1:50:13 making isa
1:50:14 a great city so
1:50:16 um lucy i think we have uh do we have
1:50:19 any other business to cover tonight or
1:50:22 updates
1:50:24 so um i will just point out that
1:50:28 they're
1:50:29 we're still in the busy season so
1:50:31 next week is a joint ppc meeting
1:50:36 dc ppc meeting
1:50:39 it's the last of the gap analyses and
1:50:42 update memos
1:50:44 for title 18 on parking and circulation
1:50:50 then we are we have issued our um
1:50:53 first drafts on um
1:50:57 two of the natural environment
1:50:59 topics one is
1:51:02 some amendments to the shoreline master
1:51:04 program
1:51:05 and a draft of the outdoor lighting
1:51:09 code so
1:51:11 those are available i believe on ppc's
1:51:14 website
1:51:16 there'll be an open house next week to
1:51:19 answer the public's questions
1:51:21 and um
1:51:24 the other thing
1:51:25 just as a sort of global
1:51:28 potential interest is
1:51:33 that uh
1:51:36 director dollywall will be um
1:51:39 meeting monthly with the commit with the
1:51:41 council providing updates on title 18 as
1:51:45 we complete
1:51:48 our discussion draft and deliberations
1:51:50 with them
1:51:51 so there'll be opportunities for updates
1:51:54 on that
1:51:56 and we
1:51:57 expect to see you in march
1:52:00 for the providence heights
1:52:03 site development permit and master site
1:52:06 plan the
1:52:07 hearing notice hasn't been issued yet
1:52:10 but it it will be soon
1:52:13 we also anticipate because it's going to
1:52:15 be a sizable packet we're
1:52:18 going to give you around two weeks to
1:52:20 review those materials
1:52:24 thanks we appreciate that extra time
1:52:28 i know we've been anticipating that one
1:52:29 for a while so
1:52:31 uh is there any additional business for
1:52:33 the commission this evening
1:52:38 right so seeing that uh then we will
1:52:41 adjourn the meeting it is at 8 56
1:52:45 thanks everybody and i'll see you next
1:52:50 thank you
1:53:03 okay i'm done
1:53:05 where's my champagne
1:53:08 you did all the work
1:53:09 thank you

Attendance

Council / Members (8)
Brennan
Vice-Chair Price
Commissioners Dillon
Ikeda (Alternate)
Morgan (Alternate)
Sanford
Sowa Absence: Commissioners Shore (Excused)
Schulte (Excused)
Staff (6)
Valerie Porter, Associate Planner, CP&D Lucy Sloman, Current Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) Chair Brennan asked if there were any comments or changes to the February 5, 2020 minutes
there were none. The minutes were approved. b) Chair Brennan asked if there were any comments or changes to the February 10, 2020 minutes
there were none. The minutes were approved. c) Chair Brennan asked if there were any comments or changes to the February 12, 2020 minutes
there were none. The minutes were approved. d) Chair Brennan asked if there were any comments or changes to the January 20, 2022 minutes
there were none. The minutes were approved. Page 7 of 5080 APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-02-22 Development Commission Meeting Minutes e) Chair Brennan asked if there were any comments or changes to the October 28, 2021 minutes
there were none. The minutes were approved