Development Commission · Wednesday, January 15, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of December 04, 2024

packet pp.5–8

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Wednesday, December 4, 2024

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Site Development Permit Application for Front Street Townhomes, Quasi-Judicial

90 min · Emily Medina, Associate Planner Kevin Merriman, Main Street Property Group Application No: SDP24-00002 Location: 665 Front St. N. Parcel Number: 2824069025 Applicant: Kevin Merriman, Main Street Property Group LLO Description: Site Development Permit Public Hearing Order: · packet pp.9–967

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

STAFF REPORT Site Development Permit File No PRJ22-00022 /SDP24-00002 January 6, 2025

5. REPORTS

City Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.969

Open packet at p.969 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission 2025 Schedule (subject to change)

2381 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ good evening and welcome I'd like to

0:08 ↗ call the January 15th city of isqua

0:11 ↗ development commission meeting to order

0:12 ↗ at 6:30 p.m. as a reminder we have a

0:16 ↗ remote aspect to our meetings this means

0:18 ↗ both staff and members of the public may

0:20 ↗ be participating in the meeting remotely

0:22 ↗ via webc for those attending remotely if

0:25 ↗ you have questions or issues please send

0:27 ↗ the host a chat message or email staff

0:30 ↗ at Christen

0:31 ↗ lis.gov that's CHR i s

0:35 ↗ tnl isqua wa.gov excused absence for

0:39 ↗ this meeting is commissioner Shore

0:42 ↗ alternate member Olaf hazon is filling

0:44 ↗ in this evening as a regular member

0:46 ↗ welcome

0:47 ↗ olola first item of business tonight is

0:50 ↗ to take action on our minutes for

0:51 ↗ December 4th

0:53 ↗ 2024 hope we've all had an opportunity

0:55 ↗ to review are there any corrections to

0:57 ↗ the December 4th minutes in the agenda

1:01 ↗ pack hearing none the minutes are

1:03 ↗ approved yes um commissioner Brennon

1:06 ↗ yeah I don't have a correction to the

1:08 ↗ minutes but there was a a a question

1:10 ↗ that was asked during the meeting so I

1:12 ↗ want to clarify the response to the the

1:16 ↗ question commissioner Morgan asked when

1:18 ↗ we were talking about um the reviewing

1:21 ↗ the rules of the commission um when we

1:24 ↗ had what was a quorum and F and four is

1:26 ↗ a quorum and then the question was

1:29 ↗ whether or not you needed four votes to

1:31 ↗ pass a motion um when you had say four

1:34 ↗ members uh at the minimum of quum and

1:37 ↗ the answer was yes and actually the the

1:40 ↗ rules I think it's in section three talk

1:42 ↗ about when you have a quorum which is

1:44 ↗ four or more um that the majority vote

1:48 ↗ um represents the action of the of the

1:51 ↗ commission so you would need three votes

1:54 ↗ if you had a quum of four You' need

1:55 ↗ three votes to pass a motion and that

1:56 ↗ would commission so I just want to make

1:58 ↗ sure that that was clear for the

2:01 ↗ commission and was paying that close

2:04 ↗ attention to what we were talking about

2:05 ↗ last time but that would be not a

2:08 ↗ correction to the minutes but just a

2:09 ↗ clarification um that may be here in the

2:12 ↗ minutes for this meeting uh resp to that

2:14 ↗ answer thank

2:17 ↗ you any other input commissioner Morgan

2:19 ↗ yeah so the the minutes were correct for

2:22 ↗ what was said the meeting the question

2:24 ↗ was do you need four vote as and the

2:30 ↗ that's correct so the minutes represent

2:31 ↗ the discussion but the

2:34 ↗ response um I wanted to clarify the

2:36 ↗ respones the actual rules of the

2:39 ↗ commission are different than the

2:41 ↗ response that we were given during that

2:43 ↗ meeting good thank you any other

2:46 ↗ discussion about that point or the

2:48 ↗ minutes in

2:50 ↗ general hearing no other comments are

2:53 ↗ the the meeting the Amendments then are

2:54 ↗ approved as submitted and

2:57 ↗ clarified next I'd like to open the

2:59 ↗ floor for any members of the public in

3:01 ↗ person or virtually who'd like to make a

3:03 ↗ general comment not about the Front

3:05 ↗ Street Town Homes project but on General

3:07 ↗ topics there will be an opportunity

3:09 ↗ later in the meeting for those who' like

3:11 ↗ to comment on the project on tonight's

3:13 ↗ agenda Miss Jackson has anyone signed up

3:15 ↗ to make General Public comments no sir

3:20 ↗ anyone

3:21 ↗ online indicate they want to make

3:23 ↗ General Public

3:25 ↗ comment no

3:26 ↗ sir thank you so we'll move move on to

3:30 ↗ our first regular agenda item this

3:33 ↗ evening predecision open record public

3:35 ↗ hearing the order of operation for the

3:37 ↗ hearing will be as follows first the

3:39 ↗ purpose of the public hearing followed

3:42 ↗ by our appearance of fairness

3:43 ↗ disclosures then we'll open the public

3:46 ↗ hearing with a staff presentation

3:48 ↗ followed by an applicant presentation

3:50 ↗ floor will be open then for public

3:52 ↗ comment there will be an opportunity for

3:54 ↗ rebuttal by applicant and then the staff

3:57 ↗ then we'll close the public hearing

4:00 ↗ commission deliberation will be followed

4:01 ↗ by commission action including motions

4:04 ↗ amendments and vote that will conclude

4:07 ↗ the agenda item on the Quasi judicial

4:09 ↗ permit if for any reason the hearing

4:11 ↗ can't be completed this evening it may

4:13 ↗ be continued to a specified

4:16 ↗ date purpose of the public hearing this

4:19 ↗ is the formal public hearing for the

4:20 ↗ Front Street Town Homes development The

4:23 ↗ Proposal considered this evening as a

4:24 ↗ site development permit application for

4:27 ↗ a 27 unit residential development

4:30 ↗ that includes three buildings and 1482

4:33 ↗ Square ft of commercial space divided

4:36 ↗ between two buildings on Front Street

4:38 ↗ North purpose of the hearing is to

4:40 ↗ solicit relevant public comment and

4:42 ↗ facilitate review discussion and

4:44 ↗ decision on the application by the

4:46 ↗ development commission this is a quasi

4:48 ↗ judicial hearing and so miss Medina can

4:52 ↗ you please proceed with our appearance

4:54 ↗ of fairness

4:57 ↗ disclosures thank you commissioner just

4:59 ↗ let me share my screen

5:17 ↗ here so I will go through the appearance

5:20 ↗ of fairness um portion of the

5:24 ↗ presentation and then we'll move on to

5:25 ↗ the Front Street Town H home so this is

5:27 ↗ a quasi quasi judicial decision

5:30 ↗ um which requires proceedings to be fair

5:32 ↗ in fact in appearance uh expar contacts

5:35 ↗ are prohibited um the test about of the

5:40 ↗ uh the test for this is would a

5:41 ↗ disinterested person knowing the

5:43 ↗ totality of the decision Maker's

5:44 ↗ personal interest in a matter be

5:46 ↗ reasonably justified in thinking that

5:48 ↗ partiality may exist so decision makers

5:51 ↗ who have personal interests prejudgment

5:53 ↗ of issues or partiality are disqualified

5:55 ↗ from the proceedings so there's a couple

5:58 ↗ questions to go through here so I will

6:01 ↗ go through all these under them as I go

6:03 ↗ through them and at the end if your

6:04 ↗ answer to any of them is yes please let

6:06 ↗ me know so do you have a personal

6:10 ↗ interest Financial or otherwise in the

6:12 ↗ outcome does your employer have an

6:15 ↗ interest Financial or otherwise in the

6:17 ↗ outcome do you have any familial social

6:20 ↗ or business relationships or connections

6:22 ↗ with any of the parties or nonp parties

6:24 ↗ who have an interest in the outcome you

6:26 ↗ have any special knowledge about the

6:28 ↗ substantive or the mar of this

6:30 ↗ proceeding which you would or could

6:31 ↗ cause you to prejudge the

6:34 ↗ outcome will there be any prospective

6:37 ↗ employment for you or your family as a

6:39 ↗ result of this decision do you own or

6:41 ↗ control property within 300 ft of the

6:43 ↗ subject property have you any expar

6:47 ↗ Communications regarding this

6:49 ↗ project and lastly do you believe you

6:51 ↗ can sit and hear this matter fairly and

6:53 ↗ impartially both as a repres respective

6:56 ↗ positions of the proponents and the

6:57 ↗ opponents of this matter

7:07 ↗ [Laughter]

7:11 ↗ sorry

7:13 ↗ um does anyone feel that they cannot

7:17 ↗ judge this impartially or answer yes to

7:19 ↗ any of those questions I had a yes to

7:22 ↗ one of the questions which question was

7:24 ↗ I um served on a board with the project

7:27 ↗ architect about 8 n years a ago uh

7:30 ↗ beyond that we have no professional or

7:32 ↗ personal

7:33 ↗ relationship uh but we did serve on a

7:36 ↗ board together we do know thank you for

7:39 ↗ disclosing do you believe that you can

7:40 ↗ sit and hear this matter fairly and

7:42 ↗ impartially both as to the respective

7:44 ↗ positions of the proponents and the

7:46 ↗ opponents of this matter

7:49 ↗ yes so then questions to the audience

7:52 ↗ members uh does anyone in attendance

7:54 ↗ wish to challenge the participation of

7:56 ↗ any commissioner based on the appearance

7:58 ↗ of fairness doct

8:00 ↗ raise your hand if yes if anyone online

8:03 ↗ um has an objection please raise raise

8:05 ↗ your virtual hand or type objection into

8:07 ↗ the chat

8:10 ↗ window any

8:13 ↗ objection thank you Commissioners with

8:16 ↗ that we will move on to the staff

8:18 ↗ presentation for the public hearing uh

8:20 ↗ again my name is Emily Medina I'm an

8:22 ↗ associate planner with the city of isqua

8:25 ↗ me a moment Emily yes uh we are now

8:28 ↗ offici in the public uh hearing portion

8:30 ↗ of the meeting and we're opening the uh

8:32 ↗ public hearing at 6:41 p.m. thanks go

8:35 ↗ ahead thank you commissioner and uh I'll

8:38 ↗ need to swear you

8:39 ↗ in sorry okay please state your name and

8:43 ↗ position with the city for the record

8:45 ↗ Emily Medina associate planner you swear

8:48 ↗ by oath or affirmation the testimony you

8:50 ↗ were about to provide is true I do thank

8:53 ↗ you please proceed thank you um so again

8:58 ↗ Emily Medina associate planner and and I

8:59 ↗ am the Planner on this project um I have

9:02 ↗ been with it since the beginning of the

9:03 ↗ prea all the way through to this hearing

9:05 ↗ so we will get into the

9:08 ↗ details uh so this project is located at

9:10 ↗ 665 Front Street north um most people

9:13 ↗ are familiar with the site as it's next

9:15 ↗ door to the dairy gold and it currently

9:17 ↗ contains the vacant Bank of America

9:19 ↗ building along with the um ATM

9:21 ↗ drive-thru on the rear portion of that

9:24 ↗ site it's in the Oldtown sub area uh and

9:27 ↗ it is zoned CBD and has a land use

9:29 ↗ designation of

9:32 ↗ retail so what's being proposed for this

9:35 ↗ site is a three three-story buildings

9:38 ↗ there's a total of 27 residential units

9:41 ↗ and then there's two commercials which

9:42 ↗ front Front Street north um on the

9:45 ↗ bottom floor of those uh two buildings

9:48 ↗ there's water sewer storm water and

9:50 ↗ Frontage improvements and then there is

9:52 ↗ an internal Access Road um it is a

9:54 ↗ oneway so you would access off the Front

9:56 ↗ Street and then exit onto Holly Street

9:59 ↗ um there is rightaway dedication

10:01 ↗ happening that you can see in that

10:02 ↗ orange um it's about 10 ft of RightWay

10:04 ↗ dedication in order to improve Holly to

10:07 ↗ meet our City's Street

10:10 ↗ standards so the presentation these

10:12 ↗ sections are going to generally follow

10:15 ↗ the staff report sections and uh looks

10:16 ↗ at Code Compliance um our different

10:19 ↗ design parking Etc standards um so this

10:22 ↗ is part of the 18600 of the isqua

10:24 ↗ municipal code um site and building

10:26 ↗ design standards um staff believes that

10:29 ↗ that the project as conditioned meets

10:31 ↗ all these Urban um design and site and

10:33 ↗ building design standards architectural

10:36 ↗ elements are provided um which includes

10:39 ↗ projecting Sills um brick belt coursing

10:42 ↗ along the facade lighting potted plants

10:45 ↗ um the buildings are oriented towards

10:48 ↗ the adjacent Transportation facility so

10:50 ↗ a goal of our design standards is to

10:53 ↗ create uh livable pedestrian friendly

10:56 ↗ developments especially in Oldtown so um

10:59 ↗ the site is surrounded by sidewalks and

11:01 ↗ all of the front doors of both the

11:03 ↗ retail and the residential portions of

11:06 ↗ this project face those pedestrian um

11:09 ↗ access points so all those main entries

11:12 ↗ face the sidewalks and then each unit

11:14 ↗ has its own entry so each is kind of its

11:16 ↗ own town home unit rather than a single

11:18 ↗ entry multif family type

11:20 ↗ development each unit has weather

11:22 ↗ protection at the entry uh example of

11:24 ↗ what's proposed is on the slide um

11:27 ↗ there's ground level transparency provid

11:29 ↗ uh which I will get into more later on

11:32 ↗ the Oldtown design standards no blank

11:34 ↗ wall extends longer than 30 ft there's

11:36 ↗ modulation in color changes in Windows

11:39 ↗ and balconies to provide a breakup of

11:41 ↗ the facade um as well as changes in

11:43 ↗ materials and then the window patterns

11:46 ↗ and colors um provided help break that

11:49 ↗ up um when it comes to these design

11:51 ↗ standards there is two recommended

11:53 ↗ recommended conditions to have this

11:55 ↗ project comply to the design standards

11:57 ↗ the first is that um way finding is

12:00 ↗ provided and required on site but the

12:03 ↗ specifics of the sign have not been

12:04 ↗ decided at this point so one of the

12:06 ↗ conditions is to have the way finding

12:09 ↗ comply um with the code and it will be

12:12 ↗ uh viewed and uh reviewed at

12:14 ↗ construction permitting and then the

12:16 ↗ second is to um and I'm going to change

12:18 ↗ slides here just has a better image on

12:20 ↗ it the second is the two parking spots

12:23 ↗ that you can see down here um is to

12:28 ↗ provide special p saving material in

12:30 ↗ compliance with the site um site design

12:33 ↗ standards to have a pedestrian

12:35 ↗ connection between those parking spots

12:37 ↗ and um the surrounding sidewalk um

12:40 ↗ rather than just to make that clear so

12:43 ↗ there's not pedestrians walking down the

12:44 ↗ one drive a um and just to uh adhere to

12:47 ↗ that special Paving standard that we

12:50 ↗ have uh moving on to parking um the site

12:54 ↗ complies with all of our parking

12:56 ↗ requirements um we have minimum maximum

12:59 ↗ parking requirements now um as

13:01 ↗ Commissioners are aware since we updated

13:03 ↗ our Sid standards so the residential the

13:06 ↗ minimum would be 20 the maximum would be

13:08 ↗ 54 49 are provided um and then retail 3

13:12 ↗ to 7 required and three are proposed um

13:15 ↗ and the EV standards that require

13:17 ↗ percentage of them to be EV ready is met

13:20 ↗ for bicycle spaces um six short-term are

13:23 ↗ required and eight are proposed and then

13:26 ↗ 31 long-term are required and 3 one are

13:29 ↗ proposed those long-term are broken down

13:31 ↗ into 27 residential and four commercial

13:34 ↗ uh for the residential the long-term

13:35 ↗ parking is provided in each units garage

13:38 ↗ for the biking and then the retail um it

13:41 ↗ is above the retail South is the

13:42 ↗ long-term parking you can see that on

13:44 ↗ the site

13:47 ↗ plan uh landscaping and trees um the

13:50 ↗ site meets all of its tree requirements

13:52 ↗ tree retention is required at 25% which

13:55 ↗ would be 61 uh dbh required uh diameter

13:59 ↗ at breast height so we measure trees not

14:00 ↗ on based how many number there are but

14:02 ↗ the diameter of the trunks so 61 is

14:05 ↗ required and 64 is proposed to be

14:07 ↗ retained canopy coverage for Old Town is

14:10 ↗ required at

14:11 ↗ 33% um and due to the number of trees

14:14 ↗ that would be removed and the

14:15 ↗ replacement that would be required to

14:17 ↗ meet that canopy coverage they are

14:18 ↗ exceeding it um by about 300 Square fet

14:22 ↗ um of proposed trees Landscaping they

14:25 ↗ meet their diversity standards we

14:27 ↗ require a certain percentage of plant to

14:29 ↗ be native species on site um spacing

14:32 ↗ standards are met uh we have different

14:34 ↗ spacing for shrubs trees medium small

14:37 ↗ large ground cover all of those have

14:38 ↗ their own spe specific standards that

14:41 ↗ are met um and all Landscaping areas are

14:43 ↗ met uh meet the minimum of 100 square

14:45 ↗ feet um which is important to make sure

14:47 ↗ that we give Trees and Landscaping a

14:49 ↗ chance to flourish so that is all U met

14:53 ↗ one item to note um as I know anyone who

14:55 ↗ drives down Front Street since our storm

14:57 ↗ would note on this site is that many

15:00 ↗ trees have fallen on this site um the

15:02 ↗ trees that fell happened after staff

15:05 ↗ approved this project so it had already

15:07 ↗ been signed off by all staffs staff

15:09 ↗ report had been routed to my superiors

15:11 ↗ for review and then the trees fell so um

15:15 ↗ we are assessing this under the site

15:17 ↗ that was in the site plan and the site

15:18 ↗ that was in place when staff signed off

15:20 ↗ so that is met when staff signed off

15:23 ↗ since then the trees have fallen um an

15:26 ↗ unknown number of trees a lot on site

15:28 ↗ some of them required for retention so

15:30 ↗ part of the construction permit would be

15:31 ↗ um submitting an rbur report that shows

15:34 ↗ those shifting tree numbers but it is

15:35 ↗ Staff stance that they meet their tree

15:38 ↗ retention requirements um based on what

15:40 ↗ was

15:43 ↗ submitted uh Community amenity space is

15:46 ↗ um they're exceeding the required common

15:47 ↗ amenity space uh 2700 sare ft is

15:50 ↗ required and 13 or

15:53 ↗ 3,150 ft is proposed it's proposed along

15:56 ↗ the south portion of the site uh easily

15:58 ↗ access ible by The Pedestrian sidewalk

16:01 ↗ um it has benches within it it meets its

16:03 ↗ minimum Landscaping which is 30% we

16:06 ↗ require common amenity space to be

16:07 ↗ landscaped and

16:08 ↗ 68% is proposed we have a certain number

16:11 ↗ of seating units um that benches are

16:13 ↗ broken into that have to be met and that

16:15 ↗ is exceeded as well along with common

16:18 ↗ amenity space we require each unit to

16:20 ↗ have private amenity space which is 48

16:22 ↗ square fet per unit um and 48 square

16:25 ↗ feet per unit is proposed that is what

16:27 ↗ the balcony serves as is that that

16:29 ↗ private amenity space for each unit and

16:31 ↗ then way finding is provided on site in

16:34 ↗ both the southeast and the Northwest

16:35 ↗ corners of the site and as I mentioned

16:37 ↗ before there is a recommend about that

16:39 ↗ to make sure that the way finding meets

16:41 ↗ the design standard um when we go to

16:43 ↗ construction and then building a which

16:46 ↗ is um on the west side of the site is

16:50 ↗ oriented to face the park so rather than

16:53 ↗ the units facing into that new internal

16:55 ↗ driveway the units face out um towards

16:57 ↗ reineer Boulevard and Confluence

17:01 ↗ part so lighning is something that's

17:03 ↗ largely reviewed with construction

17:05 ↗ permitting just the technical aspects of

17:06 ↗ lighting photometric

17:08 ↗ analysis that kind of thing is um looked

17:10 ↗ at when we get to construction but we

17:12 ↗ are looking um at the land use time at

17:15 ↗ the design of the lighting the location

17:18 ↗ of lighting so primary commercial

17:20 ↗ entries which are the two along Front

17:22 ↗ Street do include recess lighting to

17:24 ↗ highlight the entryways which is a

17:25 ↗ design requirement um and then lights

17:28 ↗ visible from the adjacent sidewalks and

17:30 ↗ Street um complement the existing

17:32 ↗ Oldtown lighting so uh anyone who walks

17:35 ↗ around Oldtown you know we have the kind

17:36 ↗ of rust colored light post with the

17:38 ↗ Scrolls um they exemplify our Oldtown

17:41 ↗ character so uh the applicant is

17:44 ↗ proposing um this one here at the bottom

17:46 ↗ which has the kind of scroll at the top

17:48 ↗ as the entryway light and then these

17:50 ↗ more um I don't know where we call

17:53 ↗ farmhouse style lighting um but in that

17:56 ↗ same rust orange color um they they

17:58 ↗ Chang it to that color to better adhere

18:01 ↗ to the old old town character and um

18:04 ↗ kind of merge with the what's existing

18:05 ↗ on site or existing in the sub

18:09 ↗ area so along with our typical City

18:12 ↗ design standards that apply to all Sites

18:14 ↗ we also have the Oldtown design

18:15 ↗ standards since this is located in the

18:17 ↗ Oldtown sub area um the CBD design

18:20 ↗ standards apply and these design

18:22 ↗ standards supersede are other design

18:24 ↗ standards so if there is a conflict it

18:26 ↗ is the Oldtown ones that overrule which

18:28 ↗ um did come up a couple times with this

18:30 ↗ with this project so uh main high points

18:35 ↗ of meeting the Oldtown design standards

18:37 ↗ the front entries are pedestrian

18:38 ↗ oriented um they have weather protection

18:41 ↗ and they include all the required

18:43 ↗ architectural features there's kind of a

18:45 ↗ menu of options of developers to choose

18:47 ↗ um like you got to choose two from group

18:49 ↗ a and two from Group B I break it down

18:51 ↗ in the staff report but they they meet

18:53 ↗ that and in some uh cases exceed that um

18:57 ↗ transparency is a large requirement in

18:59 ↗ Oldtown um to just get that interaction

19:01 ↗ with the street and have a nice

19:03 ↗ streetcape for pedestrians so um

19:06 ↗ 45.2% would be required of transparency

19:09 ↗ along Front Street and 48.3% is proposed

19:13 ↗ and then along Holly Street 25% required

19:16 ↗ and uh 27.8% is proposed in particular

19:19 ↗ the storefronts provide recessed Windows

19:22 ↗ lighting belt coursing plasters Planters

19:25 ↗ and articulation as they have that

19:26 ↗ corner location and all that really

19:29 ↗ helps um meet those uh standards to

19:31 ↗ create a lively streetcape that's very

19:33 ↗ pedestrian oriented and then all the

19:35 ↗ buildings contain no more than three

19:37 ↗ main colors um the plan set which is

19:40 ↗ Exhibit C that you all had access to um

19:43 ↗ has the uh like a virtual or not a

19:46 ↗ virtual a digital materials board but we

19:49 ↗ also have a m physical materials board

19:51 ↗ should any of the Commissioners like to

19:53 ↗ see that let me know and I can bring

19:54 ↗ that over to

19:56 ↗ you uh the project went through sepa

19:59 ↗ back in May um a DNS determination of

20:02 ↗ non-significance was issued and we

20:04 ↗ received no comments um on the sepa um

20:08 ↗ and there was there's no critical areas

20:10 ↗ on site and uh all impacts are mitigated

20:12 ↗ through either the code or through the

20:14 ↗ proposed sdp

20:18 ↗ conditions thank you is there any

20:20 ↗ questions for

20:22 ↗ me Mr chair just a couple quick

20:25 ↗ questions

20:27 ↗ BR um

20:29 ↗ you mentioned at the end of the

20:31 ↗ presentation and also in the staff

20:32 ↗ report the kind of reconciling the

20:35 ↗ general development standards against

20:38 ↗ the Old Town overlay requirement

20:40 ↗ development requirements and and I think

20:43 ↗ you a lot of detail I appreciate what

20:45 ↗ the architect did on the plans um

20:46 ↗ showing in comments about what part of

20:49 ↗ the standards were being applied but

20:50 ↗ that was primarily around um the retail

20:54 ↗ spaces or the

20:56 ↗ commercial so help me

20:59 ↗ um kind of reconcile myself the you have

21:02 ↗ a lot of redundancy like on Holly Street

21:04 ↗ but you're right on the edge of Oldtown

21:06 ↗ right H Street I

21:08 ↗ think south or the North End of so um

21:13 ↗ but you have a lot of redundancy in the

21:15 ↗ in the architecture and and the

21:16 ↗ standards actually suggest you do

21:18 ↗ otherwise and so trying to

21:22 ↗ reconcile why

21:25 ↗ um why we're um kind of applying

21:29 ↗ Oldtown I guess primarily to the retail

21:31 ↗ and development standards for the rest

21:33 ↗ of project so the Oldtown standards are

21:36 ↗ applied to the entire um to the entire

21:39 ↗ site including the residential uh

21:41 ↗ portion of it um when it comes to as

21:43 ↗ you're saying it has a repetitive nature

21:45 ↗ to the residential it does meet the

21:47 ↗ standards as the standards require

21:49 ↗ things like modulation so popping the

21:51 ↗ building in and out and having the

21:52 ↗ different materials and colors um it

21:54 ↗ does it does meet that in staff's

21:56 ↗ opinion it meets those requirements part

21:58 ↗ of um the challenge with this site is

22:01 ↗ that the site is zoned CBD so the com

22:05 ↗ the commercial standards of the Oldtown

22:07 ↗ are being applied to the site which is a

22:08 ↗ largely residential development um so

22:12 ↗ there is a little bit of a of a tension

22:14 ↗ there of how of uh making sure it meets

22:16 ↗ it so it it's staff's opinion that it

22:20 ↗ does meet all the standards as written

22:22 ↗ but there there is that um there is that

22:27 ↗ kind of r rub against the fact that it

22:30 ↗ is a residential development going into

22:32 ↗ what is a commercially uh oriented

22:35 ↗ design code I I I got the same as I was

22:38 ↗ looking at it and I was like well

22:39 ↗ there's a tension I good term a tension

22:41 ↗ between those and discretion you've got

22:43 ↗ to apply some discretion

22:45 ↗ here thanks I appreciate that answer um

22:48 ↗ and then one more quick question just

22:50 ↗ regarding the tree retention like

22:51 ↗ surprise you know um that must have been

22:54 ↗ fun to try to figure out now what do we

22:56 ↗ do since a lot of the trees that were

22:57 ↗ going to be civil the large trees that

22:59 ↗ retainer now so then the thinking is um

23:03 ↗ that we're going to revisit that as part

23:05 ↗ of the construction um building permit

23:08 ↗ process but since the trees were kind of

23:11 ↗ removed naturally essentially there

23:13 ↗ wouldn't be a tree retention requirement

23:15 ↗ I guess standard would so there's a

23:19 ↗ couple ways of thinking and our planning

23:21 ↗ team had a had a fun time with this one

23:22 ↗ talking this one through um so

23:25 ↗ essentially our what we got out with our

23:27 ↗ sense of thinking is they have met their

23:29 ↗ tree retention requirements they

23:30 ↗ redesigned their site in order to meet

23:33 ↗ to maintain those three large trees that

23:35 ↗ um you used to one of them exists now in

23:38 ↗ between the building and the ATM um they

23:40 ↗ redesigned their storm water they had

23:41 ↗ met tree retention when we signed off on

23:43 ↗ it so our stance is they they have met

23:45 ↗ tree retention acts of Mother Nature

23:48 ↗ aside um but we when they come in for

23:51 ↗ their construction permits so for their

23:53 ↗ building and site work we do require

23:54 ↗ tree plans within that as well as an

23:56 ↗ arborist report and the arborist will

23:58 ↗ need to to go back out and do a new tree

24:00 ↗ inventory to see what's left and what

24:02 ↗ has come down um and it and it may be

24:05 ↗ that so many of the other trees fell

24:07 ↗ fell down on site that they still meet

24:08 ↗ their retention but even if they don't

24:10 ↗ it's still staff's opinion that to

24:12 ↗ approve it based on what was the

24:14 ↗ original retention however we are going

24:16 ↗ to require them to make sure they still

24:18 ↗ meet canopy coverage so they might have

24:21 ↗ to plant more trees than originally

24:23 ↗ thought in order to make sure that

24:24 ↗ they're hitting that 33% projected

24:27 ↗ canopy coverage that we want to see for

24:28 ↗ old

24:29 ↗ town thank you

24:33 ↗ appreciate commissioner kada uh question

24:35 ↗ on the ca does does that include um

24:39 ↗ groundwater testing for for hydrocarbons

24:42 ↗ and or

24:44 ↗ past um they did a phase one

24:46 ↗ environmental analysis so there it

24:49 ↗ doesn't sea doesn't specifically require

24:52 ↗ that um our storm water engineer looks

24:54 ↗ at the water and the the standards of

24:57 ↗ that and making sure they're meeting our

24:59 ↗ mpds permit and all those water things

25:01 ↗ that I would not I would not dive into

25:04 ↗ as I'm not the expert on that and that

25:06 ↗ would be Stacy Rush our storm water um

25:09 ↗ engineer but if anything is not met that

25:13 ↗ would be addressed with construction

25:15 ↗ permitting it would again be reviewed um

25:17 ↗ it's all storm waterers preliminary at

25:19 ↗ this point and the it would be finalized

25:20 ↗ as part of the construction permitting

25:22 ↗ um as far as sea goes um the DNS comes

25:25 ↗ from we only do like a mitigated DNS

25:28 ↗ which has

25:28 ↗ conditions on it if it's going to

25:30 ↗ prevent mitigation measures should

25:32 ↗ really only be these mitigations are

25:34 ↗ necessary to make sure this doesn't

25:35 ↗ become an environmental impact statement

25:37 ↗ and there's nothing large enough issue

25:39 ↗ on site environmentally that um a

25:41 ↗ mitigation measure was required to

25:43 ↗ prevent it from elevating to an Eis

25:45 ↗ level but specifically about the water

25:48 ↗ um that would be further looked out with

25:50 ↗ construction permitting when they

25:51 ↗ finalize um the storm water requirements

25:55 ↗ so so the phase one didn't find anything

25:57 ↗ to trigger a phase two which which would

26:00 ↗ require testing not as far as I'm aware

26:02 ↗ thank

26:04 ↗ you other

26:07 ↗ questions price thank you uh would this

26:10 ↗ be a good time to look at the material

26:13 ↗ board just to pass it

26:22 ↗ around I kind of popped some glue off so

26:25 ↗ be careful passing that around the

26:26 ↗ stones will go sliding

26:42 ↗ do a followup question now I see this

26:43 ↗ can I ask

26:45 ↗ um what number 17 is on the

26:51 ↗ elevation on the elevation let me pull

26:54 ↗ up the site plan so we can look at it

26:56 ↗ together

27:16 ↗ and you said it was on the elevations on

27:18 ↗ the yeah it was on the elevation page

27:19 ↗ I'm on

27:26 ↗ page which I assume is just

27:29 ↗ paint but I I guess my question is what

27:31 ↗ is the

27:32 ↗ actual doesn't appear to be a lap

27:45 ↗ anym sorry just looking for the page I

27:48 ↗ did I pass it

28:02 ↗ so yeah yeah I think it's just that not

28:05 ↗ on the materials board well there's a

28:07 ↗ paint color but it doesn't

28:09 ↗ say is it a is it a cement board a Hardy

28:12 ↗ panel it's just smooth and unarticulated

28:14 ↗ yeah it's a painted cement board it's

28:15 ↗ said it's a charcoal color okay okay

28:18 ↗ thank you for the

28:24 ↗ clarification other questions while

28:26 ↗ we're looking at the board

28:28 ↗ Comm Morgan thank you um belt

28:33 ↗ coursing um trying to understand exactly

28:36 ↗ what belt coring is and ribbon a line of

28:40 ↗ bricks below Windows separating floors

28:42 ↗ trying to find belt coursing on the

28:47 ↗ building you yes point out where we see

28:50 ↗ that proposed brick belt Coring

29:06 ↗ I think part of what they're proposing

29:07 ↗ for the boat coursing is this brick you

29:09 ↗ see going around here and the applicant

29:12 ↗ can follow up during her his

29:13 ↗ presentation as well if I'm

29:14 ↗ misinterpreting what I'm seeing um I

29:17 ↗ think that refers to the brick that is

29:19 ↗ um surrounding um on the retail portion

29:23 ↗ of the

29:25 ↗ buildings so I guess that be a question

29:27 ↗ the

29:28 ↗ architect well will have there one more

29:31 ↗ time sorry the architect will be the

29:33 ↗ applicant will be the applicant will

29:34 ↗ present after me too if you would like

29:36 ↗ to dig into that with him as well

29:40 ↗ yeah thank

29:43 ↗ you I I guess we and one other question

29:46 ↗ we don't have the the arur is not here

29:48 ↗ for the the um three I do not believe so

29:52 ↗ no Arbor tonight I guess I was just I I

29:54 ↗ was partly curious on the trees selected

29:56 ↗ it looked like one of them can quickly

29:58 ↗ grow to 100 feet or more do we ever look

30:01 ↗ at that in terms of sure so since we

30:04 ↗ just had a bunch of tall trees blow down

30:05 ↗ it's a great Point um so we do have a

30:07 ↗ prefer a city's preferred tree list that

30:09 ↗ we require all trees to be selected from

30:12 ↗ and I was actually speaking to our

30:13 ↗ arborist just two weeks ago following

30:15 ↗ this about about another project but I

30:17 ↗ think it's going to apply to all

30:18 ↗ projects that um some trees are changing

30:20 ↗ on our preferred tree list um so when

30:23 ↗ that comes in for construction permit

30:24 ↗ we'll make sure that that adheres to the

30:27 ↗ preferred tree list that our city

30:28 ↗ arborus puts together great thank you

30:32 ↗ commer fun yeah so my question was kind

30:35 ↗ of similar the question that the other

30:37 ↗ gentleman had asked which was with

30:39 ↗ regards to the trees especially the ones

30:41 ↗ that had fallen in the past so with the

30:44 ↗ um guidance be to

30:46 ↗ replace with a similar tree in the

30:49 ↗ similar location or potentially would it

30:53 ↗ be younger trees that would give more

30:55 ↗ canopy cover in the future

30:58 ↗ so um it will definitely be uh younger

31:00 ↗ trees the it's likely that they'll

31:02 ↗ replant where the trees were proposed to

31:04 ↗ be retained because that will be an open

31:06 ↗ Landscaping spot that is now treeless

31:08 ↗ that um we would encourag them to plant

31:10 ↗ trees there um so the trees that are

31:12 ↗ selected will need to meet that canopy

31:14 ↗ coverage so um however they're we have a

31:18 ↗ projected canopy coverage for the city's

31:20 ↗ preferred trees and then they go in and

31:21 ↗ can select trees based off that and

31:24 ↗ whatever the canopy um adding all the

31:26 ↗ canopy coverage together of the planted

31:27 ↗ trees has to meet the criteria so how

31:31 ↗ how many that will be is now going to

31:32 ↗ change based on what the how many trees

31:34 ↗ have fallen and uh the sides of the

31:37 ↗ trees that fell since we base it on dbh

31:39 ↗ rather than um number of trees so there

31:42 ↗ they'll be free to select any ones from

31:44 ↗ that City's preferred tree

31:47 ↗ list I wouldn't I uh am not able to tell

31:51 ↗ them that you have to plant a Douglas

31:53 ↗ forur there they can select any from the

31:55 ↗ preferred tree list as long as it um and

31:57 ↗ then have size requirements so any

31:59 ↗ deciduous tree has to be 2in caliber and

32:01 ↗ any um the other type of tree that I'm

32:04 ↗ blanking on non deciduous tree has

32:08 ↗ Conifer Evergreen has to be uh six feet

32:11 ↗ tall when they plant it does that answer

32:14 ↗ your

32:15 ↗ question it kind of does um so it's a

32:19 ↗ combination is what you're saying right

32:22 ↗ um the

32:23 ↗ age the type and then what I'm trying to

32:27 ↗ get at is in the future is it likely

32:30 ↗ that we'll have a scenario where um

32:34 ↗ coverage will be more

32:36 ↗ than it was before the damage correct

32:40 ↗ it's likely they're PL they're planting

32:41 ↗ more trees than currently exist on site

32:43 ↗ so it it is likely that the coverage

32:45 ↗ will be greater 20 years from now than

32:47 ↗ it than it was today right I think

32:49 ↗ that's what I was trying to get out

32:51 ↗ thanks other

32:55 ↗ questions I have a question um what kind

32:57 ↗ kind of retail spaces are anticipated to

33:01 ↗ go in here and I'm asking this question

33:03 ↗ because um there are only three parking

33:05 ↗ spaces between them and one of those is

33:09 ↗ adaa so there would be one parking space

33:12 ↗ for each retail unit so um the re the

33:17 ↗ commercial tenant has not been selected

33:20 ↗ so when I was looking at the parking I

33:21 ↗ evaluated it based on what our um what

33:25 ↗ our parking requirements are which are

33:26 ↗ the same for retail restaurant coffee

33:28 ↗ shop they all um I can't remember I list

33:31 ↗ them all on the staff report they all

33:32 ↗ have the same parking requirements

33:34 ↗ however um whatever comes in to those

33:37 ↗ spaces will have to apply for a tenant

33:39 ↗ Improvement per building permit um and

33:42 ↗ if for whatever reason there isn't

33:44 ↗ enough that will have to be addressed

33:46 ↗ then because they they are required to

33:47 ↗ meet the parking requirements um but

33:50 ↗ it's I I would say I'm I am highly

33:53 ↗ confident that they'll meet the parking

33:55 ↗ requirements because there's really

33:56 ↗ limited um uses that can go and along

33:58 ↗ Front Street because our permitted use

33:59 ↗ table um has a footnote that I I

34:02 ↗ mentioned in the staff report in that

34:03 ↗ permitted use section that only certain

34:05 ↗ types of uses can go into those spaces

34:07 ↗ along Front Street and I believe that

34:10 ↗ they pretty much align with the par the

34:12 ↗ ones that I list in the parking

34:13 ↗ requirements that meet this that have

34:16 ↗ the correct amount of parking spots that

34:17 ↗ is shown um so if as long as they meet

34:21 ↗ the requirements then it's

34:26 ↗ approved other

34:29 ↗ question he I have a couple um and they

34:34 ↗ refer to the staff report but also the

34:36 ↗ code they might want to reference those

34:39 ↗ so in the staff report I'm looking at

34:41 ↗ page 14 the staff report or it's 22 of

34:45 ↗ the

34:51 ↗ 969 top of that page where it's

34:53 ↗ referring to IMC 18700

35:02 ↗ .075 okay that here uh so that it says b

35:07 ↗ complies commercial portions of

35:08 ↗ buildings have primary entrances on

35:10 ↗ Front Street and incorporate four the

35:12 ↗ required elements including lighting as

35:15 ↗ conditioned and I guess that's condition

35:17 ↗ 10 not nine right oh did I yeah my

35:21 ↗ apologies if so I have a have a typo

35:23 ↗ there that's okay there are a few that

35:25 ↗ Cascade like this so I think one was in

35:27 ↗ inerted maybe around 8 or something like

35:29 ↗ that so and it also refers to Belt

35:32 ↗ coursing plasters which I assume is

35:34 ↗ pters and pot okay so I don't see

35:39 ↗ plasters referred to in the code and I'm

35:43 ↗ looking at

35:45 ↗ 18775 B1

36:03 ↗ right there in that list yes you are

36:06 ↗ correct it's not on that

36:09 ↗ list and I don't see

36:12 ↗ pots flower pots in the design so I

36:16 ↗ assume those are to be added although

36:18 ↗ they're not on the elevation currently I

36:21 ↗ believed in the elevation that it did

36:23 ↗ have um it was not shown but it was um

36:27 ↗ shown as selected it is drawn out so

36:29 ↗ then that will when it comes in for

36:30 ↗ construction permeating we'll make sure

36:32 ↗ that the pots are there correct there

36:34 ↗ not shown there yet

36:36 ↗ correct um but you're correct

36:40 ↗ the that's not on there but yeah so I

36:43 ↗ guess we're missing one element we're

36:45 ↗ adding uh ornamental brackets for

36:47 ↗ lighting right that's that is the

36:50 ↗ condition 10 and we have the belt

36:52 ↗ coursing and it has the pots so since

36:54 ↗ two are only required it still meets it

36:56 ↗ but you are correct I listed one that is

36:57 ↗ not in within this section I thought it

37:00 ↗ was at least four a

37:03 ↗ required oh yeah front Treet or easts 4

37:06 ↗ so ornamental brackets for the lighting

37:09 ↗ which I conditioned the belt courses and

37:13 ↗ the plants so okay so we may have a

37:16 ↗ condition coming on that correct okay

37:18 ↗ good and then the other question that I

37:21 ↗ had in the staff report was on page 16

37:24 ↗ uh section seven summary of technical

37:26 ↗ reviews looking at traffic and

37:28 ↗ circulation there and uh just uh I guess

37:32 ↗ a general comment so

37:35 ↗ um thinking of circulation through this

37:39 ↗ project you enter off front and You Exit

37:42 ↗ Only onto Holly right correct and I

37:45 ↗ think the transportation report

37:48 ↗ says anticipated to be distributed with

37:51 ↗ a majority of traffic onto Front Street

37:53 ↗ North going north followed by Northwest

37:56 ↗ Holly going east and then Street North

37:58 ↗ going south so we're thinking of most of

38:00 ↗ the traffic coming out of this is going

38:02 ↗ to be on frun Street North right

38:04 ↗ probably heading toward I90 yeah I would

38:07 ↗ think out onto Holly and then onto Front

38:08 ↗ Street yeah well is the the signage on

38:12 ↗ Holly going to be changed because

38:13 ↗ currently that is a no left

38:17 ↗ turn that's a great question I'm

38:20 ↗ actually not sure the answer I'd have to

38:21 ↗ talk to our engineer on that one I'm

38:23 ↗ pretty sure you cannot turn left from

38:25 ↗ Holly onto Front at this point I was

38:26 ↗ wondering how that would work and uh

38:29 ↗ yeah I don't believe you can so then the

38:34 ↗ I guess the route out of there to I90

38:36 ↗ would be you'd head off on Holly onto

38:39 ↗ reneer you'd have to take reneer North

38:42 ↗ and then got on Juniper for a short

38:44 ↗ stretch and then you're in the scramble

38:46 ↗ intersection right across from Gilman

38:49 ↗ Loft and that traffic would then be

38:52 ↗ diverted onto Gilman you head over to

38:55 ↗ front and turn left to get to

38:58 ↗ and I guess my concern is about that

39:00 ↗ intersection because that's a an unusual

39:02 ↗ intersection to say the least and

39:04 ↗ there's no return return on red there so

39:06 ↗ I'm wondering if we've looked at that

39:08 ↗ and if we have confidence that that

39:10 ↗ still operates at a level of service D

39:13 ↗ if that's what's going to be happening

39:16 ↗ right so the traffic study does evaluate

39:17 ↗ the intersections around it but I um I

39:20 ↗ will confirm with both our CPD engineer

39:23 ↗ and our Public Works engineer that

39:24 ↗ that's been properly evaluated and

39:26 ↗ considered

39:29 ↗ thank you any other

39:33 ↗ questions commissioner

39:35 ↗ Morgan

39:37 ↗ um just look at the architect's plans

39:40 ↗ and they they reference on the um on the

39:44 ↗ requirements a lighting C belt coursing

39:48 ↗ d pilasters h um pots and

39:54 ↗ the the pilasters that they ranched the

39:57 ↗ the D is actually in the code is

39:59 ↗ actually uh flints or

40:03 ↗ columns and when I look up a planet a

40:06 ↗ pilaster is a rectangular vertical wall

40:08 ↗ piece that looks like a flat column the

40:11 ↗ base of a pilaster generally includes a

40:13 ↗ flat block called a plint so I wonder if

40:16 ↗ a plint and a pyter go together

40:19 ↗ commissioner Brennan I was thinking the

40:21 ↗ same thing that I was oh sorry

40:22 ↗ commissioner Morgan um I I think it was

40:25 ↗ maybe a terminology switch on on their

40:27 ↗ part and I transpose that into my staff

40:30 ↗ report yeah but maybe it it meets it now

40:33 ↗ it looks

40:35 ↗ like comment on that if that's the case

40:39 ↗ um and I'll ask the applicant when the

40:41 ↗ applicant is presenting where the any

40:44 ↗ plants would be on that because I don't

40:46 ↗ see any plants in that drawing at all no

40:49 ↗ that's a larger base kind of a classical

40:52 ↗ architectural feature is my

40:53 ↗ understanding but anyway that'll be for

40:55 ↗ the app is discuss with applicant and

40:58 ↗ then if we want to add a condition we

40:59 ↗ can you the Commissioners can do so and

41:01 ↗ I'll draft it up for the final

41:06 ↗ motion commissioner kada I follow up to

41:10 ↗ chair's discussion on

41:11 ↗ Transportation just um this may I this

41:14 ↗ may be premature but has there been

41:17 ↗ planning or discussions about Hall

41:18 ↗ routes for the demolition of the SE

41:21 ↗ first building um construction

41:23 ↗ activities how you're going to access

41:25 ↗ the site from Front Street during high

41:27 ↗ peak times then as a followup would be U

41:31 ↗ sight lay down areas I this may be

41:34 ↗ premature yeah that's done with the

41:36 ↗ construction permitting so not at this

41:37 ↗ time we haven't discussed it with the

41:38 ↗ land use permits but um our uh engineers

41:42 ↗ and our building PL examiner inspectors

41:44 ↗ um will be having those

41:49 ↗ discussions other questions commissioner

41:51 ↗ pH yeah so um the question I had was

41:55 ↗ about the um non-native species species

41:57 ↗ for planting versus native can you share

42:01 ↗ a little bit about the rationale for the

42:03 ↗ demarcation talking about on page

42:06 ↗ 55 where it seems like there are some

42:12 ↗ um non-native species P for rubbery

42:17 ↗ proposed this is on that big massive

42:20 ↗ document oh in the agenda um let's see

42:22 ↗ if I can find it in our plan sheet

42:29 ↗ so we have a percentage required I need

42:32 ↗ to look in the code off the top of my

42:33 ↗ head I believe it's 30% half to be

42:35 ↗ native species um and beyond that

42:38 ↗ non-native species are allowed to be

42:47 ↗ selected are you looking at the um I'm

42:50 ↗ sorry I don't have I'm looking at the

42:52 ↗ 969 page that was shared in the agenda

42:56 ↗ yeah it's right after this I think this

42:58 ↗ the landscape the oh this yeah exactly

43:01 ↗ right this is the page yeah so I think

43:03 ↗ the the

43:05 ↗ teal is consider yeah non-native

43:09 ↗ proposed and I just wanted to know what

43:11 ↗ that was about if you know what's the

43:15 ↗ rationale

43:16 ↗ behind even selecting or allowing um

43:20 ↗ non-native species to be

43:23 ↗ planted it's it's further down the next

43:26 ↗ page I was looking at what so on the

43:28 ↗ Landscaping Planet gives a legend of

43:29 ↗ what exactly is being planted there so

43:31 ↗ I'm just going to confirm what that is

43:33 ↗ that teardrop shape is just ground cover

43:40 ↗ um so I mean what's the rationale behind

43:43 ↗ allowing non-native species um that's

43:47 ↗ it's it's our code it's our code

43:48 ↗ language I I wasn't present for writing

43:50 ↗ that kind of code Kristen I don't know

43:52 ↗ if you were there when the It Was

43:53 ↗ Written but I think requiring 100%

43:55 ↗ native species probably comes down to uh

43:58 ↗ probability and cost and having a great

44:01 ↗ enough selection of plants to be able to

44:04 ↗ put different types of grass and shrubs

44:06 ↗ and trees and such on site um when it

44:09 ↗ comes to development

44:11 ↗ projects my rules to implement the code

44:14 ↗ as it's written and in this case it only

44:15 ↗ requires 30% native so all I can require

44:19 ↗ and ensure they do is that 30%

44:21 ↗ native okay so unfortunately I don't

44:24 ↗ have a great answer for you on that one

44:26 ↗ I'm sorry

44:32 ↗ any other

44:34 ↗ question yes Morgan just a comment with

44:37 ↗ regard to the native I think they have a

44:40 ↗ um incorrectly identified which are

44:42 ↗ native non-native

44:44 ↗ the the planting Legend and schedule

44:47 ↗ they discussed the the non-native tree

44:51 ↗ is um the London Plane it is the London

44:55 ↗ Plane trees

44:58 ↗ um I believe between the numbers correct

45:02 ↗ but between the locations of them they

45:04 ↗ might be

45:07 ↗ misidentified I will double check that I

45:09 ↗ might have that off but it was trying to

45:11 ↗ match the two diagrams one the other

45:13 ↗ sure sure yeah I I will double check

45:15 ↗ that

45:20 ↗ yeah other question

45:30 ↗ there other questions thank you thank

45:32 ↗ you commissioner now we'll proceed with

45:33 ↗ the applicants

45:40 ↗ presentation I will need to swear you in

45:42 ↗ please state your name for the record

45:45 ↗ Kevin marman and do you swear by oath or

45:47 ↗ affirmation the testimony you're about

45:49 ↗ to provide is true I do thanks please

45:52 ↗ proceed

46:04 ↗ all right first I'd like to thank

46:05 ↗ everybody for taking time today to have

46:08 ↗ this meeting my presentation is probably

46:10 ↗ going to be shorter than Emily she did

46:11 ↗ such a great job but I'm available to

46:14 ↗ answer any questions um I'll State

46:16 ↗ before this that I wasn't the designing

46:18 ↗ architect on this job so I might not

46:20 ↗ have all the questions but have the

46:22 ↗ ability to get those uh Front Street

46:25 ↗ Town Homes um kind of went through this

46:27 ↗ just a little background on us um you

46:29 ↗ can go to the next one turning spaces

46:31 ↗ into places is part of

46:34 ↗ our the founding message for our company

46:36 ↗ and I think when we saw this Bank of

46:38 ↗ America property we saw an opportunity

46:41 ↗ to turn a space into a place in a place

46:42 ↗ for Gathering Place for people to live

46:46 ↗ you know own homes be connected to

46:49 ↗ Confluence Park and Front Street and so

46:52 ↗ during the design of this project we

46:53 ↗ kept all that in mind and really worked

46:55 ↗ with Emily and her team to make sure

46:57 ↗ that we kind of

46:58 ↗ met the vision of what living next to

47:02 ↗ Front Street in isqua near Confluence

47:04 ↗ Park would mean so that's sort of a

47:07 ↗ little background on kind of what we

47:08 ↗ tried to do with this um we're excited

47:11 ↗ about this

47:13 ↗ project next one existing conditions as

47:15 ↗ everyone knows it's the old Bank of

47:17 ↗ America prop property um our hope is to

47:19 ↗ take this from this commercial area and

47:24 ↗ turn it into kind of a Vibrant Community

47:28 ↗ you're going to see the same very

47:29 ↗ similar site plans 27 units um three

47:32 ↗ buildings two retail PL spaces two guest

47:36 ↗ parking three U retail parking

47:39 ↗ areas along Northwest Hol and Front

47:45 ↗ Street again we've seen this one before

47:48 ↗ so Emily uh got to this before me but

47:51 ↗ this is a kind of a layout of how we

47:53 ↗ oriented these buildings as

47:55 ↗ Emily put it

47:57 ↗ we did a great job of um orienting the

48:00 ↗ entrances outward so there's nobody

48:03 ↗ facing in um for their front entrance or

48:06 ↗ there's no people visitors that are

48:08 ↗ having to walk down a driveway to get to

48:11 ↗ a house so we wanted to make sure that

48:13 ↗ it was safe and it was pedestrian

48:14 ↗ friendly and had connection to from

48:17 ↗ Front Street all the way through the

48:18 ↗ project out to Northwest Holly and then

48:25 ↗ onto elevations I think we've seen these

48:28 ↗ and I think there will be questions um

48:31 ↗ we tried to

48:33 ↗ do our best job to fit within the code

48:36 ↗ while also creating

48:38 ↗ a project that we can be proud of if we

48:41 ↗ drove by it that's sort of what we do

48:43 ↗ for

48:46 ↗ everything whether it's along Front

48:48 ↗ Street Northwest Holly making sure that

48:49 ↗ it's a

48:52 ↗ um as people are driving by it's a

48:56 ↗ project that they look that kind gives

48:57 ↗ them the

49:00 ↗ W couple of other elevations here I

49:02 ↗ think we've seen all these um through S

49:05 ↗ presentation so I won't uh these again

49:10 ↗ sustainability um a lot of these are

49:14 ↗ uh requirements we have to hit for you

49:17 ↗ know multif family or other types of

49:18 ↗ buildings but we do keep that in mind

49:21 ↗ and especially with you know regards to

49:23 ↗ tree retention and planting after um I

49:26 ↗ know that we've talked Al about the the

49:27 ↗ trees that went down during the storm um

49:31 ↗ the plant we have had an arborist out

49:33 ↗ we're also going to have someone out to

49:34 ↗ clean those up um and the arbor report

49:37 ↗ will be able to tell us uh canopy

49:39 ↗ coverage and if in any way it drops

49:43 ↗ below the recommended amount which is

49:45 ↗ 33% canopy coverage which would end up

49:47 ↗ being 13,000 square fet of canopy

49:51 ↗ coverage approximately um then yes it

49:54 ↗ would be within the code to plant new

49:57 ↗ trees

50:01 ↗ so like I said short and sweet um the

50:03 ↗ staff report pretty thorough and I

50:06 ↗ thought they did a great job

50:07 ↗ so any

50:16 ↗ questions commission Bren thank you uh

50:19 ↗ just a couple quick questions so on the

50:22 ↗ south property line you've got uh your

50:25 ↗ adjoining neighbors a pretty intense

50:27 ↗ commercial use and there's a lot of the

50:30 ↗ kind of the community space that's

50:32 ↗ provided along there can you describe a

50:35 ↗ little bit more it's hard for me to get

50:36 ↗ from the plans what the environments

50:38 ↗ actually what the buffer or separation

50:40 ↗ between the properties is going to look

50:42 ↗ like or feel like really when you're

50:44 ↗ walking down and gaining access into

50:46 ↗ those units yeah so there's there's a

50:50 ↗ great difference between those two so

50:52 ↗ there's going to be there's an existing

50:53 ↗ wall and fence there um there's also

50:55 ↗ going to be the ground cover and then

50:57 ↗ there's going to be trees planted along

50:59 ↗ the between The Pedestrian path and the

51:03 ↗ houses to help Shield you know that so

51:06 ↗ that there's less visibility and there's

51:09 ↗ sort of a natural buffer between those

51:11 ↗ so um I'm not familiar with the

51:13 ↗ Topography of the site so what's the how

51:15 ↗ much grade difference between property

51:19 ↗ the property we're considering here and

51:21 ↗ it ends up it ends up changing

51:23 ↗ throughout as you go from east to west

51:25 ↗ and there's a couple feet

51:27 ↗ yeah okay so then you're proposing a a

51:30 ↗ fence or a wall then Landscaping is it's

51:33 ↗ it's existing as it is today

51:36 ↗ yeah so it's a fairly strong visual

51:39 ↗ separation I mean will you be looking at

51:41 ↗ the side of semis as you're walking down

51:44 ↗ that the path in our opinion there's

51:46 ↗ going to be there'll be a good visual

51:48 ↗ separation that was sort of the that was

51:49 ↗ the intent of having those entrances out

51:52 ↗ there is that we do have to we have set

51:54 ↗ up a good what we believe to be a good

51:56 ↗ separation

51:57 ↗ between the residences and those

52:01 ↗ existing pre-existing

52:03 ↗ use uh and then a couple little more

52:05 ↗ detailed questions here so um you have

52:09 ↗ uh one of the requirements in the staff

52:12 ↗ report was to identify on the property

52:14 ↗ at building permit where you're going to

52:16 ↗ have loading and unloading occur that's

52:18 ↗ not in the

52:19 ↗ drive and I'm having a hard time

52:22 ↗ identifying where that might be on the

52:23 ↗ property have you given that thought so

52:25 ↗ there is an area

52:27 ↗ that we work with planning on um that's

52:29 ↗ highlighted yellow on your

52:32 ↗ sheet and this is going to be for

52:34 ↗ temporary um you know the thought is

52:38 ↗ Amazon

52:47 ↗ um and not that and

52:50 ↗ and I don't think there's I don't think

52:52 ↗ there's there's going to be um I think

52:56 ↗ every Amazon driver delivery driver is

52:58 ↗ going to end up stopping in a different

52:59 ↗ spot but within the code we did provide

53:02 ↗ an area for them to stop I don't have

53:05 ↗ any preconceived notion that they're

53:06 ↗ going to use that so we tried to provide

53:10 ↗ it um if it's used

53:13 ↗ um the other the other thinking though

53:16 ↗ is residents move in and and move out um

53:20 ↗ requires space so where would that occur

53:23 ↗ on the property so that would occur

53:26 ↗ that's going to occur you know within

53:28 ↗ each unit as they're moving in and out

53:31 ↗ my thought is that they're going to be

53:33 ↗ for temporarily this is a 20ft wide

53:35 ↗ Drive AIS that temporarily you may have

53:39 ↗ a U-Haul or a truck parked up close to a

53:44 ↗ garage as they're

53:49 ↗ unloading that can be a conflict just

53:52 ↗ from experience yes what you're talking

53:54 ↗ about um

53:58 ↗ those are the questions m

54:01 ↗ p thank you for your presentation um in

54:05 ↗ your promotional material you mentioned

54:07 ↗ salmon friendly and I wanted to clarify

54:10 ↗ was that in your building practices

54:12 ↗ above and beyond our what our code

54:14 ↗ stipulates or is it the building itself

54:16 ↗ and can you touch on some of the

54:17 ↗ practices that you're referencing there

54:19 ↗ yes and so in our buildings that we

54:21 ↗ build and most of the time these are

54:22 ↗ multif family buildings there's a

54:24 ↗ certification called salmon safe and

54:26 ↗ that's certification that you can get um

54:29 ↗ and it's the level that the storm water

54:32 ↗ and run off from your site the level

54:36 ↗ of how clean it is when it's leaving so

54:40 ↗ we have we have a building in Seattle

54:41 ↗ that's branded as it's been certified as

54:44 ↗ salmon safe we also have one in Redmond

54:46 ↗ that's going to be the same so it's it's

54:48 ↗ just a practice of um a lot of it's with

54:51 ↗ bio retention so again not necessarily

54:55 ↗ these aren't branded towards for sale

54:58 ↗ residential unfortunately but we put

55:01 ↗ that in there to kind of show here's

55:02 ↗ what our we do take sustainability and

55:06 ↗ sustainable practices into account as

55:08 ↗ we're

55:10 ↗ designing just a followup so is

55:12 ↗ this development salmon friendly or safe

55:17 ↗ like with the definition that you

55:18 ↗ provided with the building in Redmond or

55:20 ↗ with would it be considered that or

55:22 ↗ that's a that's a commercial um

55:25 ↗ certification

55:27 ↗ uh this one will comply with all codes

55:30 ↗ and is a qual

55:32 ↗ standard but wouldn't have that

55:34 ↗ designation is okay thank

55:38 ↗ you others Comm Gilbert um going back to

55:42 ↗ what commissioner Brennan was saying

55:43 ↗ about the fence do you have any photos

55:45 ↗ of that fence is that like a what's the

55:47 ↗ material I do not have any photos of

55:50 ↗ that fence it's a

55:53 ↗ it's I'd have to go I I I don't have

55:56 ↗ anything on me um but chain link with

56:00 ↗ the with the

56:01 ↗ slats um plastic

56:05 ↗ or um

56:09 ↗ so but um you're anticipating enough

56:14 ↗ vegetation that nobody like how long I

56:17 ↗ guess will it take until it's not really

56:20 ↗ visible because I'm asking because there

56:23 ↗ are those benches out there and it's

56:24 ↗ facing the fence and so so um and that's

56:28 ↗ the communal space yeah yeah yeah yeah

56:31 ↗ and and we do have to plant certain size

56:34 ↗ dbh trees and um I think their the

56:39 ↗ caliper is two and a half to two and 3

56:43 ↗ in on most of those and so they will

56:46 ↗ have General foliage on them I don't

56:49 ↗ know the exact Heights of what's going

56:51 ↗ in

56:53 ↗ um but the trees are within

56:56 ↗ City standard and in a lot in a lot of

56:59 ↗ ways exceeding

57:01 ↗ it excuse me will the couple uh please

57:04 ↗ take your discussion

57:07 ↗ outside excuse me with a couple in the

57:10 ↗ audience you know please take your

57:11 ↗ discussion outside we're having a bit of

57:14 ↗ uh confusion with this thank

57:17 ↗ you any other questions or

57:23 ↗ yeah okay I have a couple um

57:27 ↗ and I think I guess this refers to the

57:29 ↗ plan

57:30 ↗ set on uh page 10 of 23 in the plan

57:35 ↗ Set uh and I think I'm referring here to

57:38 ↗ a point that commissioner Brennan raised

57:40 ↗ earlier about the the facade that faces

57:43 ↗ Holly Street uh this would be Building B

57:46 ↗ facing north on Holly so there's a lot

57:49 ↗ of uh visual repetition in that facade

57:54 ↗ and I was wondering if there is any

57:57 ↗ opportunity for any kind of visual

58:00 ↗ variation to break that up it seems like

58:03 ↗ for that's the

58:05 ↗ only facade that doesn't have

58:09 ↗ alternating colors or or door locations

58:12 ↗ and so on in it um I understand you're

58:16 ↗ you're limited to three primary colors

58:18 ↗ to work with there um I wonder if you

58:20 ↗ have any ideas about how those could be

58:22 ↗ used to to break it up maybe we'll see

58:25 ↗ that that's the fac I'm talking about

58:26 ↗ right

58:28 ↗ there yeah I think I think you kind of

58:30 ↗ Hit the point on that is that we only

58:32 ↗ have three colors to choose from for the

58:34 ↗ project and all these facades so we

58:36 ↗ tried our best to do to do to stay

58:40 ↗ within the code um you know I think

58:43 ↗ there's always you know when you get

58:44 ↗ creative you can say let's put a bunch

58:46 ↗ of different colors but we're we're we

58:48 ↗ have to stick with three and I'm not

58:51 ↗ sure that

58:52 ↗ the that this elevation maybe is showing

58:55 ↗ going to showing the is between those

58:57 ↗ when they're when you're looking at it

58:58 ↗ kind of in person um on these

59:01 ↗ boards yeah I guess I wonder I for the

59:05 ↗ interior facing portions of these

59:08 ↗ buildings you know there there's

59:10 ↗ variation in the coloring per unit and I

59:14 ↗ wonder if anything like that is possible

59:17 ↗ easily done uh on the other

59:20 ↗ facade um meeting the code I know you

59:23 ↗ can't have transitioning colors that are

59:28 ↗ of the

59:29 ↗ same material over a long

59:33 ↗ space but

59:36 ↗ um I think maybe we'll come back to this

59:39 ↗ in uh in our discussion deliberation I

59:42 ↗ guess no Solutions are really jumping

59:43 ↗ out at us right now and I think

59:48 ↗ there's within the code and Within These

59:51 ↗ I'm sure there's ways creative ways to

59:53 ↗ do this and I'm not saying that we can't

59:55 ↗ I'm

59:57 ↗ I'm not the like I said I'm not the the

59:58 ↗ architect on this one so I um I will

1:00:01 ↗ don't want to speak for their group

1:00:04 ↗ um but of course okay and and so on I

1:00:09 ↗ think it's on the same sheet the

1:00:11 ↗ retail uh area that faces Front Street

1:00:16 ↗ um the code refers to providing visual

1:00:19 ↗ interest and uh engaging the community

1:00:22 ↗ and in a way that is consistent and inv

1:00:26 ↗ in with the rest of the CBD and it's

1:00:29 ↗ certainly an attractive design of the

1:00:31 ↗ retail end there but it strikes me as a

1:00:34 ↗ little cool and a little not old town

1:00:37 ↗ and I I was wondering if there are any

1:00:40 ↗ ideas maybe we'll return to this in our

1:00:42 ↗ deliberation as well to add some color

1:00:44 ↗ or uh a little bit more variation uh and

1:00:47 ↗ warmth to

1:00:51 ↗ that okay yeah

1:00:53 ↗ I'm we with these designs we tried to

1:00:56 ↗ stay within the the Str you know the the

1:00:59 ↗ very specific Front Street standards and

1:01:01 ↗ I think Emily in her presentation kind

1:01:04 ↗ of pointed towards that of of that

1:01:07 ↗ we um hit those and I think we are also

1:01:10 ↗ working with the materials and colors

1:01:13 ↗ that we're using throughout the rest of

1:01:14 ↗ the the project to try and make this as

1:01:19 ↗ as beautiful and inviting as we can and

1:01:22 ↗ it ends up being I think um these

1:01:25 ↗ discuss questions are always subjective

1:01:27 ↗ to the person and so I it it's it's hard

1:01:32 ↗ to um I guess make everybody happy we

1:01:36 ↗ try to just do the best we can right

1:01:39 ↗ it's very appealing design in general

1:01:41 ↗ but may maybe we'll Circle back to that

1:01:42 ↗ in deliberation later on I had just one

1:01:44 ↗ more uh accessible parking spaces are

1:01:47 ↗ there three total that I saw in there

1:01:49 ↗ two by the retail and one at the West

1:01:51 ↗ End of building

1:01:54 ↗ C is that it

1:02:07 ↗ have to look at

1:02:10 ↗ the is there an

1:02:16 ↗ ADA it's

1:02:19 ↗ what the number of ADA required Bots is

1:02:22 ↗ a building code standard so that will be

1:02:25 ↗ addressed with the building permit I'm

1:02:27 ↗ sure that there's enough okay yeah I I

1:02:29 ↗ think I saw three but I wasn't sure on

1:02:31 ↗ that okay thank you uh any other

1:02:34 ↗ question commissioner Morgan um I guess

1:02:37 ↗ just one one note with regard to that

1:02:38 ↗ East facade if you could pull that up

1:02:40 ↗ again

1:02:41 ↗ possibly um this one sometimes I think

1:02:44 ↗ simple suggest not expensive is to

1:02:47 ↗ provide some tiebacks to the

1:02:49 ↗ canopies um that can sort of break up

1:02:54 ↗ the that and S give it some Oldtown

1:02:57 ↗ flavor without a lot of

1:02:59 ↗ expense thank

1:03:02 ↗ you other questions comments

1:03:16 ↗ yeah so hearing no other questions thank

1:03:19 ↗ you and we will now move on to the

1:03:22 ↗ public comment portion of the hearing

1:03:26 ↗ Miss Jackson has anyone signed up to

1:03:28 ↗ comment on this

1:03:30 ↗ topic no they have not is there anyone

1:03:33 ↗ in the room who would like to speak

1:03:35 ↗ regarding this topic this

1:03:40 ↗ project he thank you does the applicant

1:03:43 ↗ have any rebuttal to the comments that

1:03:46 ↗ we've heard from commission this

1:03:51 ↗ evening and do staff have any rebuttal

1:03:54 ↗ to comments or questions from

1:03:59 ↗ thank

1:04:00 ↗ you Commissioners are there any

1:04:02 ↗ objections to closing the public hearing

1:04:04 ↗ at this

1:04:07 ↗ point hearing none I'll close the public

1:04:10 ↗ hearing at 737

1:04:15 ↗ p.m. so now it's time to move into our

1:04:17 ↗ deliberation portion of the meeting any

1:04:19 ↗ discussion from the

1:04:23 ↗ Commissioners commissioner price um I I

1:04:27 ↗ was just want to build on your last

1:04:29 ↗ comment regarding

1:04:31 ↗ um well regarding the facades moreover

1:04:34 ↗ so arguably this is the gateway to

1:04:38 ↗ Oldtown and it does a really good job of

1:04:41 ↗ checking all the boxes it prescriptively

1:04:45 ↗ performs very well I think the

1:04:47 ↗ residential components uh especially

1:04:50 ↗ perform very well um then I get to the

1:04:53 ↗ subjective ones which is the intent of

1:04:55 ↗ the old Town standard is to preserve and

1:04:58 ↗ enhance the traditional downtown core

1:05:01 ↗ and historic character of the area um so

1:05:04 ↗ I guess my question is and what what is

1:05:06 ↗ striking to me is the

1:05:08 ↗ commercial aspect of it and does

1:05:12 ↗ it meet the intent of the Old Town

1:05:14 ↗ standard on that thought um when I look

1:05:18 ↗ at it I see a very contemporary building

1:05:21 ↗ uh I'm not saying that you

1:05:23 ↗ know these these standards aren't very

1:05:26 ↗ uh prescriptive in style so there is

1:05:29 ↗ some Freedom there other than to say the

1:05:32 ↗ intent of the Old Town standards is to

1:05:33 ↗ preserve and enhance so I guess the the

1:05:36 ↗ question I'd put to the commission is

1:05:37 ↗ are we preserving and enhancing

1:05:40 ↗ especially where the commercial is Con

1:05:42 ↗ because that's that's really the face of

1:05:45 ↗ this uh that that the community will

1:05:48 ↗ experience public at large so I I think

1:05:52 ↗ that's for me something I want to put

1:05:53 ↗ out there

1:05:56 ↗ really appreciate your perspective as

1:05:58 ↗ architect I think that summed it up very

1:06:03 ↗ well well I think um I think the front

1:06:07 ↗ facade looks very disjointed from the

1:06:11 ↗ side facade um just

1:06:14 ↗ stylistically

1:06:15 ↗ and

1:06:17 ↗ um it it looks like two separate

1:06:20 ↗ buildings to me that are

1:06:24 ↗ combined yeah that's really the first

1:06:26 ↗ and I think that that would be

1:06:28 ↗ noticeable from the street as you're

1:06:31 ↗ driving down everybody who drives down

1:06:33 ↗ is going to look and they're going to

1:06:34 ↗ see both of those

1:06:36 ↗ two um views and it doesn't quite look

1:06:41 ↗ cohesive to

1:06:43 ↗ me

1:06:48 ↗ that's do commissioner Gilbert's Point

1:06:52 ↗ uh I would agree with that however the

1:06:54 ↗ code is different for commercial

1:06:57 ↗ buildings facing front than it is for

1:07:00 ↗ residential so I think that gets to this

1:07:02 ↗ issue of you know it's that line between

1:07:06 ↗ how do you satisfy both of those and yet

1:07:09 ↗ have a coherent

1:07:11 ↗ presentation true govern oh if I can

1:07:14 ↗ make one more comment um that that

1:07:17 ↗ Residential Building also faces the

1:07:19 ↗ front too and so then it's both

1:07:22 ↗ residential and um and detail and so

1:07:27 ↗ there is there is a lot of tension

1:07:29 ↗ there and looking at that you know I was

1:07:32 ↗ trying like commissioner Morgan to try

1:07:35 ↗ to come up with a fix that won't break

1:07:37 ↗ the bank on this project and there is uh

1:07:42 ↗ an overhang canopy there and it's just a

1:07:46 ↗ horizontal canopy and I noticed that

1:07:49 ↗ some other buildings on Front Street I'm

1:07:51 ↗ thinking of the Bank building right now

1:07:53 ↗ has similar kind of canopy but a

1:07:55 ↗ different color you know it's a teagle

1:07:57 ↗ color and I'm wondering if a different

1:07:59 ↗ kind of color used for that canopy might

1:08:02 ↗ work something complimentary in there

1:08:05 ↗ that you know be attractive break it up

1:08:07 ↗ a little bit lighten it a bit and also

1:08:10 ↗ we're seeing these commercial spaces

1:08:12 ↗ without any kind of signage on them um

1:08:14 ↗ and I guess when their businesses in

1:08:16 ↗ there the odds are good they're going to

1:08:18 ↗ have signage on the window I guess

1:08:20 ↗ that'll uh make it a little bit more

1:08:22 ↗ engaging plus there's the condition

1:08:25 ↗ about hanging the ornamental lighting by

1:08:28 ↗ the side of the door there that we're

1:08:29 ↗ not seeing yet I think I understand that

1:08:31 ↗ I think that's part of that retail

1:08:32 ↗ design

1:08:34 ↗ yeah

1:08:45 ↗ so Comm Brenan yeah just a couple

1:08:48 ↗ thoughts soliciting here so it is um I

1:08:53 ↗ agree with commissioner price kind of

1:08:55 ↗ Assessments some more looking design um

1:08:59 ↗ maybe there are some things that we're

1:09:00 ↗ not getting in these

1:09:02 ↗ elevations two

1:09:04 ↗ Dimensions

1:09:06 ↗ project that was but um in general I

1:09:09 ↗ think it's more edgy

1:09:11 ↗ and but you think about Front Street and

1:09:14 ↗ and the buildings along pretty a lot of

1:09:18 ↗ different styles of things

1:09:21 ↗ awnings signages

1:09:26 ↗ so this is a challenge because it is

1:09:30 ↗ very subjective but the code's been

1:09:32 ↗ satisfied I

1:09:34 ↗ mean code

1:09:37 ↗ violation like I don't have a there's

1:09:42 ↗ not an element that I would need to add

1:09:45 ↗ this it's be kind of growing

1:09:55 ↗ this is a hard one for me I I think um I

1:09:59 ↗ think that overall design is strong it

1:10:01 ↗ is separated from the rest of Front

1:10:04 ↗ Street this is at the North

1:10:12 ↗ End sit by

1:10:15 ↗ itself I I don't know I don't have

1:10:17 ↗ a idea yes to throw at it

1:10:29 ↗ other

1:10:31 ↗ comment M from uh misser Brennan's point

1:10:35 ↗ of view if you look at gole Earth there

1:10:37 ↗ is quite a separation of function

1:10:39 ↗ between the post site then you go into

1:10:43 ↗ to the be gold and there's a large

1:10:45 ↗ parking lot

1:10:47 ↗ it's it's hard sometimes it's hard for

1:10:49 ↗ me to draw the tie between Front Street

1:10:52 ↗ eclectic um AR texure then you have an

1:10:57 ↗ industrial area then you come in here

1:10:59 ↗ it's it's a tough it's it's kind of

1:11:02 ↗ difficult it'll be difficult for you to

1:11:03 ↗ tied together either you want to be

1:11:05 ↗ separate make it tie together I'm not

1:11:07 ↗ sure how this

1:11:09 ↗ work and that's coming from an

1:11:13 ↗ engineer any other

1:11:15 ↗ comments so I don't probably hear a

1:11:18 ↗ condition coming but maybe you get the

1:11:19 ↗ general tenner of our feeling about the

1:11:21 ↗ retail spaces facing

1:11:22 ↗ front commiss Morgan um I guess one one

1:11:27 ↗ possible condition would be to

1:11:32 ↗ um would would be to instruct the

1:11:35 ↗ applicant to work with staff on the

1:11:37 ↗ Front Street facade to

1:11:41 ↗ provide some measures of I don't know if

1:11:45 ↗ it's

1:11:46 ↗ softening something like that I mean

1:11:48 ↗ it's very geometric patterns and it's

1:11:51 ↗ got brick it's got wood it's got a lot

1:11:53 ↗ of Oldtown inter materials there but

1:11:56 ↗ rarely contemporary and and I do think

1:11:59 ↗ even just adding a a diagonal tieback to

1:12:03 ↗ facades can break up the and I'd be

1:12:06 ↗ happy enough saying that they would just

1:12:08 ↗ work with staff to come up

1:12:11 ↗ with some potential changes to that

1:12:14 ↗ front facade that agree I think we all

1:12:17 ↗ agree that it needs something and we

1:12:19 ↗ we're having trouble specifying what it

1:12:21 ↗ is and we don't really want to specify

1:12:23 ↗ what it is but to work with me

1:12:26 ↗ satisfies Mr Price yeah and I would just

1:12:29 ↗ add to that I don't want to play

1:12:30 ↗ designer I don't want to be the designer

1:12:32 ↗ but but um I I think

1:12:35 ↗ uh find a way to work with staff to make

1:12:39 ↗ it feel like one building and still meet

1:12:42 ↗ the intent of the Oldtown standard uh

1:12:45 ↗ which you know admittedly it checks a

1:12:48 ↗ lot of boxes it also um is pretty wide

1:12:51 ↗ open in terms of design design criteria

1:12:55 ↗ for old down so I I think the most

1:12:58 ↗ glaring for me is um it it doesn't feel

1:13:01 ↗ like the same building and and should

1:13:04 ↗ can it be more cohesive from commercial

1:13:06 ↗ to the residential um I think that would

1:13:09 ↗ just make for an overall better better

1:13:13 ↗ build that's just

1:13:17 ↗ my it's okay if I throw in my opinion

1:13:20 ↗ too because I actually I tend to think

1:13:22 ↗ it it could be different from a front

1:13:25 ↗ Street Building to a Holly Residential

1:13:27 ↗ front commercial Holly Residential I

1:13:30 ↗ personally don't think it's necessarily

1:13:33 ↗ a problem to have those appear to be two

1:13:35 ↗ different buildings because I think

1:13:36 ↗ historically a lot of times buildings

1:13:38 ↗ were built that way with if there was

1:13:41 ↗ commercial in front residential

1:13:47 ↗ behind other

1:13:50 ↗ coming further

1:13:53 ↗ discussion with deliberation concluded

1:13:55 ↗ it's time for the commission to take

1:13:57 ↗ action on the item before us is there a

1:13:59 ↗ motion on the item before the

1:14:02 ↗ commission Mr chair I move that the

1:14:05 ↗ development commission approve the side

1:14:06 ↗ development permit for the Front Street

1:14:08 ↗ Town Homes SPD

1:14:12 ↗ 24002 as described and evaluated in the

1:14:15 ↗ staff report dated December 31st 2024

1:14:19 ↗ with exhibits a through o subject to the

1:14:23 ↗ conditions therein and is amended

1:14:25 ↗ tonight and I move that the development

1:14:28 ↗ commission direct the community Planning

1:14:30 ↗ and Development Department to prepare

1:14:32 ↗ findings of fact and conclusions for

1:14:34 ↗ review uh uh approval and the by the

1:14:37 ↗ development commission chairman

1:14:39 ↗ affirming the development commission's

1:14:40 ↗ decision to approve the Front Street

1:14:42 ↗ Town Homes SPD

1:14:45 ↗ 24002 subject to the conditions listed

1:14:48 ↗ in the staff report dated December 31st

1:14:51 ↗ 2024 with exhibits a through o subject

1:14:55 ↗ to the conditions therein and as

1:15:01 ↗ amended motion has been made and

1:15:03 ↗ seconded any discussion on the main

1:15:07 ↗ Motion in time for any conditions

1:15:11 ↗ here Comm

1:15:13 ↗ Morgan Mission chair I move we add

1:15:16 ↗ condition 11 would sayate the applicant

1:15:19 ↗ shall work with uh staff on the design

1:15:23 ↗ of the East facade of the building

1:15:26 ↗ um take measures

1:15:30 ↗ to soften the facad or make it more more

1:15:35 ↗ coherent with Oldtown

1:15:41 ↗ building second I'll

1:15:44 ↗ second discussion on the

1:15:48 ↗ condition all right go ahead

1:15:50 ↗ commissioner

1:15:51 ↗ Fon of a vague directive

1:15:55 ↗ is that intentionally vague or did you

1:15:57 ↗ want to clarify it's hard to hard to

1:16:01 ↗ interpret or give action

1:16:05 ↗ without I think we need to clarify a

1:16:07 ↗ little bit better so that so that they

1:16:10 ↗ can satisfy it I think that's you know

1:16:13 ↗ it's very big yeah I yeah I mean I feel

1:16:16 ↗ that but that's I'm not sure what your

1:16:19 ↗ words to use necessarily if they're

1:16:20 ↗ better than the soften and so I but I

1:16:24 ↗ don't feel feel like I have something

1:16:25 ↗ specifically I want to tell them they

1:16:26 ↗ need to do soften is subjective right

1:16:31 ↗ yeah that's kind of the if I may

1:16:33 ↗ commissioner that condition would be

1:16:35 ↗ very difficult for me to implement

1:16:37 ↗ because I I wouldn't have

1:16:39 ↗ enough it wouldn't have enough guidance

1:16:41 ↗ of what you're looking for to make sure

1:16:43 ↗ that it's done

1:17:01 ↗ well I guess can we reasonably impose a

1:17:04 ↗ condition that's not Cod code based is

1:17:07 ↗ that what we're bumping up against

1:17:09 ↗ because we can all introduce some ideas

1:17:11 ↗ here but you know unless it's actionable

1:17:15 ↗ and but can to be actionable unless it's

1:17:18 ↗ grounded in the code and I just go back

1:17:20 ↗ to the Oldtown

1:17:23 ↗ standard and you don't have much there

1:17:26 ↗ to stand up they've satisfied the you

1:17:28 ↗ know other than to say could it be a

1:17:30 ↗ more cohesive coherent building that

1:17:33 ↗ enhances and preserves the traditional

1:17:35 ↗ downtown core well that's wide open no

1:17:39 ↗ so I don't know it's a tough one it's a

1:17:40 ↗ really tough one so may I make a

1:17:43 ↗ recommendation that you know so for

1:17:46 ↗ example paint colors paint colors you

1:17:48 ↗ can only use three but um materials

1:17:51 ↗ don't count towards the colors stains

1:17:53 ↗ don't count the toward the colors so if

1:17:55 ↗ you were to say something like um work

1:17:58 ↗ with the architect to include more stain

1:18:00 ↗ or more wood in the development you know

1:18:03 ↗ in in the facades of these two buildings

1:18:04 ↗ to make them

1:18:06 ↗ consistent something more specific like

1:18:08 ↗ that would work and even if colors are

1:18:10 ↗ also allowed is that correct pardon me

1:18:12 ↗ accent colors are also allowed correct

1:18:14 ↗ no not anymore they used to be but

1:18:16 ↗ they're not anymore I see but the woods

1:18:18 ↗ and different materials don't count

1:18:19 ↗ toward colors either so those can be

1:18:21 ↗ included so if you were or to choose

1:18:23 ↗ from a menu and say you know and for one

1:18:25 ↗ example you all had a question about

1:18:27 ↗ three items being selected from a menu

1:18:29 ↗ that were included and not four you know

1:18:31 ↗ maybe it's to please add one more item

1:18:34 ↗ you know of your choosing just more

1:18:37 ↗ specific like that would work than to

1:18:38 ↗ soften well to add to that that's thank

1:18:41 ↗ you that's that's good feedback and it

1:18:43 ↗ gives us something to work from I think

1:18:45 ↗ if I was to add to that then I would say

1:18:48 ↗ uh consider um consistency in the facade

1:18:51 ↗ treatment for both retail bases as it

1:18:54 ↗ wraps the corner consider introd using

1:18:57 ↗ brick in its in its entirety so it feels

1:19:00 ↗ cohesive uh eliminate the Hardy panel

1:19:03 ↗ right out of the gate and um and and or

1:19:06 ↗ just introduce fine grain materials they

1:19:09 ↗ just

1:19:11 ↗ aren't I I think Hardy panel provokes a

1:19:14 ↗ sense of

1:19:15 ↗ inexpense and not having lasting

1:19:19 ↗ Integrity so something that something

1:19:22 ↗ that has lasting Integrity this it is

1:19:25 ↗ akin to what you would find create

1:19:28 ↗ whether it's wood whether I guess a

1:19:31 ↗ natural is

1:19:33 ↗ another do you think we need to address

1:19:36 ↗ that in addition to specifying the

1:19:38 ↗ fourth element because that was a

1:19:41 ↗ condition I was going to get to that the

1:19:42 ↗ fourth element will be required there we

1:19:44 ↗ have the hanging lanterns we have the

1:19:47 ↗ the belt coring uh we have the other

1:19:50 ↗ elements there that are there now and

1:19:52 ↗ we're I have the intention to require

1:19:55 ↗ that fourth element that's currently

1:19:57 ↗ missing so if we had that fourth element

1:19:59 ↗ would that satisfy our debate here would

1:20:03 ↗ we have enough in the front or would we

1:20:06 ↗ still have the sense that it's not

1:20:10 ↗ sufficient and there we're talking about

1:20:13 ↗ probably sure

1:20:19 ↗ sure suggestion uh commissioner Morgan

1:20:24 ↗ could you

1:20:25 ↗ uh let me know if this satisfies the

1:20:28 ↗ intent of your the aim of your condition

1:20:32 ↗ or not uh a four a fourth required

1:20:36 ↗ element will be added to the primary

1:20:38 ↗ commercial entrances from the list of

1:20:41 ↗ elements in IMC

1:20:44 ↗ 18775 E1 that's the list of elements

1:20:49 ↗ from which they had to have four present

1:20:51 ↗ and there are currently only three

1:20:58 ↗ I think that's something we should have

1:21:00 ↗ anyway just to make sure that it was a

1:21:02 ↗ misstatement in their plans that yeah

1:21:05 ↗ that they're meeting that I don't know

1:21:06 ↗ if it would

1:21:07 ↗ do without identification if I not sure

1:21:11 ↗ if it

1:21:12 ↗ would um give that entrance

1:21:17 ↗ the remove the the geometric vertical

1:21:21 ↗ and horizontal nature of that that

1:21:27 ↗ if I may Commissioners they're going to

1:21:29 ↗ have to have four elements anyways to

1:21:30 ↗ meet code that's a code requirement so

1:21:33 ↗ that they're missing one is something

1:21:34 ↗ that I've noted and will be required

1:21:36 ↗ when they come in for building permit um

1:21:38 ↗ so as christon said if there's a

1:21:41 ↗ specific element that you would like to

1:21:43 ↗ see that you think is cohesive um

1:21:45 ↗ otherwise you can make that condition

1:21:47 ↗ but I'm going to require it any ways as

1:21:49 ↗ a code requirement

1:22:05 ↗ so is there a requirement for the

1:22:07 ↗ commercial roofs to have extended

1:22:10 ↗ parapets I'm looking at

1:22:13 ↗ 18700 060

1:22:27 ↗ so in looking at 060 um this comes with

1:22:31 ↗ that tension like we're talking about so

1:22:34 ↗ I I staff's interpretation was B2 a

1:22:37 ↗ predominantly residential use um so

1:22:39 ↗ focusing on the pitched roofs with a

1:22:41 ↗ minimum of 14

1:22:50 ↗ slope um you could pull up the East

1:22:53 ↗ facade

1:23:13 ↗ this one you're talking about

1:23:14 ↗ commissioner no the the commercial right

1:23:17 ↗ Comm yeah and if you can zoom in on that

1:23:25 ↗ I I guess one of the questions here one

1:23:26 ↗ of the I think

1:23:29 ↗ they um the idea of the the plint and

1:23:33 ↗ the possibility there could be at

1:23:37 ↗ the at the bottom Columns of the there's

1:23:40 ↗ the gray material on the left the gray

1:23:41 ↗ material on the right and the gray

1:23:43 ↗ material on the the right side of the

1:23:46 ↗ entryway and I don't see any I think

1:23:48 ↗ that's where the plint would be if we

1:23:51 ↗ match up with what code requires

1:23:54 ↗ if maybe plint there could be identified

1:23:59 ↗ as the fourth element and that might

1:24:02 ↗ help break up that front having a

1:24:05 ↗ condition specifying the location would

1:24:07 ↗ also um be good and help staff actually

1:24:10 ↗ Implement what you want to see

1:24:14 ↗ right that make sense

1:24:29 ↗ a follow-up question

1:24:31 ↗ uh about the cornices or I guess the the

1:24:34 ↗ extended par perits um were were you

1:24:39 ↗ trying to address the Cornus treatment

1:24:41 ↗ potentially of those lower elements uh

1:24:43 ↗ no I believe they some of them

1:24:46 ↗ have rather small cornices I think for

1:24:49 ↗ buildings on Front Street but I was

1:24:51 ↗ looking for another element that could

1:24:52 ↗ be added there the kind of you know

1:24:56 ↗ engaging uh Front Street like feel uh it

1:24:59 ↗ doesn't

1:25:01 ↗ look really practical looking at this

1:25:04 ↗ diagram probably the the plint would

1:25:06 ↗ work if the Architects can see that as

1:25:09 ↗ part of the design

1:25:13 ↗ certainly so I guess commissioner Morgan

1:25:17 ↗ could you restate your condition to

1:25:20 ↗ incorporate that and make us very

1:25:23 ↗ specific Mr chair I'd like to restate

1:25:26 ↗ condition 12 to state that the the

1:25:29 ↗ fourth required element for the East

1:25:32 ↗ facade shall

1:25:34 ↗ be plint acceptable to staff located at

1:25:38 ↗ three locations on the far left and the

1:25:42 ↗ two columns surrounding the

1:25:48 ↗ entry further

1:25:51 ↗ discussion in addition to the east

1:25:53 ↗ facade treatments can we can we just

1:25:55 ↗ also point out that it needs to wrap the

1:25:58 ↗ corner because it is a corner site and

1:25:59 ↗ that commercial does wrap that corner to

1:26:02 ↗ the the north elevation well on the

1:26:06 ↗ commercial just

1:26:08 ↗ saying East to Wi or east to

1:26:13 ↗ North could we take a look at the um the

1:26:17 ↗ full Front Street like across the um

1:26:22 ↗ parking lot both of those uh retail

1:26:26 ↗ units commercial

1:26:29 ↗ units both the the frontages of the

1:26:32 ↗ proposed retail units yeah do we have a

1:26:33 ↗ a view of those Al

1:26:45 ↗ together believe they're on separate

1:26:48 ↗ pages unfortunately

1:26:54 ↗ as well they they are on separate pages

1:26:56 ↗ so have to flip back and forth um

1:27:17 ↗ unfortunately I go off topic really

1:27:20 ↗ quick sorry is the reason there's no

1:27:21 ↗ windows in the the residential

1:27:26 ↗ elevation there because that's a

1:27:29 ↗ firewall would there not be a

1:27:31 ↗ requirement to have Windows there's not

1:27:33 ↗ a requirement to have Windows there why

1:27:34 ↗ there's no windows there I couldn't tell

1:27:37 ↗ you okay

1:28:09 ↗ commissioner sford did you record the

1:28:11 ↗ 12th condition or I wrote it down if you

1:28:14 ↗ want me to show what I wrote down to

1:28:15 ↗ make sure it accurately reflects for me

1:28:17 ↗ to incorporate that into our staff

1:28:19 ↗ report please I I guess we'll do that at

1:28:22 ↗ this time I don't know if we're totally

1:28:24 ↗ settled on it but it would help to be

1:28:26 ↗ able to see it so visualize what we

1:28:40 ↗ got please let me know any edits I was I

1:28:43 ↗ was typing fast without looking while

1:28:45 ↗ you were talking

1:28:56 ↗ believe it's the East retail facade or

1:28:58 ↗ commercial

1:29:04 ↗ facade

1:29:08 ↗ um I think I'd have to change that

1:29:10 ↗ actually to five locations I was looking

1:29:13 ↗ at just the um the northern retail

1:29:17 ↗ building not the Southern and there

1:29:19 ↗ would be two columns surrounding the

1:29:22 ↗ entry on the southern building as well

1:29:24 ↗ for E for each of the retail facad so

1:29:26 ↗ the condition applies to both retail

1:29:27 ↗ North and Retail South correct I think

1:29:30 ↗ that would be a total of five location

1:29:32 ↗ so it would be the five

1:29:35 ↗ locations two on either side of the

1:29:42 ↗ entries and one on

1:29:44 ↗ the south corner of building

1:29:49 ↗ a on either side of the entry on

1:29:56 ↗ you walk me through so either side the

1:29:58 ↗ entry is four and then the fifth one is

1:29:59 ↗ the um locations of either side of each

1:30:02 ↗ entry and the southeast corner of

1:30:05 ↗ building

1:30:07 ↗ a I have that

1:30:16 ↗ right yes let look at building a to make

1:30:19 ↗ sure we're all looking at the same one

1:30:21 ↗ or I'm sorry Building B Building B

1:30:24 ↗ Building B

1:30:46 ↗ yeah that works that

1:30:50 ↗ works okay

1:30:55 ↗ that'll work

1:30:57 ↗ PR that work for staff that's important

1:30:59 ↗ any other discussion at that

1:31:02 ↗ condition all in favor of the condition

1:31:04 ↗ say I I all

1:31:07 ↗ opposed condition

1:31:09 ↗ passes any other conditions or

1:31:17 ↗ amendments I'm sorry commissioner brenon

1:31:20 ↗ thank you Mr chair um I'm still looking

1:31:23 ↗ at at the the South property line

1:31:27 ↗ buffer um the neighboring

1:31:33 ↗ property concerned that there's not a

1:31:35 ↗ lot of landscaping in the buffer we have

1:31:38 ↗ a fence that is an existing fence more

1:31:41 ↗ commercial in nature main plastic slats

1:31:45 ↗ we've got um ground cover and then look

1:31:49 ↗ like six trees kind of spaced along that

1:31:53 ↗ fairly long property I don't have the

1:31:55 ↗ seems like um given the nature of that

1:31:59 ↗ space that it's theal space

1:32:03 ↗ and

1:32:05 ↗ public walkway as well that we should do

1:32:09 ↗ something that creates a more um natural

1:32:13 ↗ buffer instead of

1:32:16 ↗ relying I don't know how the commission

1:32:19 ↗ adding some additional language to kind

1:32:22 ↗ of uh increase the

1:32:24 ↗ strengthen that buffer

1:32:30 ↗ using I think that the use to the to the

1:32:34 ↗ South is very very different

1:32:36 ↗ that this is a emphasis uh in the open

1:32:41 ↗ space

1:32:43 ↗ fire just want to make sure that and

1:32:45 ↗ we've got benches sitting there and

1:32:47 ↗ sitting on a bench staring at merily

1:32:57 ↗ that we could do

1:33:00 ↗ more project

1:33:03 ↗ increas visual

1:33:08 ↗ separation so I would um propose an

1:33:14 ↗ amendment

1:33:15 ↗ condition um 13

1:33:19 ↗ 13 um that again this would be working

1:33:21 ↗ with staff but to work with City staff

1:33:24 ↗ to strengthen the Landscaping buffer

1:33:26 ↗ along the South property line creating a

1:33:29 ↗ visual separation the primarily is

1:33:32 ↗ created with

1:33:36 ↗ planting so the the point is the

1:33:39 ↗ majority of that separation using

1:33:43 ↗ plant really relying on

1:33:48 ↗ the question of the

1:33:51 ↗ condition we have a second a second

1:33:58 ↗ question if I may interject Mr fiz oh so

1:34:02 ↗ I guess clarifying you're asking that

1:34:05 ↗ they plant

1:34:07 ↗ trees um in addition to not not trees

1:34:10 ↗ but maybe

1:34:11 ↗ evergreen or something

1:34:13 ↗ similar adjacent to the

1:34:17 ↗ fence and um he of the fence or so the

1:34:22 ↗ the plan shows and there's some

1:34:24 ↗ obviously there's let the landscape

1:34:26 ↗ architect do this but the the the

1:34:29 ↗ current plan shows really ground level

1:34:31 ↗ plant ground cover and then six trees

1:34:34 ↗ and then a fence the fence yeah you're

1:34:37 ↗ you're envisioning head right some

1:34:40 ↗ taller plantings to screen scre the

1:34:44 ↗ fence covers covers the fence hides the

1:34:48 ↗ fence well not I don't know that i'

1:34:50 ↗ would say completely High defense but

1:34:52 ↗ you want to you want to increase the

1:34:55 ↗ amount of

1:34:57 ↗ vegetation formalize that bit more fence

1:35:01 ↗ is kind edgy

1:35:05 ↗ especially would hop hop

1:35:08 ↗ plant I'm not a or pamelas could you

1:35:12 ↗ just do pamelas all along now you know

1:35:15 ↗ they're vertical green Evergreen plant

1:35:18 ↗ that essentially creates a fence like

1:35:21 ↗ good I don't know that I would St as I

1:35:25 ↗ would again leave some discretion

1:35:29 ↗ here create

1:35:31 ↗ a more um interest instead of just

1:35:35 ↗ having one type of plan so again I think

1:35:37 ↗ with that also we need to clarify

1:35:39 ↗ because you can spend very little or a

1:35:42 ↗ lot to meet what you're intending right

1:35:46 ↗ um you could ask that they put the

1:35:49 ↗ mature Hedges that covers all of that so

1:35:53 ↗ they could perennials that you know nest

1:35:55 ↗ on the fence and die at the end of the

1:35:58 ↗ so kind of so the the performance

1:36:01 ↗ criteria that I try to build into this

1:36:03 ↗ job is that that the majority of the

1:36:06 ↗ screen would be

1:36:09 ↗ with so it it doesn't spec I don't want

1:36:12 ↗ to specify type of plant but I don't

1:36:15 ↗ want

1:36:17 ↗ the and that's the way

1:36:20 ↗ they so that that was my point if

1:36:23 ↗ there's some additional

1:36:26 ↗ amendment I just wanted to clarify your

1:36:29 ↗ intent then I might

1:36:32 ↗ suggest commissioner Brennan if I may

1:36:35 ↗ have staff input a bit on this um just a

1:36:38 ↗ couple concerns come to mind which is

1:36:40 ↗ trees have to be planted a certain

1:36:42 ↗ distance apart to ensure the roots are

1:36:43 ↗ healthy we don't want to overcrowd

1:36:45 ↗ sunlight Etc um and then as well if

1:36:49 ↗ you're wanting to see Landscaping to

1:36:51 ↗ screen the fence um for lack of a better

1:36:54 ↗ term I would

1:36:57 ↗ encourage specific language around the

1:36:59 ↗ height of landscaping whether you're

1:37:01 ↗ looking for Ivy or a growing vine up the

1:37:04 ↗ side um I if you are to just say

1:37:07 ↗ Landscaping grass is landscaping and

1:37:09 ↗ that's not meeting your intent

1:37:12 ↗ right

1:37:16 ↗ um so the idea was create a visual

1:37:20 ↗ separation property

1:37:30 ↗ um so I think it would be with

1:37:32 ↗ Landscaping that is is um at maturity

1:37:36 ↗ would be equal or higher than

1:37:40 ↗ height so I I don't want to again I'm

1:37:44 ↗ not a landscape AR

1:37:47 ↗ specify I think that would be too

1:37:51 ↗ liting but the idea here is to actually

1:37:55 ↗ screen the fence Landscaping so we're

1:38:01 ↗ not so my concern with

1:38:04 ↗ maturity the interpretation is that you

1:38:06 ↗ want all

1:38:08 ↗ trees or you know trees that at the

1:38:10 ↗ height of they're mature and you know a

1:38:13 ↗ Vine could meet that intent as well

1:38:16 ↗ could be a Vine could be a Vine um could

1:38:18 ↗ be a Vine um but

1:38:21 ↗ also the difficulty in choosing Vines

1:38:23 ↗ also is they can become they can

1:38:25 ↗ overcrowd right so that that's another C

1:38:29 ↗ it has to be a Vine that's not not

1:38:33 ↗ Ivy yeah wouldn't want to choose an

1:38:35 ↗ invasive species that's going to go

1:38:37 ↗ crazy um and also I think maybe part of

1:38:39 ↗ your intent are you looking for 100%

1:38:42 ↗ screening I better not see that chain

1:38:44 ↗ link fence or just just at least uh

1:38:47 ↗ partial screening of the fence um look

1:38:51 ↗ at our landscape code

1:38:57 ↗ um that it was that the the screening

1:38:59 ↗ was the let's just say the majority of

1:39:02 ↗ the screening is

1:39:07 ↗ provided well that's more than 50% more

1:39:10 ↗ than

1:39:19 ↗ 50 had a question about that actually so

1:39:21 ↗ what if they had better fencing like

1:39:23 ↗ more aesthetic fencing no I don't think

1:39:25 ↗ that

1:39:26 ↗ would you can have a combination you can

1:39:30 ↗ so you're trying to create an

1:39:32 ↗ environment that's a comfortable space

1:39:35 ↗ you want to sit

1:39:37 ↗ and that's what

1:39:39 ↗ it and the the way I visualize it now

1:39:43 ↗ got

1:39:44 ↗ six ground cover

1:39:51 ↗ bench it's pretty

1:39:58 ↗ so you can plant there's rubs that grow

1:40:02 ↗ you

1:40:08 ↗ can um there's a number of different

1:40:10 ↗ plantings that cre

1:40:13 ↗ more

1:40:16 ↗ spicy so I was just pulling up our

1:40:19 ↗ Landscaping code here as a reference um

1:40:21 ↗ which we have these T of type visual

1:40:23 ↗ buffers that can maybe help you identify

1:40:26 ↗ what you're looking for typically if a

1:40:29 ↗ new parking lot was going in we would

1:40:30 ↗ require screening of that parking lot

1:40:33 ↗ obviously Dairy Golds parking is the

1:40:35 ↗ existing use um so to me it kind of

1:40:37 ↗ sounds like you're well you're getting

1:40:40 ↗ at the reverse of that is let's screen

1:40:41 ↗ their park their parking with kind of

1:40:44 ↗ what we would require if it was going in

1:40:46 ↗ now um which see what that is sorry if

1:40:51 ↗ you if you go back up so that was what I

1:40:52 ↗ was trying

1:40:53 ↗ describe um the very first section view

1:40:58 ↗ that is

1:40:59 ↗ expensive you know it's which I don't

1:41:02 ↗ aure right yeah that is very expensive

1:41:06 ↗ because those are very very tall and

1:41:08 ↗ there's not enough space in there to

1:41:09 ↗ right to plan but that would give you

1:41:11 ↗ complete coverage right and that that's

1:41:13 ↗ not my intent you know that paragraph

1:41:16 ↗ that's my

1:41:17 ↗ interpretation that's what that's what

1:41:19 ↗ you're asking um so we kind of need to

1:41:22 ↗ maybe so so if the parking lot was going

1:41:25 ↗ in now we would require a type two

1:41:26 ↗ visual

1:41:32 ↗ screen right so it would be something

1:41:35 ↗ like my what I would see is something

1:41:37 ↗ like the bottom middle um example with a

1:41:41 ↗ fence behind it and then you've got

1:41:43 ↗ trees some you've got the trees or alorn

1:41:46 ↗ and C the other variety and so what I'm

1:41:50 ↗ suggesting is add some higher planting

1:41:52 ↗ material materials that will provide

1:41:54 ↗ some additional screening for not

1:41:57 ↗ entirely blocking the fence but just

1:41:59 ↗ adding some more interest that was the

1:42:02 ↗ so if we can figure out how to arrive in

1:42:05 ↗ that place with a with a

1:42:09 ↗ uh condition that would be I would

1:42:12 ↗ propose using our code language so just

1:42:14 ↗ make it abundantly clear we say exactly

1:42:16 ↗ what that is what how many trees they

1:42:18 ↗ need what the percentage is can I uh is

1:42:21 ↗ there enough space to do that I don't

1:42:24 ↗ want to condition something here that's

1:42:26 ↗ not achievable because it creates

1:42:29 ↗ conflict with the other uh goals of the

1:42:32 ↗ space so the five foot step

1:42:37 ↗ back is it a the scenario where we can

1:42:40 ↗ have them take the action to see if

1:42:42 ↗ possible so we could say so so again

1:42:45 ↗ when we do these conditions there's some

1:42:47 ↗ Reliance on the discretion of staff to

1:42:49 ↗ use their judgment here so I I don't

1:42:51 ↗ want to get too fixed I want allow the

1:42:55 ↗ intent here though is let's add some

1:42:56 ↗ additional planting materials in there

1:42:58 ↗ to provide some I think the type two

1:43:00 ↗ visual screen is the way to go I'm I was

1:43:02 ↗ just reading our code and it is required

1:43:04 ↗ in places where the setback is 10t or

1:43:06 ↗ less the entire setback area must be

1:43:08 ↗ landscaped so we would just be requiring

1:43:09 ↗ a type 2 visual screen in that 5 foot

1:43:12 ↗ landscaped setback area and I think that

1:43:14 ↗ would achieve your goal without being

1:43:17 ↗ too expensive and be something that our

1:43:19 ↗ developer is all right with and that

1:43:22 ↗ that you can easily apply as a as code

1:43:25 ↗ language so I appreciate that okay that

1:43:26 ↗ will work for me that Amendment got on

1:43:28 ↗ the screen other

1:43:30 ↗ discussion second the second agrees okay

1:43:34 ↗ oh I just edited it I'm

1:43:36 ↗ sorry do you want it with the maturity

1:43:38 ↗ or just incorporate type two visual

1:43:40 ↗ screen just the type two visual

1:43:45 ↗ screens all in favor the condition as

1:43:48 ↗ proposed and edited say I I I all oppos

1:43:53 ↗ condition passes any other discussion or

1:44:02 ↗ conditions I'd like to propose a

1:44:04 ↗ condition I guess this would be 14

1:44:07 ↗ something like the following uh staff

1:44:10 ↗ will work with transportation department

1:44:12 ↗ to confirm that exiting the project onto

1:44:16 ↗ Holly Street will preserve level of

1:44:18 ↗ service D at the intersection of reneer

1:44:22 ↗ that a new Boulevard Boulevard Boulevard

1:44:25 ↗ Juniper Street and Gilman

1:44:32 ↗ Boulevard

1:44:36 ↗ discussion

1:44:42 ↗ second I'll second it for discussion

1:44:45 ↗ second for discussion discussion of the

1:44:51 ↗ condition would you describe the

1:44:55 ↗ again the intent that right the concern

1:44:57 ↗ addresses the fact that turning left out

1:45:02 ↗ of Holly onto Front Street North is

1:45:06 ↗ prohibited so the traffic heading toward

1:45:09 ↗ I90 from the development will take

1:45:13 ↗ reneer to Juniper likely right on

1:45:17 ↗ Juniper and right on the Gilman

1:45:20 ↗ intersection that intersection is a

1:45:23 ↗ special intersection across from the

1:45:24 ↗ Gilman law it has the scramble

1:45:27 ↗ pedestrian crossing right there it has a

1:45:29 ↗ no turn on red and I want to make sure

1:45:34 ↗ if you drive that uh it's a challenge at

1:45:37 ↗ times uh and I want to make sure the

1:45:39 ↗ traffic isn't queuing up on reneer

1:45:41 ↗ because we suddenly have 70 trips going

1:45:44 ↗ down there trying to get to

1:45:48 ↗ 90 that that it seems that that

1:45:52 ↗ inability to turn left from Holly onto

1:45:55 ↗ Front was not addressed in the current

1:45:58 ↗ staff report

1:46:00 ↗ or it it was not addressed so that's my

1:46:04 ↗ main

1:46:11 ↗ concern so this site has 27 proposed

1:46:15 ↗ units which as we understand it should

1:46:17 ↗ not affect the level of service at that

1:46:19 ↗ intersection but we will confirm with

1:46:21 ↗ Public Works to make sure that that's

1:46:23 ↗ that's the case but it should not affect

1:46:24 ↗ the level of service at that

1:46:26 ↗ intersection okay

1:46:28 ↗ so would it be acceptable then to the

1:46:31 ↗ city to have the condition pretty much

1:46:33 ↗ as I stated I just want to make sure

1:46:35 ↗ that that is

1:46:36 ↗ addressed I I would just say you a

1:46:39 ↗ conditions unnecessary yeah I it we're

1:46:42 ↗ going to confirm um with CPD engineer

1:46:44 ↗ and with Public Works um engineering

1:46:46 ↗ that that is in fact correct um so it's

1:46:50 ↗ it's one of those things where it's it's

1:46:52 ↗ a requirement so it you don't need a

1:46:55 ↗ condition on it because it's not

1:46:56 ↗ imposing anything additional on the

1:46:58 ↗ project okay that's fine just so this

1:47:00 ↗ Transportation uh egress from that site

1:47:03 ↗ is a grass it seems as though it was

1:47:04 ↗ it's at the top of my to-do list for

1:47:06 ↗ tomorrow to reach out okay great withraw

1:47:08 ↗ that

1:47:11 ↗ condition I'll

1:47:14 ↗ agree any other conditions or discussion

1:47:25 ↗ hearing no other discussion on the main

1:47:26 ↗ motion all in favor of the main motion

1:47:28 ↗ signify by saying I I all

1:47:32 ↗ opposed motion carries unanimously this

1:47:35 ↗ concludes the Front Street Town Homes

1:47:37 ↗ development permit notice of decision

1:47:40 ↗ will be issued by staff within seven

1:47:42 ↗ days moving on to our next item of

1:47:45 ↗ business city council update like to sta

1:47:47 ↗ ask staff to provide any updates on city

1:47:49 ↗ council activities

1:47:53 ↗ hi so um first uh this isn't a counil

1:47:56 ↗ council update but I'd like to introduce

1:47:58 ↗ myself um I'm Kristen Leon and I'm a

1:48:02 ↗ principal planner with uh Community

1:48:04 ↗ Planning and Development I've been with

1:48:06 ↗ the city for since 2001 uh but I've

1:48:08 ↗ always been in the primarily the long

1:48:10 ↗ range area so um but I've worked with DC

1:48:15 ↗ a few

1:48:15 ↗ times commissioner Morgan and I worked

1:48:18 ↗ together several times as well as

1:48:19 ↗ commissioner Brennan um so anyway I will

1:48:22 ↗ be your new liaison for this for this

1:48:24 ↗ commission and so if you all have any

1:48:26 ↗ questions going forward you can email

1:48:30 ↗ me um or give me a call too I'm I'm open

1:48:33 ↗ to that uh as far as Council goes uh

1:48:37 ↗ last night uh Thomas valdres our

1:48:39 ↗ transportation senior Transportation

1:48:41 ↗ planner took the light rail study plan

1:48:43 ↗ to the committee of the whole Council

1:48:46 ↗ and we are going are kicking off our

1:48:48 ↗ project to start coming up with

1:48:50 ↗ alternatives for a light rail station so

1:48:53 ↗ stay tuned for those um also as you may

1:48:56 ↗ know our uh council member hunt has been

1:48:59 ↗ elected to state congress so she is the

1:49:03 ↗ state representative so she is headed

1:49:04 ↗ off there so there will be several

1:49:06 ↗ public meetings coming up um at at which

1:49:09 ↗ at the end of this time they will

1:49:10 ↗ appoint a new council member so you may

1:49:12 ↗ want to stay tuned and pay attention to

1:49:14 ↗ those and perhaps get

1:49:16 ↗ involved let's see oh lastly I would

1:49:19 ↗ like to thank um Commissioners Gilbert

1:49:22 ↗ and aada for attending the walking tour

1:49:25 ↗ for Middle housing and is there anything

1:49:28 ↗ that you all would like to share I know

1:49:30 ↗ council members attended is there

1:49:31 ↗ anything you'd like to share with the

1:49:32 ↗ commission things that you maybe learned

1:49:41 ↗ discovered one thing I do want to point

1:49:43 ↗ out um I did appreciate that there were

1:49:45 ↗ so many diverse examples that we got to

1:49:49 ↗ walk around and see um and also

1:49:53 ↗ not too many of them I thought were

1:49:57 ↗ accessible in terms of um like if

1:50:01 ↗ somebody has mobility issues or maybe

1:50:04 ↗ elderly and can't manage

1:50:06 ↗ stairs um and so that was something that

1:50:08 ↗ was just something I noticed that a lot

1:50:11 ↗ of them are like you know more of Hell

1:50:13 ↗ home plan where you've got you know

1:50:16 ↗ three levels and which are great you

1:50:19 ↗ know and will provide a lot of good

1:50:20 ↗ housing but I think isqua also need

1:50:22 ↗ needs we have just so many of those you

1:50:25 ↗ know and that's good but we also need

1:50:28 ↗ more variety I think um just

1:50:32 ↗ to fulfill kind of not just the missing

1:50:35 ↗ middle but also the little pieces for

1:50:36 ↗ people who might want to age in place

1:50:39 ↗ have move elsewhere and that's just you

1:50:42 ↗ know one of the one of the big one of my

1:50:44 ↗ big takeaways

1:50:48 ↗ yeah I think the one thing I was struck

1:50:50 ↗ by was um there there was a few of the

1:50:54 ↗ the duplexes

1:50:57 ↗ and you didn't they just F fit into the

1:50:59 ↗ neighborhood they didn't stand out um

1:51:02 ↗ although the the newer construction did

1:51:04 ↗ up up on the hill but even then it it

1:51:07 ↗ didn't look out of place that's what

1:51:11 ↗ struck both good things to hear thank

1:51:13 ↗ you yeah thank you very much that's all

1:51:16 ↗ I have no other items of

1:51:19 ↗ business okay thank you Kristen and

1:51:22 ↗ welcome

1:51:23 ↗ there being no further business before

1:51:25 ↗ the commission I journ the meeting at

1:51:27 ↗ 8:24

1:51:29 ↗ p.m. this is post meeting but Mr chair I

1:51:32 ↗ have to say we are extremely lucky to

1:51:35 ↗ have Kristen come back and work with us

1:51:37 ↗ so thank you very much for being here

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Sanford

Commissioners Brennan

Fasehun (Alt)

Gilbert

Ikeda

Morgan

Price

Staff (2)

Christen Leeson, Principal Planner Amanda Jackson, Meeting

Records Assistant Emily Medina, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of December 04, 2024