City of Mercer Island, Washington - Home City of Mercer Island, Washington - Home Facebook Twitter YouTube
site map
Back
LINE
*
Notify me by Email
Wednesday, July 26, 2000

Call To Order

Vice Chairman Glick called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM.

Roll Call

Present Commissioners: Laszlo, Sandler, Wittman, Vice Chairman Glick Absent Commissioners: Dawson, Chairman McDonald

Staff Present

Staff: Kathy Harbert, Richard Hart

Minutes

Commissioner Bryant motioned to approve July 5, 2000 Meeting Minutes; Sandler seconded; Motion Passed Vote 5-0; Commissioner Sandler motioned to approve July 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes; Wittman seconded; Motion Passed Vote 5-0

Regular Business

ACTION ITEM: (1) File #DSR9912-003 Continued From July 12, 2000 Meeting

APPLICANT: Interstate Development Corporation (Gerald Williams)

SUBJECT: Continued from July 12, 2000 Part II Proposal, Island Crest Plaza. Review and Approval for Major New Construction of an Office Building

LOCATION: 8005 SE 28th Street

STAFF REPORT:: Kathy Harbert, Associate Planner, summarized the revisions submitted since the last meeting: the roof pitches changed back to 4:12 on the main portion of the building; the south tower roof remained at the pitch 9:12; the clock tower roof changed to 7:12; the horizontal band is removed from the clock tower; the north elevation of the clock tower has two rows of three windows across, with a large window centered above the door; the west elevation has two windows, whereas there were none before; lighting of the clock tower is new; another sign has been added to the east elevation; and, no changes are apparent for the landscape plan. Staff added, Gerry Williams has requested the artwork/water feature come before the Commission at a later date and that the previously granted variance for one parking space be resubmitted for four parking spaces instead; staff will work independently on the variance. Harbert then read a revised motion into the record. It read as follows: To grant approval with the following conditions for the construction of a new building as presented on formal site plans on July 26, 2000, incorporating the findings of the Staff Report and in accordance with the Mercer Island Town Center District Development and Design Requirements and Section 19.15.040 of the Mercer Island Code. The conditions are as follows:

  1. Submit detailed sign proposals for the review and approval by Staff, ensuring compliance with design regulations and compatibility with the architecture.
  2. Utilize the site amenity proposals submitted at the Design Commission meeting on June 14, 2000. These include bench, lighting, and bicycle rack and clock details.
  3. Submit private property traffic signs, as stated in the MDNS, to Nancy Fairchild, Transportation Planner, for review and approval. Comply with all conditions of the MDNS.
  4. A landscape bond in the amount approved by the Development Services Group shall be submitted to the City for the duration of one year from date of final inspection.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Gerald Williams summarized the new revisions and commented on how helpful the design review process has been. Andrew Valente, architect, added the trellises have changed; the tower seemed massive so they jogged it by one-foot, creating a square dimension, 20’ X 20’; the main building roof pitch changed from 6:12 to 4:12; the mechanical equipment on the roof will be screened; the portico is centered above the door and the porch is enlarged, providing more cover; the horizontal band is removed; and, the window sills are lowered.

QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT: Commissioner Bryant asked for verification on the roof slope of the south tower; one side is 6:12 and the other 9:12. Valente answered, yes, that is correct because it is not a square shape. Commissioner Laszlo asked for verification on the new lighting. Valente answered, there is eight down lights inside the covered portico and two uplights above the portico, aimed upward toward the clock. Commissioner Sandler asked what is the dimension of the smaller windows on the clock tower. Valente answered, they fit within the grid pattern. Sandler continued by questioning if the height of the screen wall for the mechanical (5’-7’) would cause problems for the mechanical equipment. Valente answered, it hasn’t been specified out yet, he thinks the parapet will be 5 feet tall. Gerry Williams added, there are all types of mechanical equipment available; the screening will match the type and size of equipment chosen. Commissioner Wittman commended their work; the trellis members are better; he asked, on the east elevation, is the window going to work with the stair landing on the south tower. Valente answered, yes, it is a clerestory at the landing. Wittman asked what material is the horizontal banding on the main portion of the building. Valente answered, it is a stucco detail. Sandler asked, is an ecosystem going to be used. Valente answered, yes. Wittman commented, the trellis could use a little more care. Gary Williams, Gerald William’s son, added the proposed monument sign is 42 inches high. Vice Chairman Glick asked the Commissioners if there were anymore questions for the applicant. Gary Williams submitted the final material color samples. All Commissioners agreed they were an improvement.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY: None given

COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Bryant complimented them on the work. Commissioner Sandler agreed and added, it is a successful process for all. Commissioner Laszlo also agreed with the good work done. Commissioner Wittman thanked them for their hard work and hoped that they feel the project turned out better than earlier; he feels the trellises need to be addressed later throughout the development process. Vice Chairman Glick added the revisions are a dramatic improvement on all elevations. Commissioner Sandler added, he would like to be involved to review the artwork/water feature. Richard Hart explained the understanding of how artwork/urban design is reviewed: the Art Commission reviews sculpture and other fine art; the Design Commission reviews urban design features, like a fountain. Gerry Williams added, the art feature is actually for Island Crest Center, which has already been approved to construct the second floor addition. He prefers to bring the artwork proposed back to the Commission as a separate item, not as a condition related to this project, Island Crest Plaza.

MOTION: Commissioner Sandler motioned to grant approval with the following conditions for the construction of a new building as presented on formal site plans on July 26, 2000 and dated July 21, 2000, incorporating the findings of the Staff Report and in accordance with the Mercer Island Town Center District Development and Design Requirements and Section 19.15.040 of the Mercer Island Code. The conditions are as follows:

  1. Submit detailed sign proposals for the review and approval by Staff, ensuring compliance with design regulations and compatibility with the architecture.
  2. Utilize the site amenity proposals submitted at the Design Commission meeting on June 14, 2000. These include bench, lighting, and bicycle rack and clock details.
  3. Submit private property traffic signs, as stated in the MDNS, to Nancy Fairchild, Transportation Planner, for review and approval. Comply with all conditions of the MDNS.
  4. A landscape bond in the amount approved by the Development Services Group shall be submitted to the City for the duration of one year from date of final inspection.
  5. No mechanical equipment placed on the roof shall extend above the top of the parapet wall proposed for screening purposes.

Commissioner Bryant seconded the Motion; Motion Passed 5-0. Bryant added that he feels the water feature, or any urban design feature, should be treated like public art, to be reviewed by the Art Commission.

ACTION ITEM: (2) File #DSR0002-001

APPLICANT: Nextel Communications

SUBJECT: Design Review and Approval for of a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF)

LOCATION: Right-of-Way of Island Crest Way (4600 Block)

STAFF REPORT: Kathy Harbert, Associate Planner, handed out site plan copies to the public and summarized the revisions submitted: there are two main changes made; the equipment cabinets have been placed approximately 14’-6” from the street edge, instead of 9’-6”; there is significantly more landscaping placed to screen the cabinets and utility board. At the last meeting the Commission asked staff to answer a few questions: why the path along the street is required and is there flexibility in moving the lease location. Transportation Planner, Nancy Fairchild, and City Engineer, Patrick Yamashita, has determined the gravel path a requirement for future planning purposes and plus the fact it currently is being used as a worn down path. The location of the lease boundaries were then addressed: City Attorney, Londi Lindell, reported to staff the lease is not finalized; a specific location could still be requested. Harbert provided a map illustrating existing WCFs up to October 1999. One additional letter was received from the public, regarding health concerns. The letter was handed out to the Commission for review. The recommended motion was read into the record (same motion as the July 12, 2000 meeting).

APPLICANT PRESENTATION: George Johnston, consultant of Nextel, handed out a cleaner plan (Exhibit 1) than what was submitted earlier; the fence is shown as removed from the area of work. He agreed with the staff presentation; much more landscaping, the access to the cabinets is from the south and well hidden, the rockery wall remains at 4 feet tall, at the highest point. He also pointed out the proposal is still screened from the neighbors beyond. He opened it up for questions from the Commission.

QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT:Commissioner Wittman stated he agrees with moving it back; the landscaping looks much better and relocating the utility board works well too. Commissioner Laszlo asked, does the fence remain on the south side of the area. Johnston answered, yes it currently runs to the beginning of the rockery wall. Vice Chairman Glick asked if all the plants are evergreen plants. Johnston answered, yes. Commissioner Bryant asked if he cared to comment on the radio frequency airwaves. Johnston replied, the FCC sets the limits on radio frequencies released. Nextel’s proposal is less than the one percent that is allowed under the FCC. Glick asked, is that output from the source or further back. Johnston answered, he is not sure; they probably use various ranges; it is heat energy similar to a microwave oven. Glick asked if there were anymore questions from the Commission. There weren’t any.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Bill Taylor, 4641 86th Avenue SE, Mercer Island, expressed that the lease was put on the council consent calendar; the public notice was incorrect for the last Design Commission meeting. He continued, this evening changes are presented; maybe the neighbors should be able to look at these for approval. He feels any recommendation from the Design Commission should reference the drawings, as an exhibit; previous information the city had included the pole could be replaced up to 110 feet tall pole. He continued, what if 87th gets improved; the city should have a termination clause in the lease; only got these plans a few minutes ago; we should have the information provided; the walkway crossing the street doesn’t work well. Al Provost, 4615 Island Crest Way, spoke of concerns of placing antennas in a residential environment; he is not a nimby but is concerned about health effects; no one knows the long-term health effects; there are better places to place the facilities than in a residential setting. Vice Chairman Glick stated the emissions are not in the Design Commission’s purview; the emissions released are less than the FCC limits. Wittman asked if the drawings are available to the public. Harbert answered, yes; the public notice has my name as a contact with an address and phone number; it is public information.

COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Wittman complimented the redesign; how it is tucked into the hillside and the evergreen plantings are good. Commissioner Laszlo agreed with Wittman’s comments. He asked, why the path area is shown as an area of 5’-7” instead of 4 feet. Glick asked if the path is a requirement of the city. Harbert responded, both the city engineer and transportation planner agreed the four-foot gravel path is required for future development of a walkway on the east side of the street. Bill Taylor added, no one walks on that side of the street. Johnston added, the city has maintained that side of the street, near the edge of the pavement and he has walked along there. Commissioner Wittman asked for clarification on the lease portion of the project. Richard Hart responded, the Design Commission decides on the area and forwards it to the city; the city incorporates into the lease. Wittman continued, asking who maintains the landscaping. Richard Hart replied, typically an encroachment agreement is used; the maintenance of the landscaping will be worked out as part of the lease. Commissioner Sandler asked that the minutes be passed on to the City Attorney. Harbert agreed to. Commissioner Laszlo added he would like to see the path reduced down to four feet, possibly extending the landscaping out. Glick responded, the landscaping will fill out to meet the four feet. There were no further comments.

MOTION: Commissioner Laszlo motioned to grant approval for the Nextel Communication proposal with conditions to install: two, approximate 8” X 24” directional panel antennas; two, 2”X 4” receive only Global Positioning System (GPS) antennas; and, one, 4” X 8” test mobile antenna. Also approved is the installation of an approximate 375 cubic feet equipment cabinet used to house radio transmitters, receivers, and other essential equipment. The approval is in accordance with the Wireless Communication Ordinance (Section 19.04.060), the findings of the Staff Report, and the submitted plans dated July 21, 2000. The conditions are as follows:

  1. The equipment cabinet shall be painted dark green and the panel antennas shall be painted dark brown.
  2. A landscape security agreement in the amount approved by the Development Services Group shall be submitted to the City for the duration of two years from date of final inspection.

Commissioner Whittman seconded the Motion; Motion Passed 5-0.

ACTION ITEM: (3) File #DSR0006-004

APPLICANT: Starbucks Coffee Company

SUBJECT: Design Review and Approval for New Signage

LOCATION: 7695 SE 27th Street (formerly Zi Pani)

STAFF REPORT: Kathy Harbert, Associate Planner, summarized the proposal. She continued: on July 25, 2000 revised drawings (Exhibit 1) were received, revising the proposal to two signs instead of three. The non-complying sign previously presented was removed from the submittal. The re-submittal included no changes for the east elevation; the north elevation has the sign copy area on a two-foot face instead of a 1-foot face, with the same sized letters as before. The depth of the canopy (4 feet) and the fabric for the canopy remains the same as the original submittal. The findings made in the staff report are still supported and staff recommends approval of the drawings submitted on July 25, 2000. The following motion was read into the record: To grant approval for the proposed signs on the north and east elevations as presented on formal site plans, dated July 25, 2000, incorporating the findings of the Staff Report and in accordance with the Mercer Island Town Center District Development and Design Requirements and Section 19.15.040 of the Mercer Island Code.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Robert Thorpe, of R.W. Thorpe Consultants, 705 2nd Avenue, Seattle, WA, agrees with the staff report; traffic does come under SEPA and SEPA is not a part of this project. He currently continued, the south elevation has two colors on the wall, what looks like where a sign once was; the driveway appears to be an easement. He asked the Commission to put the code aside to consider the pedestrian walking down the street with the south elevation in view, since the Town Center Plan speaks to pedestrian involvement. The sign proposed on the south elevation does work from a pedestrian’s point of view.

QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT: QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT: Commissioner Sandler asked for clarification; which plan is Thorpe proposing tonight. Thorpe replied, he wants the Commission to think about the original submittal of three signs. Harbert clarified the two-sign proposal is the one under review, making the original proposal superseded. Commissioner Wittman addressed Thorpe with a comment to think about, urbanism thrives on diversity. Vice Chairman Glick asked Thorpe why the landscape architect, Stephen Speidel, was here tonight since landscaping is not being reviewed. Speidel responded, he is not only a landscape architect. Harbert clarified once more, the two-sign submittal is what is being reviewed.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY: None given

COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Bryant agrees with the revised plan. Commissioner Laszlo agrees too. Commissioner Wittman asked if the canopy was backlit. Speidel responded, no not the awing, but possibly by reflection. Wittman continued, he prefers the one-foot face proposed on the original plan, instead of the two-foot face on the new plan. Commissioner Sandler stated the awning is high and thinks it works okay being close to the roof.

MOTION Commissioner Bryant motioned to grant approval for the proposed signs on the north and east elevations as presented on formal site plans, dated July 25, 2000, incorporating the findings of the Staff Report and in accordance with the Mercer Island Town Center District Development and Design Requirements and Section 19.15.040 of the Mercer Island Code.

Commissioner Laszlo seconded the Motion; Motion Passed 4-0. Commissioner Wittman abstained.

Other Business

Director’sComments:
None.

Meeting Adjourned:
9:50 PM

Council Liaison Report:
Councilman Cairns was absent.

Next Regular Meeting:
August 9, 2000, 7:30pm

OTHER BUSINESS: None

[Important Note: The proceedings of the Design Commission meeting were recorded on tape and are on file with the Development Services Group. The complete agenda and official minutes of this meeting are also available from the Development Services Group.]

 

City of Mercer Island Washington | All Rights Reserved © 2018| Privacy Policy | printer friendly version Printer friendly version | Site by ProjectA.com