Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-21 Regular MinutesAugust 21, 1995 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rants called the Regular Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL OFFICIALS SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS New Public Works employees Al Spencer, Internal Operations Manager, and Mike Villanueva, Permit Technician II were introduced. CITIZEN COMMENTS None PUBLIC HEARING TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; ALLAN EKBERG, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; STEVE MULLET; PAM CARTER; JIM HAGGERTON. JOHN McFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; STEVE LANCASTER DCD Director; VERNON UMETSU, Associate Planner; VIKI WITSCHGER, Admin. Svs. Director; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; JANE CANTU, City Clerk. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Vouchers: Nos. 80412 through 80675 in the amount of $566,736.51 Withdrawn- moved to New Bus. b. Authorize Mayor to sign agreement with Entranco Engineers in the amount of $149,956 to implement the Riverton Water Quality Mgt. Plan (WQMP) Councilmember Carter requested Item (b) of the Consent Agenda be withdrawn and moved to New Business for discussion. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. Quasijudicial: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review (BAR) Decision of May 25, 1995; Case No. L93 -0083. Appellant: Fidelity Associates. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting August 21, 1995 Page 2 Public Hearin (con't) As an appearance of fairness issue, Councilmember Haggerton asked to be excused from the public hearing because he sat as a member of the Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review when the applicant first came forward. Mayor Rants excused Haggerton. Mayor Rants disclosed he had spoken to Mr. Wiley a few months ago on the telephone about this issue but he had not made any statements on the subject. Rants said he was confident he could make a decision with a clear and open mind. Councilmember Mullet said he followed some of this issue while it was considered by the Planning Commission. He affirmed he could make his decision based on the facts presented at this hearing. Councilmember Ekberg noted he had asked Vernon Umetsu for three pieces of information which would assist in the Council deliberation of this issue. Ekberg said he had not yet received the information. Mayor Rants declared the hearing open at 7:20 p.m. Those who indicated they would speak during the hearing were sworn in by Attorney Cohen. Council Action: Staff recommends the approval of the metal wall subject to extension of a simplified version of a cornice all the way around the second story wall and the replacement of existing purple plum trees with the red leafed maple trees which are consistent with the CBD Street Tree Plan. MOVED BY MULLET, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW THE STANDING SEAM WALL TO EXIST; EXTEND A SIMPLIFIED CORNICE AROUND THE ENTIRE SECOND STORY WALL; AND REPLACE THE PLUM TREES WITH RED LEAFED MAPLE TREES. MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH EKBERG AND ROBERTSON DISSENTING. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, TO ACCEPT BOTH THE COUNCIL DOCUMENT AND THE APPELLANT'S DOCUMENT AS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR PAST MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. See attached verbatim minutes for entire text (23 pages). Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting August 21, 1995 Page 3 OLD BUSINESS Approve Salary Level for .5FTE Transport Services Officer NEW BUSINESS Riverton Water Quality Management Plan Entranco Engineers (from Consent) REPORTS Mayor Council Mayor Rants explained the City has been using both a transport officer and a police officer to transport prisoners to and from the jail because King County has insisted on having an armed officer on duty. Administrative Services Director Viki Witschger explained the half time position for transport officer carries with it a limited commission which allows that person to carry a firearm. This person would also provide courtroom security for the Tukwila Municipal Court. The police department is looking at using overtime dollars to fund the position rather than paying overtime dollars to the officers, thereby better utilizing regular officers' time out in the field. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO APPROVE THE SALARY AND AUTHORIZE THE .5FTE POSITION OF TRANSPORT SERVICES OFFICER. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Councilmember Carter asked why the costs for the printing and distribution of educational materials to residents and businesses within the watershed mentioned under Public Education /Awareness were not being paid by the City. City Engineer Ron Cameron explained that this project is funded by a DOE grant which has a number of criteria one of which is to involve people living in the watershed so that they become stewards of the creek. Most of the costs will actually fall to the City. MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY CARTER, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH ENTRANCO ENGINEERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $149,959 TO IMPLEMENT THE RIVERTON WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP). MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Mayor Rants reported he had a great time in the Canadian San Juans the past two weeks. Councilmember Hernandez reported she received a phone call regarding a resident who tripped and fell over broken curbing on S. 124th. John McFarland said the problem would be resolved immediately. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting August 21, 1995 Page 4 Reports (con't) ADJOURNMENT 9:38 p.m. Hernandez said she noticed quite a lot of land altering going on along the west side of the shoreline south of S.180th. Mayor Rants responded that the dike is being repaired in that area. Councilmember Robertson said the SCKATBd received an update on light rail at their last meeting. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED AT 9:38 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. Jo W. Rants, Mayor GLz /Z2 L-c' Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk Tukwila City Council Public Hearing: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review Decision of May 25, 1995; Case No. L93 -0083. Appellant: Fidelity Associates August 21, 1995 Vernon Umetsu: For the record, my name is Vernon Umetsu, Tukwila Planning Division. Gathered before us tonight is File #L93 -0083. This is an appeal of a Board of Architectural Review decision that a dryvit surface be installed on the second story wall of the Sears Homelife building as originally approved. This is a quasi judicial hearing and conducted under a de novo ruling basis which is that all information will be presented anew and that your decisions, your findings, conclusions and decisions should be based on the criteria of the Board of Architectural Review. It should be noted that no other aspects other than the second story wall of this Sears Homelife building have been appealed, and so the original decision and the original design which was approved by the Board of Architectural Review and generally shown on site plans and elevations on the wall behind you, must be given deference or respect. That is, you really can't significantly change it since it was not appealed. The Homelife building was initially reviewed by the BAR on January 27, 1994. This project was approved as shown in those drawings and with your permission I would like to come forward and generally describe this project. The site is located approximately in the northwest corner of the Andover Park East and Strander intersection. You can see that Computer City lies to the immediate east, and this (pointing at site map) is the project site which is 1.6 acres. To the immediate west is the Future Shop and Best project. And behind the site is the new Computer City store. The building itself is approximately 44,000 square feet, rises to about 33 feet in elevation. You can see the elevations on the next drawing. Entry to the site is from Strander Boulevard to the south through two shared accessways. The entry to the building is on the south as shown here (pointing to site map) and you can see the Sears Homelife project and then a secondary entry which is now the Putz Golf. This elevation that we're showing here is the originally approved BAR drawing. And you can see on the elevation, which is shown as the east elevation, the rear north elevation and the west elevation that this area, that these three areas on the second story were approved as a dryvit surface. And a dryvit is sort of like a stucco finish. The cornice, the fancy cornice which is shown on the front of the building, extended about half way to the rear and then stopped. And then it was just a plain parapet going back. The site plan and building design were approved by the Board and construction documents and building permit application was filed with the building division, reviewed and approved by all departments. Right now, I'd like to show you a building plans as well as colors and materials board. 1 The colors and materials board shown before you show the type of dryvit finish that was proposed and approved by the applicant and all departments. On this elevation you can see more clearly where the new cornice stops and the plain parapet begins. Now this surface is shown as 7.1 and that's called out on the material spec sheets as dryvit. The construction started during the winter and during that time on October 14th there was field review of an h -vac screen for the h -vac screening units on rooftop h- vac units. That screen was rejected and it was replaced with some type of metal screen. Further discussions with the architect and the owner concerned a proposal to replace the dryvit on the second floor wall with a metal wall. That metal wall was discussed; revisions were drafted and received on the 24th of October. Staff reviewed those revisions and conditionally approved them as shown in the approval letter in one of your attachments on October 28th I believe. The condition of approval included the consistency with BAR criteria which was that it had to have the same look and feel on the second floor as on the first floor dryvit surface. The construction was reviewed when we typically go out to review construction which is pretty much at the end of the construction period. And DCD looked at the metal wall that was installed and I will bring you a copy of that metal here. The department determined that the look and feel of that wall was not consistent with the BAR dryvit design. This determination was not appealed, but the applicant went back to the BAR and requested a design revision to approve the metal wall as built and without any further embellishments. The Board reviewed all materials including a video tape of the site which was presented at that hearing and determined that the dryvit should be installed as initially approved. The applicant, Mr. Wiley, appeals that decision to us tonight. Now, in reviewing this further appeal, staff has taken another path in reviewing this design proposal, and now recommends approval of the metal wall subject to extension of a simplified version of this complex cornice all the way around this second story wall and the replacement of the existing purple plum trees with red leafed maple trees which would be consistent with the CBD street tree plan. At this point that concludes my presentation. Are there any questions I can answer? Councilmember Joe Duffie: I have one question. What is the grade of that sheet metal there and why was it rejected in the beginning if you approved it now? Is that correct? Umetsu: We rejected it after thought because you could see these lines. You know, it clearly looked different from the dryvit finish of the first floor level. The question was then was it significantly different to require a design revision? Yes, we determined that it was. Did it reflect the design qualities similar to better buildings in the surrounding area which had largely dryvit or similar types of finishes, and we thought it did not reflect that level of quality. On its own, we could not recommend approval as being similar in quality to the approved design to the BAR and in an independent review of this metal wall alone, we did not think it satisfied the BAR design criteria. Staff, at the Board meeting, did recommend approval of this metal with a combination of a continuous cornice and additional polyester columns, but the Board did not believe that that would be sufficient and the especially didn't like the pyluster columns. They therefore determined that a dryvit finish would be appropriate. Tonight we have changed our scope of analysis to include the overall project site. We looked at it and thought that this was somewhat of a special situation where we could consider a replacement of these existing purple plum trees which are very different from the red leafed maples specified in the CBD street tree plan as partially offsetting the difference in building design quality of this wall. This wall is about 20 feet above the first floor level and rises about 12 feet high. We though that overall, if you were to consider the overall design quality and consider site which respect to consistency of design and harmony of design with adjacent properties, that we could recommend approval with a tree replacement and cornice extension. Please note that the Board was very concerned with setting a precedent of design quality and I would note that this is a very special situation where the existing trees did remain and were approved and that any future projects would have to replace their trees with materials consistent with the CBD plan and no offsetting credit for may be a lesser quality of building design would be given. 2 Duffie: But what I'm hearing you saying is that this is a special issue here. We're making an exception now, but you're not going to be able to make one in the future. Is that what I'm hearing? Umetsu: That is correct. In this particular case, we think it's reasonable to give credit for providing street trees, replacing the existing street trees with those which would be consistent with the CBD street tree plan. Duffie: One last question. You keep mentioning the word "cornice What is that? 3 Umetsu: Cornice is the top cap of the wall and if I might -let me distribute a recommended design proposed by the applicant. Planning staff has reviewed it and we recommend approval of that cornice design. (finds design) On the left is the complex design shown on the south end of the building on that elevation. On the right is the simplified design and you can see where it's been slightly modified. I think a complex cornice continuing along would clash with the more simple design with the east, north, and west elevations. Mayor John Rants: Are there any questions of staff? Councilmember Joan Hernandez: I was just going to ask what date this modification was approved then -the staff recommendation to allow approval of the metal seam wall and to add the extension of the cornice. Umetsu: I had seen earlier versions of a simplified cornice, but it had not been officially proposed at the time of staff report distribution. We received these on Wednesday or Thursday of last week. Hernandez: And has the appellant had a chance to respond as to whether these are satisfactory? Umetsu: This is the appellant's design. Hernandez: This is his design that you recommend approval on? Umetsu: That's correct. The appellant has reviewed the staff report. We have been in contact with him and he does fully agree with the staff recommendation that the cornice be extended, the existing purple plum trees be replaced with red maple trees. And under those conditions, the metal wall would remain. Rants: More questions? I'll get to Steve then come back to Allan. Councilmember Steve Mullet: Vernon, why was the proposed alternate simplified? Was it a large expense or was it just the cornice? Umetsu: It is a good design option because extending a complex cornice all the way around would make the plainness of the rest of the wall -it would clash with the simple remaining wall areas. Mullet: How are the connections made with the simplified one where it butts there. I assume it's going to meet the complicated one in some point in time. Umetsu: That's correct. And you can see where -right on this elevation I've outlined the new cornice areas in red... Mullet: Are those actual corners where it's going around a corner and then -or is it a flat plane where they meet? Umetsu: They would meet on a flat plane and it would be approximately half way back in the building. You can see where a cornice would start right there (using drawings to illustrate) and it is about half way back from the Best building and you can see where that wall line is right there. The western cornice would be right about there. The eastern cornice would be right about there, and just go right around. And it would just go right around. I think it could be easily integrated and you wouldn't notice the difference. Mullet: I think that is what I was asking. Councilmember Allan Ekberg: The material that you've shown us today, the metal siding before us, is that an exact replica of what's currently existing on the building? Umetsu: Yes. It is exactly what's on the building. Ekberg: Same paint? Umetsu: Yes. Mayor Rants: Anyone else? Ekberg: Well, I'll continue. Tell me how a drivit is applied. You mentioned stucco, but I'm not a construction expert, so I think of chicken wire then putting a bunch of mesh together. Umetsu: It's something like that, but it's easier to apply, it's more durable, and I believe what you'd need to do, however, is to either put something on top of this metal siding or take it down and replace it with some plywood. On top of the plywood, then, is where you would install the drivit. The cost that you have asked for is approximately $25,000 $30,000 of the contractor's estimate. I asked our architect and plans checkers about whether or not that was reasonable, and they said it was pretty much in the ballpark. But they didn't know because they didn't know what would need to be done. Ekberg: How many square feet is that? Umetsu: I could work it out, but I don't have it right now. Ekberg: Do that for me while this other speaker's speaking. 4 Umetsu: O.K. Ekberg: How is the existing metal wall fastened to the building? Umetsu: I believe it's fastened by screws to a metal wood framework, but possibly the applicant could clarify that. I would note that we have reserved in a savings account a sum equal to 150 percent of the estimated construction costs and we feel very confident that we'd be able to cover any construction costs with city controlled funds. Mayor Rants: Is there anyone else with questions for staff? Mullet: The Planning Commission minutes mentioned some videos or some movies. Are we going to see those? 5 Umetsu: They are available for your review, but I didn't know whether you wanted to see them or not. We're at your disposal on that. Mullet: I guess my feeling would be -I didn't specifically look at the building because in the past we've been asked not to do that unless we do that as a group. So, I would still like to do that. I guess I would bring that up if the Council would feel comfortable at some point tonight deciding if we should go down there as a group and view this thing personally or if we should deal with pictures and other things. That would make a difference whether we look at these films. If we're going to walk down and look at it, I don't think we need to look at the films. Councilmember Dennis Robertson: I don't mind looking at the films, but I'm not sure that it's appropriate for us to sit and question whether something is attractive or not. I'm not sure that's the question before us. I think that's a question that the BAR deals with in it's deliberations. Maybe we should come back to this after we finish the presentations, but I would like to discuss the basis for our decision and what the decision is that we're about to make before I would want to make a decision on whether we should go look at it or not. Mullet: I know the point is do we want to watch films or not. And my thought is if we're not going to go look at it, I want to see the films. You're saying you want to make that decision first, but is that outside the realm of the Robertson: If you want to see the films, I support you in the films. Councilmember Joan Hernandez: I don't mind seeing the films, but to me it's not so much of an appearance issue as it is some type of misunderstanding that might have taken place. So, whether the material meets what was actually in the plans, but if you're saying now that you're satisfied with this proposal the way it is, I don't know whether it's an important issue for us to view the site or to see the film. Mullet: Well, it is a visual issue. I mean it's mentioned right in the criteria that this was supposed to represent the texture and whatnot, and you can't tell that sitting here. It's on a building wall down there and you have to go look at it to see if it does represent that. If we don't want to dig that deep into the thing, that's fine with me, too. Ekberg: Let me ask this question to clarify for myself. Where is the film located? Umetsu: (Pointing) In that drawer -or in that cabinet. Ekberg: How long does it run? Umetsu: Approximately 10 minutes. Ekberg: I think we can see it tonight. O.K.? That's my opinion, anyway. Vernon, on October 24th when the revisions were received, what for were they received in? Umetsu: We had a plan sheet of elevations similar to what is shown behind you, and a revision sheet saying we request these revisions. Instead of calling out 7.1, the notation "metal wall" was shown across the elevation surfaces. I looked for that drawing and I could not find it. Ekberg: When the metal wall was stated on the applicant's revision that was received, did it state what form of metal wall? Flat wall? Corrugated wall? Umetsu: It did not say whether or not it would be flat or corrugated. I had assumed in my discussions with the architect, that we were talking about a flat metal wall, especially since -and that's reflected in my understanding in our letter which talked about half -inch blind joints as being the prominent thing that needed to be concerned about -the prominent bump that we were concerned about. Ekberg: So, if I were to understand the revisions came through on October 24th with a metal wall being used to replace materials 7.1, dryvit. Umetsu: That's correct. Ekberg: O.K. And on October 28th you approved, based on your knowledge of what was explained as a metal wall surface, your assumption being a flat metal wall surface based on dryvit being a flat surface. 6 Umetsu: That's correct and that was, I thought, adequately explained in our letter of approval which said that you had to have the same look and feel as the first floor dryvit. Subsequent to that the applicant's architect indicated that geez well there is no such thing as a flat metal wall, it has to be corrugated which I didn't know, but we have in the past allowed builders to try different ways to satisfy BAR criteria and as long as it had the same look and other design features approved by the Board, we have then approved it. Now, we have since made an agreement with the Board that we will not do that anymore. That unless it clearly, unquestionably satisfies the BAR criteria, it shall go back to the Board for further review. Ekberg: What is the texture of dryvit? Umetsu: The texture of dryvit is this modely type of surface here. Ekberg: How would that texture be applied to a flat metal surface? Umetsu: I don't know that it could. I don't know how to construct this type of a dryvit situation Typically -I mean, I've seen dryvit applied. It's just a spray on finish on top of a Styrofoam -type surface. I don't know how you would do it here. That's why the Board in their motion said that it should be properly applied dryvit. Mayor Rants: Alright. I think we need to make a decision if you wish to see the film now. It would be appropriate if you wished to or if you wish to listen to the proponent at this time. 7 Mullet: I can go either way as long as I don't get stuck in a position where I can't see the films if I decide I need to at a later date. Ekberg: I would like to have available the information that the Board of Architectural Review had available which was the film in addition to the material we have before us. Mayor Rants: Is that Council's pleasure all the way through? Hernandez: I don't have a problem with that. If it helps someone make a decision, I certainly don't have a problem with it. Mayor Rants: Umetsu: O.K. (Video) Alright. Then we will take the 10 minutes to see the video, please. Umetsu: (narrating video) We're looking at the site across from the Teamster's building across- we will be looking across the Circuit City project and viewing the site from the north and the east. There's the Circuit City project, and you can see the building. That's Computer City and there is the Homelife project. And you can see these metal wall -lines on the metal wall which were inconsistent with the dryvit -the h -vac screens are on top. At the top of that parapet is where the cornice would go on top of the metal wall. That would go all the way around it. It would definitely, I believe, improve the appearance of that building, especially from the Circuit City side. I took some pictures of the Circuit City to show the split -face concrete and to show materials that were in surrounding buildings. This is another picture of the Homelife project and it's comparison with mass of buildings and materials in surrounding buildings. And that's the complex cornice and you can see the three steps of that complex cornice that will go around the corner. We'll next be going around to the south side of the project and viewing it from the Strander retail project across Strander. In this case, I made a mistake. The cameraman was not very good and -you have to bear with me for just a little bit. And that is the Barnes and Noble project -the Barnes and Noble store of the Segale retail center. The cameraman making a mistake You can see the type of cornice and building materials that's immediately across the street from the site. So we're doing a panorama shot. The Best project, Future Shop. And here we see the Sears Homelife project with the second story building wall. And that's where the simplified cornice would take off. And that is the dryvit finish. Are there any questions on that? Anybody want to see it again? Duffie: Would I would like to know is -I have never seen this sprayed on metal before. I'm working on a house now that compare with the wide mesh and wood. I do not think that this type of material would even hold on even if it were flat. This type of material is not for metal siding. Ekberg: My question deals with the metal wall as it currently exits. In the previous question, Vernon, you mentioned it was screwed into wood studs. Is there any backing material like a foam or insulation barrier that provides support for wind damage or any other type of... Umetsu: I believe that it is appropriately supported. We can look at the plans, but Bob, do you know the construction details of that wall? Robert L. Wiley, Appellant: I don't know the construction details, but they were approved by the city as a weather -tight wall. Umetsu: We can look it us while Mr. Wiley is making his presentation. We can look it up. Ekberg: That will be fine, thank you. Mayor Rants: If there are no further questions of staff, we'll allow Mr. Wiley to speak. 8 Wiley: Good evening. My name is Robert L. Wiley, 4311 Holly Lane, Mercer Island, Wash. I appreciate very much the opportunity to be able to talk with you about this misunderstanding that we've had with the Dept. of Community Development. The facts have been covered really very well by Vernon for the CDC. You have each had a copy of this appeal. I am not sure what your customs are, but if you have read it, I might point out that we did have a summary under Tab 1 which identified really the issues which, I think, correspond to what Vernon has presented. What are request and our reasoning. Tab 2 is somewhat of a more detailed explanation of that. If you could with me for a moment take a look under Tab 3, you will note there are photographs here and particularly the photograph -the first page under page 3 -does show the building. I think one of the things that would be apparent is that from the south or the traffic side of the building, the second floor is barely visible. If you turn the page, please, to the second page under Exhibit 3 on the bottom you'll note this is looking from Circuit City when it was under construction. And you will note that it is very apparent from the north. It is the cornice that we're proposing to put around the top that we think will make that look as a more finished piece of work. In any event, those pictures can go along with the video perhaps to use as any reference work that you may want in order to see what we have there. However, I would like to emphasize three points and I think I can be quite brief in my presentation, and I hope in turn that there may be questions because I think that may be the most useful way to discuss things with you. First, our understanding with the CDC or the DCD was over what was really said on October 14th. And that was when the proposed siding was inspected. The proposal to change from dryvit to metal 9 was weather related. You may recall that late last fall we had very torrential kinds of rains and a lot of very bad weather. At that point the contractor told me it would be very difficult to get the building secured and under cover by putting the dryvit because it was difficult to apply dryvit in that kind of conditions. And he has suggested the metal alternative. We got samples of the metal alternative, and they were inspected on October 14th. The inspector saw the three samples of material on that day. First was the hvac screen which we had proposed that was not acceptable and was rejected and replaced by the metal that we have here. Secondly, we had shown him an example of the cornice which is that white gingerbread around the top of the building. And third was the siding. Subsequently two weeks later on the 28th of October, the department wrote us a letter and added various qualifications to what we had understood to be an approval. On the 14th, the contractor, architect, and I had understood that we had gotten approval. Two weeks later this letter was sent to us which did add clearly qualifications. I made the unfortunate assumption of feeling that since the inspector has seen the material, that issues like reflectivity and appearance were not going to be a problem because we had understood that he has seen the material and therefore we didn't think that that would be a problem. But that turned out to be a major misunderstanding. Of the three points I'd like to make, that's the first one. And the second one is what we're asking the City to do is to approve the building as it was built for a couple of reasons. The first is that we as builders of the building proceeded with this change only after consultation with an inspection by the DCD. We believed we had approval to use the material that had been shown to the inspector. In every respect we have cooperated fully with the DCD, with Public Works, and with the Fire Marshall on everything throughout this entire project. It's been our issue to cooperate to get this job done right and every action we have taken was done in good faith. Secondly, we would ask your approval because we think the building looks good. That's not a justification for going against what the BAR might wish, but nevertheless, the appearance of that building, we believer, is attractive and we hope that you would find it acceptable. Additionally, and to us the critical thing is the attitude of the tenants toward the building, because the tenants are the ones who have to be able to have an attractive building to attract customers. And they have been very pleased with what we have there, even though it clearly differs from what the BAR initially approved. That's not an issue. It does differ there's no question. The third point I'd like to make would be that we request your approval as the building is built because we think the building looks right and looks nice. We have, however, realized that the DCD does not concur with that recommendation and therefore, as a consequence of that, have discussed with them alternative treatments that would address the entire site. And in addressing the entire site, the BAR had hoped to put a cornice along there, but they could not add it after the fact. The DCD and the owner have discussed this and would be willing to put this cornice around which to some extent would clearly make it look like a more finished product from that north side which is really the problem. In considering the overall appearance of the site also, we're willing to replace the purple plums with what is now the approved and preferred landscape plan which calls for a red leaf maple. And we would be willing to do that also. There were some issues brought up of cost. I can address issues of cost, application, and things like that. But I would like to identify that the dryvit clearly cannot be applied to metal. Dryvit is applied to a material like styrofoam. It basically is styrofoam that is bolted or nailed or screwed to a wall and then the stucco is a slurry that is troweled over it and then it is textured. The dryvit base, the styrofoam would have to be attached to the metal. What I had used when putting up the bond for this was I had used the estimate of what had been the original cost for putting up the stucco. I've discovered that it is about 25 percent more expensive to put it up now and I've asked why and the issue is, of course, the metal. Instead of nailing the styrofoam up, they will have to screw it in with metal screws and it will be more Linda Cohen, City Attorney: For the record if I could just quickly add that Mr. Wiley has been referring to Tabs 1 -4 which are contained in Attachment D. Mayor Rants: Questions of Mr. Wiley? Wiley: Yes, ma'am. Hernandez: And they didn't say to you we'll have to check that and get back with you or we'll have to check the plans to see what was approved or we'll have to send you something in writing first? Did you understand that you just had the approval verbally to go ahead? 10 complicated. That's just a matter of fact. I'm bringing this up as a fact. It looks as though the cost of this would be $45,000 to $50,000. If we're dead wrong, that's not an issue. The builder should be held accountable for doing what's right. The thing we would argue and would like to have you consider is we think is looks all right the way it is. And we don't think that it is justified to put in an additional $50,000 to change something that in six months I don't think you or we will ever think of or see or ask a question about again. I might add that to date, I know of no one who has raised a question about the appearance of the building. No one -and everyone has moved in around us. So, then on the issue of application it would be the way I said. They would have to put it up that way. The cornice would be exactly the same color and texture as the existing cornice. The architect has recommended something simpler because on the front of the building there's quite a bit of sort of gingerbread and complicated designs. Well, I think that Vernon has already explained this. On the back of the building where you would see it from Circuit City and the north coming down to have something that fancy would almost be inappropriate against the very plain wall that is up there. So, in summary, I'd just say that we would hope that you would recognize with the owner that there was a misunderstanding. It was a misunderstanding in good faith which has not been questioned by DCD or ourselves. It was a misunderstanding of what we thought was told to us. We proceeded and we realized that it was a misunderstanding and a bad one. We think we can rectify that with the improvement in the cornice which would make the building simply look more finished. If we do not put the cornice up, if we still just do the dryvit, we're still going to end up with just a plain old box on the north end. We didn't think much about that box on the north side, because when we built the building, Schucks had a great big warehouse there. And then they tore the darn thing down, and have repositioned where Circuit City is. However, Circuit City does have a plan to build another building on the front. They have a pad on the front of their property which, when it's done, will create more of a visual barrier in the event that that metal siding is offensive. So, I do hope you might have questions that I could answer, but I'm not sure I could add more than particularly what you have read and seen in this handout. The handout itself did have a photograph in the back under Tab 4 in which we simply drew in a line to indicate what the cornice would be and then we'd also had a picture in the back in which the cornice is just outlined in yellow to show where it would pick up. And that would be the alternative. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here, and would be happy to entertain any questions you may have. Hernandez: Mr. Wiley, as I understand it then on October 14th when the DCD inspector came to the site, it was your understanding then that you had approval to proceed with this material. Wiley: I think the architect knew that there was going to have to be written approval I didn't This was the first and only project I've ever been involved with. So I think the architect would have known that there had to be further approval. I did not know that at the time. I would add, if I might, I regret the misunderstanding, but I can understand it. We had put the sample of material, and I believe it was that piece right there, on the wall at the level it was going to be. The inspector, I think, did not realize what it looked like as well as I did because I had been working close up with it. So, we had understood that the siding and the cornice were approved. Hernandez: Were you told that you could go ahead subject to approval -that that would be at your own risk if you did go ahead and apply it? Wiley: No. It was my understanding that that was the approval. Subsequently, on the 28th of October, the department did write us a letter and say that it was approved subject to reflectivity, color, texture, a couple of other issues like that because it was very clearly spelled out. It was my mistake in saying to myself -and the architect saw the sample -and if he had seen the sample and it wasn't satisfactory from a reflectivity and color and whatever other points there were, he would have said so. Hernandez: At what stage were you in the construction process when you received that letter that was dated October 28th? 11 Wiley: The letter of the 28th. We had ordered the material and had -they may have even started to put it up. We did not know that we had made a mistake and had an unacceptable product from DCD until the entire project was completely, completely finished. We were all done before this issue then arose and this objection was brought up. Hernandez: About what date was that? Wiley: January Hernandez; That you discovered this -that there had been a mistake or a misunderstanding. Wiley: We would have that date specifically, because I'm sure that Vernon wrote us a letter and he documented everything very well. But I think it would have been in January. Umetsu: February 14th Wiley: February 14th. Yea. Hernandez: O.K., thank you very much. Robertson: Sir? What's the approximate cost of the total project? Wiley: About $2 million, I think. Robertson: Thank you. Wiley: Our objective in changing the wall was not to save money. Our objective was to build the building. We were under pressure, and every one of you -I'm sure that even the City Council almost would come under pressure because these builders have got deadlines. So, we were under a deadline and were anxious to do what we could in that terrible weather to move ahead. And therefore, the change was not done for economic purposes, but rather for construction purposes during that bad weather. Mullet: Do you know approximately what the cost of the cornice would be for you to continue that cornice around? Wiley: I think it will be around $10,000. Mullet: And replacing the trees? Wiley: Probably under $1,000. I'm trying to swap out the plums for the maples and I haven't got that worked out yet. But nevertheless, there would certainly be trees that would meet city requirements. Rants: Anymore questions of Mr. Wiley? Ekberg: Mr. Wiley, thanks for you being here. Sorry you had to burn up your Monday night. We talked earlier about -and I have questions about the substance of material behind the sheet metal and I'll defer that for Vernon. I was wondering. The October 14th conversation with the DCD person that came out as the inspector for Tukwila, when that person was with you, I suppose you were on ground level looking up at the wall. The cornice was in place, the sheet metal was in place sample sheet metal as well. And there was conversation surrounding the look and the feel -stuff of that nature. What words specifically gave you the indication to believe that the project was approved with this revision? Wiley: Well, I don't recall the specific words, but the impression I got was the material that's up there for the hvac covering is not satisfactory, you'll have to do it. The cornice and that metal and that wall will be all right. That was about as simple as I understood it. The inspector probably talked more to the architect than me, although the architect, contractor, and I -all three and the inspector- were together throughout, I believe. Ekberg: So, as you've said before and I want to make sure I heard it that the inspector did not physically touch material being put on the building. 12 Wiley: No. I must be fair to the inspector. It was not right like that. I wish it had been because you know it's spilled milk. Ekberg: You mentioned this is the first and only project you've done? Wiley: Yes. And last. Ekberg: I won't ask you for clarification on that point. Wiley: No, my wife says if there's another one, I go solo. Mayor Rants: Any other questions of Mr. Wiley? (no response) Thank you, Mr. Wiley. Does Council have questions of anyone at this point? (no response) Then I will close the public hearing and Council can begin their deliberations. Hernandez: Can we ask other questions of staff after it's closed? Mayor Rants: Sure you can. For clarification. But if you have new information, it needs to come under the public hearing. But you can ask questions of staff. Duffie: During the process of constructing this building, how many times was an inspection done on the site? 13 Umetsu: Planning did not go out to inspect the site except at two points. One, when the foundations are being poured to make sure that the building's correctly sited. And two, at the end of the project to inspect for all the things that need to be up -the building finishes, the parking, the landscaping. We go out and count trees. We go and check cornices and tile and that sort of thing. In between, really there's nothing for us to look at. However, we will go out and inspect upon request for a specific issue. Duffie: O.K., what I'm hearing here is that the material was never checked before putting it on the building. Is that correct? Umetsu: That is correct. We rely on the architect to understand what was required when we said consistency with BAR approval. The architect had been the chief architect on at least three other buildings, and so he was very familiar with our design review process and the requirements of this design construction. Duffie: My next question is: what's the difference when you're building a home and building a major project like this -in the inspection? Umetsu: From a planning standpoint? Duffie: Yea. Umetsu: We don't look at the building design in a single family house. We look at whether the setbacks are maintained and that's it. Duffie: O.K., I'm talking about the material. Because what I'm hearing here now is that the material was not checked prior to putting it up. Now, my concern here is I have the same type on my garage and when my material came in in a package, an inspector was there to inspect and see if it was right. The first ones I received were wrong and they had to send them back. So my question is this: is it a different inspection in a home project than in a business? Umetsu: Yes and no. Yes, it's different because the inspector that came out and took a look at your metal siding probably was looking at consistency with the Uniform Building Code requirements and was the material specified in the package as it was shown in the building plans. However, homes are not subject to design review. No, planning does not go out and look at building materials for homes at all. Inspectors do. Mayor Rants: The building inspectors do who are under the umbrella of DCD. Planners do not go, but building inspectors do only for commercial buildings and for residential buildings. Duffie: That's what I thought. I'm trying to understand because what I'm hearing from Vern is different. That's what I couldn't understand because they were there -the inspectors were there- because if they had not been there, I would have had a cheaper grade of materials -same type of material -there when they made us send the whole package back and get the upgraded. That's why I was confused. End of questions. Thanks. Ekberg: I'd like to follow through with the question I had before. What is currently behind the existing metal siding on that structure? Umetsu: The best I can read these plans -and I'm not an architect -it looks like 24 inch 2x4 studs, 24 inch on center with some sort of insulation which would give it anywhere from an R5 to an R12 and then followed by some plywood on the interior. But I would not hold -I wouldn't count on that. Robertson: Is the weather an acceptable basis or acceptable reason for changing design plans if a project is partly through or not completed or not even started, but the weather for some reason would interfere with construction. Would that be an acceptable reason for changing the plans? Umetsu: Nothing is an acceptable reason for changing the plans in a manner which is inconsistent with the BAR design approval. Mayor Rants: Any other questions. Ekberg: There was concern about weather and weather preventing occupancy to the building or protecting the interior of the building. But if I understood you and this may be a key is that plywood was applied to the 2x4 construction on a 24 inch center and over the plywood was an insulation product, potentially foam, with sheet metal on top of that? Umetsu: I'm reading these sections which are based on a dryvit finish, so what that says is that since they used the metal wall, it wasn't a dryvit finish. Now, if it had been a dryvit finish, they would have used plywood on the outside as well and then a styrofoam sheet and then apply the dryvit. However, since they used the metal backing, I'm not sure what's behind the metal. Whatever it was, it would be a metal that would be a weatherproofing material, there would be somewhere around and R12 insulation bats and then there would be a plywood interior wall. 14 Ekberg: On metal? Umetsu: No. On the inside of the stud. Whatever it is, it is consistent with the UBC energy requirements and structural integrity requirements. Duffie: O.K. Now, the way mine was done -my pole is 8x8 and they have a 2x6 running lengthwise and then the metal is fastened to the 2x6's. And in between the 2x6's, R12 insulation is placed into the side there. Then the plywood and then firecode, then there's a fire code fire wood on top of that. That is the way mine is built now. That's the only way you can build with a metal frame. Ekberg: Joe, point of clarification. Was that all done before the studs? 15 Duffie: No. First of all you put the 8x8 studs in the ground. Then you cement them in. Then you come along and you place the 2x6's 2 feet x 2 feet off center. And that's the way you run them. And you run the diagonally. Then you bolt the sheetmetal to it and then after you bolt the sheetmetal to it, then from the inside you put the insulation on it and then... Robertson: I have a couple questions of the city attorney and perhaps the planning director but not of Vernon. I'm trying to understand the process that we're going through here at the moment. And if I go to the letter dated August 14th to John McFarland from Jack Pace, Acting Director, page 2, top of the letter where it says "review process The last sentence in the first paragraph says that "the city council shall affirm, deny, or modify the BARs decision It's my understanding that means we're sitting as the BAR. We're not sitting here to decide whether to send something back. We're not here to decide that the BAR may have errored and to send it back to them to rework. Instead, we're here sitting as the BAR and we could, as the BAR, affirm the current decision; we could deny it. In that case, if we deny it, I'm not sure what happens. We would have to come up with one of our own then? And if we modify it, then we basically would be coming up with one of our own. Is that correct? Cohen: I understand that this is an appeal of the BAR and you have the options of either approving, denying, or modifying, and you just need to base that on the criteria that's outlined. Robertson: O.K., the next paragraph, the first sentence says "no information source carries more weight than another That means the deliberations of the BAR, the applicant, or the staff or what's presented tonight are all equal. That says to me we are sitting as a BAR. Is that correct? Cohen: Right. That's one way of looking at it. I think that's right. It's a de novo proceeding so you can consider all of those things there. If you wanted to do something else, like if you wanted to visit the site or you had other questions to ask, that's your prerogative as long as it's relevant to the decision. So, yes. Mullet: Then the next sentence is what bothers me-- "however, the previously approved project design must be accepted as satisfying the BAR design criteria Which BAR design criteria? Is this their general criteria or the original time it went to the BAR and was looked at. That specific criteria or -what does that sentence mean? Cohen: The criteria is outlined in the TMC. Umetsu: 18.60.050 Mullet: So that's the general criteria they worked on which is that texture of that... Rants: O.K., we can close the public hearing and continue with deliberations. Councilmember Pam Carter: I have a question of staff. Rants: You can still do that. Is it safe to close this, counselor? Cohen: Why don't we wait and hear what the question is. Rants: O.K. Carter: I'm hearing that some of us are a little confused about what criteria we're supposed to be using. I understand this is de novo, it's all new, we look at it with equal weight. The criteria we're supposed to be using -is it the design criteria, the TMC -we're to be using that as the criteria for the decision? Or is there some other criteria? Umetsu: If I may. It is the general design review criteria in TMC 18.60. There are five criteria there. On site design, harmony of the project with adjacent buildings. Building design, landscaping and site treatment, and the use of miscellaneous structures. In our review of this project, two of the criteria seem to be the key ones, which would be building design and then site design criteria -site plan relative to harmony with adjacent developments. The other criteria did not seem to be as strongly related to the redesign of this modification design of the second story wall. 16 Robertson: I think then, going along with all of these points, it is reasonable to say that the applicant is not contesting the original BAR decision, the original plans. That is not in question at this point at all. Umetsu: That's correct. Rants: There's just one point in question that the criteria needs to be applied to. Robertson: O.K. Rants: pleasure? Any further questions? Then it's safe to close the public hearing (8:30 p.m.). Council's Robertson: In reading the material presented and listening to presentations tonight, I've kind of solved basically five issues or arguments presented. The first point that I looked at was that the original decision to change materials was weather related. It was based upon the impact that a wet October had on the construction process. And that's why I asked Mr. Umetsu the question "is that an acceptable reason for changing materials And the answer we were give was that there was no acceptable reason for changing BAR approved design without going back to the BAR. So, looking at the original cause of the change, it seems to me that the original cause was not justification for the change. The next thing I looked at was there was some material presented by the applicant -or the appellant, I guess, in this case -and in their Attachment D, section 2, first page, last paragraph, under reason it says "the owner believers the BAR through its comments and actions at the BAR hearing, felt that the building owner had attempted to put one over on the City I did not listen to the tapes, I was not present, so I know nothing about the inflections that might have been in the voices. But in reading the attachments we had that dealt with that hearing, I could find nothing that would substantiate clearly that the BAR made their decision based upon a feeling that the owner was trying to put one over on the City. At least there was nothing I could find in the written record to substantiate that. The next thing that I saw -the next point was -that the owner acted in good faith with prior approval of the DCD. Now that's a quote from Section 2 again, first page of the appellant's material, last paragraph, last sentence. It said "who acted in good faith with the prior approval of DCD I found nothing in what's presented or in reading the materials to see that there was actual prior approval of the change. I can see basis for a misunderstanding. I did not see any basis to say there was prior approval. Then the next thing I look at was misunderstanding. I found lots of reasons to say there's clearly a misunderstanding. In fact, it appeared to me that all parties, the BAR, the applicant and DCD all stated that there was a misunderstanding. So then it becomes a question of is this misunderstanding -what does it cost? So that's why I asked the question about the cost of the project. A $2 million dollar project. And what we have here is the cost of correcting this misunderstanding is somewhere in the nature of $25,000 to $50,000 or around 2 percent of the total project. What I'm looking for is some kind of understanding on my own part. I'm not sure what that means. The last point I looked at was the statement that it's attractive as it is by the applicant. I looked at some of the statements in the record provided by DCD and things. And I quite honestly don't feel in a position to substitute my opinion for anybody else's on whether or not it's attractive as is. I'm not an architect and I'm not -so I'm a little uncomfortable in that role. So, then I asked myself, well is it terribly unattractive? No. It isn't; however, it is different from the standards that we require of other retail buildings in the area. That was clear from the written material. It is more of the kind of material that we would accept for a warehouse. And again, that's presented. One of the things we do in that area, and we've continued in our new Comp Plan is allowing property owners and developers a great deal of latitude on how they use the land so that they can let the free marketplace drive the use. And along with that we say once they decide on how they're going to use a particular site, then how they develop it -the guidelines -and the rules for development have to be followed. If you're going to develop it for retail use, you have to follow the standards we have for retail. If it's going to be developed for industrial use for warehousing, we follow that. So, I'm more comfortable with not dealing with the issue of attractiveness. Instead, I'd like to deal with the issue is that particular use of this material within the standards and guidelines we have for the use there. And the answer is no. So, where does all this lead me? Unfortunately, to the conclusion -and I'm not happy with this conclusion -is that unless I hear arguments from the rest of the Council, from where I'm sitting I would probably support the BAR's decision. I'm not happy with that decision. I think there really was a misunderstanding. I just don't think that there's anything in what was presented that would drive me to change the BARs second decision. Rants: O.K., anybody else wish to comment? Discussion? 17 18 Hernandez: Well, I agree. I think that it's definitely a case of misunderstanding. I don't think it was intentional and I don't like to make a decision that's going to cost somebody more money, but I think is this particular case that it was an honest mistake. But if we just ignored it and allowed it to go uncorrected, it would set a precedent that I don't think that we would want to make -that we' have to deal with later in future cases just like this. Unfortunately, I feel that we do need to support the BARs decision. Mullet: I'd like to address Dennis' comments as best I can remember them since he laid out a system here. One, I think his first comment was that there was no acceptable reason for changing BAR approval and that may be what Vernon said tonight. But he also said that the practice was to do it in the past. Now they've changed that practice now, but this obviously is something that's been done before. So, I think that's not a big concern in my mind as an issue. Put one over on the City? I agree with you, Dennis, it's hard to read those inflections in there. You could just as easily read it in and you could leave it out. So, I didn't really have a big concern. Everybody seemed to say that it seemed to be an honest mistake. The question of prior approval -I see how that misunderstanding happened. The question was not that the architect didn't know that he had to put in more plans, the question revolved around the fact did he, after he submitted them, have the feeling that what they had done since the material been seen was going to be fine, not that he had to put in the plans. And the feeling I get is that he honestly felt it was going to be fine from the conversations that had happened and the visual. That's part of the area where the misunderstanding really took place. As far as attractiveness as is, I have no problem saying what's attractive to me and what isn't. That's why I was concerned with your questions as to what we are doing here. Are we reviewing the BAR decision, are we making a new decision? I reviewed the BAR decision, and what the individual said there, and the majority of individuals said that they wanted a cornice around that building. They also said they'd like it in dryvit, but that they did want a cornice continued around that building. They did not approve that in the first plan, but after looking at the building they felt that that cornice should be approved. The question of trees -and I almost get the impression that they knew where a soft spot might be -but that came up at Utilities that those trees were not consistent with our Tree Plan and they got in there just before the Tree Plan went into effect. And it's an opportunity to get them consistent with the rest. So, I'm leaning to say that I'm sitting here as a BAR and that I could comfortably say that by putting the cornice on there that that's an acceptable look and that we get a better building or as good a building as making them tear it off and put dryvit up there without the cornice and leaving the plum trees there. So that's where my position is at this point. Carter: So, if I understand you right, Steve, you're saying your understanding is that we're not reviewing the BAR decision, we're looking at anew, does it fit the design criteria. And in your mind, it's an acceptable design with the cornice around it. I'm real torn myself on this. It would be much easier if there were definitely some bad guys so I'd know which side to be on, and there aren't. I think it's honest misunderstandings that happen and they happened unfortunately. So that makes it more difficult to make a decision. In looking at the look of the building, I think the dryvit would be better, but I think as far as the overall look, the cornice would add more to the design. The stopping of the cornice is more detrimental to the look and the harmony, I think, than the lack of the dryvit finish in my mind. I think this is unfortunate that it happened, and it's not an easy decision, and I'm still listening to other arguments. But that's where I'm standing now. Rants: Anyone else? Is there then a motion from the Council? 19 Ekberg: My impression of the standing seam metal wall contrasting with the level of architectural quality around it from a personal perspective, I think is there, I wouldn't term it significant. The reason I wouldn't term it significant is because I think that there may have been a misunderstanding by all parties, but it's the duty of the City to enforce and uphold and champion the existing ordinances that are in place that are policy for guiding the City in its growth. And, therefore, I have a feeling that our inspector may have been able to do his job differently and resulted with a different process than what we have before us tonight. So I think that the responsibility lies with the City in enforcing, pursuing, informing, educating the architect in what the City building requirements are, not depending on the architect to inform the City of those. So I think the City has a higher level of misunderstanding than that of the people who are here before us tonight. Also, I asked for documentation that the City had received regarding the proposed revisions and how that was presented to the City so that we could see it in writing. That information is lost, it is not available. I have concern about that so more and more of this is putting me towards some opportunity for the City to do business differently in the future. And Vernon mentioned one aspect is the approval process would be checked back with what the BAR recommendations were. Because of those type of issues, I do not want to put any additional burden on the developer at this point by insisting on the installation of trees that would meet our Tree Plan for the CBD. I think that's unreasonable and asking for an additional burden. Because of my initial opening statements about the wall contrasting with its surrounding neighbors, I would insist on a cornice to break up that wall somewhat at its higher elevations. That's where I stand on this. Rants: I guess that brings up back to is there a motion? Carter: Well, I was going to comment that Steve had pointed out to me on our packet the tab that says Attachment A, page 3 there gives the TMC 18.60.050 on building design so that you can look at the criteria as far as building design. Robertson: O.K., I'm not going to quite put a motion on the table yet. I think that the difficulty is where does the there's two real issues. One is the misunderstanding and where does the fault lye or is it shared. The second issue, of course, is what looks good and appropriateness and things. Allan, I guess I disagree a little bit with your point on the City taking the responsibility in educating the architect. I think it's very important that the City communicate clearly and perhaps that didn't happen as well here as it could; however, from a cost standpoint, I don't think there is a builder or developer anywhere in the City that would want to pay for us to have staff to do that level of education of architects or anybody else development things. I think the cost of that would be so burdensome and so confusing that there's no way that anybody would want to do it. I guess what we're really going to come down to then is do we think that the cornice is more attractive -not more attractive -it meets the building design criteria in 18.60.050(4) more than the dryvit does. And how objectionable, based upon that criteria, is the standing seam metal wall. Mullet: I basically concur with that. Robertson: And there's not the cost. When this whole thing is done, if its cost is $20,000 to $25,000 it's probably close to what the City and the property owner the differences have been on our own respective staff time on this thing -in people's time. So I'm not sure, but what we probably need is a motion on the table from someone. Cohen: Before everyone votes, I want to make sure that everyone is clear that it's not voting on whether or not there was a misunderstanding and who was right and who was wrong, but on the criteria that's spelled out under 18.60.050. And if we choose to do business differently in the future based on a misunderstanding, that's perfectly fine, or if a modification is partly based on a misunderstanding. But the basis for the decision should be solely based on the criteria listed. Mullet: discussion. I'm ready to make a motion to put on the table based on that unless there's more Ekberg: I'd like to discuss it just a little bit more. I would agree with Dennis saying that we're not here to educate the public or their architects in their business, but we pay City staff to enforce our codes, building designs, and our ordinances. They need to be knowledgeable of what those are and what that entails as far as products that are employed on a building structure. Otherwise, they may not need our services in the City. I'd like to listen to Mr. Mullet's motion. Mullet: I would agree with what you said, too, Allan. But there is that side of it, but I think that's been covered here. There's been some process changes that Planning is now doing from what Vernon said, and there may be some more that we have to look at when we do developmental regs which are coming up and how we address these things. But I don't think that's fully the issue here tonight. And the real issue is 18.60.050 which is building design and BAR review. And based upon that I would put a motion on the table that we accent staff's recommendation to allow the standing seam wall to exist and extend a simplified cornice around the entire second story wall and replace the existing trees down below with the Tree Plan trees so they're consistent with the other buildings around the area. Robertson: I would speak against the motion. I think that the standing seam metal wall used to the extent that it is here, does not meet the building design criteria in 18.60.050 for a retail structure. That's the only reason I would Rants: Further discussion? Mullet: Which part of it doesn't it meet? Robertson: Give me a little time here. (b) Building Design building should be appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. Permanent neighboring retail developments don't have that type of development. Mullet: I disagree, but that's fine. 20 Cohen: As part of Mr. Mullet's motion is the Council Agenda Synopsis and the different attachments going to be used as the basis for the findings and conclusions for this motion? Do you want to adopt... Mullet: We haven't voted on it yet, so what Cohen: Maybe we'll just take them one at a time. Rants: Yes, I believe so. Any further discussion? Ekberg: I would not speak in favor of the motion as a result of the second element for the replacement of red maples with plum trees or vice versa I should say. I don't feel that as part of 18.60.050 for dealing with the building design criteria. Mullet: Could I add one more thing? For the record, I would like to say that while I recognize all these other things, I do feel that my proposal overall is based upon the design criteria and not these other -these other issues are floating around, but I'm making this proposal specifically that I think that makes a better designed building than going back and putting dryvit on without the cornice. 21 Hernandez: I guess I'm not real happy about this whole thing either and I don't think this really meets the design criteria, but I think there's been a lack of communication on both parts and I think this probably is a compromised approach. I think extending this cornice will make it more harmonious and complete and I can accept that and live with that. But I'm very disappointed in the way this whole thing was handled. I don't like the metal. I don't think it meets the criteria. But I really feel as though I'm ready to accept a compromise on both parts and that this proposal would do that. So I'm willing to accept it. Carter: I'd also like to point out on page 2 of our packet at the bottom paragraph it says the site treatment and landscaping BAR criteria should also be considered along with the building design criteria. And that apparently is the argument for the tree replacement, and I think it would have been helpful had we had some explanation of that in our packet to help us make the decision. For example, the building design criteria was in the staff report to the BAR and so we could reference it there. But now we're referred to the site treatment and landscaping criteria and we don't have that in our packet. And I'm going to support Steve's motion because I think that will improve the entire design of the site. I'm not happy with the metal wall, but I think the cornice all the way around the second floor will better meet the design criteria in my mind even better than if it had been just the dryvit without the cornice added. Duffie: I would like to agree with Steve and I think the mistake we made here was on both our sides and I think the burden must lie upon the City at this time because we do have people we've hired and educated to take the responsibility of this project. And to make the property owner bear the burden for this is not the right deal. I think we made the mistake and we need to correct our own mistake. I don't think we need to hold the developer for this mistake that was made by the City. Because what I heard here tonight was not the way they did my garage and my garage did not cost what this project did. So, I would like to approve what Steve said. Rants: The motion in front of the council is to allow the standing seam metal wall, to put the cornice around the entire building, to replace the plum trees with red leafed maples. All in favor of the motion say aye: (Hernandez, Duffie, Mullet, Carter responded). Those opposed: (Ekberg, Robertson). Now that that is done, I would like to say a couple of words. I think the City bears the responsibility at all times to see that the BAR design standards are adhered to. I do not believe there is a time when there should be deviation from it unless there is an excellent, excellent reason. Weather is not one of them. We're very proud of the things we accomplish in the Southcenter market area and the only reason -or one of the reasons -we're proud of it is because we do insist on design criteria to keep it a nice looking place. I'll offer you my assurance that staff will be hearing those same words from me and that we will try to make that happen. As far as educating each one of the architects or developers, that's not our job. Our job is to have them do what our BAR says. Now we spend a lot of staff time not only with the commercial developer, but with the individual home builder to see that these things happen. And I wish I could guarantee that 100 percent of the time it was going to happen. I can't. But we can certainly make an effort to have that happen. And that's the direction we will be going. Counselor, I believe you had some information you needed on Findings and Conclusions. Cohen: Yes, you can either adopt the report as the basis of the findings and conclusions or direct staff to prepare them. Rants: Council's pleasure. Robertson: I would think in this case there's no reason not to adopt the report as a basis for the findings and conclusions and that there's no reason to spend extra money of our City time, taxpayer money, or the property owner's time reviewing new findings and conclusions. I think we could adopt what's in the report as it is now as a basis and as such, I'll make a motion that we adopt the report prepared for us tonight and the material presented by the applicant and package as the findings and conclusions and basis for the decision. Duffie: Second. Mullet: Which report are you referring to? Just the summary report at the beginning or the whole thing, minutes and all? Robertson: The packet, the whole thing. Mullet: I would like to add specifically one item for review. In reviewing the BAR minutes of the six BAR people there, one liked the project as is, four said they wanted that cornice, and only one didn't mention it. Rants: And that material would be included in this packet. Mullet: Yes. Yes. Rants. So you're not making and amendment, you're just... 22 Mullet: I'm not adding anything. I would just like that specifically mentioned that the BAR did show a strong interest in extending that cornice all the way around the building. Rants: The motion is to accept both the council document and the appellant's document as Findings and Conclusions for your past motion. All in favor say aye: (unanimous vote). That is done. That business is behind us. End of transcript. Transcribed by: Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk 23