Hearing Examiner Phil Albrecht presided over a public design review hearing Oct. 31, 2025, on city file DSR‑2059, a proposed three‑story prekindergarten through eighth‑grade school and office building at 3700 East Mercer Way for the Herzl campus. City staff recommended approval with conditions; applicants asked the examiner to grant multiple deviations from Mercer Island Municipal Code (MICC) standards for parking, loading, tree replacement and landscape requirements.

The project team — led by architect Anjali Grant, arborist Ian Scott (Davie Resource Group) and landscape architect Karen Keast — described a three‑story building set back from East Mercer Way with classrooms on the lower two stories, a gym/multipurpose room and office space. Grant said the building steps down toward the north, uses muted colors and a recessed entry, and that a planned standing‑seam look would be achieved with similarly sized panels because standing‑seam cladding “does not meet structural requirements.”

The applicants requested relief on multiple design standards identified in the staff report. Key requests included: allowing about 52% compact parking stalls of 105 on‑site stalls and a 25% cooperative‑parking reduction with the adjacent synagogue property; a finding that an on‑street curb loading space is infeasible; alternative facade and roofline modulation techniques on facades not facing a public way; and authorization of fee‑in‑lieu or a site‑specific tree‑replacement plan in lieu of the MICC prescriptive 6:1 replacement ratio.

On parking, the applicant said the site will have 105 spaces (50 standard, 55 compact) and that the existing synagogue campus has 110 spaces; the design team said 50 newly striped standard stalls improve the current layout. Architect Anjali Grant noted that weekday peak demand for the combined uses is lower than total capacity and that the city engineer has reviewed the proposal and, as reflected in the staff report, concluded no adverse impact would result from the proposed cooperative parking reduction.

On trees, the project team said it plans to remove 82 regulated trees, 78 of which are identified in the record as exceptional or grove trees; the project arborist classified six of the trees as “priority 1” for immediate removal. The code’s default replacement standard (6:1) would require 441 replacement trees, which the applicant said is infeasible on the constrained site and would require roughly 57,600 square feet of replanting area. Arborist Ian Scott described using the i‑Tree modeling suite to estimate the site’s 20‑year environmental services at about $26,553 and said that dividing that total by a modeled per‑tree service value produced a proportional replacement proposal of 145 trees. Scott summarized that modelling approach as the applicant’s alternative to strict numeric replacement.

Landscape architect Karen Keast described extensive on‑site constraints (public and private utilities, easements and required 10‑foot offsets from utilities, fences and buildings) that limit where required trees can be planted and said that much of the adjacent right‑of‑way is also constrained. Keast said the team is proposing fee‑in‑lieu only where the city arborist determines on‑site replacement is infeasible and where replacement in the public right‑of‑way would provide greater community benefit, consistent with MICC language cited in the presentation.

Molly McGuire, senior planner for the City of Mercer Island, presented staff’s overview and recommendation. McGuire said the application is vested to code requirements in effect when it was submitted and that the city council’s earlier dissolution of the design commission vested quasi‑judicial design authority to the hearing examiner for this application. McGuire summarized that staff reviewed the project under applicable MICC chapters and that the staff report recommends approval with conditions; she also confirmed that a conditional use permit and a SEPA mitigated determination of nonsignificance are in the record as prior approvals relevant to the proposal.

During public comment, John Hall (resident and representative of “concerned neighbors”) said neighbors had retained counsel and raised two legal objections: (1) that the code discretion the applicant cites to reduce parking minimums applies to commercial zones and should not apply to adjoining residential‑zone properties, and (2) that current evidence, including photos and a lease with the French American School, shows a need for an additional 62 parking stalls under the conditional‑use permit. Hall said neighbors intend to pursue their legal position on appeal. The examiner acknowledged the comment and said he would review the record closely.

On procedural evidence matters, the examiner admitted prefiled exhibits 1–33 at the start of the hearing and later allowed a late attorney filing to be submitted to the record; the hearing examiner set a deadline (the following Thursday at 5 p.m., with potential extension if requested) for applicant and staff responses to that late filing. The examiner reiterated he may only consider evidence that is put into the record.

Applicant counsel and team offered closing clarifications: they stated the parcel for the school building is in the B (business) zone (not a residential parcel), reminded the record reflects the city engineer’s review, and argued that because the synagogue and the proposed day school will share the same Jewish calendar, peak parking conflicts with the current rental tenant (the French American School) would likely be reduced rather than increased.

No final decision was issued at the hearing. The examiner closed the hearing and said he would issue a written decision within 10 business days after the record is closed. City staff (Molly McGuire) was listed as the contact to receive the decision for interested parties.

Discussion points not resolved at the hearing that the examiner flagged for his decision included the parking‑minimum interpretation and the city engineer’s assessment, the proportionality and method for tree replacement versus the code’s 6:1 default, and the admissibility/substance of the late attorney filing.

Ending: The hearing was adjourned; parties were instructed how to submit further written comments to Molly McGuire and given the deadlines described above for responses and the examiner’s forthcoming written decision.