Development Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission reviews all land Christopher Wright, use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Project Oversight Manager Commission further serves as an advisory board to Email the City Council on land use actions requiring council approval (Level 5 review). Regular Members 2018 - Vacant The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2018 - Raymond Leong Development Commission members and City 2018 - Richard Sowa Council members from discussing the merit of 2019 - Michael Brennan specific land use development applications outside 2019 - Randolph Harrison of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, 2020 - Melvin Morgan however, may discuss any issue with the City's 2020 - Kevin Price Development Services Department. Written comments are also welcome. Alternate Members 2017 - TJ Ginthner Membership 2017 - Vacant The…
2:45:22 ↗Kyle Weeks, I'm with the developer. So we actually looked at that exact scenario that
2:45:28 ↗you're describing right now and you know in our work with the city we've actually
2:45:33 ↗looked at a number of those options focusing on that keeping that one three one
2:45:39 ↗in that middle section as it is, and then looking at the step at the
2:45:44 ↗third level on the corner units. And our feedback and what we agreed with was
2:45:49 ↗there's another part of the code that says that you need to have corner elements
2:45:55 ↗and then also break the building up into smaller sections. And the feedback that we
2:46:00 ↗got and that we agreed with is that the corner as it
2:46:06 ↗is has a feel of a separate building and it breaks
2:46:12 ↗that module up. So, and Brian you can elaborate too, but
2:46:18 ↗by trying to almost force that third floor change kind of
2:46:24 ↗departs from that code requirement. And we have plenty of options
2:46:29 ↗that we've looked at that show that, and we'd be happy to present them to
2:46:35 ↗you next meeting. But that's kind of how we arrived at these, I guess. Do
2:46:41 ↗you have anything else? I guess the only thing I would say with that is
2:46:47 ↗I think everything that's been discussed is actually all part of this process, which is
2:46:53 ↗why this has been kind of a challenge. I think Lucy really elucidated that there's
2:46:58 ↗five things. I was rereading the code this morning just to revisit the language and
2:47:03 ↗I believe that they're all equally quoted. I don't know if I'm wrong in the
2:47:07 ↗language, but I believe we're supposed to address all of them. It's not like one
2:47:12 ↗of those things is more important. Three part versus the corner element versus the building
2:47:16 ↗mass, they're all equal. There's nothing that says that if you meet two out of
2:47:21 ↗three, you're five, you're good. We don't get to choose that. that's part of that
2:47:26 ↗subjective challenge, right? To make all these things work. And I think our interpretation of
2:47:30 ↗it was that the original design was compliant, for example, on the corners, which I
2:47:34 ↗think is part of what Kyle's describing, because we feel like we've treated it as
2:47:38 ↗a corner element and we've interpreted it as a celebrated part of the building. And
2:47:43 ↗that element is going into part of a larger composition. but clearly it's also part
2:47:47 ↗of a discretionary interpretation as well. And I think Lucy's comments, particularly about this one
2:47:52 ↗being we're closer to more things coming together in one gesture, as that's totally valid.
2:47:57 ↗It's just a different way of looking at this. And so again, we presented these
2:48:02 ↗alternatives so that we could have a dialogue about it. But we asked the earlier
2:48:07 ↗question, which one do we actually like? And we still like the original, because we
2:48:12 ↗think it represents the best balance of that. I will say one thing in response
2:48:17 ↗to that, and I appreciate Lucy's comment and clarification about the process, right? If one
2:48:22 ↗of these requires an AAS just because technically the city feels like it's past that
2:48:27 ↗discretionary line, I mean, I can't remember exactly which project it was recently. I believe
2:48:31 ↗it was a city of Seattle design review board that literally told us we like
2:48:35 ↗what you're doing. I don't care. Write it up as a departure. We'll approve it.
2:48:39 ↗Cause doing it the way you, you know, the code is telling us we should
2:48:43 ↗tell you to do it is clearly gonna look bad. So I think we, I'm
2:48:47 ↗not saying that about this presenting, but I am saying that to you as a
2:48:50 ↗commission, it's like, I appreciate Lucy's comment that like, if you think it should just
2:48:55 ↗look a certain way, we'll come up with the paperwork to do that. And I
2:49:00 ↗think that's what this process should be doing. That's, that's what I think we ought
2:49:05 ↗to, we ought to do. And I, I would suggest to you, sir, that the
2:49:10 ↗applicant that, you know, the commission has been looking now at, uh, a
2:49:16 ↗series of projects in the CIP, multifamily projects. So I don't
2:49:21 ↗presume to speak for the whole commission, but we know what
2:49:27 ↗we've seen and we have had discussions about what we would
2:49:33 ↗have done differently if we had the experience and the detail
2:49:39 ↗that we needed. I think this is what we're seeing here. We've got
2:49:44 ↗other things that if we could do differently, we would have done differently. So we're
2:49:50 ↗kind of arriving at a consensus here that we're gonna try to convey to you
2:49:56 ↗about what we think would be the better modulation on this building.
2:50:02 ↗I'm just glad nobody's commented about the blue color. I actually brought that up,
2:50:08 ↗but it went right out the window. What was your comment? Well, let me
2:50:14 ↗think. I understand that you are going to use blue as an accent color,
2:50:20 ↗and I understand how really difficult it is to get into color, but if
2:50:25 ↗it's going to be flat blue like that, subdued blue, I
2:50:31 ↗think we've had some experience with bright blue that has
2:50:37 ↗been, you know, has drawn significant comment. - Sure. -
2:50:43 ↗So, that little piece right there looks fine to me. I wouldn't
2:50:49 ↗presume to speak for the poor. Sure. But we get into color. Yeah, it is
2:50:54 ↗extreme. It's subjective, but I would just echo that I think there's some bad precedent
2:51:00 ↗been set and there's strong reaction. So keeping that in mind and keeping those tones
2:51:06 ↗as natural as possible and as subdued as possible fit with the context of Issaquah,
2:51:11 ↗I think, would be... I can't comment. I think I would
2:51:17 ↗leave that to your discretion to satisfy those goals. It
2:51:23 ↗shouldn't look like a theme park or a food court.
2:51:29 ↗I think we agree with you on that. It should look like a residence. And
2:51:35 ↗you're happy with these colors? Well, you know, again, that's subjective. I don't like the
2:51:41 ↗blue. I would turn it down a little bit if I was -- but that's
2:51:47 ↗a tough conversation, you know. So the one thing I would add is that
2:51:53 ↗given the development commission's experience, as Mr. Harrison says, I
2:51:58 ↗think it's important that the public and the commission see
2:52:04 ↗the colors that will be used. So I think that
2:52:09 ↗if if there are adjustments that are going to be
2:52:15 ↗made to colors, that those need to be presented in a materials
2:52:21 ↗board. And there's not specific requirements in the Central Esquire standards on
2:52:27 ↗colors at this time. And so, But I do think it's important that the
2:52:33 ↗approval include the materials and colors so that there is not uncertainty about what
2:52:38 ↗that is going to end up being. - And as far as the blue,
2:52:44 ↗the last thing I'll say is that that was approved by the Development Commission,
2:52:50 ↗the one in question. But there is another building under construction that I went
2:52:56 ↗back and reread the entire packet and the recommendations that the DC made to
2:53:01 ↗the applicant on the colors used and the facade were absolutely not, are not
2:53:07 ↗present in the final project. So that's kind of the basis for our concern
2:53:13 ↗on this. Well, one brief note of clarity on that. For anyone that is interested,
2:53:18 ↗the actual -- we always do this in our construction documents, which are part of
2:53:22 ↗the building permit application, which ultimately is the approved set of documents. But our materials
2:53:26 ↗board does include the specific references. All of our page tips that we show you
2:53:29 ↗are matched to a specific manufacturer. So not just so we can replicate it, which
2:53:33 ↗is one of the primary reasons, but also just to declare it. We're not showing
2:53:37 ↗you just the first blush of what's here. We'll come up with something that looks
2:53:41 ↗better when we get out there. One more specific question just to follow up. Is
2:53:46 ↗the black the window color? It's the railings, I believe. Okay. Then what is the
2:53:52 ↗window color? White? Yeah, white, typical white vinyl. Even at the podium level, the
2:53:58 ↗lower level? Those are black. Apologies. We're going with a bronze or black, I can't
2:54:03 ↗remember which one, for this project, level storefront at the main lobby, and we'll be
2:54:09 ↗transitioning to a matching color at the actual lofts themselves. Sorry, we didn't talk about
2:54:15 ↗that at that granular level, but that's what we're doing. Okay. And the black, the
2:54:21 ↗brick that we saw in the plans as being a reddish brick would actually be
2:54:25 ↗the black brick shown here? Is that what this is? These ones obviously are a
2:54:29 ↗little more difficult, but that's the actual sample, yeah, from Mutual Materials. Okay. I guess
2:54:34 ↗one of the thoughts I had about the blank walls, we do hear a lot
2:54:38 ↗about just putting on a vegetated screen on it as a way to break it
2:54:42 ↗up, and it seems to me that you certainly have an opportunity to use some
2:54:47 ↗different color changes in the brick itself to in case all the vegetation dies
2:54:52 ↗or something like that fairly simply in the wall itself instead of just having one
2:54:58 ↗large black wall okay can i comment on that real quick because i had a
2:55:04 ↗similar thought about the blank walls and there was a discussion in your presentation about,
2:55:08 ↗you know, we might do this or that. I think when you come back, we
2:55:13 ↗would like to, I'd like to see specifics on what exactly your treatment will be,
2:55:17 ↗whether it's changing the color of the materials, putting a window in, as you suggested,
2:55:22 ↗down in the lobby. You had one example, I think it was on the south
2:55:26 ↗side, that you just showed some vegetation planted in front of it, which wouldn't meet
2:55:30 ↗the requirements. So I think More specifics, I think, when we come back on this
2:55:35 ↗about how those particular blank walls will be treated would be helpful. So maybe I
2:55:39 ↗can follow up on that briefly. So this wall, those comments make some sense. And
2:55:44 ↗we can look with the team at what we're doing there. This particular location, I
2:55:48 ↗think we were limited. And adding fenestration here made some sense. The back portion of
2:55:53 ↗this wall was actually screening parking. So we felt like adding a window so you
2:55:58 ↗could look at the parking was not desirable. and that a green screen and giving
2:56:02 ↗some, you know, giving a way to kind of dress up that, that portion of
2:56:06 ↗the building, particularly because there's gonna be a pedestrian, that's where the portion of the
2:56:10 ↗building with the pedestrian easement goes past it. So something that'll grow into a vegetarian
2:56:13 ↗area over time would be a nicer touch in that case. I guess, do you,
2:56:17 ↗does the board have comments on this being successful or not as successful at least
2:56:21 ↗just so that we're not changing something that you liked in the first. - I
2:56:25 ↗like the window. I like that. I'll just break that up. Yeah. - Okay. -
2:56:29 ↗I think I'm the most concerned about the south one. - Sure, yeah. - It's
2:56:35 ↗coming up seventh, that could end up being very visible. - Okay. - And there
2:56:40 ↗were also, and I'm not asking, we'll also be addressing the blank walls around the
2:56:46 ↗community spaces. So there was kind of a weather protection and other elements that were
2:56:51 ↗being carried out from the middle entry door along that wall. Thank you. The concrete
2:56:57 ↗wall, To the left is to the parking structure and it has some
2:57:03 ↗additional design requirements in the standards. So I completely agree that we really
2:57:08 ↗wanted to get the, It wasn't that we hadn't been working with the applicant, but
2:57:14 ↗we really wanted to hear a bit more from you before we took it further
2:57:20 ↗to ensure that we folded that and any public comments into the response before trying
2:57:26 ↗to finalize that. - I do have a question. On the board there, does it
2:57:32 ↗show what the band would be like across the top of the building, what that
2:57:38 ↗material is? that wraps around the corner element. - This part? - Yeah. - Yeah,
2:57:42 ↗that's the metal siding. - Which one is? - It's specifically done with subtler patterns
2:57:47 ↗and then it blends a little more monolectrically. - Oh, it's that large piece then.
2:57:51 ↗Oh, okay. - Yeah, this is the exact profile so it's the wider point. -
2:57:55 ↗I'm sorry, they want you to. - Do you have to go back to the
2:57:59 ↗microphone? - Okay. - Flashing light over there. - Apologies. - Okay, so the, actually
2:58:03 ↗I'll go back to the material board for a second. I don't
2:58:09 ↗have the profile up, there it is. So it's specifically the gray
2:58:15 ↗sheet metal panel there with the interlocking. - Great, thank you. Different
2:58:20 ↗kind of question. Would it be possible to the, I like Mr.
2:58:26 ↗Kapler's comment about the stone pavers and in condition seven it says
2:58:32 ↗such as decorative colored concrete or stone pavers. or the shared use route.
2:58:38 ↗Could we say, actually change that to say, but not stone pavers? - I think
2:58:43 ↗we would just take out pavers. - Yeah. - So pavers are one of, I
2:58:48 ↗think the condition was based on the options that the code identifies. - Yeah, yeah,
2:58:54 ↗exactly. - And I-- - That'd be great, thank you. - Further comments? - I
2:58:59 ↗have one question, I guess, in mind for the, I guess the architect perhaps. Is
2:59:04 ↗there ability to add more electric charging stations, car charging stations if needed, if there's
2:59:10 ↗enough demand down the road. It looked like there's more stalls there, is it? -
2:59:14 ↗There's, I think there's two ways to address that. - And let me back up.
2:59:19 ↗I'm not saying I think that we would tell you you have to. - Sure.
2:59:24 ↗- I'm just asking for down the road. - Yeah. There's kind of two main
2:59:29 ↗ways that we've approached that in the past. I mean, at this point, just so
2:59:33 ↗everybody knows, we're up against the maximum that we get credit for as far as
2:59:37 ↗parking. So there is no benefit to us from a zoning code compliance standpoint to
2:59:41 ↗pursue that, in case anybody's wondering. So the... The most expensive and I think infrastructure
2:59:46 ↗component path would be to provide the high capacity chargers, which are the higher voltage,
2:59:51 ↗the 220 volt. Those require a lot more planning and infrastructure. And so that would
2:59:56 ↗be probably a more substantial upcharge to the project because they have to increase the
3:00:00 ↗size of your service gear in order to do that. More often than not, especially
3:00:05 ↗under the current Washington State Energy Code, we're required to plan for that future infrastructure,
3:00:09 ↗but that can be line voltage, just a standard plug jack, which can be mounted
3:00:13 ↗and easily routed and it operates at the lower voltage, which is obviously a lesser
3:00:17 ↗charge time. but it still can accommodate it. So I think the short answer is
3:00:22 ↗we would probably, if the owners are willing to add in the additional gear now,
3:00:27 ↗they certainly could and then balance that cost against the service capacity left in the
3:00:32 ↗gear or just plan for it as plug valves and it's going to be a
3:00:37 ↗Chevy Volt plugging in there instead of a Tesla. Thank you. I had one more
3:00:43 ↗question about the building. I'm sorry. Well, it's sort of a related question. What is
3:00:48 ↗the... the the corner on the lower level what is that space is that a
3:00:54 ↗unit or is that the lobby that's um this is the the main lobby itself
3:00:59 ↗that's the main lobby and then there's another entrance a residential entrance about halfway down
3:01:05 ↗the building correct okay and then there was some commentary about is that clearly marked
3:01:11 ↗and differentiated from the other residential units and I think, could you just speak a
3:01:16 ↗little more to that? Sure, yeah, I think it's actually, it's a good point because
3:01:20 ↗I think from an operation standpoint, we see in plan, this is the size of
3:01:24 ↗that northern lobby. And you can see that even a portion of it's going to
3:01:28 ↗be apportioned to leasing. It's primarily main reception lobby. This is definitely the front door
3:01:32 ↗to the project. Everything from, you know, the pizza guy to your friends coming over,
3:01:37 ↗everything like this is the point of the address. We see this as more of
3:01:41 ↗a secondary convenience entry. Like if I have a call box, where do my friends
3:01:45 ↗go to buzz me? They're going here. I don't think we're going to necessarily put
3:01:50 ↗up an access control point that allows people to be ambiguously directed. That's one of
3:01:54 ↗the challenges we find designing these buttons. I know it's there. I live here. Or
3:01:59 ↗I have my bike. Exactly. It's definitely a convenience access. Okay. And then... How do
3:02:04 ↗garbage and recycling then leave the building? Thank you. Yeah, we talked about that earlier.
3:02:09 ↗We've dedicated both access points. Obviously, it's coming in off the side. The service vehicles
3:02:14 ↗will park here. The code requires that we have two dedicated load zones. I think
3:02:20 ↗it's 10 by 30 or 10 by 25, I think, each. Those are both planned
3:02:25 ↗here. There's a service area for unloading your vehicles. That includes the garbage trucks. Our
3:02:31 ↗waste facility is located here and it's serviced by chutes within the building. Okay. So
3:02:37 ↗basically the garbage truck can come in out of the way of everybody, do your
3:02:43 ↗business and pull out. And the structure has already been sized to accommodate those vehicles
3:02:49 ↗passing underneath it. All right. Thank you. So are there other comments, other questions, other
3:02:55 ↗issues that you would like addressed at the next meeting?
3:03:04 ↗I guess I want to comment. I guess one comment is I see a lot
3:03:09 ↗of great things in this project. And I appreciate the work the staff and the
3:03:14 ↗applicant have done in it in terms of getting some ground floor, loft units right
3:03:18 ↗at the street. We're getting some common area at the street. We're getting two different
3:03:23 ↗rooftop decks, a lower and an upper one. We're getting a lot more balconies than
3:03:28 ↗we saw in the Atlas project. There's a lot of positives we're seeing in this
3:03:34 ↗project in terms of what we've seen in the past. - I agree with that
3:03:39 ↗too. We heard a number of speakers this evening expressing concern about the rate of
3:03:44 ↗growth in the city and the nature of the development that was happening. They were
3:03:49 ↗asking the commission to stop this project, wait until Atlas filled up, et cetera. That's
3:03:55 ↗not something that's within our authority to do. We have an obligation to review projects
3:03:59 ↗as they're coming forward. The council though has heard that voice pretty loudly and they
3:04:04 ↗have a moratorium in place that stopped many projects that hadn't made it into the
3:04:09 ↗formal application process yet. So there is a conversation, a community-wide conversation that will be
3:04:14 ↗held through the City Council to talk about growth in the city and how that
3:04:19 ↗happens and whether modifications to the Central Issaquah Plan are appropriate. They've already signaled an
3:04:24 ↗interest in making some adjustments to that. So I think we just, I just want
3:04:29 ↗to be clear with the people who are still here and may be still watching
3:04:34 ↗that we don't have the authority just to say stop a project that has essentially
3:04:39 ↗a legal right to proceed. So this project is one of those that has a
3:04:44 ↗right to proceed. So we have to go through the processes, was explained by staff
3:04:49 ↗at the beginning, to do the review, ensure it complies with the city and apply
3:04:54 ↗our discretion where it's allowed and then make a decision. Obviously we weren't there tonight,
3:04:59 ↗but it will be coming back to us within a month if the work can
3:05:04 ↗be completed by then for further consideration. So I thought just to be clear about
3:05:10 ↗the process as we move forward and what is within our authority and those things
3:05:15 ↗that are not within our purview. - One thing I would add is
3:05:21 ↗if you're not already a party of record and you're interested in
3:05:27 ↗getting the responses to the comments this evening, please add your contact
3:05:33 ↗information to the sign-in sheet so we can email answers to these
3:05:39 ↗questions to you. - So it sounds like we've exhausted all our
3:05:45 ↗questions. I want to thank the public. There was a lot of interest, and I
3:05:50 ↗think that's really awesome. I think it was really great for the public to come
3:05:55 ↗out and to voice their concerns and their opinions. They were heard, their notes taken,
3:06:00 ↗and it's just going to make it a better project, so I appreciate that your
3:06:05 ↗efforts and your willingness to apologize for not having chairs. Hopefully next time we'll be
3:06:11 ↗able to have a key to the door and get some chairs for people. So
3:06:17 ↗I do apologize for that. Thanks for the city. You did a great job. That
3:06:22 ↗was really good. And the applicant, great job in explaining what was going on. So
3:06:28 ↗at this point, I think I will call the meeting concluded.
Approved minutes
The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.