Development Commission · Wednesday, September 3, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 06, 2025

packet pp.5–9

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Wednesday, August 6, 2025

4. PUBLIC HEARING

Site Development Permit Application for Park Place Townhomes, Quasi-Judicial

Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Application No.: SDP24-00012 Location: 22011 SE 51st ST. Parcel:2124069003 Applicant: Aron Golden, KB Home Description: Site Development Permit Public Hearing Order: · packet pp.11–469

Topics: Land UseParks

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

STAFF REPORT Site Development Permit – Level 4 File No PRJ24-00013 /SDP24-00012 September 3, 2025

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Special Meeting Date Selection

Action · Christen Leeson, Planning Manager · packet pp.471

Open packet at p.471 ↗

Staff report:

Development Commission 2025 Schedule (subject to change)

6. REPORTS

City Council Update

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

▶ Watch from 55:30

1310 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ Good evening and welcome.

0:25 ↗ I would like to call the September 3rd

0:27 ↗ City of Isiqua Development Commission

0:29 ↗ meeting to order at 6:30

0:32 ↗ p.m. As a reminder, we have a remote

0:34 ↗ aspect to our meetings. This means both

0:36 ↗ staff and members of the public may be

0:38 ↗ participating in the meeting remotely

0:40 ↗ via WebEx. For those attending remotely,

0:42 ↗ if you have questions or issues, please

0:44 ↗ send the host a chat message or email

0:47 ↗ staff at emilyme

0:51 ↗ isquawwah.gov.

0:55 ↗ Excused absence for this meeting is

0:57 ↗ Commissioner Sanford.

1:00 ↗ Our first item of business is to take

1:02 ↗ action on meeting minutes for August

1:03 ↗ 6th 2025.

1:06 ↗ Has everyone had an opportunity to

1:07 ↗ review the minutes.

1:10 ↗ Are there any corrections to the August

1:12 ↗ 6th minutes provided in the agenda

1:14 ↗ packet?

1:16 ↗ Hearing none, the minutes are approved

1:17 ↗ as submitted.

1:20 ↗ Next, I would like to open the floor for

1:22 ↗ any members of the public in person or

1:24 ↗ virtually who would like to make a

1:25 ↗ general comment, not about the Parkplace

1:27 ↗ Town Homes project, but on general

1:29 ↗ topics. There will be an opportunity

1:31 ↗ later in the meeting for those who would

1:32 ↗ like to comment about the projects on

1:34 ↗ tonight's agenda.

1:36 ↗ Amanda, has anyone signed up to make

1:38 ↗ general public comments?

1:40 ↗ >> No, I do not show any.

1:42 ↗ >> Okay,

1:47 ↗ then we'll move on to the public

1:48 ↗ hearing.

1:50 ↗ The order of operations for this hearing

1:51 ↗ will be as follows. First, the purpose

1:54 ↗ of the public hearing followed by our

1:56 ↗ appearance of fairness disclosures. Then

1:59 ↗ we'll open the open the public hearing

2:01 ↗ with a staff presentation followed by an

2:04 ↗ applicant presentation. Then open the

2:06 ↗ floor for public comment. Opportunity

2:08 ↗ for rebuttal by applicant then staff.

2:11 ↗ Close public hearing. Commission

2:12 ↗ deliberation will then be followed by

2:14 ↗ commission action including motions,

2:17 ↗ amendments, discussion, and vote. Then

2:19 ↗ we will conclude the agenda items on the

2:21 ↗ quasi judicial permit. If for any reason

2:24 ↗ the hearing cannot be completed this

2:26 ↗ evening, it may be continued to a

2:28 ↗ specific date.

2:29 ↗ This is the formal public hearing for

2:31 ↗ the proposed site development permit for

2:33 ↗ Parkplace Town Homes. The purpose of

2:36 ↗ this hearing is to solicit relevant

2:38 ↗ public comment and facilitate the

2:39 ↗ review, discussion, and decision on the

2:42 ↗ application by the development

2:43 ↗ commission. This is a quasi quasi

2:46 ↗ judicial hearing. Kristen, please

2:48 ↗ proceed with our appearance of fairness

2:50 ↗ disclosures.

2:56 ↗ Good evening. I'm Kristen Leon, planning

2:58 ↗ manager, and start with appearance of

3:00 ↗ fairness.

3:06 ↗ So under the quasi jud quasi judicial

3:10 ↗ decisions context this requires

3:12 ↗ proceedings to be fair in fact and

3:13 ↗ appearance. Exparte contexts are

3:16 ↗ prohibited.

3:17 ↗ Um should a disinterested person knowing

3:20 ↗ the totality of a decision maker's

3:22 ↗ personal interest in a matter be

3:23 ↗ reasonably justified in thinking that

3:26 ↗ partially

3:28 ↗ in thinking that partially the

3:29 ↗ partiality may exist. Sorry. and

3:31 ↗ decision makers who have personal

3:32 ↗ interest, prejudgment of issues or

3:34 ↗ partiality are disqualified from the

3:36 ↗ proceedings.

3:41 ↗ So for the commissioners with regards to

3:44 ↗ this proceeding, do you have a personal

3:46 ↗ interest financial or otherwise in the

3:47 ↗ outcome?

3:52 ↗ Does your employer have an interest

3:54 ↗ financial or otherwise in the outcome?

3:57 ↗ Do you have any familial, social, or

3:59 ↗ business relationships or connections

4:01 ↗ with any of the parties or nonparties

4:03 ↗ who have an interest in the outcome?

4:05 ↗ Do you have any special knowledge about

4:07 ↗ the substantive or the merits of this

4:09 ↗ proceeding which could would or could

4:12 ↗ cause you to prejudge the outcome?

4:20 ↗ Will there be any prospective employment

4:22 ↗ for you or your family as a result of

4:24 ↗ this decision?

4:27 ↗ Do you own or control property within

4:28 ↗ 300 ft of the subject property?

4:32 ↗ And have you had any exparte

4:33 ↗ communications regarding this project?

4:38 ↗ Do you believe you can sit and hear this

4:40 ↗ matter fairly and impartially both as to

4:42 ↗ the respective positions of the

4:44 ↗ proponents and the opponents of this

4:46 ↗ matter?

4:49 ↗ Audience. Does anyone in the audience

4:52 ↗ and or in attendance wish to challenge

4:53 ↗ the participation of any commissioner

4:55 ↗ based on the appearance of fairness

4:57 ↗ doctrine?

4:59 ↗ No. See none.

5:06 ↗ Thank you. Now I open the public hearing

5:08 ↗ at 6:35 p.m. First, we'll proceed with

5:12 ↗ the staff's presentation. Kristen, I'll

5:14 ↗ need to swear you in. Please state your

5:16 ↗ name and position with the city for the

5:18 ↗ record. Kristen Lisa and planning

5:20 ↗ manager.

5:21 ↗ >> Do you swear by oath or affirmation that

5:22 ↗ the testimony you are about to provide

5:24 ↗ is true?

5:25 ↗ >> I do.

5:26 ↗ >> Thank you. Please proceed. Okay. So,

5:28 ↗ tonight we're talking about the

5:29 ↗ ParkPlace site development permit.

5:33 ↗ It is located in central Isiqua at 22011

5:36 ↗ Southeast 51st Street circled here

5:39 ↗ outlined in red right here. Um, as I

5:41 ↗ mentioned, it's in the central Isiqua

5:43 ↗ neighborhood. The zoning is mixed

5:44 ↗ central Isiqua and the land use

5:46 ↗ designation is mixed use.

5:50 ↗ The applicant is proposing 15 uh

5:53 ↗ three-story buildings with 74 units,

5:57 ↗ 148 parking spaces, and you'll see the

5:59 ↗ asterric, which I will talk about later.

6:01 ↗ Uh frontage improvements along uh 220th

6:05 ↗ and uh 51st. and primary access will be

6:09 ↗ off of Southeast 51st Street onto

6:12 ↗ different uh roads, interior roads and

6:15 ↗ alleys.

6:18 ↗ So, the first thing we're going to talk

6:19 ↗ about is that this actually requires

6:20 ↗ affordable housing. I think it's one of

6:22 ↗ the first that you all have seen. It

6:24 ↗ requires affordable housing because it

6:26 ↗ sits in the mixeduse central isqua zone.

6:28 ↗ So they are required to

6:31 ↗ designate either 7.5% of their units at

6:35 ↗ 80% AMI and that's for sale or ownership

6:39 ↗ units or 5% of their units at 70% area

6:43 ↗ median income and the applicant has

6:45 ↗ chosen to do the option two 5% at 70%

6:49 ↗ AMI which means four units will be

6:51 ↗ provided at that affordability level.

6:56 ↗ So site and building design. The

6:57 ↗ buildings are oriented towards adjacent

6:59 ↗ transportation facilities, sidewalks,

7:01 ↗ streets and trails. Each unit has its

7:04 ↗ own entry which is facing the sidewalk

7:06 ↗ and each entry has its own weather

7:07 ↗ protection. No blank wall extends longer

7:10 ↗ than 30 ft and the design elements are

7:13 ↗ repeated and modulations and changes in

7:15 ↗ materials and window colors, window

7:17 ↗ patterns and colors are provided.

7:21 ↗ Those are general standards. We'll get

7:22 ↗ into centralist standards in a few

7:24 ↗ minutes.

7:26 ↗ parking. They are allowed to provide two

7:29 ↗ spaces per unit

7:31 ↗ which would be 148 spaces. That's the

7:33 ↗ maximum. Minimum is 75 spaces per unit.

7:36 ↗ They are proposing to do 148 per unit.

7:38 ↗ They're also prop um which they're also

7:40 ↗ proposing three guest spaces which

7:43 ↗ totals 151 spaces. All spaces proposed

7:46 ↗ are EV supply equipment provided or

7:49 ↗ EVSSE ready. And um

7:54 ↗ I don't know why I put that in there

7:55 ↗ again. However, what we've what we've

7:58 ↗ stated um is that each one has two

7:59 ↗ units. They're proposing two for each

8:00 ↗ unit. Um the three guest spaces would

8:03 ↗ need to be removed because that way

8:05 ↗ because they're exceeding. So that is a

8:07 ↗ condition on the site development permit

8:10 ↗ for motorcycle and scooter. They're

8:12 ↗ required to u provide two spaces for

8:14 ↗ motorcycle/cooter

8:16 ↗ and they're required and they're

8:17 ↗ proposing four spaces on the site. Um

8:20 ↗ two I can't remember where two are at

8:23 ↗ the

8:25 ↗ north end of the property and two at the

8:27 ↗ south end of the property.

8:31 ↗ So landscaping and trees for trees they

8:34 ↗ must retain 25% of the existing trees

8:37 ↗ and they're proposing to retain 28%.

8:40 ↗ Uh 266 total caliber inches are required

8:44 ↗ and they're proposing 300 caliber in

8:47 ↗ 28% of the canopy is is required to be

8:51 ↗ maintained. That's 57,691

8:53 ↗ ft. They're proposing 313 859 square f

8:56 ↗ feet proposed and that's within a

8:58 ↗ 20-year time frame what it will what

8:59 ↗ it'll be be once those trees have grown.

9:02 ↗ This is through both the restoration and

9:03 ↗ the landscape area as well. For

9:06 ↗ landscaping, they must contain 30% of

9:08 ↗ the native shrubs and ground covers. 10%

9:11 ↗ of plants must attract pollinator

9:12 ↗ species and no more than 50%

9:15 ↗ uh may be of one species. My note came

9:17 ↗ off. I don't know where it went, but it

9:19 ↗ said um we are not sure that they right

9:22 ↗ now comply with the landscaping,

9:24 ↗ but this is actually addressed when they

9:27 ↗ submit their landscape permit. So, we

9:29 ↗ will confirm that it complies at that

9:31 ↗ time. They definitely have the capacity

9:33 ↗ to comply.

9:36 ↗ Community and amenity spaces, they're

9:39 ↗ required to require to provide 100

9:42 ↗ square ft of common outdoor amenity

9:45 ↗ space per unit. So that would be 7,400

9:47 ↗ square f feet for this site. They are

9:50 ↗ provide they are required to provide 400

9:52 ↗ square ft of additional common amenity

9:55 ↗ space and they are required to provide

9:58 ↗ 48 square ft of private outdoor amenity

10:00 ↗ space per unit which would be 3552

10:03 ↗ ft. As you can see they are complying

10:05 ↗ with the first two. They are exceeding

10:07 ↗ the last one the private outdoor amenity

10:09 ↗ space. Um, so they comply and then they

10:12 ↗ are also proposing uh on-site

10:14 ↗ wayfinding.

10:17 ↗ Lighting just not much to say right now.

10:20 ↗ Um, it's usually reviewed with

10:22 ↗ construction and permitting and the

10:25 ↗ lighting is they do have lighting

10:26 ↗ proposed along Southeast 58th Street,

10:29 ↗ Southeast 51st Street and 220th Avenue

10:32 ↗ Southeast and throughout the

10:33 ↗ development. They are in zone three

10:36 ↗ where lighting is generally desired for

10:38 ↗ safety, security, and/or convenience.

10:40 ↗ But this again will be reviewed with the

10:42 ↗ construction permits.

10:46 ↗ They are located, as I've mentioned

10:48 ↗ several times, in central Isiqua, but

10:50 ↗ they are located in traditional Isiqua,

10:53 ↗ in which case you need to pick a style

10:54 ↗ of architecture that is allowed in that

10:56 ↗ area, and they have chosen craftsman

10:58 ↗ style.

11:02 ↗ Here are some of the standards that are

11:03 ↗ required. They are required. They're

11:04 ↗ massing. They have to have simple

11:06 ↗ block-like forms that are laid out in a

11:08 ↗ rect

11:10 ↗ rectal linear or bar-shaped footprint.

11:12 ↗ They are proposing simple block-like

11:14 ↗ forms and a rectangular layout.

11:16 ↗ Rectalinear layout. Pitched roofs uh

11:19 ↗ need to emphasize horizontality

11:21 ↗ um that are capped by sloped overhanging

11:24 ↗ roofs. They're proposing gabled roofs at

11:26 ↗ 412 with um eaves that project at least

11:30 ↗ 18 in out.

11:32 ↗ They are not to exceed four floors and

11:34 ↗ cannot expand more than 100 ft in

11:38 ↗ length. The buildings cannot so all the

11:40 ↗ buildings are three stories so under

11:42 ↗ floor floors and are less than 150 ft in

11:45 ↗ length or width. The walls um are two

11:50 ↗ they must have two or three parts of

11:52 ↗ natural materials applied with a

11:54 ↗ horizontal emphasis and they are

11:56 ↗ proposing to have facades that include

11:58 ↗ wood fash wood fascia shake sighting

12:01 ↗ board and batten sighting and stone

12:03 ↗ veneer. So you'll notice I listed four.

12:06 ↗ So um that was brought up earlier today

12:08 ↗ in an email and so you all may discuss

12:10 ↗ that when it comes up.

12:15 ↗ uh also require doors. They have to have

12:18 ↗ a combination of natural hardwood such

12:19 ↗ as oak, maple, walnut, and decorative

12:21 ↗ glass comp. They must complement the

12:23 ↗ windows and other wall material. And

12:26 ↗ they are proposing comp composite doors

12:28 ↗ that look like um wood and they have

12:32 ↗ wide wood casings on the outside. So

12:34 ↗ staff believes that this meets the

12:35 ↗ intent of the chapter. Windows which

12:39 ↗ were not discussed in the staff report

12:41 ↗ must be woodframed with divided lights

12:43 ↗ on vertical with vertical emphasis

12:45 ↗ organized predominantly in groups of two

12:47 ↗ or three. So they do have divided

12:50 ↗ windows that are framed in 4 in to 6 in

12:52 ↗ trim wood trim. They are predominantly

12:55 ↗ in groups of two and three and there are

12:56 ↗ some single windows but those are

12:58 ↗ acceptable roofs. The materials must not

13:01 ↗ be dominant in they must not be a

13:02 ↗ dominant characteristic. Colors must

13:05 ↗ complement facade colors. Must be

13:07 ↗ constructed of shingles with subtle

13:09 ↗ textures. They are proposing composite

13:11 ↗ shingles proposing colors similar to

13:13 ↗ what is on the shutters and the doors.

13:18 ↗ SE review was done. There was one

13:20 ↗ comment that was received. Um it was

13:22 ↗ from King County Parks. They stated that

13:25 ↗ any access because this property is

13:27 ↗ adjacent to the um East Lakes Samus

13:30 ↗ Trail. said that any access or use of

13:32 ↗ the trail um for project purposes

13:34 ↗ requires prior written authorization and

13:36 ↗ potentially a special use per from King

13:39 ↗ County and the trail corridor may not be

13:41 ↗ used for construction, staging or

13:44 ↗ storage. And staff responded that this

13:46 ↗ information has been forwarded to the

13:48 ↗ applicant and it is the responsibility

13:49 ↗ of the applicant to obtain permits if

13:51 ↗ they intend to use the trail at all.

13:56 ↗ One more thing, they did get some

13:57 ↗ deviations from street standards. So

14:00 ↗ most of them are within the private

14:02 ↗ roads and alleys that they are being

14:05 ↗ allowed to remove vertical curbs. Remove

14:07 ↗ sidewalk on one or both sides. These are

14:09 ↗ typically in alleys and run right up

14:11 ↗ against um garages. They reduce the

14:14 ↗ landscape width from 5t to 4 feet. There

14:17 ↗ are some um it narrows some roadways to

14:19 ↗ include a combination of asphalt and

14:21 ↗ concrete ribbons and they are proposing

14:24 ↗ a um the crown roadway that we would

14:27 ↗ typically require is being revised to an

14:29 ↗ inverted crown roadway and then on

14:31 ↗ public streets no on street parking is

14:34 ↗ being required on 220th Avenue

14:36 ↗ Southeast.

14:40 ↗ That's the project. Um but your proposed

14:42 ↗ your possible actions are to approve as

14:44 ↗ proposed, approve with revised and or

14:47 ↗ additional conditions or deny it.

14:51 ↗ And I have a motion if you need it. Um

14:55 ↗ and that is all I have tonight.

14:59 ↗ Thank you. Are there any questions from

15:00 ↗ the commission on the staff's

15:01 ↗ presentation?

15:06 ↗ Thank you.

15:08 ↗ Now we'll proceed with the applicant's

15:09 ↗ presentation.

15:15 ↗ Uh, you want to click it?

15:29 ↗ Let's get wet.

15:46 ↗ Is that it?

15:48 ↗ >> I'll I'll need to swear you in. Of

15:50 ↗ >> course.

15:51 ↗ >> Please state your name for the record.

15:53 ↗ >> Aaron Golden.

15:54 ↗ >> Do you swear by oath or affirmation that

15:56 ↗ the testimony you are about to provide

15:58 ↗ is true?

15:59 ↗ >> I do.

16:00 ↗ >> Thank you. Please proceed.

16:01 ↗ >> Okay. My name is Aaron Golden. I work

16:02 ↗ for KB Home and I'd like to thank the

16:06 ↗ commissioners for their time tonight,

16:08 ↗ staff for preparing the staff report and

16:10 ↗ for the review of the site development

16:13 ↗ permit application of the last year. Um,

16:16 ↗ I'll keep this brief, but we're

16:18 ↗ particularly excited about this project

16:20 ↗ because it's a redevelopment of an

16:22 ↗ existing office building site. So, it's

16:25 ↗ a site that's completely impervious

16:28 ↗ area. It's an asphalt parking lot and an

16:31 ↗ office building. We'd remove the office

16:33 ↗ building, build 76 much needed housing

16:37 ↗ units in town houses and carriages, and

16:40 ↗ then take about over an acre of the site

16:45 ↗ and and and turn it into the uh stream

16:48 ↗ and wetland mitigation area. So again,

16:50 ↗ it's asphalt parking lot and building

16:52 ↗ that's over an acre now becoming a

16:54 ↗ wetland mitigation area. Um towards the

16:58 ↗ center of the site, I'm just going to

16:59 ↗ cover a few things that I think are of

17:01 ↗ note about the project.

17:04 ↗ There's a sizable open space in the east

17:07 ↗ center of the site. Uh we view it as

17:09 ↗ living room of the project. I imagine

17:11 ↗ community members gathering there.

17:13 ↗ There's a tot lot. There's pavers, grass

17:16 ↗ areas, picnic tables, what have you. uh

17:18 ↗ but it's adjacent to this mitigation

17:20 ↗ area and adjacent to this uh pathway,

17:24 ↗ this soft surface pathway which connects

17:26 ↗ offsite. So it feels much larger to a

17:29 ↗ resident to their experience. There's

17:32 ↗ also a smaller open space area in the

17:34 ↗ south end of the site uh through the

17:37 ↗ site and around the site. There are a

17:39 ↗ lot of pedestrian walkways uh that take

17:42 ↗ pedestrians out of the the roadway

17:44 ↗ travel lanes. Um, and then lastly, uh,

17:48 ↗ Kristen mentioned the furniture

17:49 ↗ improvements. On 51st and 220th,

17:53 ↗ uh, we'll be installing a a protected

17:55 ↗ bike lane and a wider new sidewalk.

17:59 ↗ Um, our team is here and online. So,

18:03 ↗ we've got our architect and civil

18:06 ↗ engineer here in person and then we have

18:08 ↗ our our biologist and traffic engineer

18:10 ↗ available remotely if there are

18:13 ↗ questions.

18:14 ↗ Thank you.

18:17 ↗ Any questions from the commission?

18:22 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

18:23 ↗ >> You're welcome.

18:26 ↗ >> Now we'll move to the public comment

18:27 ↗ portion of the hearing.

18:29 ↗ Miss Jackson, has anyone signed up to

18:31 ↗ comment on this topic?

18:34 ↗ >> No, they have not.

18:35 ↗ >> Okay. Seeing no one in person, we will

18:38 ↗ continue.

18:49 ↗ Commissioners, are there any objections

18:50 ↗ to closing the public hearing?

18:55 ↗ Hearing no objections, I close the

18:56 ↗ public hearing at 6:49 p.m.

19:01 ↗ Now, it's time to move into the

19:02 ↗ deliberation portion of the meeting. But

19:05 ↗ first, we need to make a motion. Is

19:06 ↗ there a motion on the item before the

19:08 ↗ commission?

19:16 ↗ You run it up. Okay. Page 27.

19:20 ↗ Yeah. Page 26.

19:35 ↗ I'm making it bigger. I'm getting there.

19:37 ↗ There we go.

19:42 ↗ Um, I move that the development

19:44 ↗ commission approve the site development

19:46 ↗ permit for ParkPlace Town Homes SP SDP

19:51 ↗ 2024-000012

19:54 ↗ as described and as evaluated in the

19:57 ↗ staff report dated September 3rd, 2025

20:02 ↗ exhibits A through M subject to

20:05 ↗ conditions therein and as amended

20:11 ↗ read the rest of it. And I move

20:14 ↗ that the development commission direct

20:16 ↗ community planning and development

20:18 ↗ department to to prepare findings of

20:20 ↗ fact and conclusions for review and

20:22 ↗ approval by the development commission

20:25 ↗ chairman affirming development

20:27 ↗ commission's decision to approve the

20:29 ↗ Parkplace Town Home site development

20:31 ↗ permit SDP24-00001

20:36 ↗ subject to the conditions listed in the

20:38 ↗ staff report dated September 3rd 2025.

20:41 ↗ ified with exhibits A through M subject

20:44 ↗ to conditions therein and as amended

20:48 ↗ tonight.

20:51 ↗ >> Thanks.

20:54 ↗ We'll start discussions.

20:57 ↗ No.

20:59 ↗ >> Um, yeah. I guess the first question

21:01 ↗ might be about the number of materials

21:04 ↗ on the side of the building. And,

21:09 ↗ um,

21:10 ↗ the way I read the requirements, they

21:14 ↗ can't have more than three, but there

21:16 ↗ are four proposed.

21:18 ↗ So, I don't know if it's a that's a

21:20 ↗ condition we just change or I guess if

21:23 ↗ it's okay if I ask the the applicant

21:25 ↗ again if they have something to address

21:27 ↗ that that they might do with that

21:35 ↗ swear me in or Okay. Uh my name is Eric

21:39 ↗ Co. I'm the uh I work for KB Home and

21:41 ↗ I'm going to be the project architect on

21:43 ↗ this project. So on the materials and I

21:48 ↗ don't know if we have a picture we can

21:50 ↗ put up but there is three there's three

21:53 ↗ sighting material there's three

21:55 ↗ materials on the side we have a masonry

21:57 ↗ base

21:59 ↗ we have horizontal siding and the

22:02 ↗ horizontal siding is depicted in two

22:04 ↗ different ways one is 8 in wide and

22:07 ↗ another one is 4 in.

22:09 ↗ We're kind of qualifying that as one

22:11 ↗ material. And then the third material we

22:14 ↗ have is the shake sighting. So three

22:17 ↗ materials. And I know in the

22:19 ↗ presentation I think you brought up a

22:21 ↗ fascia, but a fascia typically is just

22:23 ↗ the 2 by board that's part of the roof.

22:26 ↗ So that's really not a material. So in

22:30 ↗ our eyes, we're doing three materials,

22:33 ↗ but we do have two different sizes of

22:35 ↗ horizontal sighting. Was there a board

22:38 ↗ and batten mentioned

22:40 ↗ >> the G? Yeah, good point. The gable ends

22:43 ↗ had a little extra detail just to give

22:45 ↗ some interest because the buildings are

22:47 ↗ tall. So, just trying to do a little

22:49 ↗ more

22:50 ↗ >> uh different things up there. So,

22:52 ↗ there's some like some truss detail of

22:55 ↗ just trim to make it look like a a truss

22:58 ↗ in some conditions. And then there is I

23:01 ↗ think a a cable in that has more batten

23:04 ↗ detail as well.

23:06 ↗ Okay. I guess I guess what I'm

23:08 ↗ struggling with you when the code says

23:10 ↗ must not have more than three

23:14 ↗ have four with a board and batten.

23:17 ↗ Um

23:19 ↗ I'm not sure how we can condition around

23:21 ↗ that.

23:23 ↗ They look attractive. Um certainly that

23:28 ↗ kind of forgot how

23:31 ↗ >> and again something very easy if that's

23:33 ↗ >> you know if you're really looking to

23:36 ↗ simplify it and have one material we can

23:39 ↗ take the horizontal siding back up

23:42 ↗ >> and remove the board and bat and or some

23:44 ↗ of that trust detailing.

23:46 ↗ >> Yeah,

23:46 ↗ >> if you'd like. I mean that's

23:48 ↗ >> Is it possible to pull up one of the the

23:50 ↗ elevation pictures?

23:52 ↗ >> Yeah.

24:11 ↗ Oh, did you?

24:12 ↗ >> Thank you. I have a colored one, too.

24:24 ↗ Okay. So, this is obviously exactly what

24:26 ↗ you're pointing out is in the in the

24:28 ↗ large gable on the front elevation of

24:30 ↗ this building type, we do introduce some

24:33 ↗ board that

24:36 ↗ >> curious what other commissioners think.

24:38 ↗ >> So, are we thinking that the um

24:41 ↗ horizontal siding those are the same

24:44 ↗ material? They're just different styles.

24:45 ↗ is one.

24:47 ↗ >> The shake is two. The masonry at the

24:50 ↗ bottom is three.

24:53 ↗ >> Ordinat.

25:00 ↗ >> Um, well, I guess from an opinion

25:04 ↗ perspective, uh, I think it's a

25:06 ↗ well-composed building. I think it

25:07 ↗ achieves the intent of the guideline. It

25:09 ↗ has a nice tripartite

25:11 ↗ arrangement. I think it would um almost

25:16 ↗ do a disservice to it to eliminate

25:19 ↗ uh the the gable ends. I think that's

25:21 ↗ that's an element you don't necessarily

25:24 ↗ see on this type of building. So, I

25:26 ↗ think they've

25:28 ↗ taken steps to make an attractive

25:29 ↗ building. So, I would support

25:33 ↗ an amendment or a condition or a

25:36 ↗ adjustment of standards. Um but again,

25:40 ↗ that's an opinion. And I'd be curious to

25:42 ↗ hear what others think.

25:45 ↗ >> So I'll I'll throw a couple comments in.

25:47 ↗ So I I agree that um that it's a well

25:52 ↗ compos it looks like a well composed

25:54 ↗ building elevations and thinking about

25:57 ↗ you know the underlying intent of the

25:58 ↗ code when you're talking about limiting

26:00 ↗ the materials. You don't want to have it

26:02 ↗ too busy. But what's done here is a

26:04 ↗ fairly subtle amount of masonry at the

26:06 ↗ base. So, it's not like a full story and

26:09 ↗ very um kind of um specific details up

26:13 ↗ at the gables that I do think adds

26:16 ↗ interest as you look at the roof. If you

26:18 ↗ took the siding, the horizontal sighting

26:19 ↗ all the way up, u I I don't think it

26:22 ↗ would look as good. Um and I think in

26:24 ↗ honesty probably even left less

26:26 ↗ craftsmanlike as far as architectural

26:28 ↗ style. So I I as far as the intent goes,

26:32 ↗ I think since it's such a very modest

26:34 ↗ amount of kind of just call it accent

26:37 ↗ material, I I don't know that I have big

26:40 ↗ concern, but I do get the must part of

26:42 ↗ the code because I read the same thing.

26:45 ↗ It says must have no more than three.

26:47 ↗ So, um, but I I think just because of

26:50 ↗ the nature of the materials and how

26:52 ↗ they're being applied to limited

26:54 ↗ application here that I think it's I

26:56 ↗ think it's both within the bounds of

27:01 ↗ >> I was just going to say I would agree

27:02 ↗ with that. I mean, the accent the uh

27:05 ↗ gables are less than the

27:09 ↗ um area of the different siding. They're

27:11 ↗ less than the area of the um

27:15 ↗ it's been a long day. you know, the

27:16 ↗ things that close windows, the shutters

27:17 ↗ on the windows. Um, I mean, I think I'm

27:21 ↗ very comfortable calling them like

27:23 ↗ accents as opposed to sliding.

27:27 ↗ >> I also would support an amendment to

27:30 ↗ allow the current design.

27:35 ↗ >> Kristen, is it possible to pull up the

27:37 ↗ code?

27:42 ↗ And I agree with them. I think it looks

27:44 ↗ very attractive. I just want to make

27:46 ↗ sure what we do fits within what the

27:50 ↗ code says.

27:52 ↗ >> 1870 67

27:54 ↗ >> uh 06.

28:00 ↗ >> While she's doing that, just a question.

28:02 ↗ So we have the ability to uh have a code

28:05 ↗ variance then

28:11 ↗ >> or recommend a variance.

28:14 ↗ >> Well, the the staff report recommends

28:17 ↗ approval. I think we're just pointing

28:20 ↗ out an inconsistency.

28:21 ↗ >> Okay.

28:24 ↗ Um so yeah so so the the language

28:29 ↗ um

28:30 ↗ there's a maximum of three of the

28:32 ↗ following four and I think we have all

28:35 ↗ four.

28:39 ↗ The tough thing is that and then

28:41 ↗ actually if you scroll down a bit to

28:45 ↗ um non-compliant craftsman style wall

28:47 ↗ materials there's a picture

28:51 ↗ uh a little bit further.

28:55 ↗ So that picture has masonry horizontal I

28:59 ↗ presume on the right side those are

29:00 ↗ shingles and then kind of a board and

29:02 ↗ batten look at the top.

29:05 ↗ Um,

29:07 ↗ and that says it's a non-compliant

29:09 ↗ craftsman style wall materials. So, I

29:12 ↗ don't know how we kind of the code says

29:14 ↗ this and here's the max you can do. I

29:17 ↗ guess the question be if you on your

29:19 ↗ plan if you

29:22 ↗ um

29:24 ↗ since you've got shingles going up to

29:27 ↗ that gable if there was horizontal

29:30 ↗ sighting there instead of board and

29:33 ↗ batten could you still get the same

29:35 ↗ distinguishing look of that gable in

29:38 ↗ Okay.

30:03 ↗ Yeah.

30:14 ↗ Okay.

30:17 ↗ My concern is like the president said,

30:20 ↗ we haven't done this code very much

30:21 ↗ since it's been enacted and glad that

30:23 ↗ somebody's working on these things. But

30:26 ↗ if we kind of just say, well, we're

30:27 ↗ going to say it doesn't apply for this.

30:34 ↗ We said I'm a great person if it if it

30:37 ↗ could be fixed by doing horizontal

30:39 ↗ sighting within that gable end.

30:42 ↗ >> Yeah, easily done.

30:46 ↗ >> Um,

30:49 ↗ yes. I I think we could go by the letter

30:51 ↗ of the code, but I don't think that

30:52 ↗ gives us the better outcome. Um, and I

30:54 ↗ do understand the president question

30:56 ↗ that you're raising, but I I would still

30:58 ↗ argue that this is a it's a specific

31:01 ↗ design that we're responding to, and

31:03 ↗ it's a modest amount that we're talking

31:06 ↗ about as far as the, you know, the

31:08 ↗ fourth material type.

31:10 ↗ So I I I don't know that it um tips the

31:13 ↗ scale over to running the horizontal

31:16 ↗ sighting all the way up into the gables

31:17 ↗ where I think it actually could be if

31:19 ↗ you could pull up the the um elevation

31:23 ↗ again. So part of it is it wouldn't the

31:27 ↗ horizontal sighting is to either side of

31:29 ↗ the shingles.

31:31 ↗ So it we would have horizontal siding

31:33 ↗ above the shingles as well as along the

31:36 ↗ siding

31:39 ↗ >> on the large gable

31:41 ↗ >> on the large gable. The small one.

31:44 ↗ >> Oh, right. Right. Sorry.

31:45 ↗ >> Sorry. Small gable.

31:47 ↗ >> Right. On all the end on the end walls

31:50 ↗ you would have horizontal siding. Here's

31:52 ↗ a

31:54 ↗ >> or they could use the the wider shape,

31:56 ↗ the wider lap siding.

32:01 ↗ Just tell

32:03 ↗ us all

32:07 ↗ of the

32:09 ↗ simplicity

32:12 ↗ building

32:22 ↗ style.

32:24 ↗ If if your desire is really to eliminate

32:26 ↗ that material

32:29 ↗ guidelines,

32:31 ↗ we would encourage from the architect's

32:33 ↗ perspective

32:36 ↗ shape all the way up,

32:46 ↗ >> right?

32:47 ↗ >> Okay.

32:50 ↗ How would you treat the end walls? Can

32:54 ↗ we bring up a side elevation?

33:03 ↗ Same thing. I would take the I would

33:04 ↗ take the horizontal siding right up into

33:06 ↗ the cable end.

33:10 ↗ One of the things that does it starts

33:13 ↗ >> kind of giving you that perception of a

33:15 ↗ larger mass. So, it's nice when we can

33:17 ↗ start creating ribbons and horizontal

33:21 ↗ uh architecture for this style for a

33:24 ↗ craftsman style. It really wants to be

33:27 ↗ linear. So, what if we go with the uh

33:31 ↗ with the smaller sighting again up in

33:34 ↗ there, it will start start feeling a

33:36 ↗ little taller, but it's kind of the

33:38 ↗ nature of the the animal.

33:42 ↗ >> Could the shingles go there?

33:45 ↗ You could introduce the shingles on that

33:46 ↗ elevation as well.

33:58 ↗ Um I guess I guess we're designing and I

34:02 ↗ don't I don't know if we should be doing

34:03 ↗ that.

34:04 ↗ >> Um I you know it the board and bbatten

34:08 ↗ is the correct application of material

34:10 ↗ in this case. So to start just pulling

34:13 ↗ from a a pallet of materials and putting

34:16 ↗ it up there in lie of the board and

34:18 ↗ batten takes it away from being a good

34:22 ↗ craftsmanesque

34:24 ↗ building. So I guess I I'm not inclined

34:29 ↗ to put a different material up there. Um

34:32 ↗ the the the other application which

34:34 ↗ which um the applicant is touching on is

34:38 ↗ you either run the siding all the way

34:41 ↗ up, call it a day, or you uh do the

34:44 ↗ board and batten, but I would not I

34:47 ↗ wouldn't break it up and introduce a

34:49 ↗ horizontal in the gable end. That's

34:51 ↗ that's my if if we're going to be

34:54 ↗ historically accurate or

34:57 ↗ or nod to the style, you you wouldn't

35:00 ↗ you wouldn't put horizontal in that

35:02 ↗ gable end. Um I defer to you on this

35:05 ↗ one.

35:06 ↗ >> I I'd like to note though that staff has

35:09 ↗ recommended approval of the plan as

35:12 ↗ submitted, which includes the four. So

35:15 ↗ if you're going to put a condition on

35:16 ↗ it, the condition is going to be to

35:17 ↗ remove or alter the board and batten up

35:19 ↗ at the top. Well,

35:21 ↗ >> or or to have a maximum of three

35:24 ↗ materials on the side

35:25 ↗ >> without a specification what has to be

35:27 ↗ changed.

35:30 ↗ >> So, we don't need to put an amendment

35:34 ↗ >> if you if you want to leave it as is.

35:36 ↗ No.

35:36 ↗ >> Okay.

35:44 ↗ I will just add that I agree that um I'm

35:48 ↗ not inclined to make any

35:51 ↗ design requests or make suggestions that

35:55 ↗ would make this design worse.

35:58 ↗ Um and it seems that none of us have

36:00 ↗ come up with one that's better. I mean,

36:03 ↗ I think a good architect could. Maybe

36:05 ↗ that's not most of us, but um yeah,

36:09 ↗ that's just my opinion on this one.

36:12 ↗ >> And I agree. I think it looks very

36:14 ↗ attractive,

36:16 ↗ great. I just have a problem when the

36:18 ↗ code says you have to do this and we're

36:20 ↗ saying no, you don't have to do that.

36:24 ↗ So if somebody else comes in and says, I

36:25 ↗ want to do something that's not in code,

36:27 ↗ how do we say no? Because code requires

36:29 ↗ it.

36:31 ↗ >> Do you have an answer to that, Kristen

36:33 ↗ or Emily?

36:36 ↗ No, you've um you've caught a staff

36:39 ↗ oversight, so this one's up to you.

36:41 ↗ >> Okay. I I have a I have a great idea

36:44 ↗ because I can make a motion. If it

36:46 ↗ doesn't get a second, it just dies.

36:53 ↗ Uh so I've moved to add

36:58 ↗ condition five that

37:02 ↗ um

37:05 ↗ the there'll be a maximum of three

37:07 ↗ materials used on the side of the

37:09 ↗ building buildings.

37:18 ↗ Is there a second for that? Hearing

37:25 ↗ none.

37:25 ↗ >> All right.

37:27 ↗ >> Are there any other items for

37:29 ↗ discussion?

37:31 ↗ I have a question. I guess not really a

37:33 ↗ question, a point to bring up about the

37:35 ↗ parking spaces. Could we pull up the

37:37 ↗ parking or whatever landscape has the

37:39 ↗ parking spaces on it and where they are?

37:41 ↗ The external ones, the three that um

37:44 ↗ we're deciding to take out.

37:48 ↗ They're near the uh the common green

37:51 ↗ area right?

37:55 ↗ And they're like dead end in those roads

37:57 ↗ there.

37:57 ↗ >> Yes,

37:58 ↗ >> that's the proposal. So my point is

38:02 ↗ there the intent behind the parking

38:07 ↗ is ideally that more space is used for

38:11 ↗ housing or green space or public area.

38:14 ↗ Um, and in this case, they fulfilled all

38:17 ↗ of those parameters and they have three

38:20 ↗ spots that could be used for parking.

38:22 ↗ Um, and my guess, although I don't want

38:26 ↗ to, you know, I probably shouldn't

38:28 ↗ assume anything, is that they're just

38:29 ↗ not going to paint parking spaces in

38:31 ↗ there when they could, but it's still

38:34 ↗ going to be asphalt. It's still going to

38:36 ↗ be there. So, I people will probably

38:38 ↗ still park there. So, I'm wondering just

38:42 ↗ on a practical matter,

38:45 ↗ they fulfilled all of the obligations of

38:48 ↗ putting enough housing there, putting

38:49 ↗ enough public space there.

38:52 ↗ I don't really have a problem with

38:54 ↗ painting these plots as parking places.

38:57 ↗ Just my opinion.

39:00 ↗ >> Does staff have any input on that? for

39:03 ↗ this one we caught and uh

39:07 ↗ um no I um Commissioner Commissioner

39:10 ↗ Stanchack is right they will probably

39:12 ↗ remain there but as far as us going out

39:14 ↗ and enforcing parking spaces if we see

39:16 ↗ them out there they will get a code

39:17 ↗ violation because they have more than

39:18 ↗ they're supposed to have

39:25 ↗ since we can go outside of code

39:29 ↗ let it go

39:31 ↗ I do have One other question.

39:33 ↗ >> Oh, that's okay.

39:35 ↗ >> Just a related question to parking. So,

39:38 ↗ um, there was an adjustment of standards

39:40 ↗ that was approved related to 220th and

39:42 ↗ you eliminating the requirement for on

39:44 ↗ street parking. So, and now the staff um

39:49 ↗ condition says to eliminate three

39:52 ↗ visitor parking. So, where is there

39:55 ↗ parking on 2 will there be street

39:57 ↗ parking on 220th or where would guests

39:59 ↗ park?

40:06 ↗ There is on street parking on 51st.

40:10 ↗ Yes.

40:12 ↗ >> Okay. So, there is on a even after

40:14 ↗ you've um done your frontage

40:16 ↗ improvements, bike lane, there will be

40:18 ↗ on street parking on

40:19 ↗ >> actually. We'll be adding the on street

40:20 ↗ parking there. It doesn't exist at

40:22 ↗ present.

40:22 ↗ >> Okay, good. Thank you,

40:25 ↗ >> Mel.

40:27 ↗ Um I had a question about windows and um

40:33 ↗ the way the codes are written windows

40:35 ↗ are predominantly in pairs or triples

40:38 ↗ and um

40:41 ↗ it says that

40:44 ↗ in the discussion of it says that they

40:45 ↗ the

40:47 ↗ single windows shall be not shall not be

40:50 ↗ the majority. And so I'm not sure if you

40:52 ↗ have a full count for everything. I did

40:53 ↗ look at the elevations for the building

40:57 ↗ a forplex and I counted if I got it

40:59 ↗ right 24 single 24 multiple.

41:03 ↗ So singles are not the majority. So it

41:06 ↗ seemed to fit the code. Uh cuz they were

41:09 ↗ not the majority. So I don't know if you

41:11 ↗ had any other if you had total numbers

41:14 ↗ for all of the buildings or see if we

41:16 ↗ met that code.

41:18 ↗ >> We can obviously put that together for

41:20 ↗ you if you'd like. I mean, our our focus

41:22 ↗ again was to try and adhere to the code

41:25 ↗ as much as we could. Get as much of the

41:27 ↗ taller vertical windows, getting the

41:30 ↗ mullions, divided lights, things like

41:32 ↗ that that kind of

41:33 ↗ >> has that craftsman feel.

41:35 ↗ >> So, we wanted to get as much of that

41:38 ↗ into the homes as possible.

41:40 ↗ >> And then just when you're dealing with

41:42 ↗ threetory homes, you end up with a lot

41:44 ↗ of wall planes that there's just no

41:47 ↗ place to put a window or it really

41:49 ↗ doesn't make sense. Most people don't

41:51 ↗ want to have a window in their garage

41:53 ↗ for safety and security reasons. So, we

41:55 ↗ stay away from that. So, we're trying to

41:57 ↗ find uh closets, bathrooms, and some of

42:00 ↗ these odd spaces that end up on the side

42:03 ↗ every now and then and get a window in

42:05 ↗ there. So the 2030 or 2040

42:09 ↗ is kind of the anomaly of having that

42:11 ↗ single window in anytime we could pair

42:13 ↗ stuff up and not, you know, kind of ruin

42:17 ↗ a bed wall or something functional

42:19 ↗ inside the home. That's kind of kind of

42:22 ↗ where we leaned

42:24 ↗ >> our decision making on.

42:26 ↗ >> Okay. And I guess a question for staff.

42:28 ↗ Is it okay for staff to look at the full

42:31 ↗ plan and before it's built to make sure

42:34 ↗ there's not a majority of single

42:36 ↗ windows?

42:37 ↗ >> We can revisit that again during the

42:39 ↗ It'll be looked at again um during the

42:41 ↗ building.

42:41 ↗ >> Okay.

42:42 ↗ >> Construction permitting process.

42:44 ↗ >> Great. And again, I'm fine if it's equal

42:46 ↗ again if we're just meeting code again.

42:48 ↗ It' be great.

42:50 ↗ >> Thank you.

42:53 ↗ >> I had a question while we're on Windows.

42:55 ↗ Um the the code

42:58 ↗ pesky code says that the windows have to

43:01 ↗ be uh double hung single hung or

43:03 ↗ casement. It appears that the majority

43:06 ↗ of these uh are horizontal sliders and

43:10 ↗ uh I guess first is that true and then

43:13 ↗ second

43:15 ↗ how do we feel about that

43:22 ↗ via the windows? Um we tend to try and

43:25 ↗ use 3050's or some kind of a single hung

43:30 ↗ window. So, as you're looking in the

43:32 ↗ upper gable, those two windows that are

43:34 ↗ mold together, those would be single

43:37 ↗ hung windows side by side. So, two

43:39 ↗ individual windows mold together. Um,

43:42 ↗ the 2030 or 2040 windows right below

43:46 ↗ that still in the in all of where the

43:48 ↗ shake sighting is, those are single

43:50 ↗ hung. So, again, we kind of use as many

43:53 ↗ single hungs as we can versus the

43:55 ↗ sliders. have better warranty with our

43:59 ↗ you know water infiltration stuff like

44:01 ↗ that. So um on the very ground floor to

44:05 ↗ the left or right of the doors and that

44:08 ↗ big mass with this uh shake sighting

44:10 ↗ those there would be uh a slider but

44:13 ↗ again playing with the things like that.

44:16 ↗ We're going to try and give that

44:17 ↗ appearance that it looks like it's got

44:19 ↗ that ver verticality and it's a single

44:21 ↗ hung. But that is a slider on that first

44:24 ↗ floor.

44:26 ↗ Okay. Well, as I as I zoom in though, I

44:28 ↗ I see that all the double ganged units

44:32 ↗ are drawn as horizontal sliders, but

44:35 ↗ that's just a drafting

44:37 ↗ >> representation. And that's a graphic

44:38 ↗ representation of the Yeah. the CAD

44:40 ↗ block the guys would have put in.

44:42 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. So, so there are a few

44:47 ↗ horizontal sliders.

44:48 ↗ >> Yes, sir.

44:49 ↗ >> Very few. Um, but otherwise it's it's

44:52 ↗ single hunks.

44:53 ↗ >> Yes, sir.

44:54 ↗ >> And ganged pairs. All right. Thank you.

45:00 ↗ >> Any other questions or deliberations?

45:02 ↗ >> Yeah, I have a question on access.

45:05 ↗ >> Uh my basic assumption is there's fire

45:07 ↗ access on these interior roads. Um and

45:11 ↗ you've laid it out so the trucks can get

45:14 ↗ in. Um, my question really is in in move

45:17 ↗ in day when a family moves in with a

45:19 ↗ semi, how are they are they going to

45:21 ↗ come off of 51st and then truck things

45:23 ↗ in or or I don't know if they can make

45:26 ↗ that turn into the interior or actually

45:28 ↗ how do they get out?

45:32 ↗ Uh, the the main entrance to the project

45:35 ↗ is off of 51st as you you noted and and

45:38 ↗ uh the engineering department and the

45:39 ↗ fire marshall did an auto turn. We did

45:41 ↗ an auto turn analysis

45:43 ↗ uh that met the fire code. So I'm I'm

45:46 ↗ assuming a fire truck, a large fire

45:49 ↗ truck can make it and a moving truck

45:51 ↗ could. I don't know for certain. I don't

45:54 ↗ know about moving trucks. Um that is the

45:56 ↗ single entry. The other entry to the

45:58 ↗ south end my cursor is showing.

46:02 ↗ Oh, I see. I see. Sorry. Um

46:06 ↗ at the south end of the site, it's

46:08 ↗ marked as tracked F. That's an emergency

46:11 ↗ access. It'll be gated. So there's no

46:14 ↗ regular use by by residents but just

46:17 ↗ emergency vehicles. And

46:18 ↗ >> then getting back to the existing

46:20 ↗ structure that's the office building.

46:22 ↗ >> Yes sir.

46:22 ↗ >> Has there been any any um surveys of the

46:25 ↗ building in order to determine if

46:27 ↗ there's any hazardous materials in the

46:29 ↗ building that need to be handled

46:31 ↗ carefully or differently? Uh well, we

46:33 ↗ did a phase one study, environmental

46:35 ↗ study of the site, uh including uh a

46:38 ↗ review of the building and didn't find

46:40 ↗ anything hazardous. Um so no testing was

46:42 ↗ required then?

46:43 ↗ >> No, but there will be testing required

46:45 ↗ prior to demolition.

46:47 ↗ So it's part of the city's permitting

46:48 ↗ process uh to pull a demolition permit.

46:51 ↗ There's an asbestous survey that's

46:53 ↗ required to be done.

46:55 ↗ >> Thanks. You're welcome. I have I have a

46:58 ↗ question since you're up there. Maybe

46:59 ↗ you know the answer to this if it's

47:00 ↗ okay. of composite doors. Do they have

47:03 ↗ wood interior?

47:05 ↗ Defer to Eric?

47:13 ↗ >> No, a composite door is usually it's

47:15 ↗ stamped in a wood grain on the inside

47:19 ↗ and the outside. So, it has that same

47:21 ↗ >> It's a solid core door that's stamped.

47:24 ↗ It's not hollow core. Um, it's actually

47:28 ↗ a filled it's it's going to be a stamped

47:30 ↗ door and it's going to have a filled uh

47:32 ↗ material.

47:33 ↗ >> Okay.

47:34 ↗ >> Give you the high insulation value.

47:37 ↗ >> Okay.

47:39 ↗ I guess I guess one of my questions that

47:41 ↗ it says

47:43 ↗ the doors must be a combination of

47:45 ↗ natural hardwood such as oak, maple,

47:47 ↗ walnut, and decorative glass. And

47:54 ↗ to me, it doesn't sound like hard. sound

47:55 ↗ like it was going to look like hardwood

47:57 ↗ but not meet that code. But so I'm sure

48:00 ↗ they'll look very attractive. I don't

48:02 ↗ know what the commissioners think if

48:04 ↗ changed there or not.

48:06 ↗ >> Yeah. Um is that an aesthetic code or a

48:10 ↗ environmental like what is the reason

48:13 ↗ behind that? And I would point out too

48:15 ↗ the the non-compliant would be hollow

48:18 ↗ metal or hollow wood which these would

48:20 ↗ not be. Uh all glass or door groupings

48:24 ↗ are greater than two. So composite doors

48:26 ↗ are not shown as non-compliant.

48:36 ↗ uh just a lot. So the but the code

48:38 ↗ doesn't specify whether it can be

48:40 ↗ painted or it just says it's a material

48:42 ↗ type of wood type. So I think um to me

48:47 ↗ it's about the authenticity of meeting

48:50 ↗ the standard and that is you know is it

48:53 ↗ is it presenting itself as essentially a

48:57 ↗ you know decorative wood door and I

49:00 ↗ there's a lot of different door types

49:02 ↗ out there that are composite. Um but

49:04 ↗ obviously what we need to accomplish is

49:07 ↗ the intent of the code and that is a

49:09 ↗ high quality door that is um appears as

49:13 ↗ a as a wood entry door but again it

49:16 ↗ doesn't specify that it needs to be of a

49:19 ↗ natural toner.

49:21 ↗ >> The the code says that the intent is

49:23 ↗ that doors are used as an opportunity

49:24 ↗ for material embellishment to emphasize

49:26 ↗ a warm welcoming building entrance

49:30 ↗ and staff felt this met the intent.

49:36 ↗ I would agree with Commissioner Brennan.

49:38 ↗ It's a high quality door. If it wasn't,

49:41 ↗ I would feel otherwise. But I think it

49:43 ↗ does meet the intent of the code. I

49:45 ↗ think that's that's the aesthetic code

49:47 ↗ of the architectural overlay styles. But

49:49 ↗ if you're looking at energy efficiency,

49:51 ↗ too, and just durability, especially in

49:53 ↗ a in a structure like this, I think, you

49:56 ↗ know,

49:57 ↗ it's got to look good, but it's it's got

49:59 ↗ to be durable. you know, you you start

50:01 ↗ to get into life cycle issues where

50:04 ↗ things start to degrade

50:07 ↗ um

50:08 ↗ with heavy use. So, I I think it meets

50:10 ↗ the intent of the code.

50:14 ↗ >> Thanks.

50:17 ↗ Any other items?

50:20 ↗ >> Well, no. Michael,

50:23 ↗ >> um just a question about the selection

50:26 ↗ of colors since we have some uh

50:29 ↗ elevations or renderings here that that

50:31 ↗ are kind of muted and we don't have a

50:33 ↗ color board or materials board. Can you

50:36 ↗ talk a little bit about what the color

50:37 ↗ palette um that you're thinking of

50:40 ↗ applying here?

50:42 ↗ What that can you describe what this is

50:44 ↗ going to look like other than somewhat

50:47 ↗ muted gray? Yeah, obviously muted gray

50:50 ↗ is not our preferred color, but

50:52 ↗ typically on the multif family we'll try

50:54 ↗ and do

50:55 ↗ um you know three or four color schemes

50:57 ↗ so that we can um for different

51:00 ↗ buildings and so your guidelines want

51:04 ↗ earth tones. So the, you know, you can

51:08 ↗ always fall back on what Green and Green

51:10 ↗ did in Pasadena with the the the greens

51:13 ↗ and used two or three different greens

51:16 ↗ and uh light tans. Um, so our colors

51:21 ↗ right now, this is more of a tan a tan

51:24 ↗ building with uh, you know, grays and

51:27 ↗ uh, you know, a little more of a brown

51:29 ↗ tone in some of those. And they

51:32 ↗ obviously on color screens they don't

51:33 ↗ come out well but the intent is to have

51:37 ↗ three three colors on a building and

51:40 ↗ then we get to have a fourth color that

51:42 ↗ would be a highlight for the guidelines

51:44 ↗ and that would be introduced in the roof

51:46 ↗ and then we would probably or our intent

51:48 ↗ is then to introduce that on uh like the

51:52 ↗ shutters to get some pop. So you would

51:54 ↗ end up with a color scheme on each of

51:56 ↗ these buildings that would be two to

51:59 ↗ three colors and a highlight. And then

52:02 ↗ you would have three different color

52:04 ↗ schemes, the four different color

52:05 ↗ schemes in the community to get a little

52:08 ↗ variation. All of those kind of working

52:10 ↗ together. So we're going to be using the

52:13 ↗ tans, the greens, and just those earth

52:16 ↗ tones that kind of work up here. Um, so

52:20 ↗ hopefully that answers your question the

52:22 ↗ best I could.

52:24 ↗ Um

52:25 ↗ for staff, what additional review do the

52:28 ↗ colors go through?

52:31 ↗ >> They they just get reviewed at building

52:33 ↗ at the building um stage.

52:35 ↗ >> Okay, we usually do see specific colors.

52:47 ↗ >> Well, can I ask you a question? Just

52:48 ↗ more of a point of order. It it said in

52:50 ↗ the uh narrative that

52:53 ↗ uh architectural review was being

52:54 ↗ handled administratively

52:57 ↗ and but we've really brought it forth

53:00 ↗ here tonight and then the elevations

53:02 ↗ weren't provided in the initial packet.

53:05 ↗ Is this not in our purview necessary?

53:08 ↗ >> No. So the elevations are typically

53:09 ↗ included in the pan plan set and I

53:11 ↗ didn't realize until after it went out

53:12 ↗ that they weren't included in the plan

53:14 ↗ set which is why they were sent

53:15 ↗ separately.

53:16 ↗ um the intent. Um

53:20 ↗ really your your

53:23 ↗ um review and your recommendation is

53:25 ↗ geared toward the materials, the

53:27 ↗ modulation, the roof lines, um the

53:31 ↗ access, the everything that's you know

53:34 ↗ the form and function, not necessarily

53:36 ↗ the paint colors, but those will be

53:38 ↗ reviewed.

53:39 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

53:42 ↗ And and as I understand in staff review,

53:45 ↗ you would be doing it in accordance with

53:46 ↗ the color section of standards.

53:49 ↗ >> Yes.

53:50 ↗ >> Yes.

53:50 ↗ >> Thank you.

53:56 ↗ >> Any other items?

54:03 ↗ Should we conclude deliberation?

54:07 ↗ With the deliber deliberation concluded,

54:09 ↗ it is time for the commission to take

54:11 ↗ action on the item before us.

54:14 ↗ There were no amendments made. So,

54:18 ↗ um,

54:20 ↗ can you pull up the main motion again?

54:25 ↗ Oh, I guess it's not been not been

54:27 ↗ amended. So, I think we can just go for

54:30 ↗ it. All in favor of the main motion say

54:34 ↗ I.

54:35 ↗ >> I. I

54:36 ↗ >> I.

54:36 ↗ >> All opposed say no.

54:40 ↗ The motion is approved unanimously.

54:44 ↗ >> This concludes the ParkPlace Town Home

54:46 ↗ site development permit. A notice of

54:48 ↗ decision will be issued by staff within

54:50 ↗ 7 days.

54:56 ↗ Madam Chair, I can make comment. I very

54:58 ↗ much appreciate the project you're doing

55:00 ↗ here and I think as you heard from the

55:01 ↗ commissioners it's we like the way it

55:03 ↗ looks and project and everything and

55:06 ↗ appreciate your um putting up with our

55:10 ↗ bill our desire to try to fit within the

55:12 ↗ code that because it's a newer code

55:14 ↗ that's been written for this. So

55:16 ↗ appreciate your patience.

55:19 ↗ >> Thank you.

55:19 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you.

55:23 ↗ >> See um staff any city council updates?

55:28 ↗ No council updates tonight.

55:30 ↗ >> Okay. And any other business we should

55:32 ↗ be aware of?

55:32 ↗ >> Yes. So Emily, do you want to you want

55:36 ↗ to go for it?

55:39 ↗ >> Um I

55:41 ↗ met you guys on multiple times, but

55:42 ↗ Emily Medina, I'm a senior planner now.

55:44 ↗ I got promoted last month. So with that

55:46 ↗ promotion, thank you. Uh with that

55:49 ↗ promotion, I'll be taking over as DC

55:50 ↗ liaison. So Kristen has been providing

55:53 ↗ me with some training and um we'll be

55:56 ↗ there to hold my hand the first couple

55:58 ↗ times, but um I'll be taking over as

56:00 ↗ your liaison and setting up meetings um

56:02 ↗ before upcoming uh numerous upcoming

56:05 ↗ meetings that we have going and I'll be

56:07 ↗ um here to support which brings us to

56:09 ↗ our next item. Um in the calendar it

56:13 ↗ says that the next meeting the next

56:14 ↗ meeting is supposed to be October 1st.

56:15 ↗ I've had it in my head. Richard and I

56:18 ↗ had a very fun conversation today via

56:20 ↗ email. Um I've had it in my head it was

56:22 ↗ supposed to be October 8th. So I had

56:24 ↗ left it as October 8th and then it said

56:25 ↗ octo it's supposed to be October 1st. As

56:28 ↗ it turns out Yam Kapour is October 1st

56:30 ↗ and 2nd and we are not allowed to hold

56:31 ↗ public meetings on various cultural

56:34 ↗ celebrations. So we do need to

56:36 ↗ reschedule it and so we need to find out

56:38 ↗ if you all can make a quorum on October

56:41 ↗ 8th. So if you could just raise your

56:43 ↗ hands and let us know if you can be here

56:44 ↗ on that date that would be very helpful.

56:47 ↗ Can I ask what the what is the topic of

56:49 ↗ that one?

56:50 ↗ >> That is going to be 60 Newport Way um

56:53 ↗ town homes.

56:58 ↗ Three four

57:01 ↗ one, two, three, four, five, five of

57:02 ↗ you. Okay. So, we have a quorum. Okay.

57:05 ↗ Then our next meeting will be scheduled

57:07 ↗ for October 8th. And after that,

57:10 ↗ probably the next meeting, we will also

57:11 ↗ be deciding on dates for uh potentially

57:15 ↗ for the high school when that comes

57:17 ↗ through.

57:18 ↗ All right. Thank you.

57:20 ↗ >> Thank you, staff.

57:21 ↗ >> Do we know how many dates we might have

57:23 ↗ for that?

57:25 ↗ >> Um there are several comments have come

57:27 ↗ in. Uh it is definitely two,

57:31 ↗ maybe three.

57:36 ↗ No, the location will stay here. There

57:38 ↗ is nothing else scheduled that night.

57:42 ↗ >> Good question.

57:43 ↗ >> Do you recall when we when we talked

57:45 ↗ about the high school, how many meetings

57:46 ↗ we had? Was it three?

57:47 ↗ >> We had three last time.

57:50 ↗ Three with planning policy commission,

57:52 ↗ three with development commission.

57:58 ↗ All right. Thank you, staff. This being

58:01 ↗ or there being no further business

58:03 ↗ before the commission, I adjourn the

58:04 ↗ meeting at 7:28 p.m.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Shore

Vice-Chair Ikeda

Commissioners Brennan

Fasehun

Morgan

Price

Stanchak

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Emily Medina, Senior Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of August 6, 2025