Item 6.2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 2. Design Review 21 I vague review standards (Anderson v. Issaquah, 851 P.2d 744 (Wash. App. 1993)). Wanting to build a large commercial building on land zoned for Ilif general commercial use, Anderson, the developer, sought the necessary approval of the Issaquah Development Commission (IDC), the agency re- { sponsible for enforcing the city's building design standards. Unfortu- `] nately, these standards contained numerous vague terms and concepts i (e.g.,developments were to be"harmonious"and"interesting")and failed to provide meaningful guidance to the developer or to the public officials responsible for enforcing the provisions." As originally proposed, the commercial structure was to be built in a "modern" style with an unbroken "warehouse" appearance in the rear; 1 large, retail-style, glass windows on the facade; off-white stucco facing; and a blue metal roof.The property was located on a major boulevard in a 1 "natural transition area" between old downtown Issaquah and an area of new,village-style construction. During their first review of the project,IDC commissioners commented ,i upon several aspects of the design they found displeasing, including the color scheme,the blankness of the rear wall,and the fact that the relatively 4 plain facade "did not fit with the concept of the surrounding area." One commissioner observed that he did not think the building was compatible 1 with the"image of Issaquah."The commissioners continued the hearing to .At provide the landowner an opportunity to modify his design. 1At the next meeting, the landowner presented modified plans that in- i cluded a new building color and modified roof materials. Still unsatis- 1 fied, the commissioners struggled to provide more specific feedback. s One suggested the landowner "drive up and down Gilman [Boulevard] Iii and look at both good and bad examples of what has been done. . . ." Another member requested a review of the shade of blue to be used, noting that: "Tahoe blue may be too dark." The commissioners again I continued the hearing to a later date to allow further modifications from the applicant. jAt the third IDC meeting, the landowner presented plans that re- sponded to the commissioners' concerns and featured new architectural detailing to break up the facade, additional landscaping, and enhanced rear-wall trim. Still unsatisfied, one commissioner presented a written statement of his "general observations" of the area's architectural charac- 1 ter (e.g., "I see heavy use of brick, wood, and tile. I see minimal use of stucco. I see colors that are mostly earthtones, avoiding extreme con- trasts."). Another commissioner noted, "There is a certain feeling you get when you drive along Gilman Boulevard,and this building does not give you this same feeling." After nine months of meetings and investing more than $250,000, the understandably frustrated landowner volunteered to make one final mod- ification to the building's facing,but would make no further changes.The IDC chose to deny the application, expressing concern that the proposed i building—even with the agreed-upon modifications—would relate poorly 1 to the surrounding neighborhood.The city council and trial court both up- 1 held the denial. On appeal, however, the Washington Court of Appeals found the local design code to be unconstitutionally vague: . [T]here is nothing in the code from which an applicant can deter- mine whether his project is going to be seen by the Development Com- mission as "interesting" versus "monotonous" and as "harmonious" with valley and the mountains. Neither is it clear from the code just what else,besides the valley and the mountains,a particular project is supposed to be harmonious with. . . . I