Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2014-01-29 (03)
,2,7O -]� LETTERS RECEIVED 1-22-14 TH RU 1-28-14 PROPONENT LETTERS G-167 TO G-190 OPPONENT LETTERS G-264 TO G-294 PROPONENT LETTERS G-167 THRU G-190 To: Lake Oswego DRC From: Bob Sack, 208 Durham Street, Lake Oswego OR 97034 Re: Redevelopment of Block 137 Evaluating the plan for the Wizer property Lake Oswego was initially developed when zoning regulations sought to separate residential, commercial, and industrial uses, and the automobile linked home, work, and the shopping center. Not long ago, it became apparent to many city planners that this separation was not always ideal; in fact, the New Urbanism movement grew out of the need to provide a different way of thinking about city planning. From this perspective, "complete communities" could contain housing, work places, shops, entertainment, schools, parks, and civic facilities -- all essential to the daily lives of residents'-- within easy walking distance of each other. There is now an opportunity to create such a new residential neighborhood in downtown Lake Oswego that will provide residents with the alternative of a more urban/pedestrian way of life. Y think it is useful to review how the Wizer Block 137 proposal meets the ten principles currently recognized as fundamental to good urban planning. 1) Walkahility. Leaving the car in the garage and walking for what you need is good for your health as well as your property values. Clearly, the proposed development provides a highly walkable neighborhood for many more Lake Oswegans. 2) Connectivity. The present Wizer building breaks up any connection between Blocks 136 and 138. The new buildings provide an attractive pass-through that will tie the three blocks together. 3) Mixed-use & diversity. The proposal will add residences to the current array of shops, restaurants, and offices on Block 138, thus producing the first true mixed- use neighborhood in L.O. 4) Mixed housing. The development will offer a range of sizes and prices. Admittedly, there is a need for a broader mix, but more varied housing options in the downtown area will likely follow. G-167 LU 13-0046 5) Quality architecture & urban design. The architects are considered some of Portland's best and have offered a variety of styles in keeping with established guidelines. 6) Traditional neighborhood. By this is meant a neighborhood organized around a recognizable center with a quality public space. With Millennium Park Plaza and Lake View Village already in place, this neighborhood is already halfway there. 7) Increased density. This is the feature that scares some people, but density is the key to walkability, efficient use of services and resources, as well as more frequent face-to-face encounters with other people. 8) Smart Transportation. More residents will live close to the transit center and will likely make greater use public transportation. 9) Sustainability. The building will be LEED certified. 10) Quality of life. I predict that the residents of the redeveloped Block 137 will find it a great place to live, work, and play. A pedestrian friendly neighborhood will offer more opportunities to get to know other people and form meaningful relationships. It can provide more freedom and independence for children and the elderly. The location is close to the lake, bike trails, parks, and nature. The development will involve more efficient use of tax money with less spent on spread -out utilities and roads. In short, we have the opportunity to build an alternative, pedestrian -friendly residential neighborhood in Lake Oswego, rapidly becoming_ the preferred option by many people of all ages. Let's do it. January 22, 2014 Deveiopment:Review Commission City of Lake Oswego File: LU 13-0046 I wish to support the application of Evergreen G -roup LLC for the Block 137 development as described in the Staff Report dated January, 10. I have read the staff report and much of the materials available through the City of lake Oswego web site as well as both pro and con letters and circulated position statements. The staff report makes clear that only small issues remain under the Downtown Development District Design Standards and the Community Development Code.. Should the DRC feed: further reasonable modifications are needed, one would hope for prompt negotiation with the developers and the City. Mr Wizer has had too many prior `false starts' on developing this site. I served on the DRC when Block 138 was first proposed, and when the block to the West was developed. It is Ironic, given objections made then, that they are compared today as optimal projects. Further development such as this is essential for our downtown. it also must be financially rational for Gene Wizer and the developer in the long run. Subjective arguments against the project do not suggest: specific defined criteria for development which are violated. Many in the development community -- LO builders among them -- have long.felt our city was too tough on development projects. That has assured quality projects, but when a project such as this meets existing guidelines and standards the rules of the game should not be changed midstream. The long term benefit from approval of the Block 137 application, conditioned by staff and the DRG will be significant. What is on that site today needs to.be replaced.. r� Dougia Cushing 4311 Glacier Lily Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503-598-5538 G-168 LU 13-0046 January 10, 2014 Edward La Berge 7755 SW Burlingame Ave. Portland, OR 97219 Dear Lake Oswego DRC Board, HECE! VED JAN 2 2 2014 As a lifelong resident of SW Portland, I am writing to offer my support of the proposed development on the Wizer Block 137 site. Though not a citizen of Lake Oswego, I've lived nearly my entire life in SW Portland near the northern extents of Terwilliger Blvd. and Boones Ferry Rd. Consequently, l frequently visit and patronize the businesses of downtown Lake Oswego. Over the course of my life, I have made many memories in the heart of LO — from ice cream cones at the LO Creamery as a child, to beers at the Gemini with friends over college breaks, and now delicious dinners with my wife at take View Village's great restaurants •- down town Lake Oswego Is a place that is near and dear to my heart. In reviewing the proposed Wizer Block development, I am convinced that its size, scope, aesthetic and function will complement nicely the LO downtown I've come to know and love. Therefore, I strongly encourage the Lake Oswego DRC Board to support the Wizer Block 137 Development. Thank you for your consideration. La 06fAe r 1755 SW Burlingame Ave. Portland, OR 97219 G-169 LU 13-0046 Dear DRC Board — JAN 2 2 2014 As a member of the lake Oswego community for 20+ years, I would like to voice my support for the Wizer development on Block 137. It will be a positive addition to our existing community, without disrupting the character of the surrounding area. It will also generate revenue for the city, create jobs, while falling under the LEED umbrella for sustainable building. Sincerely, Kevin Dodds 17433 Schalit Way Lake Oswego, OR 97035 G-170 LU 13-0046 January 19, 2014 Development Review Commission c/o Planning & Building: Services Dept. City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear IARC Board: 11'-L;EMED JAIL 2 2 2014 I'm writing to express my support of the Wizer development on Block 137. i always enjoy shopping and dining in downtown Lake Oswego, and I'm looking forward to the new retail and restaurants that will be at Block 137. This development will be great for the community, and I feel it meets our City criteria nicely. Please approve this beautiful development. Sincerely, Jennifer Bardell 4 Touchstone Terrace #133 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 G-171 LU 13-0046 i January 20, 2414 To: Development Review Commission Re: The proposed Wizer re -development i SIA 2014 Dear Members of the Development Review Commissic My name is Rob Fallow, owner of property in the Foothols area. 1 have resided, operated a business and/or owned property in Lake Oswego since 1973. 1 h ive been directly and indirectly involved in a number of redevelopment processes over the years. First, I would like to comment that zoning and the corrt;Krehensive plan are both A) a protection to the neighbors to an area that may want to develop that it iifust meet certain criteria and S) a protection to the owner of the property that they have invested in t,ot they can develop their property if they meet the same certain criteria. Specific to the Wizer project, we have heard these dantlld ng statements that it is too massive, it is too high and it is not in character with our community. I w like to address these: It is too massive. In fact, the Lakewood Village three buildings proposed on the Wizer site. T t up the mass into three .separate and distinct bw Gramor project. !tis too high. In fact, the Lakewood Village built ullding Is larger in mass than any one of the developer has done a masterful job of breaking dings — none of which approach the size of the by Gramor is higher by at least two feet. Are we hearing a cry to redo it? leo, it continuo, i to be embraced a huge success and addition to our city bringing life and vitality to our downto do core, - It is not in character with our community. We i4p hearing that we must keep things as they are. This has never been the case with our community since it started. Please look at pictures of the progression to improvements that allaw � the current residents to enjoy the wonderful life style we enjoy. Our city has grown in numb rs and the services to accommodate these new citizens have to be provided. This includes schIs, police, fire, restaurants, banks, etc. The architects have done a wonderful job in world tato blend the exteriors of these buildings into the fabric of our downtown. } We have heard that there are too many variances that h pve to be allowed for this project. in reality, it has about 1z of the variances that the Gramor Lakewoo, 'Village project required. All of the requested variances are small. This project will be an asset to our schools. The market study indicates that many of the new residents to the project will be empty nesters not wanting to leati,g Lake Oswego. This migration will open up those 3,4 or S bedroom homes to those families with ch1Ildren wanting to live in our beautiful city and send their children to our wonderful schools. I know thlit I have two children currently looking to find a home here and it is tough. G-172 LU 13-0046 (� 2 � I applaud Mr. Wizer, Pat Kessi and his team of architec s in the work they have done to listen to the comments of citizens and professionals in developing t se great project that is before you. I respectfully request that you vote to move this project forward wi t i your positive endorsement. 4 "� � Rob Fallow 91 Foothills Road Lake Oswego, OR 99034 January 20, 2014 Development Review Commission City of Lake Oswego 380 "A" Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Dear DRC Board: JA.N 2 Zai? A visionary, I own three hair salons in South America, and was a part of the first shopping center in Quito, Ecuador. That shopping center became a destination. With 35 years in the industry, I have worked for Vidal Sassoon in New York, and I have worked for Toni & Guy. Over the years I have developed a sense of how businesses are built, especially'where there is little to no business. I first came to Lake Oswego almost a decade ago, and I opened a salon near 15t & B. About that time, the new building at Lake View Village was underway. I saw the potential in Lake Oswego with this new development. It reminded me of Carmel, California, where people can walk, shop, have their hair done, and go to galleries. To my surprise, though, the development of the Wizer building next door never took off. This created a break, a fracture, in the development of the downtown Lake Oswego area. Then the economy collapsed in 2008 and 2009. I saw businesses collapse. Twenty-four businesses came and went because there were no customers. People came to downtown Lake Oswego with their dreams, only to see their dreams collapse. For a business in downtown Lake Oswego it is very hard. The area needs more people. Even though this is an affluent city, many of the residents can't afford to shop here. I took an informal survey among my clients. I asked how often they frequented the downtown Lake Oswego area. They told me at most maybe only once or twice a week. Because of this, most businesses in the downtown can barely survive. They need more traffic. In the block where my salon was located, everyone else left. It felt like a ghost town, and of the businesses at the time I was the only one remaining. I saw at least four or five businesses that couldn't hold for even six months. What kept my business going was the internet, and being online and able to draw people from other locations. I'm not a survivor, I'm a winner. To be in business I had to look for a different option. I was invited to join a retail area on Boones Ferry Road at Pilkington. And so I moved my salon out of the downtown area. Another salon moved into my former space near 1'E and B. But the surrounding spaces are still empty. Businesses don't want to rent space right now. G-173 LU 13-0046 I remember a clothing boutique in downtown Lake Oswego, with beautiful clothes and with prices not too high. Being social, I walked in one day to say hello. The owner looked teary-eyed. I asked how she was doing, and she burst into tears. She said, "Do you know you are my first customer of the day?" She eventually moved her boutique out of Lake Oswego. I remember when the flower shop closed its doors. It broke my heart. I remember when I first came to Lake Oswego, and joined a local business organization. I was at a BBQ in the summertime, and was talking to a resident of Lake Oswego. He was a member of the country club. I shared with him my vision and my view of downtown LO. He said to me, "Didn't you know that coming to Lake Oswego was the kiss of death?" This was my introduction to the city. I love downtown Lake Oswego, and I would love to come back, but we would need a new generation of people. More residents will be healthy for businesses, and from a business side they are needed desperately. Like they say in New York, if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. This letter is in support of the Wizer development on Block 137. 1 hope that you approve this development. It is very much needed. )r7 /J Hug 1FF er'Hugo Salon 17050 Pilkington Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Cconsultants ,Ic. January 20, 2014 City of Lake Oswego - Development Review Commission 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Re; Support of the Wizer development on Block 137 Dear DRC Board, As a small business located in the City of Lake Oswego, we support of the Wizer development on Block 137. This will be great for our community, and feel it meets all of the Cities requirements with limited and reasonable concessions. The mixed use approach and the proposed architecture compliments the similar approach taken across the street, and will strengthen the downtown area for commerce. One of the reasons we chose the downtown Lake Oswego area as the location for our office is the direction the City of Lake Oswego seems to be moving, by allowing continued growth of businesses, retail, restaurants, etc. Respectfully submitted, Noal Kraft Principal G2 Consultants, Inc. G-174 LU 13-0046 888/998.4224 1 f; 888/887.5422 1 wwmg2d.com 1560 1st street, Ste 204, lake oswego, or 97034 Fc .Ear r'- Ll .ji:,� e Duane and Julie Hoffinger JAN2 2Ci4 15781 Twin Fir Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 January 22, 2014 Dear DRC Board: My family moved to Lake Oswego forty years ago, when I was very young. I have been a long-time resident here, and my wife and I love this town in which we live. I've been hearing about the Wizer redevelopment and the proposed plans for new retail and housing. These proposed plans will be beneficial for the Lake Oswego community, and will help meet the economic goals of the Cty. Our City's economic development strategy is to accomplish a more vibrant, connected, and sustainable community by the year 2025. This cannot be accomplished by stagnation or by resting on our laurels. The Wizer redevelopment plan is in harmony with our City's desired lively "pedestrian - friendly shopping and dining districts," will provide a "broader range of housing options," fulfills the "strategic higher -density infill and redevelopment" desired, and will help achieve the goal of "thriving businesses." This is the Economic Vision shared by our City as part of the Lake Oswego Economic Redevelopment Strategy. As a city we need to continue to grow and improve in order to maintain a healthy community. We need to respond to changing demographics, which show that the number of households made up of young professionals, empty -nesters, and single parents are increasing. Too often I've seen acquaintances move away from Lake Oswego because of a lack of housing options. Housing is balanced when there is a vibrant rental market in addition to home ownership opportunities. The high-end residences proposed on Block 137 will provided a much-needed option for Lake Oswego residents who wish to live near restaurants, shopping, and services but want the convenience of a lock -and -go Iifestyle. Redevelopment within the code -established guidelines will help our city continue to be a wonderful place to live. We are writing to express our support of the Wizer development on Block 137. We respectfully request that you approve this beneficial development. Sincere regards, .iuw�J2 Duane Hoffinger G-175 LU 13-0046 January 22, 2014 Development Review Commission City of Labe Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 "4�'E�� c,d JAN 2 2 2014 RE: LU13-0046: A Request for a Development Review Permit to Construct a Mixed Use Project (Wizer Block Redevelopment) Members of the Commission: I am writing to support the redevelopment project proposed for the Wizer Block. I have reviewed the applicant's proposal and the City Staff Report and Recommendations. I urge you to approve the permit request as recommended in the Staff Report and the Staff's proposed conditions. I agree with the Staff Report that the project meets the requirements and conditions of our Comprehensive Plan and appropriate codes. Our community needs a strong, vibrant downtown core to make Lake Oswego a great place to live along with a vital local economy. We won't have strong neighborhoods if we don't have a healthy, viable downtown to complement them. This mixed-use development will help us provide a variety of housing types to attract young people and support our local businesses. It encourages pedestrian activity downtown and provides the necessary parking for retail and residents. I was born and raised here in Lake Oswego and have lived here most of my adult life. When I first returned to town after college, I lived in apartments until I could afford to buy a house here. We need apartments and condominiums to attract young people for our future. We can't just be a bunch of expensive single-family homes with an aging population. Our downtown is a great place for this kind of mixed-use development. The downtown plan encourages this development. It helps us provide for a variety of Dousing types and the necessary customer base to support viable local businesses. Please approve the permit request as recommended in the Staff Report. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Tom O'Connor 1960 Egan Way Lake Oswego, OR 97034 G-176 LU 13-0046 Outlook.com - jane_taber(ahotmail.com Page 1 of 1 New Reply Delete Archive Move to Categories Search sent1-1---....-------.-,-.-..---.-----., Block 137 Support Folders Jane Taber 1/21/14 Inbox 65 FI To:Ihamilton@ci.oswego.or.us Junk 29 Drafts Sent Deleted New folder Dear Leslie and the DRC Board, I am in support of the Wizer development 137. This will be great for the Lake Oswego community, and I feel it meet: City criteria nicely. Please approve this beautiful development. Thank you, lane Jane Taber 905 SW 16th Ave. Portland, OR 97205 Q 2014 Microsoft Terms https://co1125.mail.live.com/default.aspx?id=64855 JAPE! 2 2 �: `'14 is Privacy & cookies Developers English (United 5 G-177 LU 13-0046 1/22/2014 From: Kchad LeCheyallier 7o: Flarnibn. Leslie Subject: I support Wizer Block 137 Date, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 4:31:06 PM Dear Leslie Hamilton, I am writing to support the Wizer Block 137. While I no longer live in Lake Oswego, as a young person I would love to be able to return if there were nice apartments to rent in a walkable area. As a regular patron of the coffee shops and shops down there, I can only imagine that this would be good for their business and good for creating a healthy downtown area. We need a healthy center so that we can have a healthy community. Please include my statement for the Development Review Commission. Many thanks, Michael Le Chevallier G-178 LU 13-0046 Candace Kramer 503-804-9628 My husband Drew Prell. and I (Candace Kramer) are business owners, have residential rentals and also developed commercial & residential properties in downtown fake Oswego. We lived on the take for over 20 years and our children attended Lake Oswego schools. We are proud to be a part of this community. I have been a broker for Windermere real estate for the last 12 years and marketed two condominiums projects on 2nd st and B ave; Stafford Commons and the 555 condominiums the last 7 years. As the on site marketing broker for the two most recent Condominium projects in First Addition, I was often asked if the condos would be rentals and even today I am called for inquiries about rental housing in the downtown area. Today baby boomers are preparing to retire and downsize, trading homeownership for rentals, yearning to stay in a lively walkable community, trading two car garages for more compact living. 20.1 million senior households will attempt to sell their homes between 2015 and 2030. The housing market has already seen a surge in senior downsizing, between 2002 and 2012 the number of renters ages 55 to 64 increased by 80%. Empty nesters are selling their large homes, yet not wanting to part with the community where they raised their children for the past 30 years. They want to go to the same library, restaurants, shopping and parks- only on a smaller scale, without a 30 year mortgage, apartment living is a viable option. Baby Boomers often have second vacation homes and or a city pied de tier suits their needs. Our personal rentals are immediately leased for top value, most of the rental (rousing in the downtown area is dated and there is a need and desire for high end quality apartments. People moving from out of state often will rent before they purchase to get settled and experience a community. Younger professionals are drawn to the downtown Lake Oswego area for the outstanding school district, parks and recreation. They start as renters and soon become homeowners as they settle into their professions. As business owners of the Lake Theater & Cafe we look forward to a downtown area , With housing and businesses that create a vibrant walkable community to parks, shopping and dining. The Wizer block development will provide the missing link for the community, offering diverse upscale housing that honors a variety of lifestyles. I only wonder what wonderful poem William Stafford would be writing about growth & change for this area that is growing up and no longer a sleepy bedroom community. A toast to his centennial celebration this February! Cheers Mr Stafford! G-179 LU 13-0046 sty �✓�f 4� �m CITIZEN INPUT U o; 0REc0�/ Date: 1/22/14 Case No: LU 13-0046 Name: & D a , Address: /Y ZCo n City/State/Zip: J_0. is Phone:J,- Proponent tA Opponent l❑ Neither For Nor Against ❑ 0 Are you part of an Organized Presentation: (Representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowners association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization) Yes LlNo" If yes, List Speakers in Order of Presentation: Please submit this form to the Recording Secretary G-180 LU 13-0046 aoCIT129TN NPUT NEGO Date: 1122114 Case No: LU 13-0046 Name: cr 're" �.�f Address:. City/State/Zip: 0 Phone: �5 r S� 5D w 4&7 �7 Proponent Opponent L7 Neither For Nor Against ❑ Are you part of an Organized Presentation: (Representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowners association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization) Yes ❑ No .4 If yes, List Speakers in Order of Presentation: Please submit this form to the Recording Secretary G-181 LU 13-0046 .� CITIZEN INPUT }V : o, Date: 1/22/14 Case No: LU 13-0046 Name: i" V5L� Address:. � t ( � `2 � �•� � . = City/State/Zip: Ltvtkx- c-�3> k--:, c;-. c -z:) Phone: &-� q-7 1-:;-- Proponent S- Opponent ❑ Neither For Nor Against ❑ Are you part of an Organized Presentation: (Representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowners association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization) Yes ❑ No .W-_ If yes, List Speakers in Order of Presentation: Please submit this form to the Recording Secretary G-182 LU 13-0046 Dee Denton 580 Sixth Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Residing, living (which is different than just residing), and working actively for a better Lake Oswego for over 52 years prompted me to express my thoughts on the proposed development on the Wizer Block. My 33 1/2 years as Executive Director of the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce has given me solid background to be able to look outside the box, consider our history, and ultimately commend the developer for the proposal, which I believe reflects the Comprehensive Plan. Thank heavens that our state legislature had the foresight and vision to require that all counties and cities have long-term comprehensive plans to help communities plan for future growth needs, such as open space, industry, business, public facilities, density, infrastructure, and so forth. Many hours of staff and citizen participation went into making this plan happen. Having this plan in place helps our city make realistic decisions, based on long-term thinking rather than the emotional reactions of a few vocal people_ For decades, the people of this city have worked to make Lake Oswego more than just a bedroom community. Even before the Comprehensive Plan, we recognized the importance of having vibrant business districts and events that brought the citizens together. We also recognized that communities have to plan for some growth; if not, we would be stagnant. Growth shows that our community is alive, that we have new tax revenue, and we are keeping up with the times. Our Comprehensive Plan reflects this. The current proposal for the Wizer Block, although a big change from what is there now, fits the future needs of this community. We are fortunate to have an involved citizenry. However, for as proud as I am of my community, there have been many times where I have been embarrassed by the pettiness and grandstanding within our community dialogue seen on television, the Internet, and in the letters to the newspapers. Developing the Wizer Block is not going to destroy our quality of life, just as the controversial projects before have not. Throughout our history people have come out of the woodwork to object to projects such as the first water treatment plant (giving us our own access to water independent of Portland), the Kruse Way Corridor, Mountain Park development, the LOHS pool, the Mormon Temple, Millennium Plaza, and even allowing our first pizza restaurant to sell beer. There are so many opportunities to contribute to this community. It is my sincere hope that when this is all over, some of this energy can be directed toward something fun and positive. G-183 LU 13-0046 Kristin Johnson 2 Mountain Circle Lake Oswego, OR 97035 As a twenty -something city councilor, I was often the lone 'Youth" voice weighing -in on issues facing the city. Now that I have moved back to LO after law school, I have noticed that this perspective is still missing from the debate, so here I go again. I support the proposed development on the Wizers' Property (Block 137) for the following reasons: (1) It adheres to the height and density requirements of the Code. While the proposal requests an exception for a fifth story, this does not push it over the 60 - foot height limit. The three proposed buildings range from 47 to 58 feet. This project is congruent with the height limits contemplated by this community when the Code was drafted. (2) As a general rule, we should be OK with proposals that fit within the Code. We set rules in anticipation of development, so landowners and neighbors know what to expect. If we want more stringent requirements, then we amend the Code. Challenging projects on a case-by-case basis creates a bad precedent and discourages developers from wanting to invest in our community. Let`s be careful about rejecting projects that fit within the Code and are the result a collaborative and transparent design process with many documented public meetings. (3) Better utilizing Block 137 diffuses congestion by creating more points -of - interest and creating more connectivity between adjacent blocks. Any congestion experienced at Lake View Village can be directly traced to the fact that a large portion of downtown activity is concentrated in a single block with one parking lot with one entrance. By developing the adjacent lot, we diffuse some of that concentration by providing more public parking (135 parking spots reserved for retail and public use). Additionally, the proposal creates more pedestrian pathways and storefronts that will keep shoppers interested and moving up "A" Avenue and down Second Street toward "B" Avenue, where we have businesses that are currently isolated from bustle of Lake View Village. (4) It's good for business, and that's good for the community. LO businesses provide an incredible amount of voluntary support to this community. Bringing more economic vitality downtown is good for existing businesses, and it provides opportunities for new businesses to set roots and invest here. (5) Increased tax revenue. G-184 LU 13-0046 C6) it provides jobs and activities for young people. Having attractive public spaces adjacent to retail and food provides opportunities for different generations to voluntarily occupy the same space, both as visitors and employees. (7) We should want to create opportunities for young professionals to move to LU. Many young professionals like a little density when it means they can walk to a grocery store, a coffee shop, and a bar. New residents fall in love with L0. Let's encourage young people to come, get attached, and stay so that we encourage generational diversity. Then, when they are ready to buy a house for their growing children, they purchase here too. (8) Downtown residents are great economic drivers. Residents who chose to live on a higher density block because they want to live in a walkable area consistently frequent the businesses within walling distance. Young people want an interesting place to live, community support, and a future with potential for improvement. Every generation should support this proposal. G-184 LU 13-0046 THE WIZER BLOCK I'VE HAD THE PLEASURE OF LIVING IN LAKE OSWEGO SINCE 1970 WHEN THE POPULATION WAS ABOUT 13.000. NOW THE GENERAL POP- ULATION IS APR.OXIMATELY 37,000. SINCE WE NEED MORE LIVING SPACE IS THERE A BETTER PLACE THEN THE WIZER BLOCK TO FULFII OUR NEEDS? WHEN MR. WIZER MADE THE DECISION TO DEVELOP THE BLOCK HE WAS WISE TO PICK THE VERY BEST DEVELOPERS. NOTHING BUT THE BEST FOR L AKE OSWEGO.! WHILE THERE IS OPPOSITION TO SOME FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT THERE'S ALSO A LARGE FACTION THAT SEES THIS DEVELOPMENTAS THE BEST THING THAT'S COME ALONG IN A LONG TIME. G-185 LU 13-0046 SOME APARTMLNTS, BUT A SUPPLY OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL, LIVABLE CONDOMINIUMS POSSIBLE. COVERED PARKING FOR THOSE WHO WILL LIVE HERE, PLUS SEPARATE PARKING FOR. R.ENTMS. A GRASS GARDEN ON TOP OF ONE BUILDING, VIEWING THE PARK AND LAKE. A WHOLE NEW EXCITING UPSCALE BOUTIQUE SHOPS AND RESTAURANTS. THE RUMOR OF A BIG BOX STORE IS NOT IN THE PLAN WHEN A PROJECT SUCH AS THIS OFFERS TO JOIN THE VILLAGE, THEY SHOULD BE WELCOMED ----WITH OPENED ARMS. SALLY KNAUSS 750 IsT ST. LAKE OSWEGO, OR - 503 -522-5666 R 503-522-5666 G-185 LU 13-0046 Paden Prichard and Norma Prichard 204 6' St. Evergreen Neighborhood January 22, 2014 I am a residential building designer with 45 years experience, and as a member of the Evergreen Neighborhood Board, I am very committed to the preservation of the Neighborhood and the appropriate development of our town. I have followed this proposal closely since the beginning and recognize the many demographic and financial benefits. I wish to express my support for this project. I believe this is the right type of development, it is the right time and the right team. They are committed to a very high quality project and have been responsive to community needs and comments. As a result of several community and design focus meetings, they have made many changes to the plan since the initial concept. To list a few: Retail parking was originally planned above grade, now all parking is underground, The pedestrian walkways through the site did not originally exist, The residential parking entrance originally planned for Evergreen is now on 2"d° St. The tower planned at the corner of 2nd and Evergreen has been removed, The maple tree, was not originally planned to be saved, it is now being saved, The improvements to 2nd St. which was not even on the radar, Using 3 separate LO styles instead of a single building type. Even though 1 support this project, I believe there are some things that should be modified in order for this plan to more completely comply with the CDC and the requirements of the Downtown Redevelopment Design District ..... I believe compliance is essential in order for final approval. I will briefly list the things I believe should be modified as they are covered extensively in my letter to the DRC: 1. Building B: The Second St. and Evergreen Road facades: (code requirements) A. "A fourth story may be permitted subject to the following". LOC 50.05.004.5.d.i 1. "The fourth story must be residential and is contained within a gabled or hipped roof." For the fourth floor space to be contained within the roof, the eave would have to be at the floor level of the fourth story and the spaces should appear as dormers out of this roof. In my opinion, the fourth story as designed does not meet this criteria. 2. "The site is sloping and the structure has three or fewer stories on the uphill side;" This design clearly does not meet this criteria. 3. "The fourth story is significantly stepped back from the building plane created by the lower stories," In my opinion the design as proposed does not meet this criteria as there is insignificant step -back and articulation. (See sketch 2A and 2B of letter) G-186 LU 13-0046 4. "Fourth story elements are used to break up the mass ....." In my opinion, the facade is uniform and without significant break up of mass or elements. The deck and roof -line of the fourth story are consistent for the length of the facade apart from the gable towers and chimneys. B. 1 do not see any specific language in the CDC that permits a fifth story, with or without an exception to the code. If the fifth floor of building B facing Second and Evergreen were to be pushed back away from the street to be mostly over the parking garage and contained within the roof, the eave of which was at the floor line of the fourth story, building B could be considered to be primarily four stories and could possibly meet the requirements of this section of the code. (See sketch 2B of letter) C. Building B, through articulation, revised fenestration and detailing, should more reflect residential use and would then be more compatible with the townhouses. 2. Building C: A. The First and Evergreen — Millenium Plaza corner. (code) LOC 50.05.004.6.j. i. "Be designed to complement and be compatible with other corner buildings....." In my opinion this corner facade is neither complementary nor compatible with the surrounding corner structures and should be redesigned to be no more than three stories right at the corner and be substantially softened in appearance. The facade could then be stepped back away from the corner to attain full height. B. As mentioned in the staff report, there should be some element of coordination between the ground floor and upper stories of the First St. facade. I believe, the flat topped or truncated gables should be changed to pointed gables and hipped roofs. The facades of building C are just too "edgy" to be compatible with existing structures. 3. Building A: A. This is the most successful of the building designs, but I believe the CDC requires retail uses on the ground floor of building A at 2 d and at the public walkway. 4. Parking and traffic: Even with the number of parking spaces being offered, I believe parking will be found inadequate. I believe the north and east sides of the lower (residential) level of the garage should be fully excavated to obtain approximately 50 to 60 additional spaces. These spaces could be used for building management and retail employees. Since LORA funds are being used to obtain the retail section of the garage, it should be fully utilized for public parking. I wish to complement the staff and in particular Leslie, for an excellent job on the staff report on this extremely complicated project. I believe the DRC should have the final say over any modifications and conditions and they should approve this application after the modifications are made that strictly comply with the CDC. Thank you for your consideration, Paden and Norma Prichard G-186 LU 13-0046 72 - Oho iff C) W o cD. CD CDO o Z (wr Al A w A '3 9 G-ABG.fjfj4G January 22, 2014 Development Review Commission City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: LU13-0046: A Request for a Development Review Permit to Construct a Mixed Use Project (Wizer Block Redevelopment) Members of the Commission: I am writing to support the redevelopment project proposed for the Wizer Block. I have reviewed the applicant's proposal and the City Staff Report and Recommendations. I urge you to approve the permit request as recommended in the Staff Report and the Staff's proposed conditions. I agree with the Staff Report that the project meets the requirements and conditions of our Comprehensive Plan and appropriate codes. Our community needs a strong, vibrant downtown core to make Lake Oswego a great place to live along with a vital local economy. We won't have strong neighborhoods if we don't have a healthy, viable downtown to complement them. This mixed-use development will help us provide a variety of housing types to attract young people and support our local businesses. It encourages pedestrian activity downtown and provides the necessary parking for retail and residents. I was born and raised here in Lake Oswego and have lived here most of my adult life. When I first returned to town after college, I lived in apartments until I could afford to buy a house here. We need apartments and condominiums to attract young people for our future. We can't just be a bunch of expensive single-family homes with an aging population. Our downtown is a great place for this kind of mixed-use development. The downtown plan encourages this development. It helps us provide for a variety of housing types and the necessary customer base to support viable local businesses. Please approve the permit request as recommended in the Staff Report. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Tom O'Connor 1960 Egan Way Lake Oswego, OR 97034 G-187 LU 13-0046 G-187 LU 13-0046 From: Dillinaer. Barbara To: Hamilton. Leslie; Revnolds. Janice Subject: FW: Wizer"s Block redevelopment Date: Friday, January 24, 2014 8:44:04 AM From: Zak Bennett [mailto:bennett.zak@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:00 PM To: Dillinger, Barbara Subject: Wizer's Block redevelopment Please direct this to whom it may concern. I'm writing to support the redevelopment of the Wizer's block site in downtown Lake Oswego. As a bit of background, I grew up and spent 20 years living in Lake Oswego, Presently I work in Vancouver, BC in city planning and maintain close ties with friends and family in my hometown. The furor that has been kicked up by this proposal is pure NIMBYism. The architecture is in line with Lake View Village and other downtown area developments that have sprung up in the past 15 years. It leverages the investments in Millennium Park and Lake View Village, building on the success of those initiatives. 6 story buildings, particularly with this level of design and pedestrian access, are emphatically not out of scale with the area. The commercial frontage proposed along A would further complement the retail on the opposite side of the street. It would take a dead strip mall that currently makes a hole in downtown LO into a place of activity and is the next logical step in the development of the city's core. Further, the proposal fulfills some of our obligations as a Metro regional town center and allows growth of the population despite our now -limited land supply. Traffic is a valid but non -pressing concern; City of LO and State of Oregon traffic counts show a steady drop in traffic on both State and A over recent years. If anything, the only real issue is the oversupply of parking, particularly with the subsidization of LORA, but that seems done deal and as such I doubt it will be seriously revisited. At the least, I hope you can use this as further evidence that people connected to Lake Oswego who care about the city's future. Pass this development and keep building up a better downtown Lake Oswego. Sincerely, Zak Bennett Vancouver, BC G-188 LU 13-0046 Development Review Commission Re: Wizer Block Proposal I am writing to express my concerns that some members of the DRC appear to be letting their personal feelings about the Wizer Block proposal interfere with their obligation to judge the proposal on how well it meets the criteria outlined in Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code and on its compliance with the City's land use and design regulations. This proposal meets or exceeds all those criteria, and it is very well designed and will be an important addition to downtown Lake Oswego, which has finally acquired a sense of place due to the many improvements and changes in the past decade. Yes, it will be quite a change but so was Millennium Park, Lake View Village and the many new residential units in that area. And they all make Lake Oswego a more interesting and vibrant place to live, one that draws new people into our community and that can accommodate seniors who wish to stay in Lake Oswego. Please approve of this proposal based on its merits and its ability to meet the required criteria. There is no rational for not doing so. Thank you. Nancy Gronowski G-189 LU 13-0046 From: Lvnn Hennaain To: Hamilton. Leslie Subject: Wizer testimony Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:44:42 AM I have lived in Lake Oswego for 44 years and have been an active participant in our community serving as a director on the Chamber of Commerce, The Historical Council, The Arts Council and Lake Oswego Rotary. As a videographer I have produced promotional video for the City of Lake Oswego, The Lake Oswego School Foundation and The Arts Council. When it came time for us to down size, we never thought of leaving Lake Oswego. We were looking something smaller yet gracious. We waited for Foothills to become a reality or the Wizer Block to develop. Our goal was to live within walking distance of the downtown area of Lake Oswego. After eighteen months of looking for the right property in Lake Oswego, we expanded our thinking and eventually moved out of Lake Oswego. Should Lake Oswego develop comfortable smaller condos, we would be the first to consider returning to the city we love. Lake Oswego needs to keep in mind the long time residents who are getting older and want to stay in the city they love but choose to live in smaller well designed condos that are within walking distance to downtown Lake Oswego. Lynn Hennagin G-190 (previously G-2) LU 13-0046 OPPONENT LETTERS G-264 TH RU G-294 LETTERS G-264 thru G-294 From: Revnolds. Janice To: Hamilton. Leslie Subject: FW: Wizer Block Opposition Letter Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:13:31 PM From: Kim Rigney [mailto:kimrigney@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:35 PM To: Reynolds, Janice Cc: Marcie McAuliffe Subject: Wizer Block Opposition Letter Dear Design Review Commission (DRC), I am a new resident to Lake Oswego (less than a 6 months) and also brand new to Oregon. My husband's job with Nike is what brought us here. We could have chosen anywhere in the Portland -area to live and we chose Lake Oswego. We picked it because of the schools, the small town feeling and the QUALITY of life (ease of getting around, no traffic, quaint village atmosphere). I am aware of what is proposed Block 137 (Wizer development) and I am blown away. I believe that it goes against everything that Lake Oswego stands for and why people choose HERE to live. The traffic, the congestion, the parking, just the sheer number of inhabitants from 228 apartments-- I don't see how this could be a good thing for Lake Oswego in the least. I live right near "malfunction junction" and sometimes the back-up to turn right from Country Club onto Iron Mountain can be up to 10 minutes in the late afternoon. My two boys go to Forest Hills which is already jam packed (because of the Uplands closure.). I'm certain the schools would be affected. Please don't ruin our quality of life. And why people choose here to live. Thank you. Sincerely, Kim Rigney 1291 Lake Garden Ct Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-944-9383 G-264 LU 13-0046 From: Roger Rollins fmailto:RLRollins@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 4:44 PM To: Reynolds, Janice Cc: Lita Griggs Subject: Opposition to Wizer block proposed development Attached, please see several letters to the L.O. Review that I have written in opposition to the current proposal to develop the Wizer block with a high density 228 unit apartment complex. I am not opposed to development in general, but this proposal is a slap in the face to the vast majority of citizens that oppose high density development. If we learned anything from the last election it is that citizens do not want a Pearl District in L.O. such as was proposed for the foothills area, much less one that is in the center of town. Citizens of this small town with a village atmosphere are adamant in their opposition to higher densitv. Therefore I call on the Planning Commission, and City Council members to rest_ ect the will of the people, and summarily reject this proposal. Roger L. Rollins 17621 Lake Haven Dr. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 (503) 635-2468 RouerRollins(a comcast.net 2nd letter to L.O. Review Here we go again, another lost opportunity to do something special in planning. Worse, this mistake could haunt us for decades. The news that city planners and a developer plan a 228 unit apartment complex on the Wizer Block at ground zero, steps from Millennium park is enough to make you wonder... what could they be thinking? Just because an architect and a developer want to polish their resumes, and bank accounts, with a design at the center of Lake Oswego that "meets all design requirements" doesn't mean it should be done. For those citizens that are ambivalent about the proposal, or perhaps taken in by the arguments that our village needs to "grow up into a city" that attracts young unmarrieds, let me offer this perspective. If a developer wanted to build a similar complex on Ocean Avenue one block from the beach in Carmel by the Sea, California, would their city fathers allow it? Obviously, to anyone that has visited that village, the answer would be a resounding NO WAY. So, I offer this test to the L.O. decision makers. If it isn't an appropriate fit on Ocean Avenue in Carmel, why should it be an appropriate fit on A Avenue at the heart of Lake Oswego's civic center. Frank Lloyd Wright once said that a house should not be on the hill, but rather of the hill. Meaning the house should be an extension of, compatible with, and sympathetic to, its environment. So the question is: Will the development on the Wizer Block be of the site, or simply uninspiringly, on the site? G-265 LU 13-0046 3rd Letter to the Editor of L.O. Review Last night I had a dream: The potpourri of scenes included 400 BMW's, a hookah lounge, 200 dogs, a tattoo shop, 400 bicycles, a marijuana dispensary, and a piercing parlor, all swimming in a puree centered in the Wizer Block development. Okay, in fairness, I have no evidence that any of these specters will actually materialize. On the other hand, there is probably little that could prevent them from happening, e.g. the Stars strip club. Mind you, I don't have anything against young single apartment dwellers, it is just that a recent Saturday visit to Portland's S.E. Hawthorne District reinforced my belief that the majority of their interests are distinctly different from mine. But, to each their own, and viva la difference. It is just that I fear the peripheral damage that a concentration of large numbers of them, and their accoutrements in the center of downtown might bring to our quiet, anti -weird, pedestrian friendly, traffic manageable, rules obeying, village of family oriented residents. I celebrate the vibe that the Pearl and S.E. Hawthorn Districts bring to the metro area. But why can't we be content to let our little piece of Oregon remain as it is? Why are we targeting this demographic when there is seemingly little in Oswego that interests them? The absence of a Club scene, proximity of other similarly minded young adults, or a tech centric job cluster, and anticipated high cost of renting these units seems to me to be an anathema to young people. At last night's LORA meeting I heard numerous comments by the erstwhile Wizer Block developers praising the amenities that would be limited to the tenants of the apartment complex. Admittedly, the focus of the meeting was purposely on the design characteristics, however the question that hung in the air was what market need is driving this development towards young singles, and more importantly what is the public benefit of courting them? After all, one could position a Downton Abby smack in middle of a native American reservation to attract the landed gentry, but neither the landed gentry nor the native Indians would likely be happy with it. The most successful marketing efforts are driven by a genuine need, and the absence of a need is often the death knell of even the best in marketing or architectural plans. 4th Letter to the L.O. Review What happened? What happened to the Mayor and new city council members that promised pre-election to reverse the rush to increase density in our city pursued so vigorously by the previous Mayor and several of the old council? What happened to the promises to seek broad citizen input for major projects after the streetcar plan, foothills Pearl District plan, and the relocate our library to 2nd street plan went down in flames after citizens woke up? The plan to develop the Wizer block into an apartment complex with up to 228 transient tenants at Millennium Park has struck the citizens I have spoken to with three reactions: (1) Oh no... a 5 story apartment High density complex next to Millennium Park ... we don't want that! (2) What... why was there no citizen input? (3) Why is this happening so fast in a city that has talked about developing the Wizer block for decades? To these questions I might add my own: Why is it that the entire city council has either been hypnotized by the developer, or lacks the courage to question in even the mildest form, the basic premise of this proposal? Oh yes, they have lots of questions about whether the complex will have garbage cans, or where the hordes of tenant dogs will find a bathroom, but no one considered addressing the impact of this offensive proposal on the village character of our town center. After all, the "village character" is enshrined in our town's charter documents, and more importantly in the hearts of the citizens that treasure a small town atmosphere. If this proposal reaches fruition in its current form, one can only imagine the future consequences: A plethora of high rise apartments in downtown and Lake Grove. Traffic nightmares as legions of tenants leave their apartments for jobs in Portland, Beaverton, or Hillsboro. Massive parking problems in downtown leading the city council to conclude that only parking meters will solve the congestion. A sharp increase in the number of DUI arrests as the apartment complexes become party central on weekends. Greater noise, trash, dog droppings, crime, and disregard for authority. More conflicts between bicyclists, cars and pedestrians leading the city council to conclude bicycle only street lanes and a one way street grid are the answer. Creeping "weirdness" as all of the characteristics (e.g. nude bicycle parades) that now dilute Portland's attractiveness impact our family friendly atmosphere. While many towns have succumbed to the assault of the urban density Taliban, with their love of high rise development, notably some, such as Sausalito, CA. have with great courage steadfastly refused. They remain as unique and highly sought outposts, in a sea of insoluble congestion. If you want to influence the path of this runaway train, I suggest you make your voice heard by the city council. Otherwise, be prepared for a future you may not enjoy. 7th Letter to the L.O. Review Over the years whenever I have sold an automobile I've made it a point to ask for identification from the other party to confirm they were who they said they were. Just good practice in money matters. Since the proposed Wizer block development calls for approximately 6 million dollars in taxpayer subsidies, one would hope that the city council when weighing this high densitv apartment complex proposal would apply the same due diligence. I believe the public deserves full disclosure regarding who would benefit from this largess. I am not talking about simply disclosing the name of the developer, the carefully crafted name of his development company, and the architectural firm. But instead, a full list of all parties that stand to benefit including individual investors, silent partners, overseas governments, banks, hedge funds, or whatever. Also, it would also be interesting to know how many, if any, local "consultants" were employed, or gifted with promises of work, out of the L.O. population to try to influence Neighborhood Association's surveys, or overall public opinion. Yes, I know many would say this is a privacy issue, or that it is an unrealistic expectation. Nevertheless, with the carefully worded advertisements, and proliferation of non- L.O. resident letters to the L.O Review touting this proposal, one can sense that the moneyed few are desperate to convince the public that this will be a good thing. Sorry, but I don't agree. The increased traffic, parking congestion, noise, trash, and negative impact on Millennium Park and local small businesses, let along the precedent it sets for future proposals, all spell a huge setback to our village atmosphere. If you have any illusions about this high density apartment complex being a solution for seniors wanting to down size, I challenge the developer to have the courage to publish the anticipated rental fees for these units. I question how many seniors on semi, or totally, fixed incomes will forgo a condo or town house for a high priced apartment, with all the instability of transient neighbors, rising rental fees, and the whim of a landlord. Let's be candid. This is a high density apartment complex designed for maximum profit to the developers, that benefits hugely from its location in the heart of the city, with little or no benefit, and a great deal of potential downside, to the public at large. DIENNE G. IRWIN 4343 Sunset Drive • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 • phone: (503)636-8859 • email: dienneirw@juno.com January 22, 2014 Development Review Commission City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue Lake Oswego, OR 97034 RE: Wizer Block Dear Development Review Commissioners: I am writing to you to oppose the building of a five story rental apartment in the middle of our beautiful downtown Lake Oswego. There are several reasons to do so which include the following: The development review process should emphasize the protection of our established codes which have been put into existence through years of hard negotiations from the citizens, the Neighborhood Associations, the Planning Department and the City Council. Why are these codes so easily "thrown out the window" for profit when there were concrete reasons to have them? The proposal for a five story building does so with disregard to the City code. Removing twenty-five trees again defeats the purpose of our tree code. 2. Traffic and parking congestion: If you have driven down A Ave during rush hour, you would be aware that having apartments containing over 400 residents would certainly create grid lock, not to mention t the traffic that will now cut through the neighborhoods of North Shore County Club, Lake view and especially Evergreen. Parking: Residents of these new apartments will now use up all the street parking (and the underground parking ), forcing the already established patrons of our downtown restaurants and retail shops to dine and shop elsewhere as parking would be such a hassle. 4. Westside business would have an afternoon shadow blocking their access to the sun which creates appealing atmosphere to dine in the afternoon sun. These businesses will suffer. Apartments vs Condos: Condos create long time residents for Lake Oswego; residents who can be involved in the city rather than apartments which create a revolving door and does not lend itself to attract citizens who can contribute to the city. I urge you to deny development review permit for this structure and instead go back to the drawing board to bring us a building which serves the City of Lake Oswego rather than a building which would have a negative impact on our way of life. Sincerely, Dienne Irwin G-266 LU 13-0046 From: Revnolds. Janice To: Hamilton. Leslie Subject: FW: Lake Oswego - Wizer block Date: Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:54:31 AM From: Micheleshelley@aol.com [mailto:Micheleshelley@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:49 AM To: Reynolds, Janice Subject: Lake Oswego - Wizer block Dear Ms. Reynolds, I am unable to attend the meeting next week regarding the development of the Wizer block in downtown Lake Oswego and would appreciate that this letter be submitted. I am a long-time resident of Lake Oswego and my children and I are very involved in the local schools and very much enjoy the amenities of this terrific town. I am adamantly opposed to the development of high-density residential apartments on the Wizer's block. We love the farmer's market, the summer time movies and the area restaurants. Traffic brought in by this development would make these amenities almost unusable for us. I would love to see the Wizer block turned into smaller shop retail, another restaurant or two, etc. Adding 200+ apartment homes would destroy the downtown charm of Lake Oswego. I am pro - development and pro -growth if it is deliberate and well -considered. The current proposed development is not fitting for this particular block. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Michele Shelley 6151 Summer Woods Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503)705-4541 G-267 LU 13-0046 From: Revnolds. Janice To: Hamilton, Leslie Subject: FW: Wizer Development Date: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:33:20 PM From: Idrentlaw@gmail.com [mailto:ldrentlaw@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Leslie Drentlaw Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:11 PM To: Reynolds, Janice Subject: Wizer Development To whom it may concern, I am writing to you because I am opposed to the current plan for the Wizer's development in Lake Oswego. I am part of a large group of longtime residents that want to preserve all that makes Lake Oswego the special place it is. I have lived here all my life and I am very distressed by all of the changes that are occurring almost daily.,Older historic homes and very old one of a kind trees being torn down so that a developer can cram in several homes with no yards at all. Lake Oswego is known for having space and room around the homes not crammed in like in the city. We do not want to become that kind of town! Businesses being allowed in to town in a sneaky way without residents having a chance to have a say and now the Wizer development. While I believe it will be good to develop the area, the current proposal does not fit in to what our town is and what we should become down the road. 1. Those opposed to the proposed project are not opposed to the development of the Wizer Block. The ultimate development of this Block done in a manner that preserves the village character and charm of Lake Oswego will be a benefit to the community. 2. This proposal is too big and massive and out of scale with the village character of the area. The DRC has a duty and responsibility to ensure the village character of Lake Oswego is preserved when reviewing proposals. 3. Approval of the proposal will establish a new village character bar that will be used as precedent for future redevelopment to the north that will destroy the village character and charm of Lake Oswego. 4. While we are not opposed to high end residential units in downtown Lake Oswego, we believe Block 137 is best utilized for commercial development in keeping with the City's vision and maintaining the integrity of Millennium Park. 5. Millineum park capacity is 400 - having a massive 228 unit apartment complex next door will overwhelm the Farmer's Market & keep people from having access. 6. The height of the building will shade the outdoor restaurant seating across the street. 7. The transient nature of a massive apartment complex will often block the surrounding streets with moving vans and apartment visitors. 8. Such a massive residential building will add to the already grid locked drive time G-268 LU 13-0046 traffic surrounding downtown. Please listen to the people and reconsider this development so that it fits in to what is good about our city! Leslie Walczyk-Drentlaw 3220 Southshore Blvd Lake Oswego 97034 From: Simoson. Anne -Marie To: Hamilton, Leslie Cc: Pishvaie. Hamid; Williams, Brant Subject: FW: Wizer"s Block Date: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:25:23 AM From: Patricia Roberts[mailto:PatriciaR@baysingerpartners.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:12 AM To: Council Distribution Subject: Wizer's Block I am dismayed at the very idea that the Mayor & City Council would even entertain a development such as the one proposed for the Wizer Block. The majority of property owners living in Lake Oswego have elected our City Officials with the understanding that you would continue to support our values, not blatantly pursue your own agenda. You throw out the Foothills mixed use project which would be a much location for high density apartments. The Foothills project included bringing light rail to Lake Oswego. Light rail would help ease the traffic congestion, now you are entertaining approval of a development that will increase traffic congestion. In place of a project that made economic sense a five ( 5) story 100% rentals project is being considered in the very heart of our village. For several years I have served on the Board of a 62 unit condominium property and my experience has been that renters do not have a vested interest in the property. There is one motel in lake Oswego, an additional boutique hotel would bring guests to Lake Oswego; increase the revenue of the existing businesses and bring hotel/motel tax revenue to the City. Please do not permit 400+ new renters to come and take away our quality of life in the village. Play by the rules, do not disregard the City Code by permitting a 5 story structure to be built. Consider what a 2 to 3 year building project will do the existing restaurants & businesses during the construction period. Millennium Park accommodates 400 people and during events is usually filled to capacity with the potential of another 200 to 400 people it would be overwhelmed. Parking will I believe that as elected officials it is your repsonsibiity to listen to the community and not to to ignore our voice and allow such an objectionable development. Respectfully, Patricia Roberts 522 S. State St. Lake oswego OR 97034 503-635-2825 G-269 LU 13-0046 From: Dillinaer. Barbara To: Hamilton. Leslie; Revnolds. Janice Subject: FW: Oppose Wizer development as planned Date: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:08:25 PM From: eviefuson@aol.com [mailto:eviefuson@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:59 PM To: Dillinger, Barbara Subject: Oppose Wizer development as planned Dear City Council and Development Review Commission, We are opposed to the mass and scale of the proposed development on the Wizer property. The scale and size of this project are incompatible with our Village. Please vote no. Thank you. Evie and Jack Fuson 1255 Chandler Road Lake Oswego, OR 97034 G-270 LU 13-0046 CITIZEN INPUT Date: 1/22/14 Case No: LU 130046 Name: Address: City/State/Zip: 4, Phone: Proponent L-1 Opponent W - Neither For Nor Against C3 Are you part of an Organized Presentation: (Representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowners association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization) Yes L3 No X If yes, List Speakers in Order of Presentation: 4) or io no-, Wo 7 /? 4'ase submit this form to the Record"IM44(]" Secretary G-271 LU 13-0046 0�9 S 2 - LAI", Ap ve rz, 0 f e Ol G-271 LU 13-0046 F l'A ♦¢ � off CITIZEN INPUT OREGG?/ Date: 1122114 Case No: LU 13-0046 q Name: Address: y k1 1 City/State/Zip: Phone: - Proponent ❑ Opponent U ---- Neither For Nor Against ❑ Are you part of an Organized Presentation: (Representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowners association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization) Yes ❑ No .❑ If yes, List Speakers in Order of Presentation: `V��J Please submit this form to the Recording Secretary G-272 LU 13-0046 o� s CITIZEN ©REG -0 Date: 1122114 Case No: LU 13-0046 Name: Address: City/State/Zip: L /'1 Phone: ; &�(o -- 1-26 Proponent ❑ Opponent Neither For Nor Against ❑ Are you part of an Organized Presentation: (Representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowners association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization) Yes ❑ No If yes, List Speakers in Order of Presentation: fNkh d,'W�to- Jf Please submit this form to the Recording Secretary G-273 LU 13-0046 CITIZEN INPU o; Date: 1122/14 Case No: LU 13-0046 Name: Jr14( F.f' 4411 Address: c�Zy' City/Sate t /Zp. �� City/State/Zip: G— 0 3 Phone: '�5-o 3 - - % Z (a"o q Proponent ❑ Opponent 9 Neither For Nor Against ❑ Are you part of an Organized Presentation: (Representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowners association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization) Yes ❑ No Q If yes, List Speakers in Order of Presentation: rt. /S 7LC1 Please submit this form to the Recording S reta ry 112M 1c�k6) / G-274 - LU 13-0046 or CITIZEN INPUT = Date: 1/22/14 Case No: LU 13-0046 Name: YA L'i Address: J-3 4 a kj� q, � cicc/e- City/State/Zip: 4 - C, C"�' 3Y Phone: S�o 3- �, �F - 7 3 Proponent ❑ Opponent "'4 Neither For Nor Against ❑ Are you part of an Organized Presentation: (Representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowners association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization) Yes ❑ N� Y �G�inie � 5 cad 4C - If ye , List Speakers in Order of Pr 4ntation: G-275 Please submit this form to the RecordLn�3-0046 Secretary . ft')Ool 4 '� 4 , 1t !l i Ode e � � Yi e Yi Ile cli v3 61 /1 Pvt f / r G G� �L,.( '14), i 1 / cif r %\ G-275 LU 13-0046 o! ITIE I PU �REGO�/ Date: 1122114 Case No: LU 13-4046 Name: 7D)4_()e' Address: �-f 6z .� City/State/Zip: R00,�c( Phone: Proponent ❑ Opponent -tpo Ad' --3e_� vv Neither For Nor Against ❑ Are you part of an Organized Presentation.- (Representative resentation:(Representative of a recognized neighborhood association, homeowners association, government or government agency, or other incorporated public interest organization) Yes ❑ No .v If yes, List Speakers in Order of Presentation: Please submit this form to the Recording Secretary G-276 LU 13-0046 January 22, 2014 To Members of the Lake Oswego Design Review Commission, I've read that Developers for the Wizer Block have requested an additional $400,000 in public funding to regrade and narrow 2nd St, and that 2°d St, will be the loading zone for the shops and restaurants and the exit and entry for the 200 — 400 new residents in the Wizer Block buildings. 2nd St, is also an exit for farmers market vendors. It is beyond the realm of logic to believe that tad St. can sustain the amount of traffic the Wizer Block plan will create. I believe the Wizer plan ,should be downsized so it is compatible with Labe View Village and Oswego Village Town Domes. I've also read that several trees must be cut down to implement the Wizer plan, trees which now add shade and character to Millennium Park and to our city. The Wizer Block plan will drastically rederme the character of our downtown area, from a lovely village on a lake, to one with a high density, large city atmosphere. I moved to Lake Oswego for its village beauty, and to avoid city traffic congestion and crowds. Please require that the Wizer plan fit in with our present downtown, not loom over it. Sincere y, Alexander Babin 19170 Bryant Rd. Lake Oswego, OR 97034 G-277 LU 13-0046 January 22, 2014 Dear Members of Lake Oswego Design Review Commission, The Lake Oswego City Development Code defines village character and states that new buildings should not be taller than 3 stories. I believe that the structures planned for Wizer dock 137, which are 5 stories, are incompatible with the village character of the downtown and are in violation of the CDC code. These tall structures will cast shade on outdoor eating spaces on I" street. No exemption to the CDC height maximum should be permitted! I am in favor of redevelopment but not overdevelopment. The East End Redevelopment plan states that new structures should compliment Lake View Village and Oswego Village Town Homes. The Wizer Block 137 plan, with more than 200 apartments, is very high density and does not meet the criteria of the East End Redevelopment plan! The Wizer Block 137 plan will have a detrimental effect on traffic in the downtown area! 200 apartments will mean 200 - 400 more cars. Some Lake Oswego citizens have suggested that residents of these new apartments will use bus transportation (which, by the way, often has standing room only and cannot be relied upon to arrive at specified times). I doubt that the young professionals who will live in these new apartments will take the bus. It is obvious that the Wizer Block 1.37 plan will significantly increase traffic congestion in the downtown area, no matter how those in favor of this plan attempt to downplay concerns about increased traffic. The Wizer Block 137 plan should be re -designed to be the same height as Lake View Village and with a smaller number of living spaces, comparable to the Oswego Village Town Homes. Sincerely, Mary Ann Dougherty 19170 Bryant Rd. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 G-278 LU 13-0046 January 21St, 2014 To whom it may concern, regarding Wizer Block Planned Redevelopment: After considerable thought, I believe the massive 5 story structure planned for the Wizer Block redevelopment would destroy the character and charm of our Lake Oswego downtown when considering the negative impact of increased traffic congestion, overcrowding, and lack of adequate parking. What we are left with is an overall lower quality of life for local residents. Sincerely, Cynthia J. Ega 374 Fifth Street Lake Oswego, OR G-279 LU 13-0046 January 22, 2014 To: Development Review Commission Re: LU 13-0046 I am a resident of Lake Oswego. I have lived in Lake Oswego for u v . I am submitting my written testimony regarding the WiK proposed redevelopment for the Winer property (LU13-0046). I am opposed to this proposal and request that the application be denied. Name i V\ Address � iv � � Telephone G-280 LU 13-0046 January 22, 2014 To: Development Review Commission Re: LU 13-0046 I am a resident of Lake Oswego. I have lived in Lake Oswego for . I am submitting my written testimony regarding the W&K proposed redevelopment for the Wizer property (LU13-0046). I am opposed to this proposal and request that the application be denied. Blame 1 ` �V-� 5 ,"0 i;� y Address A015-3 �Av e, Telephone (F�� � ��i-' �� � 5j G-281 LU 13-0046 a I I I / � \ � � � , r -, ,. � - � � �� � �� � 11 � I ' ' ' ! 1 a i i � ,� � / r�. � I � 1 � � � � .� I � f; � � � � / r � i� � '� / r � � f i I r �` - � � � 1 � � � � i � � � � � � �� 1 � � �� � �1 � � � � I � 1 � ' li � ► jl � I �i I � r � i ��: � ;� , 1 t, �, � , � , , , � � � �� � � � i + �i ; � � � 1 1 � � � 1 ! yy i I 1 i ��� �f l �? � � � ' C � � � /1 EVERGREEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REPORT TO DRC LU 13-0046 January 22, 2014 Submitted by: Carel Radich 669 Ellis Lake Oswego ENA board member and past chair G-283 LU 13-0046 January 22, 2014 To the DRC The Evergreen Neighborhood Association (ENA) has voted overwhelmingly to oppose the W&K development plan for Block 137. In a neighborhood questionnaire, only 10 out of the 153 respondents supported the project as it is currently designed. An additional 16 stated they agreed with the concept but not with the 5th floor. The remaining 82% object to the proposed development because, in their words, it is simply far too big. (see exhibit 01 for detailed questionnaire results and comments) We believe a development of this scale and density, in one of the most prominent locations in our town, would be a detriment not only to our neighborhood, but to the entire community. Though our neighborhood favors redevelopment of the Wizer block, we ask the DRC to deny the applicant's proposal. In asking for denial, ENA has received the support of many including the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC) and the Hallinan Neighborhood Association. Our objections to the project, like theirs, are not because we are anti -development, but because of the design of this particular plan. The comments we received, both in our survey and in numerous neighborhood meetings, were always the same. The scale and density are not compatible with the downtown we all enjoy, and that density, which would vastly increase the population of our neighborhood, would exacerbate the traffic and parking problems we already have. VILLAGE CHARACTER It is a responsibility of the DRC (9) to protect the City's aesthetic beauty and character. The character of our downtown is guided by city code, most specifically CDC 50.05.004, which was developed for the Downtown Redevelopment Design District. The stated purpose of the code: is to guide the redevelopment of downtown Lake Oswego in a manner that creates a feeling of vitality and sense ofplace in order to attract private investment and redevelopment of the area and create a community center that reflects and enhances the character of the City of Lake Oswego. We believe that the current development proposal neither reflects nor enhances the character of our neighborhood or our city. That Lake Oswego character is defined in both the code for our downtown area and in the Lake Oswego Urban Design Plan (UDP), a document often referred to in W&K's application. The UDP visions our downtown as a random village style with a mix of two, three, and four stories. In codifying that vision, the CDC thus interprets this "village character" as a community ofsmall-scale structures that appears and operates like a traditional small town. A village is typically composed of an assembly of smaller mixed used structures often centered on a square or other public space or gathering area. (CDC 50.01.001. #4) We believe the proposed Wizer development, which would fill the block with three five - story buildings, clearly does not meet the intent of village character. Blocks 138 and 136, on the other hand, have set the precedent for how the Lake Oswego village character should develop. Lakeview Village consists of six visually distinctive two- and three- story structures. Block 136 has a mix of 39 three-story residences and a two-story retail building along A Avenue. Compared with the scale of Lakeview Village and Block 136, each built out at 90,000 square feet, the W&K development, at over 300,000 square feet and 220 plus residences, is certainly not small-scale. To create the village character, a development must comply with a list of code requirements, requirements which are not satisfactorily met by the W&K plan. Complex Massing (5a) We believe that the design of Building A which fronts on A Avenue, Lake Oswego's "main street", does not meet the intent of this standard. The building does not sufficiently break the massing into smaller scale forms. It unfortunately reads as one long, super- sized, continuous building with no significant break in its facade. The UDP states that buildings designated as gateways to an area or district should have a character and scale appropriate to that district. Moreover, the UDP (section 4.2) calls for more variability in horizontal street frontages: Street and avenue frontages to be maximum of 50 feet horizontal frontage without recess, change ofplane or change of material. Together with its height and long unbroken facade, the proposed Building A (below) is unlike any building existing today along A Avenue. 11111"1111JR111111V plu4I�h111p1INipj alga nlpa �1'Iiill Number of Stories (5b) It is, in fact, the scale and density of the 5 -story buildings that our neighborhood is particularly opposed to. While four stories may be permitted by code, it is not evident that the intent of that code is to allow an entire block of solid four stories with no mix of 2 and 3 stories. Moreover, there are a number of places where the fourth stories do not meet any of the criteria in the code . Sections of the south side of Building A and the west side of Building C have fourth stories that appear to be flush with the first three stories; they are not stepped back nor are they within a roof. See Pedestrian North and East Elevations (p.2 of Exhibit E-9) Pedestrian Walkway - Bldg A Pedestrian Walkway -Bldg C In addition to non -conforming 4th stories, the developer requests an exception for a 5th story on all buildings. This is clearly not allowed and would set a very dangerous precedent for development in the downtown area. The developer argues that the fifth story meets the exception criteria because it equally or better meets a UDP standard and is consistent with UDP objectives. In fact, it is inconsistent with the UDP which clearly states in its guidelines that multifamily housing should be of two- and three-story 2 configuration ( not the ambiguous 'mid -rise' height.) Finally, as pictures speak louder than words, the UDP provides an illustration of desired high density housing. Organization: .4fS. (moi aFS' Cg' KEs, 'T'1'`'T'� B�FJ• � Rl'L' L rOACL�/NG _ � IEG7/oN 7HtLGiSN 1�7�'i� %r/!'�^�" The application does not (and cannot) substantiate its claim that the 60 foot height was established to reflect a preference for a five -story building. Lake Oswego Style Required (6a) It is beyond the purview of our neighborhood testimony to address specific design features and determine how the W&K design meets or doesn't meet the Lake Oswego Style. However, we do want to comment on Building C which, in its prominent location facing Lakeview Village on First Street, appears out of character with traditional small town design. Its prominent white stucco elements with the truncated flat tops, not only exaggerate the scale of the building, but do not appear to resemble the Lake Oswego English Tudor style they claim to emulate. r,mEr1F--FlF: rir -• rir r•nL❑.. i aryls! mijaa &i9€J50i The UDP, so often referred to by W&K as justification for its exceptions to city code, did not envision Block 137 for residential use. Instead the UDP asks that the City consider the four blocks surrounding the 1 st and A intersection as a special retail district (UDP 3.3.1 Compact Shopping District). Likewise, the East End Redevelopment Plan, though not regulatory, also looks to the Wizer block to be a component of the four block compact shopping district (refer to EERP Block 137 Mixed -Use Development). In fact, there is no City document that envisioned anything like a 228 unit apartment complex on that important block. Instead, there a number of standards that specifically relate to how the downtown retail friendly village should be developed. The project fails to meet a number of the retail -related requirements, particularly on Building B and on the pedestrian walkways. Residential units are restricted on the ground floor. LOC 50.03.003.1.e.ii Building B has ground floor residential units in much of the restricted area. Buildings fronting on streets or alleys designed for pedestrian use shall create a storefront appearance on the ground floor. Of the three buildings, only two have any storefront appearance. Building B is entirely residential on the ground floor on all facades. Building A has retail on A Avenue and at the comers at 1 st and 2nd streets, but the south side of the building on the pedestrian walkway has only minimal storefront appearance; the remaining ground floor consists of residential entrances. Building C also lacks a storefront appearance on the major part of its two facades that face pedestrian walkways. A minimum of 80% of the exterior ground floor abutting pedestrian ways shall be designed as store front with display windows and entry features. The applicant's narrative (p.13) lists six frontages to which this standard should apply and asks for several exceptions to this standard. In asking for the exceptions, however, the applicant has neglected to include elevations of the ground floors of Buildings A and C that abut the pedestrian walkways. Building 19 should also have been included. Corner Buildings (6j) To further enhance the village character, LOC 50.05.004, 6j states that buildings located on street corners shall be designed to complement and be compatible with other corner buildings at the same intersection by repeating or echoing the same pattern of corner treatment. There is a lack of compatibility at each of the four corners of this development, but perhaps the most non -complementary corner is at 1 st and Evergreen, opposite St. Honore and the entrance to Millenium Park. The LW corner is only 2 stories and is significantly set back from the roundabout, allowing ample room for outdoor dining and pedestrians. Moreover, the second story has an attractive open terrace at the corner, allowing restaurant patrons to sit and enjoy views of the lake and the park. In stark contrast, the proposed corner building on Block 137 is too close to the roundabout, and its stark glass and metal four story height, with three stories of private residential use, overpowers our town square. Though not as strategically located as the roundabout, the design of the remaining three street corners also appear to violate the code. In addition to each being two stories higher than their counterparts, the Block 137 corners offer little that echo the design of the corners opposite. Comparing the design and scale of the highly visible corners at 1 st and A Avenue clearly indicates that the new development will not complement our existing village structures. I'� mSlti&!!lr�4t! tntt��ic rerll ntjiE artnrs tin e��, �w eY � ' �TL._..I .. uu �buu rr fio it -- Ili� .�Ilt.� t a z �a a=t • � mti A Avenue View - Comparing Comers We conclude, then, that the W&K proposal fails to meet not only the vision of 'village character', but also code requirements that define that character. Moreover, this project fails to recognize and be consistent with the precedent set by the development of Blocks 138 and 136. PARKING A responsibility (5) of the DRC is to assure provision for adequate parking It is also a responsibility (4) of the DRC to assure that the design of site improvements and buildings are consistent with applicable standards and minimize adverse impacts on surrounding land uses. We believe that this project's dependence on on - 4 street parking will have a negative impact on both downtown businesses and on the nearby residences. City code has allowed the developer to significantly reduce on-site parking Because of the layout of downtown Lake Oswego and the ready availability of on -street parking and transit. For residential use, the project will provide only 262 guaranteed spaces for 228 units (322 total less 60 spaces for visitor parking), or an average 1.15 parking spaces per unit. Those residents with more than one car may well be looking for on -street parking. Their visitors, too, may choose to look for on street parking when they find it difficult to access the electronically controlled gated parking. The retail/public parking, is even more problematic. For retail parking requirements, three downtown parking modifiers, heavily dependant on on -street parking, have been used to decrease the required number of on-site parking stalls. For total retail parking, the applicant is providing 135 spaces, 66 parking spaces less than the 201 spaces that would be required if downtown on -street parking spaces couldn't be used to supplement the retail parking. The expectation, then, is that the remainder of parking needs for the shoppers, diners, and the 106+ forecasted retail employees will be augmented by transit, pedestrian use, and on street parking available in the general area. Close -in parking is in short -supply today; the Chamber of Commerce Parking Task Force (November, 2012) found that the parking district around Lakeview Village already exceeds 85% occupancy in peak hours. Although two recent downtown parking studies (2010 Rick Williams Consulting for the City of Lake Oswego and 2012 study by the developer) indicate that there is a good supply of on -street parking spaces available in the general area, both surveys have included available spaces that are quite a distance from Block 137. Moreover, both parking surveys also included available spaces that are outside the East End boundary and/or in front of single family residences. An important goal of the East End redevelopment is to ensure the viability of downtown businesses. The Chamber Parking Task Force (2012) states: City Code Requirements for Retail Use Type Square feet Required Total On -street Pedestrian Additional parking spaces and transit modifier on -street downtown parking modifier modifier Specialty retail I 5400 I 3.3/1000 I 18 Specialty Food I 4700 I 6.6/1000 I 31 I I Restaurant ( 93001 13.3/10001 1241 I I 1 Retail 1 86001 3.3/10001 281 I I Total 28000 201 I .75 .9 32 Adjusted total I I 151 136 104 For total retail parking, the applicant is providing 135 spaces, 66 parking spaces less than the 201 spaces that would be required if downtown on -street parking spaces couldn't be used to supplement the retail parking. The expectation, then, is that the remainder of parking needs for the shoppers, diners, and the 106+ forecasted retail employees will be augmented by transit, pedestrian use, and on street parking available in the general area. Close -in parking is in short -supply today; the Chamber of Commerce Parking Task Force (November, 2012) found that the parking district around Lakeview Village already exceeds 85% occupancy in peak hours. Although two recent downtown parking studies (2010 Rick Williams Consulting for the City of Lake Oswego and 2012 study by the developer) indicate that there is a good supply of on -street parking spaces available in the general area, both surveys have included available spaces that are quite a distance from Block 137. Moreover, both parking surveys also included available spaces that are outside the East End boundary and/or in front of single family residences. An important goal of the East End redevelopment is to ensure the viability of downtown businesses. The Chamber Parking Task Force (2012) states: Most people will continue to drive their cars to the Downtown Business District .... parking minimums that are too low will negatively impact future business growth.. A 2009 survey conducted by Moore Information for the City of Lake Oswego (see exhibit 02) documented the following: For the most part, area residents (both inside and outside the city) are positive about Lake Oswego, with their biggest concern being a lack of downtown parking. It should also be noted that in addition to parking for shoppers, convenient, close -in parking is needed for downtown restaurants and, when it finally opens, the Lake Theater. A 2012 Oregonian review of the new downtown Stickmen Brewery, while generally enthusiastic about the restaurant, was negative about parking availability, calling it 'a challenge' (see exhibit 03). Will the renovated Lake Theater get a similar review as parking for downtown patrons becomes more scarce? Because the City, through its various modifiers, has allowed developers to substantially reduce on-site parking facilities, downtown businesses may find they lose customers due to insufficient close -in parking; likewise, increased parking will likely intrude, more than it does today, into the residential part of our neighborhood, making walking and biking even more difficult and dangerous on our narrow local streets. TRAFFIC Another DRC responsibility (5) is to provide for review and approval of the relationship between land uses and traffic .. with particular emphasis on not exceeding the planned capacity of residential streets to carry projected traffic and to provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation. In their comments regarding the Wizer Block project, Evergreen neighbors have consistently stated to the developer that traffic on our residential streets is a major concern. The increased Wizer Block traffic will impact the already congested A Avenue (particularly the intersection of State and A), push 1 st and 2nd streets past capacity, and certainly lead motorists to alternate routes -- not only through our neighborhood, but also through First Addition neighborhood and to North Shore Road. Use of local streets for cut -through traffic is substantiated in Lake Oswego's 2006 Transportation Management Plan for Downtown Neighborhoods. In that plan, a study by DKS Associates found the following: As congestion slows A Avenue traffic during peak times, traveling through the Lakewood and Evergreen neighborhoods via North Shore and connecting routes (e.g. Berwick and 10th) is a faster and more reliable option [than A Avenue]. As arterial traffic volumes increase in the future and congestion on A Avenue worsens, saving time by traveling through local streets could become an increasingly attractive option for drivers. Our concern, then, is not if increased traffic can be expected to use our local streets, but by how much it will increase. Our particular concern is Evergreen Road, a narrow local street that is our neighborhood's major pedestrian and bike thoroughfare. Because Evergreen Road parallels A Avenue and is continuous from Tenth to First Street, it is already a popular short-cut to bypass congestion on A avenue, particularly during peak hour traffic. In their application, the developer has included no traffic study of Evergreen Road or of any of our neighborhood local streets. In lieu of a traffic study, the developer's TIA states the following: the street system serving the Evergreen Neighborhood, by its design, limits the amount of Block 137 -related neighborhood cut -through traffic that could occur. As such, Block 137 traffic traveling to andfrom the north, south and east can be expected to continue relying almost exclusively on 1st and 2nd Streets and A and B Avenues, not Evergreen Neighborhood streets. It is important to note that the 1 st and 2nd Streets the TIA refers to are both designated neighborhood local streets between A Avenue and Evergreen. Also, note that the TIA does not include Block 137 traffic traveling to and from the west. This traffic will account for 45% of the peak hour trips per day, according to the TIA, and these are the trips most likely to make use of Evergreen Road. By an observation of 100 eastbound vehicles (TIA, p.29), 30% of the traffic coming from the west used Evergreen rather than A Avenue. A traffic study by DKS, done in the year 2000 for the redevelopment of blocks 138 and 136, concluded the following: The traffic added by the blocks 136 and 138 development onto Evergreen Road could increase volumes on the blocks near the maximum level preferred by the city for a local street --at 1000 vehicles daily. Without a current traffic study it cannot be known if Evergreen Road is already nearing that maximum, and without a detailed analysis of the projected traffic increase, the real impact of the redeveloped Block 137 on Evergreen and other neighborhood streets cannot be known. The applicant has failed to determine that this new land use would not exceed the design capacity of the street system or adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods: their TIA projections for net increased traffic are likely under -estimated due to their calculation's dependence on a single undated driveway count (see addendum - Driveway Counts); there is no current traffic study of Evergreen Road; and there has been no traffic mitigation proposed to ensure the safety and livability of the Evergreen Neighborhood. CONCLUSION Because the design of this development is not consistent with the definition and requirements of village character, because the scale and density are not consistent with the precedent set by the developments of block 136 and 138, because insufficient downtown parking will likely have a negative impact on businesses and on the residential neighborhood, and because implications of increased traffic on our local streets have been ignored, the Evergreen Neighborhood asks the DRC to deny the W&K application. Evergreen Neighborhood Association Questionnaire 10 A. / agree with and support the concept of the project as presently designed. 70 S. I do not agree with the concept as presently designed. 16 C. I agree with the concept but believe the project should not have the 5th floor living space along 2nd St. (This would reduce the total number of units by 70 or 12.) S7 D. I think the project should not exceed 2 stories above retail and that the residential portions should not exceed 4 stories at any place. (This is the equivalent of reducing the whole project by one story.) This would reduce the total number of units to approximately + - 760. Presumably the residential parking would be reduced accordingly to around 230. Statistics: • Within the Evergreen boundaries ore 296 single-family homes, 77 condominium or apartment units, totaling 373 residential units, and 43 businesses. 416 addresses. • Out of the 476 physical addresses, 705 addresses completed a total of 153 questionnaires many with comments attached. • Approximately 115 people attended the meeting of Sept. 30, not all from Evergreen. Some surveys/ballots were received as proxies. Only Evergreen "ballots" and comments have been included. Comments: A. Agree with and support the project as presently designed. (10 ) Dave Hawley This project would make more sense if there were a street car to PDX. There should be a number of 'Zip' car spots reserved nearby. RA Fontes I appreciate the public parking. Joy Strull Brian Strull We both agree in concept with the design but would like to see more condos in the configuration. At least 50%. B. I do not agree with the concept as presently designed. (70) Mark Broxon Mary Broxon We purchased our property here due to the small town feel with larger town convenience. If we overload it with larger structures and so many apartments in one block it would seem that the quality of life may change. Regarding the other options, we think that the developers should come up with some alternative plans vs. voting from the standpoint of trying to determine for them how many apartments or floors to remove etc. We would also prefer that owned condominiums be a part of this plan vs. apartments, similar to the other developed blocks, and that the structure be no more than three stories high. Pat Olson Laurel Olson 1. Density of apartments/condos is extreme for the location of this development. Millennium Park and it's events such as the Farmers Market will become overcrowded and exceed capacity. Parking, auto traffic and pedestrian traffic will become unmanageable and unruly. `�A kUi51 T 0 1 -� C Andrea Arnot Not a project that fits in to the lake Oswego Downtown Village feel. Too tall. Too many apartments! More retail and condos needed! Lisa Lombard I am very concerned with the traffic congestion and size — too tall, blocking off too much natural light on the east side, 1n Street, too much traffic. David (illegible) I'm not in favor of additional residential properties. There are zero guarantees of high end retail properties. I don't hear about the increased number of children attending schools. Linda Denman Increased traffic, not enough parking. I would like to see ownership vs. rental and fewer units. Mary Magrath Want something fitting for the neighborhood. Susane Labodre-Blaj I agree that the block needs improvement but think the project should not exceed the height of buildings nearby, if we want to keep the quality of life that is the reason for me to live in LO. Lita Grigg Follow current codes. Tom Grigg Follow current codes. Don Graham Needs fewer units, more parking, more compatible fa4ade that completes the "public square". Peter Davis The size of project will create excessive traffic and have a negative effect on the neighborhood and the plaza. Curtis Strobeck This is stupid and idiotic. If you go through with this you are single handling (?) ruining this area and future (crecs?) of Lake Oswego. Thank you very much. E Jones Too many units and cars with them. C. I agree with the concept but believe the project should not have the 5th floor living space along 2nd St. This would reduce the total number of units by 10 or 12. (16) Stephen Dudley My main concern is that the project "fit in" with the neighborhood and surrounding structures, as well a have some variability to the various elevations. Deanna Tonks 1. Traffic in LO is congested and with the numbers of additional apartments being proposed, I believe the added cars will be too much for downtown. 2. All the concentration of commercial activity is in a small area. The City of Lake Oswego is a village, of an urban location for a mini -Pearl District. EXM1,01r o1- 13 3. Also, we already have a variety of architectural styles, and though we are not currently addressing design issues, would like to see a more homogenous approach to what is already present in the Village ... it works in Nantucket and again we are talking about a small geographic area. 4. Additional eateries and commercial buildings are fine to expand a pedestrian friendly town square feel on V street and I believe that would enhance an already beautiful area. I'm not opposed to a second level of town homes. I am opposed to any complex above two stories. S. The magnitude of the current project plus the noise and equipment activity will greatly have a negative environmental impact on current business and homes. I feel this is a total monetary endeavor for architects, The Wizers, and the City of Lake Oswego. Colleen Gekler The total height dimensions are unclear tome; and I would approve the project if heights conform to those of Block 136 and other adjacent blocks/structures. Susan Spears There's a lot of cut through traffic already. More would mean a neighborhood very dangerous to kids, walkers, etc. Paden Prichard I think the project should not exceed 3 stories at the Millennium Plaza corner also agree with the necessity of traffic mitigation measures within the neighborhood. D. I think the project should not exceed 2 stories above retail and that the residential portions should not exceed 4 stories at any place. (This is the equivalent of reducing the whole project by one story). This would reduce the total number of units to approximately +-160. (57) David Csaszar Scale property to neighborhood or do not build. Karen Locke Project is too dense for location, impacting traffic at A and State. Parking is also a huge issue. David Locke Added density/not acceptable — parking/traffic/ quality of life. A ridiculous project that will ruin Millennium Plaza. Added traffic through the neighborhoods avoiding State and A. David Radich As proposed the Wizer Block Project is too large in scale and residences. It will generate too much traffic and will cost the city too much to fix that problem. E. Strobeck With the amount of excessive traffic I feel there could be more dangerous situations for children around the neighborhood. Bill Cornett Stick to the city code — 3 stories. I see no need for more retail. Michael Collier Jan Collier We do support the development and the developers however we do think the project is about 20% too big in number of units for downtown LO. We elected D to best support our position but somewhere between 160-185 units would be ok too. 6kh ,&/r -o/ — Parking concern: With any exception to the zoning code, the city should be negotiating very high on parking spaces per unit to offset this value provided to the project. 2:1 should be the target. We also think angled parking on 2nd has to be highly considered, even on both sides (potentially with a narrow center median with trees to offset the visual effect of such traffic if necessary). We think to provide more off-street parking for visitors to events and guests of the residences in the downtown who do not necessarily want to enter a garage will make this downtown area parking more manageable. Evergreen Traffic Concern: More 1 way streets, narrow intersections with outcroppings (bumpers) should be developed to decrease traffic speeds and commuter traffic looping the lake. Hwy 43 and A will be a mess of congestion in peak commuter times. We see these traffic issues already, living on Lake Forest Drive, and it will only get worse! Please encourage the city to start working on traffic development alternatives to Evergreen solutions in parallel with any large scale development on the Wizer Block.. Thank you. John Conacher It would appear that the target return on capital (ROCE) has never been stated by the superior Board. This would help the Lake Oswego board to set targets for rental rates/ lease rates etc. Is the project too big and complex for the existing staff? Stephanie LynchThis seems like a quality development BUT IT IS FAR TOO DENSE. Too many units, too many people, too much traffic. It's out of scale. Steve Boyle The Wizer Block is too big for the one block in the heart of our village. If it is reduced (greatly) it could be an attractive addition to our community. Ashley Csaszar Please be respectful of our neighborhood. It is a neighborhood first and business second. Kathy Cunningham B. Cunningham Much too large — too dense — too tall- does not fit in with the beautiful Lake Oswego Village "feel". Will feel HUGE compared to surrounding buildings. Teresa Delaney Please follow city code. Too dense, too massive, too many cars, does not fit the Village feel of Lake Oswego. Larker, fewer units More condos/less apts. Steve Eklund Traffic impact needs to be addressed as there is not viable public transit. D. Kovtynovich Reduce the project size considerably. It is way too large as presently proposed. Tom Newton I am generally concerned about residential density. I'm not sure if C or D would best address this. Lynne Bacon I do have concerns about the height and mass and the traffic congestion created. But I also recognize that reducing the size significantly may impact the quality because of financial limitations. 9 )(14l6ira/-d�7 9-- Heidy Boyman Large porches will be a problem — pls. downsize: too massive; lower density units would be desirable to keep "village" feeling; parking issue not sufficiently thought through; kept to 3 stories — maximum to 4 if stepped back. Tudor building is too bold. Warren Bacon I think reducing the whole project by one story in general would reduce the massiveness and over crowding of people. Congestion of traffic also a concern and would be helped by lowering the number of units. Overall the look of the buildings looks good!! Carol Radich The 4-5 stories is out of scale with the rest of downtown LO. And the density (200+ units) will create traffic problems for our neighborhood. John Fraissinet Susan Fraissinet We do not believe that the project should exceed two stories above the retail development and we strongly feel that the architectural style should be consistent with surrounding developments to maintain the integrity of style in lake Oswego. Joyce Dutcher I agree that the block needs to be developed but believe that Option D would allow a more manageable influx of people cars and pets into our neighborhood. Suzy Wolff This area cannot take that much on street parking. There needs to be enough parking for 2 cars per unit. 4 stories is plenty! Karen Gilden RE; traffic mitigation, our group at the last meeting was told that the traffic issues amounted to 1.5 additional cars per hour on our Lake Oswego streets. We were also told that the State will do nothing to change the 3 clog points on HWY43, as that supposedly is what keeps the Lake O traffic moving OK. It's unrealistic to think we can control traffic — it's a free country Bob Ward Robin Jerke Our concerns are traffic at the site and increased traffic at the entry points to Lake Oswego. Our comments are we would prefer 100% owner occupied units and not to have LO money subsidize the project. Bev Pruitt Why should they be higher than I am allowed to do so when I live mere blocks away and I am not allowed to go over so many feet. Looks like greed is driving this project rather than "planning" a future city. I agree with the comments about where do you put all the "dogs" and "cars' that come with this plan as many people have far more than one car. Kathleen Akiyama-Larger units, less units, do not reduce parking Comments lacking either an identification or a survey choice No name: Too much density, visual size, lack of village feel, more dogs, more humans, more cars No name: LOVE the project but hate the height and density. Christine Meherry: Too big, too tall, want to see development but don't feel current plan fits. Bob Ward: Our concerns with the development as currently planned are: Use of $6M of public money for the development. It needs to stand on its own merits and not on the back of the public. Loss of value of area homes if we become a rental center rather than an owner occupied area. Traffic — both in the immediate area and on the limited approaches to LO — A Street, Highway 43 and Terwilliger Blvd; Height and size of the development Xi//,B /r D% -,A 6 MOORE INFORMATION OPINION RESEARCH • STRATEGIC ANALYSIS August 4, 2009 TO: Brant Williams, City of Lake Oswego FROM: Bob Moore RE: Survey of Lake Oswego Area Women Methodology This memo contains results from a telephone survey conducted July 37-21, 2009, among a representative sample of 5.19 women residing In Lake Oswego and select zip code areas, age 35-55 with -annual household incomes of $50,000 or more. The potential sampling error is plus or minus 4% at the 950/6 confidence level. Overview Lake Oswego receives high praise today, and is described by women age 35-55 in the five zip codes surrounding the city as "pleasant/nice/charming," "upper class/elegant" and "beautiful." Additionally, Lake Oswego residents are most likely to applaud the city for its "friendly atmosphere/sense of community" and "good schools/library," while outsiders are (,X most Impressed with Lake Oswego`s "natural beauty/scenery/landscape" and variety of retail options. For the most part, area residents (both inside and outside the city) are positive about Lake Oswego, with their biggest concern being a lack of downtown parking. Today, Lak,. a ,;•imve is a more oopular destination for survey respondents than downtown Lake Oswego. Among city residents, 38% visit downtown Lake Oswego several times a week or more, while 68% report visiting Lake Grove with the same frequency, Among outsiders, just 9% report visiting downtown several times a week or more, while 12% report visiting Lake Grove with the same frequency. Despite generally favorable views of Lake Oswego, d. majority of city residents (55%) do most of their sh000ino, other than groceries or gasoline, outside of ttFe city. And, while s no ominent shopping destination, Washington Square tops the list (for 21%), followed by Bridgeport Village (7%) and Portland (7%), At the same time, leading reasons for city residents not shopping in Lake Oswego Include poor selection/variety of stores and high costs. However, shopping is the leadinq reason outsiders visit Lake O -wean (for 43%), with down o n I iikP ns Pg^ the Mot Oopular shopping destination. Still, others visit the city to dine (32%) or visit friends (23%), F-Avll bl-. 0Z Sign in j (44 C:�lf �t'CtlUTtl til Set Weather NEWS BUSINESS SPORTS ILS.SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT LOCAL Books Comics Dining Events Music Performance TV & Movies Living Food & Recipes Homes & Gardens Outc Parenting Pets Travel more Cheap Eats: Stickmen Brewery & Skewi (http:/lconnect.oregonlive.comluser/oliveoregspe/index.html) By Special to The Oregonian ®r (http:l/connect.oregonfive.com/userloliveoregepe/posts.htmi) on September 21, 2012 at 2:00 PM Print (http://blog.oregonlive.comlent impact_dining/print.html?entry=/2012/09 lcheap eats stickmen brewery_sk.html) Stickmen Brewery & Skewery, which opened for drinks in April and as a full-fledged restaurant in July, offers Japanese -inspired pub food against the gorgeous backdrop of Lakewood Bay. As of early September, the brewing equipment hadn't been installed, but the owners expect to begin brewing by the end of the month and to release beers later in the fall. Get Arts & Entertainment content in your inbox. Sign up for email updates here. (http://ads.oregonlive.com /Rea lMedia/adsiclick_Ix. ads lwww.oregoniive. com/dining/2012109 /cheap eats_stickmen_brewerysk.html /L25/1193464213/StoryAd/O REGO NLNE /OrMedlaG roup04_OR_ROS_StoryAd_02 /OrMediaGroup04_OR_ROS_StoryAd.html /5279614e6946447331354d41416c5744) Sponsored Link The chow: The skewers (generally $145), cooked over a traditional Japanese charcoal grill, work well as appetizers or as the main course. Meats, fruits, vegetables and cheeses all are ripe for skewering. The chicken breast skewer ($4) was juicy and perfectly crusted. The beef tenderloin skewer likewise had an appealing, peppery crust, and each piece of meat was topped with a dab of wasabi to provide heat. Liquids: Beer, wine, cocktails, sake, shochu, sodas, juices, coffee and tea. What's half-baked? Parking was a challenge. Also, while the servers were earnest and friendly, they overcharged us, lost part of our change, spilled water on us and were quite slow. Inside tips: Two people might consider getting a few skewers each to share and splitting a burger. That's a nice way to sample a range of flavors without overly taxing your wallet or your waistline. �xhi�blf" -Q3 Addendum - Driveway counts In computing net new Block 137 trips, the developer used the number 1300 as the current trip number. The number 1300 is derived in the TIA from one Block 137 peak hour driveway count of 130 trips (see Staff Report page 233). To ensure the validity of this number, ENA volunteers did three separate peak hour weekday driveway counts (see attachments for 12/2, 12/5, 12/19). The counts totaled 77, 73, and 79. It should be noted that at the time all counts were done, the retail spaces in Block 137 including the Wizer store, were all open for business. Moreover, it was found in each of the ENA observations that nearly half the vehicles entering driveways 6, 7, and 8 were not parked to provide access to the Wizer Block facilities, as all occupants of those vehicles immediately crossed over to Lakeview Village. Using 76, an average of the three ENA driveway counts, and a factor of 10, as in the TIA calculations, the existing daily trips become 760, not 1300, giving net new daily trips of 1820, not 1280. In other words, the traffic to Block 137 may be about 3.5 times what it is today, not just double. Other traffic computations in the TIA are dependent on this number and thus may underestimate the impact of future traffic increases. Addenddm p, 1 --' A Avlr_nve- Qj in: in: iN out: //1 out:( v in: ' in: out: out.. D�t�2u1A�' �ovtNTS c in: I`J/I J out: /'N s� 68 y� in: (�O out: in: _ _tel out: Drivers to Lakeview Village % in: out: {i( Drivers to Lakeview Village _ C7) in: out: Rd Drivers to Lakeview Village .Z Date )2/2 IX n13 Time: 4:40-5:40 Initial Tl�i ij %S �� / Ro (Al a it Directions: • Counts for all driveways must be done on the same day/same time -need 6 people • Driveways X, 5, 8 each need one person to count / f • Driveways, 1-2, 3-4, and 6-7 can use one person to count the pair of driveways !?% f a • For each driveway, count every vehicle that enters and every vehicle that exits • For driveways 6,7, and 8, if possible, count how many drivers walked directly over to Lakeview Village instead of into the Wizer block 6���/ AddCvtcl v,n _ ! rte✓ in: out: in: out: in out: j�\ 1 in: out: v in: out: in: out: 9 D�,t�r�wav �oUNTs in: l<f. out: Drivers to Lakeview Village out: ') Drivers to Lakeview Village in: -- out: �. E v 8 Drivers to Lakeview Village Date!,2 brl,2a 3 Time: 4:40-5:40 Initial Directions: t ��� �,z � f«!t ,� et�r • Counts for all driveways must be done on the same day/safne fime - ne'ed 6 people IQU.t'x • Driveways X, 5, 8 each need one person to count • Driveways, 1-2, 3-4, and 6-7 can use one person to count the pair of driveways • For each driveway, count every vehicle that enters and every vehicle that exits • For driveways 6,7, and 8, if possible, count how many drivers walked directly over to Lakeview Village instead of into the Wizer block '4ddeadv." Y. in: 3 in: 3 2 out: out: ✓ v in: _ in: out: out: G/ / GfdSS b'74-� GrD55z S> t 3� j ptat�t�tn1A�' e ptMT5 out: out: C� Drivers to Lakeview Village a out: _ ...._ - 1 in; r1 f / Drivers to Lakeview Village —Ces—) out: 7 �j in: / out: C./ Drivers to Lakeview Village C3 .OW2a) Date 3Time: 4:40-5:40 Initial I ,r Directions: ry • Counts for all driveways must be done on the same day/same time - need 6 peop— • Driveways X, 5, 8 each need one person to count • Driveways, 1-2, 3-4, and 6-7 can use one person to count the pair of driveways • For each driveway, count every vehicle that enters and every vehicle that exits • For driveways 6,7, and 8, if possible, count how many drivers walked directly over to Lakeview Village instead of into the Wizer block -d delta B' A t')m �4 January 22, 2014 To the DRC I am unable to attend the meeting tonight, but want to add my voice to those in the Evergreen Neighborhood who are urging the DRC to deny the W&K proposal for development of the Wizer Block. I grew up in this neighborhood and have just recently moved back with my wife and two children. We were looking forward to living in a family -friendly neighborhood, in a place where our kids could safely walk and ride their bikes to downtown, to the library, and to the lake. We are concerned now, about the proposed four and five story apartment complex that will be built just a few blocks away. This development is far too big for that location. We worry most that with 220 -plus new residences, the traffic on our local neighborhood streets is sure to increase. I understand that there has been no traffic study of Evergreen Road or other local streets; even worse, there are no plans to mitigate the additional cut - through traffic we will surely see. We are not against development of the Wizer block, but this development is too large in scale and density for downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. 46Z � Matt Radich 705 Ellis Avenue Lake Oswego G-284 LU 13-0046 Windermere REAL ESTATE To the Lake Oswego Leaders: Jan. 21, 2014 I am a 65 year old native of Lake Oswego_ My family has shopped at Wizers' store all of our lives. I have never been a "protester" until last Friday, January 17th. The "saveRvillage" gathered together displaying a helium balloon, unveiling the final height of the peak of the planned structure. While I was holding a sign and pointing at the balloon, I was shocked as to how many drivers gave me a "thumbs up" or a friendly toot -toot as they were shocked to actually visualize the impact this will have on our beautiful village. Without counting, at the least one quarter of the drivers were shocked and "voiced" their support! I have several concerns that have not been emphasized by "saveRvillage. "I was fortunate to be a part of the first meeting of Realtors and the developers, several months ago. Some of the Realtors were excited about this, due to the future business we would benefit from, due to the number of condos that we could eventually sell. Since that opportunity is no longer a "golden opportunity," many of them have changed their mind. At that meeting, I asked the developers if there were accommodations for school buses school buses. The developers had no answer at all; they were totally stumped! There will be divorced parents with children. They should definitely be prepared. If they have done an in-depth study of the future population, they sure missed that group! We were told that there will be a courtyard in the center of the apartments. When asked how that will be used, we were told that it will be private, only for the renters and the surface will be astro-turf. What is this ... Disney Land? The restaurants to the west of the project will loose all of their solar warmth and light. So much for dining outside most of the year! The traffic situation is already a major issue, especially on "A" Ave.1 work in the Windermere office, on the corner of 3rd and "A" Ave. I am also on the Oswego Heritage Council Board, which meets on Mondays, at 4pm. As I was driving from my office, I decided to carefully time how long it took to get to the Heritage House parking lot. This is about 9 blocks. It took exactly 8 minutes! Imagine what a nightmare the "Village" will be with 400 additional down town walkers and drivers, not to mention emergency, sanitary, Senior Center vans, and delivery trucks to serve our new dwellers! The density and activity will ruin our beautiful town. Have the present developers ever built in a "village" or small town? I wonder if that was ever a concern. They are experts in urban needs, and have applied those G-285 Windermere Cronin & Caplan Realty Group, Inc. LU 13-0046 220 A Avenue Suite 200 1 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 1 (503) 636-5000 1 Fax(503)636-0908 I Ikoswego@windermere.com principles to our small town. They are even trying to add some traditional decor to their contemporary architecture. They are slick and motivated... for themselves! As 1 drive around town, I see that the citizens that have lived here the longest seem to be the opponents of this plan. But when the former and beloved city manager, who transformed this town, has the same sign I have, I know I am right! Very Concerned, Trista Nelson Principal Broker Realtor and Native Lake Oswegan Windermere CCRG 503-720-5925 G-285 LU 13-0046 ry INIdW - -b ° . rd W CIA. IL 197 -r ' I. n'` M , v January 22, 2014 To: Development Review Commission Re: LU 13-0046 I am a resident of Lake Oswego. I have lived in Lake Oswego for a L/ -e -a r �_ . I am submitting my written testimony regarding the W&K proposed redevelopment for the Wizer property (LU 13-0046). 1 am opposed to this proposal and request that the application be denied. Name C4 CA3 V) -J' -D S Address Telephone v� G-287 LU 13-0046 x F . .. ....' f t L4 L5� v v22 ,�ilA r � S } TUB t �� 51v 0IS FMC, G-288 LU 13-0046 T"M s,,�cc� 5.� r by W {, ( O k too � 5ed I. CS �� �CCA � iy, er J+ G-289 LU 13-0046 E 336 Ninth Street Lake Oswego, OR 97034 January 23, 2014 Development Review Committee RE: Wizer Development I am on the Evergreen Coordinating Committee, and one of the 90% majority in the neighborhood opposed to the current Wizer development plan. My reasons include density issues, flagrant disregard for downtown village concepts, and the expected negative effect on LO home jv..,yo. if values. Regarding property values, real estate experts have told me that the planned development will be negative for homeowners. When the favorable opinion of prospective home purchasers towards the LO downtown changes from 100% to 10% (most likely based on our survey), the 90% switch is bound to have a downward effect on prices of homes in the area. It is easy to see why the developers are enthusiastic about the plan. With 240 apartments paying a minimum of $2000 per month mental, the total take will be $700,000 to $1 million per year. This for the apartments, without considering commercial rentals. This compares to the block 136 townhouse dpvelopmeht, which turned a profit with one sixth the density — and pays its way in taxes. We can do better. Just say no. Sincerely, Dave Pinch G-290 LU 13-0046 Hello, My name is Mary Magrath, I Live in the Evergreen Neighborhood, and I am a member of Save Our Village. I have lived right here in heart of our downtown area for close to 20 years. I love and care a great deal about our community of Lake Oswego. I wish to make it very clear, I am not against the development of Block 137, but the proposal offered here by W&K development, is Too Big. Too Tall, and is completely out of character with our charming downtown village. The Lake Oswego City Code specifically defines "Village C haracter". In that definition, The word SCALL, is used a total of 6 times, in reference to the scale of structures and in reference to our town itself. The proposed project for Wizer Block 137, is anything but small. The imposing 60 foot tall, 6 story buildings, are pushing the boundaries of our City Codes, with their sheer enormity of overall Size and eight. This development of 228 Apartment Units and the Retail Space, will total more than 300,000 Gross Square Feet. (Please note, this figure is excludes the Parking Garage). Compare this to Lake View Village, with a size of under 100,000 Gross Square Feet. The Wizer Block PROPOSAL would be THREE TIMES THE SIZE. This massive development, would be completely out of Scale not only with Lake View Village, but also with the surrounding condominium and apartment buildings, within the neighborhood. . We need a better plan for Block 137, one which is Compatible with the existing s ailer �ca e buildings. A plan which emulates the existing Village Chalracter, and reflects what has recently been built within this core area. The vision for Block 137, as outlined in the downtown redevelopment plan, was always depicted as a mix of retail space. The premise being, just as in the building of Millennium Park, to give the Citizens a downtown center which would offer a destination with an inviting atmosphere. The Wizer Block is a cornerstone of our downtown. What is built on this Block will set the president for future buildings to be constructed, not only around Lake View Village, but throughout the entire core blocks within the Downtown redevelopment district. The idea of these Large imposing buildings towering throughout downtown, will forever transform the Village Character which has give our City it's very identity. Therefore, it is imperative for you, the DRC, to carefully consider the impact of what is developed on this Block, and how it will impact the entire City for years to come. We can do Better! The proposed Project is just too BIG, too Massive, and simply does not belong in the center of downtown Lake Oswego. I urge the members of the Development Review Commission to please deny this project. G-291 LU 13-0046 January 22, 2014 Dear Design Review Commission: I would like to ask that you carefully consider this current plan and the impact it would have on our community if allowed to go forward as presently proposed. I feel that the 5 -story proposal is just too much for this particular site in our downtown. I think the current design is too modern and boxy relative to the character of the surrounding buildings. The design does not appear to be compatible with the village character described in the CDC. The height will be too tall and will cast too much shade and block out the sunlight on the current sidewalk dining areas and surrounding blocks. The number of proposed apartment units is too many and will have a negative impact on traffic. Even if the 1.5 parking spaces allotted per unit are per code, I believe we already have a shortage of parking spaces in this area, especially during the farmer's market and other events. The increased traffic from this current proposal will create a traffic congestion nightmare. I hope that if it has not already been done that a traffic study is planned to understand the impact of any future development in this area. The possible 3 years of construction will be very disruptive to our downtown merchants and restaurants, especially those in the immediate area. Please do not grant an exception to the current code to allow 5 -story, 60 foot buildings on this site. I am in favor a new development. I think a better plan should be conceived by the developer that fits the current character of Lake Oswego without this density. The nearby buildings seem to be only 3 stories tall and I think it would be much more reasonable for this development to have retail on the first floor with 2 stories of living spaces - preferably 2 -story townhomes - above. Thank you for your consideration of this key development Respectfully, Terri Hearon 1977 Egan Way Lake Oswego, OR 97034 G-292 LU 13-0046 From: Simoson. Anne -Marie To: Hamilton, Leslie Cc: Pishvaie. Hamid; Williams, Brant Subject: FW: Please Keep Our Neighborhood Liveable Date: Friday, January 24, 2014 8:56:11 AM From: judyhpro@aol.com [mailto:judyhpro@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:11 PM To: Council Distribution Subject: Please Keep Our Neighborhood Liveable Dear City Council, Please change what's happening with the planned development on the Wizer block! We've seen this type of development going on in Beaverton, Tualatin and now Sherwood too. Condominiums would create lots of traffic and parking problems but apartments would magnify this problem many times over. Parking is already congested at Millennium Plaza whenever there is an event. There are apartment buildings in our city now and they are not located in the middle of the shopping district. Why do we need more apartments? I am very opposed to the five story building concept. Please take a ride over to Sherwood and view what they've done in their downtown shopping area. See how they've built their five story building right out to the sidewalk. Tell me that you think this would good in our town? With best regards, Judy Hall 20 year resident of Lake Oswego G-293 LU 13-0046 Lake Oswego DRC, Re: Wizer Block 137 proposal I would like to ask the city engineers if they have factored in the full impact that such a large development will have on our sewage system and the drainage pipes leading down to the Tryon Creek Sewage Plant. Is the developer paying for the full -cost of this impact. I don't want the city to come back in a couple of years and say the entire population now has to pay for upgrades to the pipes or sewage plant that was partially or fully caused by this large increase in population from Block 137. Mark Henry 4341 Cobb Way Lake Oswego 97035 1 //Y 4 /C Ne / G-294 LU 13-0046