HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2014-07-21 - Number LU 13-0046 - REVISED*1 STAFF REPORT
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
PLANNING DIVISION
APPLICANT/OWNER: FILE NO:
Eugene Wizer LU 13-0046
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF:
Evergreen Group, LLC Leslie Hamilton,AICP
TAX LOT REFERENCE: DATE OF REPORT:
Tax Lot 8300 of Tax Map 21E03DD July 11, 2014
LOCATION: 120-DAY DECISION DATE:
140 A Avenue October 28, 2014
COMP. PLAN DESCRIPTION: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION:
EC Evergreen
ZONING DESIGNATION:
EC
I. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The modified application is requesting approval of a Development Review Permit to construct a
mixed use project including 207 residential units and 36,500 square feet of commercial use in three
buildings, with the following exceptions to the Downtown Redevelopment District Design (DRDD)
and other Community Development Code (LOC 50) standards:
Residential units on the ground floor. LOC 50.03.003.1.e.ii restricts ground floor residential use
to a small portion of the site at the southwest corner, at the intersection of 2nd Street and
Evergreen Road. The proposed development provides ground floor residential uses outside of
the defined area.
' *This is a revised staff report,analyzing the June 2014 submittals. The sections of the report that contain new
discussion to address the revised submittals are marked with a vertical line in the left hand margin. Where the revised
submittals address items previously raised,the discussion recommending revisions to the development plans has been
removed.
LU 13-0046
Page 1 of 63
Storefront glazing. LOC 50.05.004.6 requires that 80%of a storefront be designed with display
windows and entry features. On Building C, which faces 1St Street and Evergreen Road and has
three distinct facades,the proposed development will provide 53 -78%storefront glazing.
Retail parking entrance on 1"Street. LOC 50.05.004.10.b does not allow parking entrances
along a primary pedestrian way to break the storefront pattern, which includes 1"Street. The
proposed development will provide access to the retail parking garage on 1"Street.
Public parking provided on-site. LOC 50.06.002 requires new uses to provide a minimum
number of parking spaces on site. The proposed development provides more than the
minimum parking for both the retail and residential portions, but proposes that the retail
parking will be shared with the general public.
The applicant is also requesting the removal of 25 trees to accommodate the project.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Approval of LU 13-0046, as revised, with conditions. The complete listing of conditions is provided
on pages 49-53 of this report.
III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50):
LOC 50.04.001.4 Commercial, Mixed Use and Industrial Zone Standards
LOC 50.05.004.1-3, 5-12 Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards
LOC 50.06.002 Parking
LOC 50.06.003.1 Access/Access Lanes (Flag Lots)
LOC 50.06.003.2 On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads
LOC 50.06.003.3 On-Site Circulation—Bikeways,Walkways and Accessways
LOC 50.06.003.5 Transit
LOC 50.06.004.1 Landscaping, Screening and Buffering
LOC 50.06.004.2 Fences
LOC 50.06.004.3 Lighting
LOC 50.06.005 Park and Open Space
LOC 50.06.006.1 Weak Foundation Soils
LOC 50.06.006.3 Drainage
LOC 50.06.008 Utilities
LOC 50.07.003.1 Application for Development, Burden of Proof
LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions of Approval
LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeal of Minor Development Decisions
LOC 50.07.003.11 Modification of Development Permits
LOC 50.07.003.14 Review Criteria for Minor Developments
LOC 50.08.005 Downtown Redevelopment Design District Exceptions
B City of Lake Oswego Streets and Sidewalks (LOC Chapter 42):
LOC 42.03 Street Design Standards
C. City of Lake Oswego Sign Code (LOC Chapter 47):
47.10.412 Permanent Signage Allowed in the EC Zone
LU 13-0046
Page 2 of 63
D. City of Lake Oswego Tree Code (LOC Chapter 55):
LOC 55.02.010-55.02.135 Tree Removal
LOC 55.08.010-55.08.040 Tree Protection
Per LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii, Comprehensive Plan policies do not need to be addressed for this type of
application.
IV. FINDINGS
A. Background/Existing Conditions:
1. The site is approximately 2.45 acres in size and is bordered by A Avenue (major arterial)to
the north, Evergreen Road (local street)to the south, 15t Street (local street)to the east and
2nd Street (local street)to the west (Exhibit El).
2. The site is zoned EC and developed with a shopping center and associated surface and
underground parking. These structures will be removed as part of the redevelopment of the
site.
3. Adjacent properties to the north, east and west are also zoned EC; the adjacent property to
the south is zoned Parks and Natural Area (PNA). The property to the east, Lake View
Village (LVV), is developed with office and retail uses. The properties to the north are
developed with retail uses,the property to the west (Block 136) is developed with retail
uses and residential townhomes, and the property to the south is the Millennium Park
(Exhibit E2).
4. There are 55 trees that are five inches in diameter or greater on the site or in the rights-of-
way abutting the site (Exhibit E48).
5. TriMet Bus lines#35 and#36 provide service on A Avenue. There is a transit stop at the
northwest corner of the site.
V. PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICANT'S BURDEN OF PROOF
A. Neighborhood Meeting
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on June 25, 2013. The minutes of the meeting and
the notification materials are included in this report as Exhibit F9.
B. Public Notice to Surrounding Area
The City has provided adequate public notice and opportunity to comment on this application
pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.
Initial Public Hearing/Original Design Plans: The City received a large volume of comments,
both in support and in opposition to the development, since the application was submitted on
September 11, 2013 (Exhibits G1-G4, G100-G199, G200-G408, G1000-G1026, and Hl-H4).
Revised Submittal: The City received comments between February 20, 2014 and June 30
(Exhibit H5-H7), and has also received 10 comments, both in support and in opposition to the
development, between the mailing of the public notice on July 1, 2014 and the completion of
LU 13-0046
Page 3 of 63
this report. The comments in opposition to the project address parking,traffic, density, height,
number of stories, percentage of rental units, light and shade impacts, number of architectural
styles,transitory nature of renters, scale, and pet waste. These issues,to the extent that they
are applicable approval criteria, are addressed under the Zoning and Downtown Redevelopment
Design District (DRDD) standards. Those items that do not have applicable development
standards are addressed immediately below.
Pet Waste
The LOC 50 does not contain standards for pet ownership and responsibilities, whether for
rental housing or single-family dwellings. The City Code, under Chapter 31 (Animals and Fowl),
has requirements for dog licensing, control, and the prompt removal of excrement from all
property other than the private property of the dog's owner. Civil violations would be
addressed by the Police Department. Nevertheless, as described in the narrative (Exhibit Fl)
and shown in the floor plans (Exhibit E40),the applicant has incorporated a number of on-site
amenities to mitigate potential pet waste and encourage responsible pet ownership, including
the provision of pet waste dispensers, designated pet relief areas both indoors and outdoors,
and "pet rent" and regulations.
Housing Rental vs. Ownership
A number of comments expressed concern regarding the distribution of condominium units and
rental units,with the preference that fewer rental units should be permitted. The LOC 50 does
not distinguish among the various types of ownerships of dwelling units; both rental and
ownership housing is allowed in the EC zone. At the time this report was written, the applicant
has not identified the split between rental and condominium units, or whether the project will
be all rental units or all condominium units. Because this is not a criterion for the development,
no condition of approval is proposed and any stated distribution could change as affected by the
housing market or developer preference,with no impact to the criteria of approval.
Shade
Some comments addressed the loss of sunlight on existing structures, sidewalks and Millennium
Park as a result of the proposed development. The standards of LOC 50.06.007, Solar Access, do
not apply to commercial, multi-family residential, or mixed-use development. Nevertheless, the
applicant produced shade studies (Exhibit E31) illustrating the shadow patterns for Blocks 136
(to the west), 137 (the site) and 138 (LVV) on June 22 (summer solstice) and December 21
(winter solstice). According to these studies,the proposed project will not shade Millennium
Park at all; the project will shade adjacent sidewalks and development similarly to shade
patterns produced by Block 136 and LVV.
East End Redevelopment Plan
A number of comments addressed the East End Redevelopment Plan,which was adopted by City
Council in 1986 and amended in 2004. This plan includes a description of both completed and
potential projects. The redevelopment of Block 137 is identified as Project J, as follows
(emphasis added):
Block 137 should be redeveloped to enhance the "compact shopping
district" extending one block in all directions from the intersection of 1st
Street and A Avenue. The preferred project shall be mixed-use with
retail fronting on 15t Street. Along with the retail frontage on 1st Street
the site could be developed with a public library overlooking
LU 13-0046
Page 4 of 63
Millennium Plaza Park, a 30 to 70-unit hotel or housing. The mix of uses
will need to provide sufficient on-site parking to satisfy the demand for
all proposed uses. New or remodeled structures shall be designed to
compliment structures located on LVV, Millennium Plaza Park(south)
and the townhouses on Block 136 (west).
Some of the comments specifically requested that Block 137 be developed with a hotel of 30-70
units. The East End plan identifies a hotel project within the district, but only identifies certain
nearby amenities for preferential siting. Project T, Hotel, is described as follows:
The project will encourage development of a new, high quality boutique
style hotel within the District. The hotel is expected to be within a range
of 30-70 units. Properties which provide lake, river, or mountain views
and which are located within 400' of restaurants,transit, and retail
shopping or other significant amenities will have substantial preference
for siting. The project may include land assembly, relocation and
infrastructure improvements.
The descriptions of identified East End blocks and properties are illustrative of potential
development, rather than required development; these descriptions are not regulatory. As
explained on page 38 of the East End Plan, the Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50)
has been updated to implement the original redevelopment plan. Nevertheless,the proposed
project provides development consistent with the description for Block 137: retail frontage
extends along 1st Street and A Avenue,the project includes housing, and the amount of on-site
parking provided exceeds the standards of LOC 50.
Urban Design Plan
A number of comments addressed the Urban Design Plan (UDP), which was adopted by the Lake
Oswego Redevelopment Agency in October, 1988, and suggest that the proposed development
is contrary to what is required by the UDP. The UDP is a guidebook for the development on
Lake Oswego's commercial core, and portrays "a vision of what could be-how the core of the
City of Lake Oswego could appear in the future" if the guidelines are followed (Exhibit F12). The
UDP is not regulatory; it identifies objectives, design principles, a plan concept, and the
character of various districts (Main Street,
1.aeenetrection of a Avenue f I Shopping District, Downtown Residential
t.reorganize`Avenue L. District etc.) but as stated in the
3. sneettte of ann a agenme , , ,
C.spas•Ch.r.cter for 4th Street I A L_ a
S.Civic Sgoere introduction the City retains the flexibility to
6.Scat.Street/Lakefront Canter . !
7.Street Front Program/State and
a. omp compact Shopping atatr=et
Nigh ntnSoY Noosingrespond
F 1 eta
res and to specific economic, market and
lo.state stra.c r urusng.ne/aacre.tAnr�
1t. •..enAen Cmrmert.1 pta=riot I functional circumstances. The UDP would be
=2. lisle interchange l
13.aL r Connections �.__E--�j ca•••-`ilii
=a.mars ng the sdgee i used as guiding principles upon which the
-_ t- ! L aaa! Community Development Code (CDC)
f•. i standards are adopted for the area. The
a.r . 4 : f.ai maps below and to the left show the
LAUWOOOBA7 'a .�°r•-•. ���///rye///r ,, ,, *I 7' i Concept and the Shopping District Diagrams
` ®�/// l//, ¢; i,F! from the UDP. But as shown,the concepts
f'r '� ; !--- are not regulatory and other code-compliant
, 16 .� 110 141/6411411iIIL�1 1, I .J
development may occur, e.g.,the area
" ~ —~ identified in the Concept Diagram for high
density housing is developed as Millennium
1E, !.
Park, and the area identified for a hotel on
LAKE OSWEGO URBAN DESMON PLAN
CONCEPT DIAGRAM Block 138 is developed with as retail,
restaurant and plaza in Lake View Village.
LU 13-0046
Page 5 of 63
Organization:
�i a Aa'�a m
7 ;1,,,,,, „ 111
• v T _hr s a�
i
1411 INII 11°
f�r�a~_�wrt�5s
4'40e[ SHOPrs!.C.Aei?LENT
Property Values
In a few of the letters, the writer asserts their opinion that the proposed development,with
particular emphasis on rental units,would negatively affect property values in the immediate
vicinity as well as the abutting neighborhoods. Impact to property values, whether positive or
negative, is not a criterion of approval.
LORA Board Suggested Design Changes
In addition to the public comments received,the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA)
Board reviewed the preliminary elevations and site plans for the project at their board meeting
on August 27, 2013. The LORA Board made sixteen suggestions for changes or additions to the
project. These included pet waste concerns,the provision of additional garbage cans and
electric vehicle charging spaces, operational concerns, as well as some suggested design
I alterations. The LORA Board suggestions are not regulatory; in other words they are not
standards under the Community Development Code upon which the development is judged.
LORA's suggestions and the applicant's response to them are identified at the end of the
applicant's narrative (Exhibit F1). Staff's analysis of this design issue is addressed below under
LOC 50.04.004.6, Building Design.
C. Burden of Proof
Per LOC 50.07.003.1.b,the applicant for a development permit shall bear the burden of proof
that the application complies with all applicable review criteria or can be made to comply with
applicable criteria by imposition of conditions of approval. The applicant has provided sufficient
evidence to enable staff to evaluate the proposal. These documents are listed as exhibits at the
end this report.
VI. MINOR DEVELOPMENT
A. Classification of Application
LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(6) classifies the construction of a new mixed-use structure as minor
development.
LU 13-0046
Page 6 of 63
B. Criteria for Review of Application
Per LOC 50.07.003.14.d,for any minor development application to be approved, it shall first be
established that the proposal complies with:
1. The requirements of the zone in which it is located;
Use Reeulations and Conditions and Use Specific Standards FLOC 50.03.002.3 and 50.03.003.11
LOC 50.02.002.3 lists all of the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the EC zone. Retail,
office and restaurant uses are permitted uses in the EC zone; the only limitation on use or size
for these uses is that individual retail tenants cannot exceed 35,000 square feet in floor area.
The retail component of the proposed development is 28,000 square feet divided between
Buildings A and C. The office use is 8,500 square feet.
Residential uses at R-0 density, a high-density designation, are a permitted use provided certain
conditions are met. High density residential uses must meet the following conditions:
Four unit minimum on parcels greater than 6,000 square feet in area, and
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.0:1, and
Ground floor residential uses are prohibited except for an area along 2nd Street, as
illustrated in LOC Figure 50.03.003-A.
The site is more than 6,000 square feet in area, and a maximum of 207 residential units are
proposed as part of the mixed-use project (Exhibit E41). The project meets the minimum
density required. As described below, the proposed FAR is 2.74:1. These standards are met.
As shown in Exhibit E41,the applicant proposes residential units on the ground floor in areas
outside of the prescribed limit. The applicant is requesting an exception to this standard, which
is addressed under LOC 50.08.005, below.
EC Dimensional Standards FLOC 50.04.001.41
The site is zoned EC. The applicant proposes to construct a mixed use commercial and
residential development, with underground parking, on the site. The development will consist
of three separate buildings,which will be referenced throughout this report as (Exhibit E40):
Building A: Retail/office/residential building in Oregon Rustic Style primarily abutting A
Avenue
Building B: Residential building in the Arts and Crafts Style, abutting B Street and Evergreen
Avenue
Building C: Retail/residential building in the English Tudor Style, primarily abutting 1St Street
LU 13-0046
Page 7 of 63
The dimensional standards for the EC zone are listed in the matrix below and illustrated in
Exhibits E40 and E43.
Standard Requirement Proposed
Setbacks(Minimum)
A Avenue None 0-25 feet
1st Street None 0-33 feet
2nd Street None 0—5.5 feet
Evergreen Avenue None 0-5 feet
Lot Coverage(Maximum) 100% 73%
Height(Maximum) 60 ft Bldg A: 55 feet
Bldg B: 58 feet
Bldg C: 58 feet
Floor Area Ratio(Maximum)* 3.0:1, or 319,797 2.74:1
sq ft
*Floor Area Ratio: Floor Area includes the gross building floor area excluding the attic,vent shafts,
courtyards,garages, decks, patios, uncovered exit stairs, uncovered above-ground driveways,and
allowable projections. Floor Area Ratio is the ratio of the Floor Area to the lot size.
As shown in Exhibit E40 and the matrix above,the proposed development complies with all of
the site development limitations of the zone. The additional height restrictions found in Table
50.04.001-C do not apply to this site as there are no lots zoned R-6 or R-7.5 within 240 feet of
the site, and the site does not abut a lot zoned R-DD. This standard is met.
2. The Development Standards applicable to minor developments;
Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards [LOC 50.05.004.1-121
50.05.004.4 Definition of Village Character
As used in this section, "village character"means a community of small-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,such as a body of water, a transportation route or a landmark building.
Adherence to village character is not intended to require an historical reproduction of a turn of
the century small town, but rather to encourage the development of a sophisticated small city
that is pedestrian friendly, creates a sense of community and attracts people to the downtown in
the same manner and using similar design concepts as historic small towns and neighborhood
centers(emphasis added).
• This subsection is not a criterion of approval; it is a definition of the term "village character" as it
is used in DRDD. The term "village character" is used four times in the DRDD in reference to the
following standards: Building Siting and Massing, Building Design, Parking Requirements, and
Street,Alley and Sidewalk Design. Each time the term is used, the creation of"village character"
is identified as being met by compliance with specific standards (the term "village character" is
in bold where it occurs in the DRDD standards). Compliance with each of the design standards is
analyzed below.
LU 13-0046
Page 8 of 63
50.05.004.5 Building Siting and Massing
Building siting and massing shall create a village character by compliance with the following
requirements:
Complex Massing Required: New buildings shall use the siting and massing characteristics of the
Lake Oswego Style such as complex massing and asymmetrical composition.
"Lake Oswego Style" is further defined in LOC 50.10.003 (emphasis added), as follows:
A building design that borrows from the City's historic architectural traditions
including the Arts and Crafts, English Tudor and the Oregon Rustic styles. Buildings
which use complex massing, asymmetrical composition and natural materials
exemplify this style (see photos and descriptions in LOC 50.11.001. Appendix A:
Lake Oswego Style). Adherence to the"Lake Oswego Style"is not intended to
require historical replication. Modern design interpreting,quoting or utilizing the
above noted stylistic forms are also encompassed within the definition (emphasis
added).
Appendix A in LOC Chapter 50 identifies characteristic elements of each style; many design
elements are shared among the three styles. As described below and on pages 10-14 of the
applicant's narrative (Exhibit F25), each of the three distinct buildings is designed in the Lake
Oswego Style. Additionally, each of the buildings is articulated along the public sidewalks with
setbacks, material changes, differing roof forms and separate design treatments, providing a
complex massing appearance. This standard is met, as described below.
Oregon Rustic: As described in the Applicant's narrative (Exhibit F25) and illustrated in the
elevations (Exhibit E43), Building A utilizes characteristic elements of the Oregon Rustic Style as
follows:
Complex intersecting pitched gable roofs that break massing into smaller scale forms
both at the roof and at the pedestrian level
Asymmetrical composition incorporating pitched roofs with offset, prominent masonry
chimneys
Patterned windows
Dormers
Textured natural stone used as a foundation,siding and seat walls
--- _...-
rrr}-"i ._ .r
# 9 '"` ,,%r t- r e� .... J .., j�, ,
F id'!l 1` ra[f;. c»E d�L« `` a rii
Fri," ti L) -ut ( n s
OWL,x KWIC 1 - F:G •-.dist ,o.,iw.4-...L' _ - RUST L`.JBE
Building A:Three separate design elements along A Avenue (Exhibit 43)
LU 13-0046
Page 9 of 63
Arts and Crafts: Building B utilizes characteristics of the Arts and Crafts Style as follows:
Complex intersecting pitched gable roofs that break the massing into smaller scale
forms both at the roof and at the pedestrian level
Asymmetrical composition, generally rectangular, incorporating pitched roofs with
offset, prominent chimneys
Patterned windows
Brick and horizontal siding used in combination
i Flat brick arches and eyebrow dormers
Vernacular handrail design,with simple geometric patterns typical of the style
- --- --,_. :` `_- �
I_ s /-- i- - 777
7.
Nig 7,- c jar, ' : 1 , , r
; 11,1_10
Il; � �� + sr r�
1 I I i
I
H.y &W
it t ..PSI....dT�; JUd'3.3 I ARTS I
.. .hx?:; • Apra eRJaT31 to CRAFTS , avtre.snF t1.LidC FICY. .1,LA T3E16'v,1
Building B:Two gable designs and three additional design elements along 2nd Street (Exhibit
E43)
English Tudor: Building C utilizes characteristics of the English Tudor Style as follows:
Gable roofs that break the massing into smaller scale forms both at the roof and at the
pedestrian level
Asymmetrical composition, generally rectangular, incorporating pitched roofs with
offset, prominent chimneys
Patterned windows trimmed with heavier width, inspired by Tudor timbering
Brick construction,with design patterns (soldier course), and stucco siding used in
combination
Horizontal and vertical trim elements in stucco create a shadow line suggestive of half-
timbering
ITudor arch at the round-about entry
Vernacular handrail design,with recognizable Tudor'X' pattern
If iN Lie iT"r
_____-- ________ a
ric
rl+"�"4 �' 7 = _ t _•
1.1I 'L
F 413 �1' ' li III �.• I 7. 4 II !:
llir-.�r 1rii ii 11' 41''�" j' WiiI.
� ry •. lunar �ugT�a„ y , i . s
I
:. ,_,
. _ . . : . „.„,,,,.„„ , ..,......,
ii•i'll .
I I I
I I I
nw
I
r9 I
SEGO ER „ i'z1•f+�:. .. ILLCR; ., i�_ut".^ ,I, I�1-X•' .I., Iui_rt.,. ,I. 1ILaF.' .,
Building C: Four separate design elements along 1st Street(Exhibit E43)
Pedestrian Oriented Siting: New commercial buildings shall be sited in order to maximize the
amount of building frontage abutting pedestrian ways.
The ground floors of Buildings A and C, where they abut the public sidewalks and the internal
walkways, are designated for office and active retail use; Building B has no commercial uses.
The retail storefronts on Buildings A and C front A Avenue and 1st Street, respectively, and are
located from 0 to seven feet from the property line,with the exception of the northeast corner
of the site, where the preservation of the existing maple tree creates a small plaza. Additionally,
as shown on Exhibit E41, commercial office space is provided along the internal walkways (south
side of Building A and west side of Building C). This standard is met.
Roof Forms: New buildings shall use gable or hipped roof forms. Flat roofed buildings shall only
be allowed pursuant to LOC 50.08.005, Downtown Redevelopment District Exceptions to
Standards.
As shown in the elevations for each of the three buildings (Exhibit E43),the buildings use
primarily gable roof forms and pitched dormers. Building A has steeply pitched gable roofs with
single-and double-stacked shed dormers. Buildings B and C have steep gables (both regular and
hipped) and shed dormers. The roof forms change from gable to shed along the street
frontages, breaking the roof line into smaller segments. The conservatory on the Evergreen
Road frontage of Building B has a flat roof projecting from the west side of the conservatory
gable. As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to submit revised plans
illustrating that this roof is pitched, similar to the dormer on the east side of the conservatory
gable. No other flat roofs are utilized on the project with the exception of the one-story flat-
roofed entry on A Avenue (permitted per LOC 50.05.004.5.d.ii, below), and the mechanical
equipment platform troughs that allow equipment to be screened from view by the adjacent
sloping roofs (Exhibit E8). As conditioned,this standard is met.
Number of Stories: New buildings shall be at least two stories tall, and new and remodeled
building shall be no greater than three stories tall, except:
A fourth story may be permitted subject to the following:
(1) The fourth story is residential and is contained within a gabled or hipped roof;
(2) The site is sloping and the structure has three or fewer stories on the uphill side;
(3) The fourth story is significantly stepped back from the building plane created by the lower
stories;or
(4) Fourth story design elements are used to break up the mass of a building, create visual
interest and variety, hide mechanical equipment, define an entry or define a particular
building's function. Examples of such design elements include dormers, towers, turrets,
clerestories, and similar features.
The provision of a fourth floor is not an exception to the design standards; a fourth floor is
allowed provided one of the conditions above is met. [The "may" is not discretionary; if one of
the subsections (1)-(4) is met,then a fourth floor is permitted—see memo from Deputy City
Attorney to the DRC, Exhibit F16.] As shown in the elevations (Exhibit E43), all three buildings
are four stories. The fourth stories meet the conditions identified above as follows:
LU 13-0046
Page 11 of 63
Building A: Along A Avenue, Building A has ground floor retail and three residential levels above
it. The fourth story is residential and contained within a gabled roof. Dormer windows and
deep eaves on the third and fourth floors break up the mass of the building and create visual
interest. Along the east-west pedestrian walkway; the fourth floor is also contained within the
roof, and is significantly stepped back from the lower floors by five feet (Exhibits E41 and E43).
The revised building plans incorporate Condition A.1.n from the previous staff report,which
required a minimum three foot separation between dormers and chimneys on Buildings A and
B.
Building B: Building B is completely residential and contains four floors on all sides. Along 2'
Street and Evergreen Road,the fourth floor is contained within the roof or is significantly
stepped back from the lower floors by seven feet. On Evergreen Road, all fourth floor units are
contained within the roof. Along the interior walkways and residential courtyard,the fourth
floors are contained within the roofs (Exhibit E43).
Building C: Building C has ground floor retail on 1st Street and Evergreen Road,with three
residential floors above it. The fourth story is residential and contained within the roofs, which
alternate between hipped gables and sloped roofs with dormers. Along the 1'Street facade,
these changes in roof design create six breaks in the roof line. Additionally, some of the fourth
floor units are also stepped back three feet from the lower floors. Along the interior walkway,
the fourth floor is stepped back from the lower floors by three to nine feet. At the round-about,
the fourth floor is located within the gable roof.
Single story construction may be permitted subject to the following:
(1) It is limited to a small portion of a taller structure, such as an entry area, canopy over an
outdoor restaurant, building ends or wings which relate to open space or as a step down to
an adjacent one story viable existing structure;or
(2) When a minimum height of 20 ft. is maintained at the right-of-way or street side building
edge.
A shown in Exhibits E41 and E43, all buildings are multi-storied. On Building A,there is an entry
way on the western end of the A Avenue/1St Street courtyard that is single-storied. This is a
small portion of the larger structure, and partially encloses the western edge of the courtyard,
which can provide outdoor restaurant seating. This standard is met.
Height Limit: No building shall be taller than 60 ft. in height. No flat roofed building shall be
taller than 41 ft. in height. Height shall be measured pursuant to this Code.
The height of each building varies along its length due to changes in grade, but all three
buildings are less than 60 feet in height, as follows and illustrated in Exhibit E43:
Building A: 47-55 feet
Building B: 46-58 feet
Building C: 51-58 feet
As shown in the elevations, some of the chimneys on Building A project above the 60 foot height
limit. Per the definition of"height" (LOC 50.10.003), chimneys are not included in this
measurement.
LU 13-0046
Page 12 of 63
There are no flat-roofed buildings in the development, although there are components of the
proposed structures that have roof components that are flat. The conservatory on the
Evergreen Road frontage of Building B has a flat roof projecting from the west side of the gable
roof. As described under the Roof Form analysis above,the applicant will be required to submit
revised plans illustrating that this roof is pitched, similar to the dormer on the east side of the
conservatory gable. No other flat roofs are utilized on the project with the exception of the one-
story flat-roofed entry on A Avenue (permitted per LOC 50.05.004.5.d.ii, below), and the
mechanical equipment platform troughs that allow equipment to be screened from view by the
adjacent sloping roofs (Exhibit E42). As conditioned,this standard is met.
Entrances: The primary building entrances shall be oriented to pedestrian ways along streets to
encourage increased pedestrian density on existing streets, sidewalks and other public ways.
Secondary building entrances or tenant space shall be required along alleys to take advantage of
and enhance the intimate scale of the alley space.
All three buildings provide an entrance lobby from the public street to the residential units, as
shown in Exhibit E40. While there are no alleys through the site, secondary lobby access on all
buildings is provided from the interior walkways and courtyard. All of the commercial retail
tenant spaces are accessed from the public streets; the largest setback from the property line to
a retail entrance is 25-33 feet at the courtyard created by the preservation of the maple tree at
the corner of A Avenue and 1st Street (Exhibit E49). The office spaces are accessed from the
internal walkways, with the exception of the office at the southwest corner of Building A, which
also has an entrance on 2nd Street (Exhibit E41).
Street Corners: New structures shall be located to preserve or create strong building edges at
street corners. Structures may "cut the corner"to create a building entry or to provide pedestrian
space but shall use building design elements to create a structured corner.
As described in the applicant's narrative (Exhibit F25) and illustrated in the elevations (Exhibit
E43), each of the four corners of the development provides a unique identity with strong edges.
A Avenue/1St Street: This corner is perhaps the most visible of the site. The specimen maple
tree at the corner of A Avenue and 1St Street will be preserved within a basalt-clad planter;this
heavy material creates a structured corner. Behind the planter,the courtyard between the
streets and the storefront provides an opportunity for active retail, including outdoor restaurant
seating, to activate the corner. The brick gable on 15t Street,with its substantial chimney,
creates a strong corner.
A Avenue/2nd Street: This corner provides a transition between the retail uses along A Avenue
and the office and residential uses further south on 2nd Street. The storefront at this corner is
contained within the strong gable, and the retail uses are brought to the property lines. The
canopy, positioned at a similar height to the canopy to the west on Block 136, wraps the corner.
2nd Street/Evergreen: This corner is completely residential, and the use is brought to the
property lines on 2nd Street and Evergreen Road. At the street level, a basalt planter and a
masonry base establish a strong edge as shown on Exhibits E43, E45-E48. The roof gable at the
4th floor turns the corner, providing a consistent height and residential character at this location.
1st Street/Evergreen: This corner faces Millennium Park, and, because of the established
roundabout, cannot provide a traditional 90 degree corner. The applicant has provided a
significantly redesigned gable end facing the park,which complements the design at the
roundabout corner of Lake View Village (LVV). This design incorporates a strong masonry base,
LU 13-0046
Page 13 of 63
with an inset wood storefront,Tudor arch, and unique steel and glass canopy. Large light
fixtures flank the entrance. Upper floors are lighter, with multiple windows and lighter-colored
paneling. The fourth floor is located within the gable, and sits behind a wooden screen that
adds depth and interest with shadow patterns;the residential unit is set back from the façade,
similar to the LVV gable on the opposite corner. This standard is met.
50.05.004.6 Building Design
Building elements shall be designed to create a village character through compliance with the
following requirements:
Lake Oswego Style Required: Buildings shall be designed using building design elements of the
Lake Oswego Style to create distinctive buildings which have richly textured, visually engaging
facades. See LOC 50.11.001,Appendix A—Lake Oswego Style.
As previously stated, "village character" is achieved by compliance with the specific building
design requirements. As described under Building Siting and Massing, above, and in the
applicant's narrative (Exhibit F15), the three buildings are each designed in one of the Lake
Oswego Styles: Oregon Rustic (Building A), Arts and Crafts (Building B) and English Tudor
(Building C). The facades are richly textured with basalt, stone, brick,wood siding and stucco.
As shown in the elevations (Exhibit E43), on the upper stories, windows are multi-paned and
numerous, and balconies and dormers help define the residential use. Prominent chimneys,
some starting at grade and some exposed only at the upper stories, provide visual interest and
define breaks in the facades. There are significant transition details and offsets between major
facade materials, particularly between the masonry bases and the residential levels on Buildings
A and C. The fourth floors are located within roof forms,with numerous single and double-
stacked dormers, or are significantly stepped back from the bases, providing additional depth to
the facades. The elevation drawings illustrate locations for future signs, including cornice signs,
awning signs and blade signs. Approval of plans that contain depiction of signage location and
general size is not considered approval of signage. Cabinet signs and plastic-faced signs are not
compatible with the Lake Oswego Styles, which require quality materials and handcrafted
design. As a condition of approval, cabinet and plastic-faced signs will be prohibited.
Building A is designed in
modern Oregon Rustic �
style,with classic elements
and materials rendered in a -
streamlined form. Of the ^•rt
three styles represented on
the block Oregon Rustic is Im■II It� 911
the heaviest, with brick and ®, . t•
` i
stone as the predominant •4 ' 1 w••s
Aik. raw!
materials. Basalt is
134 ' NI - 11
incorporated into the base " ' ;; M_`1i t{�
NI ! loll =Iiii AN
of the building at the 5
�� r
storefront and at the low �� v I , I ,,����
wall that protects the °'° �'m� I 1 I 1111101$1_,AMP -
specimen maple at the
northeast corner. The three - oregon rustic gable
gables are bisected by wide
chimneys, a prominent P'a°' .o•a••,ryao•,•
feature typical of many
LU 13-0046
Page 14 of 63
Oregon Rustic structures. Lap siding is introduced on the upper levels, and the steeply sloped
roofs are clad in a recycled composition material that has the appearance of slate tiles.
Building B is designed in modern Arts and Crafts style, with classic elements and materials. The
building design includes
intersecting pitched gable
roofs, which create variety in __
height along the roof lines 4-----. ___47 ---—Ar
(Exhibit E43). The numerous,
finely-patterned windows '
are typical of the style, as are Iliumthe hipped gables and .e r, „ ,,+, W muunnjmi
masonry and wood siding in «,a�. f- ,u..
combination. Thero osed I ., a
p p
exposed roof rafter tails on MEW f
the Arts and Crafts Segment I (- `
1 design element are also ■■�fi.
bid 1,ti.k
typical of the style, and ,,:� Ii' ,h; .
further distinguish this •• ::: •'
segment from the other °"' crafts f °
façade elements along the '
2nd Street frontage. The M.aa.. w°°a<°an dam
exterior brick chimneys along
the 2nd Street elevation, which extend to the ground and have a grooved seam,emphasize the
residential character of the building. Building B is asymmetric, with five separate Arts and Crafts
treatments along 2nd Street, and three separate treatments along Evergreen. Two distinct gable
designs, one with a hipped gable and the other with a double chimney at the top of the gable,
are found on each frontage.
f)
4 4 - L
1 � i
ARTS 1.7d/lE7 arra; lAf:'dflMfT .n ... ... ...
Five separate Arts and Crafts treatments along 2nd Street (Exhibit E43)
LU 13-0046
Page 15 of 63
Building C is designed in modern English Tudor style, with classic elements and materials.
Stucco gables are divided with horizontal and vertical reveals,which are suggestive of half-
timbering. Gable and hipped gable roofs, patterned windows and prominent chimneys are
elements of this style, as identified in the LOC 50. A
Tudor arch is provided at the ground floor entry of the
round-about gable. A classic Tudor treatment would
have asymmetry in the overall building forms,with v)
afi
symmetric treatments within each gable or façade 4 iF '.\`
treatment. As shown in the elevations (Exhibit E43),
Building C is asymmetric, with three separate Tudor Pk_
Yh
treatments along 1st Street. Within each treatment,the '1 �_� �
facades are symmetric in terms of window patterns and - ��g� `4
placement, and the store entries are centered in the 11111111110111 =•■•
Nal
gables and are located directly below the balcony ��Ii —balm *+oil
element. Additionally,the applicant proposesLegl _
horizontal and vertical trim elements in the stucco 1111111,,I1
Manila:O 1
it iiri7
facades, which will create a shadow line suggestive of •
."■ l {-
half-timbering. These will be inset with projecting — '� s� �
aluminum reveals,which will accentuate the shadow W
* tau s• 6 1 iN
line when the sun is out. The proposed details do not . �. `
s
identify the color of the reveals; a complimentary ' k�� e.' s 1,
;pr.-^
contrasting color to the stucco is necessary to make the 11.
reveals a more active part of the facade, and compliant J a: a 1 .dwjaltaiggIOr
ua
with the Lake Oswego Style. As a condition of approval,
the applicant will be required to submit revised plans Tudor arch at main entry
identifying a complementary color that provides
contrast for the projecting aluminum reveals. As a conditioned,this standard is met.
Storefront Appearance: Buildings fronting on streets or alleys designed for pedestrian use shall
create a storefront appearance on the ground floor. This may be accomplished by changing
buildings planes, materials or window patterns, or by creating a break in awning or canopy
construction at intervals of about 25 ft.
The storefront appearance standard only applies to Buildings A and C; Building B does not
contain retail.
Building A: There are five plane changes along the A Avenue frontage on Building A; ranging
from 2 to 24 feet (Exhibit E40). Above the awnings, four different window patterns are
represented along this frontage;the picture windows in the gable ends provide further
differentiation at the retail level. Last, material changes at the pedestrian level help emphasize
the storefront appearance;the gables are clad primarily with Brick 1 (Exhibit E43), with
contrasting chimneys in Stone A; while the primary material for the intervening storefront is
Stone A and glass. A low basalt wall is located in front of the both gables along A Avenue.
LU 13-0046
Page 16 of 63
Building C: Along 1st Street,there are twelve plane changes (Exhibit E40). Five of the plane
changes are created by the residential chimneys, which break the retail plane at regular
intervals. The residential lobby for Building C is provided behind a covered, arched entry just
north of the retail parking ramp; the entry is set back 10 feet from the sidewalk. Directly south,
the entrance to the parking ramp creates another plane change, as it is setback 15 feet from
sidewalk. Material changes at the
pedestrian level help emphasize the
storefront appearance; the
residential chimneys are darker field
brick(Brick 1), which contrasts with PL �
the lighter field brick(Brick 2) on the
storefronts of the sections identified } . � — _.
as Tudor 1, as well as the round-
about
ound •`
about gable,Tudor 3 (Exhibits E43 �, Ff 1111
E47). Canopies, provided over each storefront section, are broken at {
If.regular intervals and employ four t J ' ' —
• b r3 I 044gg r t>
distinct designs: standing seam metal t� wyrirftm
canopies are provided in brown in • -1II
two styles, one a typical shed with
closed ends, and the other a tapered `" � 1 �; Man. "`
shed. A red standing seam awning I• ��= lid
with open ends is provided on the
storefronts that flank the round- Residential lobby entrance behind covered archway;
about. Last,the round-about has a material and plane changes at storefront
distinct canopy of metal and glass
that emphasizes this entry.
A minimum of 80%(linear measurement)of the exterior ground floor abutting pedestrian ways
shall be designed as storefront with display windows and entry features.
There are six elevations along which this standard applies. The percentage of display windows
and entry features on each of these planes is as follows (Exhibit E43):
Building A, A Avenue frontage: 81.5%
Building A, 15t Street frontage: 82%
Building A, 2nd Street frontage: 80%
Building C, 1St Street frontage: 70%
Building C, Evergreen frontage: 78%
Building C, Roundabout: 53%
The architectural style of the English Tudor(Building C) building on 1'Street provides five 3.5-
foot wide chimneys at regular intervals, as well as brick panels that break the window
storefronts. If the retail garage entrance, which is 24 feet wide, were storefront in a pattern
similar to the Tudor 1 gable with 20 feet of windows,the 1st Street plane would approach the
80%storefront window standard at 78%. The applicant requests an exception to the 80%
glazing requirement for the three frontages on Building C. The criteria for approval for this
exception are addressed under LOC 50.08.005, below.
LU 13-0046
Page 17 of 63
The bottom edge of windows along pedestrian ways shall be constructed no more than 30 in.
above the abutting walkway surface and shall be no closer than 12 in. above the walkway
surface.
As shown in the elevations and the enlarged wall sections (Exhibits E43 and E46),the bottom of
all retail windows on Buildings A and C are between 15" and 30" above the abutting sidewalk
surface.
Sufficient interior or soffit lighting to allow night-time window shopping shall be provided.
As stated in the applicant's narrative (Exhibit F25),the design of the interior retail space is not
part of this design proposal. However,the applicant's guidelines imposed on future retail
tenants will require lighting provisions for nighttime window shopping opportunities.
Additionally, as shown on the elevations (Exhibit E43), exterior building lights will be provided
on the storefronts along A Avenue, 1st Street and Evergreen Road on the chimneys or storefront
breaks. As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to install and require its
commercial occupants to maintain nighttime lighting. The applicant will be required to provide
a copy of the development guidelines pertaining to nighttime lighting,to the satisfaction of
staff. As conditioned,this standard can be met.
Ground Floor Materials: Buildings shall use masonry as the predominant building material for
walls on the ground floor. "Masonry"includes fabricated bricks, blocks,stucco and glass. The
design of these materials shall create an historic or vernacular Lake Oswego Style appearance as
shown in LOC 50.11.001,Appendix A—Lake Oswego Style.
As shown on the elevations(Exhibit E43), all three buildings use masonry—which includes brick,
stucco, stone and glass—as the predominant building material on the ground floor. Building A
(Oregon Rustic) utilizes rough stacked stone, earthy gray brick and glass; rough stone is
identified in Appendix A as a typical foundation material for this style. Building B (Arts and
Crafts) utilizes tan and earthy red brick, glass and stucco on the ground floor; brick and stucco
are identified in Appendix A as a typical material for this style. Building C(English Tudor) utilizes
three contrasting bricks as well as glass at the base; brick construction is identified in Appendix
A as a typical material for this style. In addition,the masonry base under the storefront
windows and painted steel channel at the cornice level are reminiscent of contrasting stone
moldings,which are also an English Tudor design (Exhibit E46). This standard is met.
Along the interior walkways,the predominant building materials on the ground floor are stucco
and glass (Building A); stucco, brick and glass (Building B) and brick and glass (Building C). This
standard is met.
Upper Story Materials: Buildings shall use wood and glass as the predominant building materials
for upper stories. These materials are intended to soften the appearance of a building that sits
on a heavier appearing masonry/glass base and thereby effectively creating a mixed use village
appearance. Wood siding or cedar shingles may be used.
As shown on the elevations, all three buildings use noticeably lighter materials on the upper
floors, with numerous windows on the residential levels, as follows:
Building A: Lap siding, wood trim
Building B: Shingles, lap siding, wood trim
LU 13-0046
Page 18 of 63
Building C: Lap, and board and batten siding, stucco, wood trim
Roof Materials: Roofs shall use be slate, tile, shakes or wood shingles, or synthetic materials
(e.g., concrete,pressed wood products, metal or other materials)that are designed to and do
appear to be slate, tile,shake, or wood shingles.
The roofing material on all three buildings will be a recycled composition material that has the
appearance of slate tiles. This standard is met.
Prohibited Materials: The following exterior building materials or finishes are prohibited:
(1) Plastic, except when used to replicate old styles (e.g., vinyl clad windows, polyurethane
moldings, plastic columns, etc.);
(2) Metal or vinyl siding;
(3) Mirrored glass;
(4) T-111 Type plywood;
(5) Corrugated metal or fiberglass;
(6) Standard form concrete block(not including split faced, colored or other block designs that
mimic stone, brick or other similar masonry); and
(7) Backlit fabrics, except that awning signs may be backlit fabrics for individual letters or logos.
None of the prohibited materials are used in this project. As conditioned in the previous staff
report (Condition A.1.e),the cladding on the chimneys on Building A are masonry.This standard
is met.
Ground Floor Design: Buildings shall have a strong ground floor cornice designed to separate the
ground floor functions and materials from the upper story or stories and to provide continuity
with cornice placement on abutting buildings.
Methods for compliance with this requirement include but are not limited to:
i. Use of the same or similar building materials and/or colors from storefront to storefront or
building to building;or
ii. Painting the wood elements in the first floor storefront areas white, black, dark brown, dark
green or gray-blue. This color range is not intended to be an exclusive list, but is
recommended to create compatibility and design strength at the ground floor storefront
level while encouraging diversity with multi-tenant buildings and in large lot(whole block)
developments.
All three buildings visually and materially separate the ground floor functions from the upper
stories. On Building A, a strong cornice consisting of Stone A(Exhibit E43) is shown above the
canopies and multi-light windows on the ground floor; balconies and lap siding are introduced
on the upper residential stories. On the retail building elevations, the same building materials
extend from storefront to storefront. The two gables facing A Avenue, which break up the
façade, are primarily Stone A, Stone B and Brick Al, while the intervening flanking storefronts
are Stone A and glass.
On Building B, three shades of brick (two dark red and one warm tan) define the ground floor,
along with recessed residential entries and landscaping planters; a brick soldier course helps
define the cornice. Lap siding and shingles are introduced on the upper floors. The materials
are consistent within each design "element" (Exhibits E43, E45-47).
LU 13-0046
Page 19 of 63
Building C has a brick base with a cornice defined by canopies, a painted steel channel, and a
brick soldier course. Balconies, stucco, Siding C and Siding Cl are introduced on the upper floors
(Exhibits E43, E45 and E46). On the retail building elevations,the same building materials are
consistent within each design "element," and cornice levels are consistent along the entire
facade. This standard is met
Molding: Moldings, window casings and other trim elements shall be designed in a dimension
and character reflecting the Lake Oswego Style. Larger dimensions may be used to exaggerate
or illustrate a creative design concept or to match the scale of the new building. Moldings shall
match or complement the detailing of adjacent buildings that comply with this section.
The moldings and trim elements are appropriate for the styles of the three buildings. All three
buildings utilize composite wood moldings,window casings, and trim. Window trim, while not
particularly wide, has projecting narrow trim perpendicular to the wall; when viewed at an
angle,this element will give the impression of more substantial trim at varying "widths."
Window trim on Building A is 1" in size, while trim on Buildings B and C is proposed to be 3" in
compliance with Condition A.1.0 in the previous staff report(Exhibit E52). The trim around the
windows and wall plane offsets will be made of a composite material that simulates wood, but
that resists warping and cracking.
Mechanical Equipment: Mechanical equipment shall be mounted within gable or hip roof attics
where possible. Roof mounted mechanical equipment on flat roofed structures shall be screened
by parapet walls to the maximum degree possible. Site located mechanical equipment shall be
installed in below grade vaults where possible. Other building mounted mechanical equipment
shall be screened from view to the maximum degree possible.
As shown in Exhibits E42 and E53, each building has a trough behind the roof peaks for
mechanical equipment, including restaurant exhausts. These areas are completely screened
from the street view. This standard is met.
Awnings and Canopies: Buildings with more than one story shall provide awnings or canopies
extending six ft.from window walls. Awnings shall be shed type with opened or closed ends.
Curved awnings shall not be allowed. Awnings may have a front valance.
This standard is applicable to the retail facades on Buildings A and C. Weather protection is
provided along the retail frontages. As shown in Exhibit E10, steel canopies with wood soffits
will be provided below the cornice level of Building A. On Building C,four types of canopies are
provided along the 1st Street and Evergreen Road frontages: standing seam metal canopies are
provided in brown in two styles, one a typical shed with closed ends, and the other a tapered
shed. A red standing seam awning with open ends is provided on the storefronts that flank the
round-about, and a distinct canopy of metal and glass emphasizes the retain entry on the round-
about gable. Red standing seam awnings are also provided at the restaurant terrace on the
Evergreen frontage (Exhibit E43). The elevations and plans are inconsistent regarding the depth
of the proposed canopies on Buildings A and C. As a condition of approval,the applicant will be
required to submit revised elevations showing canopies of at least six feet in depth. As
conditioned,this standard can be met.
Outdoor Relationships: Buildings shall be designed to open up to outdoor seating and display
areas that are intended to be accessory to an indoor use, such as a restaurant or cafe.
Buildings A and B are both designed to include restaurant space,with opportunities for outdoor
seating. At the corner of A Avenue and 1St Street,the building is set back from A Avenue to
LU 13-0046
Page 20 of 63
order to preserve the maple tree; this setback provides an opportunity for outdoor seating,
served by two doorways that open on to this small courtyard. Similarly,there are retail
doorways opening on to the pedestrian courtyard from both Building A and Building C. At the
corner of 1st Street and Evergreen, Building C is set back from the property line five feet along 1st
Street, providing additional space for outdoor seating, which is facilitated even more by the 27-
foot wide sidewalk along 1st Street at this location. The sidewalk along 1st Street is 8—27 feet
wide, matching the sidewalk in front of LVV(Exhibit E41). Evergreen Road slopes downward
from 1st Street to 2nd Street, requiring a retaining wall in front of the restaurant space in Building
C. As shown in Exhibit E41,the applicant has created a flexible space for outdoor dining by
insetting the building wall and providing four sets of doors that open up to a small patio along
the Evergreen frontage. This standard is met.
Mixed Use Residential: Mixed use buildings with a residential component shall define the
residential portion of the structure through the use of design elements such as decks, balconies,
landscaping, chimneys, dormers, gable or hipped roofs or step backs above the second story to
provide upper story deck areas. Masonry should be used for chimney construction.
Buildings A and C are mixed use buildings with retail and office on the ground floor and
residential uses on the upper floors. As shown on the elevations (Exhibit E43), balconies and
decks are introduced on the residential floors. On Building A,two gable ends face A Avenue,
and another faces 1st Street; single-and double-stacked dormers on the third and fourth floors
step these residential units back from the retail level. The prominent chimneys on the gable
ends are masonry.
On Building C, balconies and decks are introduced on the second and third floors. Single-
stacked dormers on the fourth floor step these residential units back from the retail level, and
six gables are provided along 1st Street and Evergreen Road. All chimneys on Building C are
masonry. This standard is met.
Corner Buildings: Buildings located on street corners shall:
i. 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 by creating
similar focal points such as entries, towers, material or window elements, signage, etc.
ii. Reinforce building corners by repeating facade elements such as signs, awnings and window
and wall treatments on both "Avenue"and "Street"sides.
iii. If the building "cuts"the corner at ground level, anchor the corner with a column supporting
the upper levels or roof or with a free-standing column or obelisk. The area of the "cut"
corner shall be equal to or greater than the public area in the abutting sidewalk as shown in
LOC 50.11.001,Appendix A—Lake Oswego Style, Figure 2.
The project includes three different buildings located on four site corners.
A Avenue/1st Street: As shown in the elevations (Exhibit E43),the building corners at this
location are reinforced along A Avenue and 1st Street by repeated awning, window and wall
treatments. The cornice and canopy height are similar to those provided on LVV to the east,
and the window size similarly decreases on the upper floors. Signage opportunities are available
both under the canopies and on the retail cornice, like LVV. Along 1st Street, the gable end
creates a strong corner, similar to the tower element at LVV. Due to the preservation of the
specimen maple at the intersection, which prohibits the building from extending the corner, this
corner is a "cut." The basalt-clad planter and the maple anchor the corner similar to a free-
LU 13-0046
Page 21 of 63
standing column or obelisk. The area provided between the planter and the storefront is 800
square feet, while the abutting sidewalk area is 550 square feet. This standard is met.
A Avenue/2"d Street: As shown in the elevations (Exhibit E43),the building corners at this
location are reinforced along A Avenue and 2"d Street by repeating awning,window and wall
treatments, which continues down 2"d Street for the length of Building A. The cornice, canopy
height and upper storefront window patterns are similar to those provided on the commercial
building to the west on Block 136. Signage opportunities are available both under the canopies
and on the retail cornice, similar to Block 136.
2nd Street/Evergreen Road: Building B is completely residential, and residential uses are found
on both corners of this intersection. As shown in the floor plans and elevations (Exhibits E41
and E43), the residential entries at this corner are recessed, similar to the covered entries on the
adjacent townhomes. The window patterns are also similar, consisting of some larger picture
windows as well as more finely divided multi-paned windows. The corner is reinforced by
repeating the design and materials along both 2"d Street and Evergreen Road, with a masonry
base and horizontal lap siding on upper floors. The eave line at the corner is five feet lower than
the eave in the Block 136 townhomes, and the height at the roof top at the corner is less than a
foot taller than the Block 136 townhomes.
1st Street/Evergreen Road: The roundabout at this corner creates the opportunity for Building C
to address Millennium Park in a manner similar to LVV. Both corners present a gable end to the
park, with a masonry ground floor retail
element and lighter materials on the upper
floors. Like LVV, the redesigned gable has
41
f- r substantial masonry supports columns, with
u light fixtures,that bracket the main entry. The
_,4 _ `g cornice, canopy height and storefront window
/'r " III ,E.49 ' patterns are similar to those provided on the
.r.
-` i
LVV gable. A canopy of glass and steel,
� . I'1�� ���r II ;; • ' different from the other canopies on Building
�! _� Is 4"T--= C, is also more substantial, reinforcing this
111111111
1II
F, corner as unique;this is similar to the LVV
-._ gable, which features a unique and
substantially larger canopy at the roundabout
111.11than those provided along the remainder of
if
if ,r I. „- I the 1st Street frontage.
r .. ,
Masonry columns, unique canopy, patio with
lattice screen
,. ! sr . I 1( .1 i.r yrs 1.1-4'4 F.,
i
; U
Masonry columns, unique canopy, open gable
LU 13-0046
Page 22 of 63
The top floor of LVV is set back and protected under the timbered gable. Similarly, the building
wall on the fourth floor of Building C is stepped back nine feet from the third floor, providing a
substantial patio. The lattice framework partially screens the penthouse unit and provides
texture and shadow lines similar to the timbered gable on LVV. Last,the connected shed
dormers on either side of the gable are lower in height than the gable, creating a proportional
transition to the flanking rooflines and de-emphasizing its height.
Alley Space: Alley space shall be designed to minimize service functions, to screen trash/storage
areas and to enhance pedestrian/patron use. Outdoor cafe seating, landscaping, signage,
lighting and display features shall be included in alley design where feasible.
There are no alleys proposed as part of this project. This standard is not applicable.
50.05.004.7 View Protection
New development shall preserve and enhance any available views of Mount Hood and
Lakewood Bay by compliance with the following requirements.These regulations are not
intended as a guarantee that a view will be preserved or created, only to require special and
significant efforts to maintain and provide views.
Street trees on "A"Avenue shall be selected and located to preserve views of Mt. Hood.
The five existing street trees on A Avenue will be preserved.
New structures shall be designed and located to preserve and enhance views of Lakewood Bay
from the south end of Block 138(LVV) and from the Lakewood Bay bluff.
The development on the site does not impact views of Lakewood Bay from the south end of LVV
or from the Lakewood Bay bluff. This standard is met.
Restaurants, outdoor cafes, housing and hotels shall be oriented to available views, especially
views of Lakewood Bay, where feasible. Public gathering places shall be designed to maximize
any available views toward Lakewood Bay.
The development provides residences oriented to the view of Lakewood Bay as well as
opportunities for outdoor restaurants along 15t Street which can capitalize on this view. There
are no public gathering spaces proposed in this development. This standard is met.
50.05.004.8 Landscaping and Site Design
Landscaping shall be designed to enhance building design, enhance public views and spaces,
define the street, provide buffers (screening) and transitions, and provide for a balance between
shade and solar access.
Landscaping Required: Landscaping on the site, visible from the ground, shall comply with the
following amounts:
(1) Residential and live/work:15%of the lot.
(2) Nonresidential development:10%of the lot.
Because the development contains residential,the 15% landscaping standard applies. The
subject site is 2.45 acres in size; therefore, approximately 16,000 square feet of landscaping is
LU 13-0046
Page 23 of 63
required. The project provides approximately 28,500(27%) square feet of landscaping; this
includes architectural pavers, planters,green walls, potted trees and general landscaping
(Exhibit E49). The applicant proposes separate landscaping treatments in different parts of the
site, although some of the species are common to one or more area. The site is generally
divided among four landscaping treatments: the north-south pedestrian walkway,the east-west
pedestrian walkway,the courtyard, and the stormwater planters. The east-west pedestrian
walkway will be lined with nine Japanese snowbells, extending from the western ramp/stairs to
the intersection with the north-south walkway. This will create a "streetscape" similar to a
public sidewalk with street trees; this pathway will be further defined by the planters at the
sides and at the ramp/stairs. Japanese maples will define the private courtyard for the
residents, both along the walkway and in the interior of the space. Eleven planters will line the
north-south walkway, creating a narrower walkway compared to the east-west pedestrian
walkway,which helps emphasize its secondary nature.
The proposed landscaping plan shows plant sizes of 1, 3 and 5 gallons, with a plant spacing of
between 18" and four feet off center(Exhibit E49). Trees will be 2—3" caliper. Staff finds that
the proposed shrub size will not provide sufficient buffering or scale for the buildings, and that
groundcover spacing may be too sparse. As a condition of approval,the applicant will be
required to submit a revised landscaping plan illustrating that the proposed shrubs are a
minimum 3-gallon or 36"tall, whichever is greater, and that groundcover is planted no more
than 18" off-center. As conditioned,this standard can be met.
Vines on espaliers shall be placed along at least one building wall.
Espaliered trees are provided on the north facade of Building C along the east-west pedestrian
walkway,wrapping around to the north-south walkway (Exhibits E43 and E49 and E56). The
espalier will be approximately 16 feet in height at the time of planting, as conditioned in the
previous report under Condition A.1.i, and will be supported by a horizontal support structure.
The height of this espaliered tree will be sufficient to soften the wall on which it is located,
which is a double-height retail space. This standard can be met.
Landscaping for screening and buffering shall be required to screen public or private utility and
storage areas and parking lots, and as a separation between dissimilar uses.
The project does not contain exposed utility features,storage areas or dissimilar uses that
require screening. As shown in Exhibits E41 and E50, utilities are enclosed within the building
behind doors or within the underground parking structure. This standard is not applicable.
Style and Design: Landscaping shall be coordinated with the building design so that landscaping
complements the building design. Landscape design shall incorporate elements such as iron/steel
plant balconies, metal fences, railing and gates, masonry walls, window boxes, hanging plant
brackets and other similar features that complement the character of the building design.
Landscaping may be placed in pots, raised planters, or flower boxes.
Courtyards visible from the street or sidewalk shall be used to break up the scale and proportion
of structures. Courtyards shall contain landscaping or features that complement the design of
the building and the surrounding structures and landscaping. Courtyard amenities, including art
or fountains, may be required as part of the design by the reviewing authority.
Architectural metal fences and gates will be provided along the east-west and north-south
pedestrian walkways to separate the walkways from the outdoor amenity spaces provided to
LU 13-0046
Page 24 of 63
ground floor residential units. As shown in Exhibit E49,the fences will be similar to the balcony
railings provided on the Arts and Crafts and English Tudor buildings (Buildings B and C,
respectively). Masonry planters are utilized throughout the project, including as buffering
between the sidewalk and ground floor residential units on 2nd Street and Evergreen Avenue,
and in basalt-faced planters along the east-west pedestrian walkway and surrounding the maple
tree at the northeast corner of the site (Exhibit E49). Ornamental landscaping pots will be
provided throughout the site, both along the interior walkways and along the 1st and 2nd Street
sidewalks. The courtyards provided on site -at the northeast corner of the site as well as in the
pedestrian walkways—are paved with pedestal pavers, planters, landscaping pots and green
walls. Existing art pieces in the rights-of-ways along A Avenue and 1st Street will be preserved; a
location for a new art piece is provided at the base of the stairway/ramp on the west side of the
east-west pedestrian walkway. This standard is met.
Landscaping design shall be compatible with abutting or adjacent properties and shall consider
the relationship of plantings, site furnishings and materials on those properties and the proposed
site.
The project utilizes architectural furnishings, plantings and materials similar but not always
identical to those on in the right-of-way and at adjacent developments such as LVV. Bollard,
bike racks and litter receptacles are the same as found on adjacent projects (Exhibit E48);
additionally,the use of many of the same plant species will create a cohesive planting design
(Zelkova, evergreen huckleberry, liriope, crocosmia, privet, and kinnikinick,for example).
Existing planters will remain along A Avenue and 15t Street.This standard is met.
Street trees shall be planted in conformance with the Street Tree List in the Lake Oswego Plant
List, and City/LORA specifications for spacing, planting, root barriers, irrigation, lighting
(uplighting and holiday lighting), etc.
There are 44 street trees abutting the site; these trees are located in planter strips in the rights-
of-way. The applicant proposes to preserve most of the existing trees;the 11 street trees along
2nd Street will be removed and replaced with the same species (Zelkova serrata "Musashino)for
the reconstruction of the street; these tree wells will be supplied with electricity (Exhibit E49).
There are four street trees along 15t Street that are in the footprint of the proposed
development;the applicant proposes to replace these with flowering pear along the street and
Japanese snowbell along the east-west pedestrian walkway.
Residential uses at the ground floor shall be separated from sidewalks by a landscaped buffer.
The landscape buffer may include stairs, railings, walls, pilaster columns or other similar
features.
Ground floor residential along a sidewalk occurs on Building B both on Evergreen Road and on
2nd Street. On Evergreen Road,the residential units are accessed internally and the building is
separated from the right-of-way by basalt-clad landscape planters that are 2.5-9 feet in depth
(Exhibit E49); the planter is 2.5 feet in depth at the balcony,where the building wall is set back
an additional four feet from the back of the planter. Along 2nd Street,four residential units are
accessed from the street. Entrances to these units are recessed approximately seven feet from
the building façade and flanked by raised basalt-clad planters (Exhibits E41 and E49) that are
four to eight feet in depth.
LU 13-0046
Page 25 of 63
Green Landscaping: Landscape design shall incorporate the following environmentally friendly
design and planting concepts to the maximum degree possible:
(1) Utilize plant materials that are best suited for the areas of the site, e.g., water,soil, sun and
shade.
(2) Use plant materials, soils, and soil amendments which minimize the use of fertilizers,
particularly ones containing phosphate.
(3) Use drought tolerant plants, when possible, to minimize water usage.
(4) Incorporate native plantings and utilize plant materials which are grown in the Pacific
North west.
(5) Use plant materials that are pest and disease resistant to minimize or avoid the use of
pesticides and fungicides.
(6) Irrigation shall use methods and watering schedules which minimize water consumption.
These may include drip, micro-spray or bubbler emitters for trees and shrub beds. Irrigation
systems shall be designed with solar powered controllers when practicable.
(7) Design tree and vine placement to provide shade on ground and wall surfaces during warm
months.
The landscaping design utilizes native and drought-tolerant plants (Exhibit E49). As described in
the applicant's narratives (Exhibit Fl and F25), the custom soil mix will be low in phosphates. A
variety of irrigation methods will be utilized including drip irrigation and micro-sprays. The
applicant will be required to submit a final planting plan in compliance with this standard. As
conditioned,this standard is met.
The landscape plans shall include instructions for the continued maintenance of the landscaping,
which shall include the following:
(1) When necessary, utilize soil amendments and soil mulches to preserve moisture content.
(2) Irrigation shall avoid systems which throw water into the air especially during high wind or
high temperature periods. Watering should occur between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.
(3) Plant during seasons when plants will be less stressed and requires less initial watering.
(4) Plant trees "bare root"when possible.
(5) When possible,plant turf by seed(not sod), to promote deep root development which will
make the turf more drought tolerant.
As stated in the applicant's narratives (Exhibits Fl and F25), the project will comply with these
standards, and these criteria will be included on the construction documents. As a condition of
approval,the applicant will be required to submit a maintenance plan,to the satisfaction of
staff. As conditioned,this standard can be met.
Street Furniture and Lighting: Buildings shall incorporate street furniture and lighting within the
public right-of-way and in private areas open to public pedestrian activity. Street furniture and
lighting shall comply with designs approved by the City of Lake Oswego.
As shown in the landscaping plans, benches, bollards,garbage receptacles and ornamental
landscaping pots will be provided in the sidewalks abutting the site;these items are illustrated
on Exhibit E49. Five new street lights will be provided along 2nd Street, and one light will be
relocated along 15t Street;these will meet City standard design. Benches, site lighting, bike racks
and garbage receptacles will also be provided along the east-west and north-south pedestrian
walkways. All street furniture and lighting will be required to be consistent with City standards.
As conditioned,this standard can be met.
LU 13-0046
Page 26 of 63
Brick Paving: Where a development is proposed abutting to a sidewalk or intersection, brick
paving shall be required for sidewalk surface detail panels on numbered streets and at primary
building entrances as shown in the paving detail diagrams. Brick pavers shall be used to provide
color and texture on north-south streets. The use of brick, cobbles or flagstones as pavement for
other pedestrian ways, courtyards or parking lots is encouraged, but is not required.
Existing improvements along Evergreen Road, 1st Street and A Avenue are to remain. On 1st
Street,the 8-27' sidewalk is already paved in a brick herringbone pattern, which will be
maintained with the development. The sidewalks along A Avenue and Evergreen Road are
improved with street tree planters, and the street trees will be preserved; any construction
impacts to these concrete sidewalks will be repaired with matching materials and panels. The
applicant has not submitted plans that show compliance with this standard for the 2nd Street
frontage; however,the east side of 2"d Street will be re-graded as part of a LORA project, which
will be coordinated with the development of this site. As a condition of approval,the applicant
will be required to submit sidewalk plans that include brick accents consistent with previous
downtown development. These plans will be reviewed and approved with the improvements
along 2"d Street. Pedestal pavers will be provided in the pedestrian walkways, courtyards, and
the storefront setbacks along A Avenue, 1st Street and the gable at the roundabout (Exhibit E49).
Natural Stone: New and substantially remodeled buildings shall use natural stone(preferably
Columbia River Basalt)for retaining walls, courtyard walls or similar landscape applications.
Columbia River Basalt is proposed on all stone seat walls at the planters adjacent to the public
rights-of-way along A Avenue, Evergreen Road and 2nd Street, as well as the pedestrian
stair/ramp at the west end of the pedestrian walkway. The basalt planters that are existing on
the site and that are found on Block 138 are topped with granite. The site and landscape plans
(Exhibits E43, E45-E47 and E49) are inconsistent regarding the material proposed on the tops of
the new and rebuilt planters. As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to
submit revised landscaping and building plans showing that the basalt planters are topped with
granite. As conditioned,this standard is met.
Gates and Hangers: Decorative iron gates and hangers for signs,flags and hanging baskets shall
be required as part of the landscape plan and shall be designed in the Arts and Crafts style.
Decorative iron gates will be provided around the private resident outdoor spaces; these are
illustrated in the landscaping plans (Exhibit E49). They are simple in design,without excessive
decoration, and are designed to complement the Arts and Crafts and English Tudor styles on
site. This standard is met.
Hanging Baskets: Any required landscaping shall include seasonal hanging flower baskets placed
within parking lots and along streets and sidewalks.
The project is preserving most of the existing light poles along the abutting streets; five new
street lights will be installed on 2"d Street. Where these poles are currently provided with
hanging flower basket arms, they will remain. New poles must be provided in the style
approved by the City, which provides arms for baskets. This standard is met.
Art: The site design for a new or substantially remodeled existing building shall include locations
for placing public or private art.
As described in the applicant's narratives (Exhibit F1 and F25) and illustrated in Exhibit E49, the
project will provide the same or similar locations for existing plinths to accommodate the
LU 13-0046
Page 27 of 63
rotating Gallery Without Walls Art located in the public right-of-way. As established in the
Development Agreement (Exhibit F10), permanent art as part of the 1.5%for Art Program will
be commissioned and installed. As shown in Exhibit E49, one location for a future art piece is
identified at the bottom of the pedestrian stairs/ramp. This standard is met.
Protecting Pedestrians: In areas of potential vehicle/pedestrian conflict, City approved street
furniture or bollards shall be used to help create a "protected zone"for the pedestrian.
There are existing bollards at the mid-block pedestrian crossing on 1st Street as well as at the
roundabout corner. As shown on Exhibit E40,three bollards are proposed on each side of the
retail parking garage driveway on 1st Street;these will extend 14 feet in front of the garage
entrance to create a "protected zone"for pedestrians. The bollards will meet the City design
standards. This standard is met.
Undergrounding of Utilities: Overhead utilities shall be placed underground, unless the City
Engineer determines that undergrounding is not practical based upon site conditions.
All utilities are planned to be provided underground. This standard is met.
50.05.004.9 Parking Requirements
Parking shall be designed to provide adequate, but not excessive, space while preserving and
enhancing the village character of Lake Oswego, through compliance with the criteria in this
section.
Both the standards of LOC 50.06.002,which identify minimum parking rates, and the
modifications allowed in this section, LOC 50.05.004.1.9, are addressed under LOC 50.06.002,
Parking, below.
Employee and patron parking shall be restricted to available parking within the commercial
district as follows:
i. On-site parking,
ii. Owner or easement parking for patrons within 500 ft. of the business site,
iii. Owner or easement parking for employees within 1,000 ft. of the business site, or
iv. On-street parking along the property frontage.
The parking generation rates identified in LOC 50.06.002 capture both employee and patron
demand. As described in that analysis,the minimum required parking for the retail and office
components of the project is 132 spaces. The applicant is providing 155 spaces in the
underground parking garage, and 27 parking spaces will be provided along the street frontages,
for a total of 182 spaces (see additional discussion of this issue under the Parking Standard,
below. There are no off-site parking lots proposed as part of this application for owner or
easement parking. This standard is met.
50.05.004.10 Parking Lot Design
Parking shall be designed in compliance with the following criteria:
a. Parking configuration and circulation shall be designed to provide access from streets within
the district and direct traffic away from residential zones, particularly delivery vehicles. Off-
LU 13-0046
Page 28 of 63
site,signal or signage improvements may be required if needed to direct traffic away from
residential zones.
b. Driveways to parking areas shall be located to avoid breaking the storefront pattern along
primary pedestrian ways. First Street south of"B"Avenue shall be considered a primary
pedestrian way.
c. Parking lots and structures shall be sited and designed to mitigate adverse lighting and noise
impacts on residents. The reflection of sound by the lake surface shall be specifically
considered.
There are currently nine driveways that access the site: three on 2"d Street, two on A Avenue,
and four on 1st Street. These will be consolidated to two driveways with the proposed
development: one on 2"d Street to serve the residential component, and one on 1st Street to
serve the retail portion of the development. These access points, and thus the streets on which
they are located, are within the Downtown Redevelopment Design District. Parking for retail
delivery vehicles is provided at the northeast corner of the site, on 1st Street, as shown in Exhibit
E40. As all parking is provided in underground garages, there will be no exterior lights or noise
impacts on residents. These standards are met.
As shown in Exhibit E40,the access for the retail driveway is proposed to be on rt Street, which
is considered a "primary pedestrian way." The applicant is requesting an Exception to this
standard. The criteria for approval for this Exception are addressed under LOC 50.08.005,
below.
50.05.004.11 Parking Structures
Parking structures or garages shall comply with the following design standards:
a. Retail storefronts at the ground level of parking structures shall be located at the periphery
of parking areas and structures. The street side of residential parking structures may contain
facilities or services for residents, such as laundry rooms, lobbies, or exercise rooms.
b. Building materials shall complement abutting building materials as illustrated in Figure
50.05.004-L:Parking Structure Building Materials and Entries. In cases where a parking
structure extends to the periphery of a site, the design of the structure shall reflect the
massing,fenestration and detailing of adjacent and abutting buildings.
c. Architectural elements such as a frieze, cornice, trellis or other device shall be continued
from a residential portion of the building onto a parking structure.
All parking is provided underground,therefore,these standards are not applicable.
d. Entries shall be designed to be subordinate to the pedestrian entry in scale and detailing. If
possible, parking structure entries shall be located away from the street, to the side or rear
of the building.
The opening to the retail garage is set back fifteen feet behind the property line along 1St Street
(Exhibit E40). The parking garage entrance is flanked by two pedestrian entrances. To the
south,the stairway access is set back eight feet from the property line. To the north, a covered
arch at the street identifies the residential lobby and entrance; the doors are located twelve feet
behind the property line. Retail storefronts are located at the property line.
The opening to the residential garage is slightly set back from the facade along 2"d Street. A
security gate, designed in the Arts and Crafts style, will provide controlled access to the
residential garage (Exhibit F25). As the balance of the pedestrian-level facade along 2"d Street is
masonry,the gate provides a lighter point of entry. This standard is met.
LU 13-0046
Page 29 of 63
e. If possible, parking structures should be designed so that portions of the parking structure
decks are used for landscaping or entry courts to abutting buildings.
f. Parking structures shall be detailed at ground level in a manner similar to adjacent or
abutting buildings in order to create a strong/emphasized base.
All parking is provided underground;therefore,these standards are not applicable.
50.05.004.12 Street,Alley and Sidewalk Design
Street, sidewalk and alley design shall safely and efficiently provide for vehicular and pedestrian
travel while enhancing village character through compliance with the following design
standards. These standards shall apply in addition to any other City requirements for street,
alley or sidewalk design. In the event of a conflict,the provisions of this section shall control.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: Development shall comply with the Major Street System
Policies contained in the Goal 12, Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant
to this element, "A"Avenue and State Street are classified as major arterials, "B"Avenue from
State Street to Fifth Street and First through Fifth Streets from "A"to "B"Avenues are classified
as major collectors.
Under Goal 12 (Transportation) of the Comprehensive Plan, the Major Street System consists of
major arterials, minor arterials and major collectors. A Avenue is classified as a major arterial;
therefore,the policies below apply to this development:
1. The arterial and major collector street network shall be designed and maintained to service
level "E"during peak hours.
As discussed in the Traffic Report (Exhibit F3), peak hour is defined as 4:40—5:40 pm on
weekdays. The projected Level of Service (LOS)for the seven study intersections in 2016, with
project buildout, is LOS A-C. This standard is met.
2. Direct access onto major streets shall be controlled and consolidated.
Currently,there are two access points onto A Avenue, a major arterial. As shown in Exhibit E40,
these driveways will be eliminated. Retail customers will access the retail garage on 1st Street,
and a second driveway on 2"d Street will provide access for residential users. This standard is
met.
5. The City shall require the mitigation of negative impacts upon pedestrian and bicycle
mobility, noise levels,safety, aesthetics and air quality when new residential development is
located adjacent to major streets.
Residential uses are proposed on the upper floors of Building A along A Avenue, a major arterial.
The development will consolidate the nine existing driveways (two are on A Avenue)that
provide access to the site into two driveways: a retail driveway on 15t Street and a residential
driveway along 2"d Street. This will remove five potential points of conflict between vehicles
and pedestrians/bicyclists. Additionally, all bicycle improvements planned for the surrounding
city streets have been completed.This standard is met.
"A"Avenue Improvements: Any improvements to "A"Avenue shall be designed and constructed
in conformance with the 1994 Concept Plan as it exists now or may in the future be amended by
LORA. This plan identifies turn lane configuration, island location, signal location and general
LU 13-0046
Page 30 of 63
scope of the project. "A"Avenue shall be designed to blend with and continue the design themes
of the Demonstration Street Project as shown in Figure 50.05.004-M: Demonstration Street
Project, or in conformance with the completed construction plans for the next phase if such plans
are available and have been approved by LORA.
The portion of A Avenue that abuts the project site is already improved with the design themes
of the Demonstration Street Project. The driveways that are being eliminated on A Avenue will
be replaced with sidewalk panels that match the existing design. This standard is met.
Intersection Design: Intersections on "A"and "B"Avenues shall create crosswalks in a different
material and texture than the street paving(e.g., concrete, cobbles, or brick) to bridge the
intervening streets.
The intersections on A Avenue are already improved to this standard, and no changes to these
intersections are proposed. This standard is met.
Curb Extensions: Curb extensions shall be created at all intersections where feasible from a
traffic management standpoint and unless such extensions would interfere with the turning and
stopping requirements of emergency service vehicles(e.g.,fire trucks, ambulances), buses or
delivery vehicles. Such extensions will be designed to accommodate the turning and stopping
requirements of such vehicles.
Curb extensions are already provided at three of the site intersections: 15t and A Avenue, 2nd and
A Avenue, and 2"d and Evergreen (Exhibit E40). The intersection at 1st Street and Evergreen is
developed as a roundabout. This standard is met.
Sidewalks: Sidewalk design shall consider and encourage opportunities for outdoor cafes,
pushcart vendors, seasonal sidewalk sales,festivals and similar uses and activities which enliven
pedestrian walkways.
The sidewalk along 15t Street varies from eight to 27 feet in width,which offers opportunities for
sidewalk activities. The storefront along A Avenue has a number of setbacks, from two to eight
feet in depth, which offer additional opportunities for sales, displays and vendors (Exhibit E40).
The sidewalk along Evergreen Road is currently proposed to remain as is, except at areas that
need to be repaired or replaced for ADA compliance. The sidewalk along 2"d Street is proposed
to be widened, and will be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This standard is
met.
Alleys: Alleys shall be incorporated into design plans as pedestrian and vehicular accessways.
There are no alleys provided on the site. However,the pedestrian walkways provide pedestrian
access through the site (Exhibit E40). This standard is met.
Angle Parking: On numbered streets, angle parking shall be installed when it will maximize the
number of spaces provided and still comply with the capacity, service level and safety
requirements of the street system.
Angle parking is already provided along 15t Street, and this pattern will not be altered with this
project. Parallel parking is currently provided along 2nd Street, matching 2nd Street north of A
Avenue. The applicant will widen the sidewalk and planting strip along 2nd Street allowing for
parallel parking only. This work will be coordinated and done approximately at the same time as
a LORA project to re-grade 2"d Street between A Avenue and Evergreen. Final sidewalk width,
LU 13-0046
Page 31 of 63
street width and on-street parking layout will be determined by the City Engineer as part of the
final improvement plans.
Off Street Parking. Loading and Bicycle Access [LOC 50.06.0021
This standard applies to all development that generates a parking need. The total required
number of parking spaces shall be the sum of the various uses computed separately. The
maximum number of parking spaces for commercial development cannot exceed 125%of the
minimum required spaces. Per LOC 50.05.004,the parking standards of this section apply in full
to any project in the DRDD, but the requirements may be modified as provided in LOC
50.05.004.9, Parking Requirements. Both the standards of LOC 50.06.002 and the modifications
allowed in LOC 50.05.004.9 are analyzed together below.
Commercial Parking
The proposed project includes 36,500 square feet of commercial uses, as follows:
Retail: 14,000 square feet, at 3.3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft (46.2 spaces)
Specialty Food: 4,700 square feet, at 6.6 spaces per 1,000 sq ft (31.02 spaces)
Restaurant: 9,300 square feet, at 13.3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft (123.69 spaces)
Office: 8,500 square feet, at 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sq ft (28.31 spaces)
The base minimum parking required is 230 spaces. Because of the layout of downtown and the
availability of on-street parking and transit, the minimum parking requirement shall be 0.75 of
the total required. An additional reduction of 0.9 can be applied to the minimum required if
retail uses are located within 1,000 feet of 100 or more residential units. The 1,000-foot radius
extends to the east side of 5th Street on the west,to a portion of the Oswego Pointe apartments
to the east, and includes the Bay Vista Apartments, Lake Oswego Apartments, and a number of
cabana lots to the southwest. Additionally,the project is a mixed-use development that includes
207 residential units. Therefore,there are over 100 residential units within this radius. Last, in
the EC zone, a reduction of 0.85 is allowed for commercial projects over 20,000 square feet (see
Note below). Applying the downtown modifiers of 0.75 and 0.9 and 0.85, the required
commercial parking is reduced from 230 to 132 spaces. In the retail underground parking garage,
which will be accessed from 1st Street,the applicant proposes 155 parking spaces. In addition,
on-street parking spaces that abut the site frontage shall be counted toward the parking
requirement per LOC 50.05.004.9.a.vi. As shown on Exhibit E57, 27 on-street parking spaces are
provided around the property's frontages on A Avenue, 1st and 2nd Streets. This brings the total
of proposed commercial parking to 182 spaces,which exceeds the minimum required by 50
spaces, or almost 38%. Of the total commercial spaces provided on site, 15 spaces, or 9%,will be
compact spaces,which is less than the maximum of 50%. In addition, two spaces for electric
vehicles will be provided in the underground garage (Exhibit E41).
Note: In the previous analysis, only two parking modifiers were applied, although three
modifiers were available on this site per LOC 50.05.004.9.a.i-iii. The Development Size modifier
of 0.85 found in subsection (iii), which applies to commercial projects greater than 20,000 sq. ft.,
was not applied. This was an oversight. If only the same two modifiers are applied to the
redesigned project,the minimum number of parking spaces required for the retail/commercial
portion is 156 spaces. 155 spaces are provided in the garage, and 27 spaces are provided along
the abutting street frontages, for a total of 182 spaces. As identified in LOC 50.05.004.9.a.vi and
applied to LU 00-0007 (Block 136), LU 05-0063 (Banner Bank), LU 05-0065 (555 2nd), and LU 04-
0062 (2nd and B), on-street parking along the property frontage shall be used to calculate parking
requirements. The third modifier is therefore not necessary for the project to meet its minimum
LU 13-0046
Page 32 of 63
on-site parking requirement, since 27 extra spaces are provided using only two modifiers to
determine the minimum required parking.
As required by the Development Agreement with LORA (Exhibit F10),the on-site retail parking
spaces will be shared with the public. This is an exception to the Parking standards. The criteria
for approval for this exception are analyzed under LOC 50.08.005, below.
Residential Parking
The proposed project includes up to 207 residential units, including studios and one-and two+
bedroom units. The parking rates for residential uses are based on the number of bedrooms, as
follows:
Studio 14 units at 1 space per unit(14 spaces)
1-bedroom: 103 units at 1.25 spaces per unit (128.75 spaces)
2+-bedroom: 90 units at 1.5 spaces per unit (135 spaces)
The base minimum residential parking required is 278 spaces. Because of the layout of
downtown and the availability of on-street parking and transit,the base minimum parking
requirement shall be 0.75 of the total required, bringing the minimum requirement to 209 spaces
(LOC 50.05.004.9.a.i). Of these spaces, 25%, or 53 spaces, must be available for visitor parking
(the 53 guest spaces are not in addition to the minimum required parking). In the residential
parking garage, which will be accessed from 2nd Street, the applicant proposes 275 parking spaces
(including 33 spaces for residents that will be equipped with parking lifts, which will allow two
cars to be parked in one space). The 275 parking spaces provided on site is 66 spaces, or 31%,
more than the 209-space minimum requirement. The parking plan does not identify which
spaces will be provided for residential guest parking (Exhibit E41). As a condition of approval,the
applicant will be required to submit a revised parking plan that illustrates that a minimum of 53
spaces are reserved for guess parking in compliance with this standard. As conditioned,this
standard is met.
Of the 275 spaces, 14 spaces, or 5%, will be compact spaces,which is less than the maximum of
50%. In addition, four spaces for electric vehicles will be provided in the underground garage
(Exhibit E40).
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking must be provided for all new multi-family residential developments over four
units, and for all commercial uses. The bicycle parking rates for the residential use is as follows:
Multi-family residential: 1 space per 4 units (52 spaces)
The Parking standard allows up to 75%, or 39 spaces, of the required residential bike parking to
be provided in the individual dwelling units,with the remainder(13 spaces)to be provided within
a covered area located no more than 50 feet from a building entrance. As shown in Exhibit E7, 27
residential bicycle parking spaces are provided in a storage area in the northeast corner of the
residential parking garage. These spaces are within 50 feet of a residential elevator and are
covered and secure. In addition,there are 180 wall-mounted bike racks in the residential garage.
This standard is met.
The bicycle parking rates for commercial uses are as follows:
Retail: 1 per 2,500 sq ft GFA (8 spaces)
LU 13-0046
Page 33 of 63
Restaurant: 1 per 5,000 sq ft GFA(2 spaces)
Office: 2 per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA(2 spaces)
All spaces must be covered, which can be accommodated by building or roof overhangs, awnings,
bicycle lockers, storage within buildings or free-standing shelters. As shown on Exhibit E41, 13
bicycle parking spaces are provided in the parking garage, 20 feet from a building entrance.
These spaces are covered and secure. This standard is met.
Access/Access Lanes(Flag Lots) FLOC 50.06.003.11
This standard is applicable to commercial and mixed use development and prescribes standards
for the design of access points and lanes. Direct access to an arterial street is prohibited where
alternative access is available. Direct access to a local residential street is required unless access
not available. The site currently has nine access points along three street frontages: three
driveways on 2nd Street,two driveways on A Avenue, and four driveways on 1st Street. The
proposed development will reduce the number of access points to two: one on 1st Street to
serve the retail parking garage, and one on 2nd Street to serve the residential parking garage.
Both 15t Street and 2nd Street are local streets. This standard is met.
On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Access Roads FLOC 50.06.003.21
This standard is applicable to mixed use development and contains design standards for
driveways. Driveways must be located at least 30 feet from the nearest intersection (measured
from edge of driveway to curb), are limited to 24 feet in width, and must meet the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for safe entrance
and exit. As shown in Exhibit E40, both garage driveways are 24 feet in width. The retail
driveway is located more than 76 feet from the 1st Street/Evergreen Road intersection, and the
residential driveway is located 80 feet from the 2nd Street/Evergreen Road intersection. As
shown in Exhibit E40 and verified by the Engineering staff, both driveways meet the AASHTO
standards in at least one direction. The 1st Street driveway is constricted slightly by the
roundabout, but otherwise is adequate to the north. The 2nd Street driveway has clear sight
distance to the north, but is constricted looking south. Adding a stop sign at the 2nd
Street/Evergreen intersection to make the intersection an all-way STOP will satisfy the sight
distance per AASHTO;this will be made a condition of approval. The City Engineer has ultimate
authority to prescribe the street traffic control signage. The public art locations surrounding the
site, particularly near the 1st Street driveway, are temporary and will be relocated prior to
construction. As conditioned,this standard can be met.
This standard also prescribes design standards for driveways, including maximum grade, cross-
slope and grade breaks for driveways, and requires a landing area where a driveway meets the
right-of-way. The applicant has submitted cross sections of the proposed driveway ramps
(Exhibit E55)that illustrate a commercial driveway grade of 15%;the landing area is 25 feet in
length,with a grade of 5%(the landing area does not extend into the public right-of-way). The
grades of the residential driveways are 2.9%-4.5%, with a landing area over 25 feet in length.
On-Site Circulation—Bikeways,Walkways and Accessways FLOC 50.06.003.31
This standard is applicable to all new commercial, multi-family residential, and mixed use
development, and requires the provision of ADA walkways between public entrances and
parking lots and the adjacent street system. As shown in Exhibit E41, all retail spaces have
direct access to A Avenue, 1st Street or Evergreen Road. The buildings are set back from the
property line from 0—5.5 feet,with the exception of the retail spaces at the northeast corner of
the site. At this location, the retail entrances are located approximately 25-33 feet from the
LU 13-0046
Page 34 of 63
property line because of the preservation of the maple at the corner. The plaza created by the
retention of the tree connects directly to the abutting sidewalks. Entrances to the residential
lobbies are provided along A Avenue, 1st Street and Evergreen Road (Exhibit 41); these
entrances provide direct access from the abutting streets.
The public easement between 1st and 2nd Streets provides additional pedestrian connection
through the site. On the eastern end of this walkway, a landscaping island at the street prevents
motor vehicles from accessing the walkway. At the western end, a pedestrian staircase and
ramp prevent motor vehicles from entering this site. The pedestrian entrance to the retail
parking garage is located along this walkway, approximately 52 feet west of the 15t Street
(Exhibit 41). All walkways are hard-surfaced and at least five feet in width. However,the retail
spaces at the east end of the east-west pedestrian walkway are designed to encourage outdoor
activity such as café or restaurant seating. In order to ensure sufficient passageway between 15t
Street and the parking garage entry on this walkway,the applicant will be required to submit a
revised site plan showing that a minimum 12-foot unobstructed pedestrian pathway between
any outdoor activities spilling from these retail/restaurant spaces. This width can be
demarcated by railings, landscaping, or other alternatives,to the satisfaction of staff. As
conditioned,this standard can be met.
Transit [LOC 50.06.003.51
This standard applies to all mixed use development and requires transit and transit-oriented
facilities to be provided on or near the site. The site is served by Tri-Met bus service along A
Avenue,where a bus stop with bench for lines 35 and 36 is provided 48 feet east of the
intersection of A Avenue and 2nd Street. This standard is met.
Landscaping.Screening and Buffering [LOC 50.06.004.11
Per LOC 50.06.004.1.a.ii(1),this standard is not applicable to development located within the
DRDD; see landscaping analysis under LOC 50.05.004, above.
Fences [LOC 50.06.004.21
In mixed use zones,fences,walls and retaining walls shall not exceed six feet in height; within 10
feet of a public street, a fence or wall is limited to four feet in height. The only fences provided
on the site are located adjacent to the private outdoor courtyards along the pedestrian
walkways; the site and landscaping plans do not illustrate the dimensions of these fences. As
described in the applicant's narrative (Exhibit Fl and F25) and illustrated in Exhibit E49,these
fences will be less than four feet in height; planter walls are also under four feet in height. This
standard is met.
Lighting [LOC 50.06.004.31
This standard is applicable to all minor development which results in increased use of public
streets. On public pathways, low level lighting of less than 0.3 average foot-candles is required,
and the maximum uniformity of illuminating ratio cannot exceed 20:1. This standard applies only
to the east-west pedestrian walkway,which will be provided through a permanent public
easement, and thus is considered a "public way" per the International Building Code (IBC).
Contrary to the applicant's narrative,the "exit discharge" does not extend from residential exits
along the east-west pedestrian pathway all the way to 1st and 2nd Streets; rather, it extends only
from the exit doorways to the east-west public pathway itself. As determined by the Building
Official, means of egress lighting levels of 1.0 foot-candles (fc) is required along the means of
egress, including the exit discharge, and not along the length of the public pathway. The
LU 13-0046
Page 35 of 63
applicant has not provided a lighting plan that shows compliance with this standard for the east-
west walkway. As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to provide a lighting
plan that shows compliance with the standards identified above for the east-west pedestrian
walkway. As conditioned,this standard can be met.
Park and Open Space Contributions (LOC 50.06.0051
This standard is not applicable to development located within the DRDD; see landscaping
analysis under LOC 50.05.004, above.
Weak Foundation Soils [LOC 50.06.006.11
As shown on the City's Soils Maps, a portion of the site may contain weak foundation soils. The
applicant submitted a geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed development
(Exhibit F7). The purpose of the evaluation was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site
and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction. Based on
the analysis, the site can be developed as proposed following the recommendations outlined in
the report. A copy of the geotechnical report will be required to be submitted with the building
permit application. This standard is met.
Drainage Standard for Major Developments, Partitions, Subdivisions, and Certain Structures
(includes New Mixed-Use Structures) [LOC 50.06.006.3.bl
This standard requires that drainage alterations, including new development, not adversely
affect neighboring properties. In addition,this standard requires design features to minimize
pollutants from entering the storm water runoff systems. The determination of whether or not
the application complies with the requirements of this standard is under the review authority of
the City Manager or City Engineer.
Storm water management will be required for the impervious surface areas, and the
development shall not have any negative impacts to the downstream storm system or
surrounding properties. There will be no net increase in impervious area so storm water
detention is not required for the proposed development. New structures and reconstructed
parking lots are considered "new" impervious area for purposes of requiring storm water quality
management facilities.
The City Engineer has made the following findings and recommended conditions:
The applicant submitted a preliminary Stormwater Management Report dated September 6,
2013, prepared by a registered engineer(Exhibit F6), as well as an update on June 2, 2014
addressing the revised design (Exhibit F27). A private storm water quality vault is proposed to
be constructed at the northwest corner of the site with access through the parking garage,
which will provide water quality for the entire site. A new storm connection will be made to the
existing public storm main in Evergreen Road. In addition, the applicant has provided a
preliminary grading and erosion control plan (Exhibit E51) which indicates the location of a
proposed stormwater planter for each building. The Engineering staff finds the proposed
method for stormwater management to be acceptable for providing water quality treatment for
the impervious surface areas. The Engineering staff also notes that the applicant can use either
a water quality vault, storm water planters, or a combination of both for providing water quality
treatment in order to meet the minimum provisions of this standard, although Engineering
highly recommends the use of planters where possible. Any alternate design shall be approved
by the City Engineer. At the time of building permit submittal, a final storm report and water
quality design will be required for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
LU 13-0046
Page 36 of 63
The Engineering staff notes the geotech report (Exhibit F7) indicates that sump pumps will be
necessary to accommodate groundwater flows. The adjacent and downstream capacity of the
public storm system will be required to be analyzed for pre and post conditions, and any
deficiencies will be required to be corrected. The capacity shall be examined with the
anticipated sumps pump flows occurring during the design storm event. This will be imposed as
a condition of approval for the development.
All on-site storm water facilities will be private, and the applicant will be required to submit an
operations and maintenance plan and record a Declaration of Covenant for Operation and
Maintenance of Surface Water Management Facilities. As conditioned,this standard is met.
Utilities FLOC 50.06.0081
This standard is applicable to all development requiring connection to utilities. Utilities are
available or can be made available as follows:
Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing public sanitary sewer main located in A Avenue and
2nd Street. The applicant proposes to construct a new sanitary service lateral from the
existing main in 2nd Street (Exhibit E50). A clean-out shall be constructed at the right-of-
way line.
According to the City's March 2013 Waste Water Master Plan Update,there are capacity
deficiencies in the existing system downstream from this site. The model assumed the
site would be developed with a commercial use using a flow factor of 500 gallons per acre
per day (gpad). Changing the use to include multifamily residential use significantly
increases the waste water flows. Using the flow factors identified from the Waste Water
Master Plan, a multifamily development is projected to have a flow factor of 1,200 gpad.
This is a 240% increase in wastewater flows that can be anticipated from this project. This
development will be required to investigate the existing capacity and proposed site
wastewater flows, and then, if necessary, mitigate its impact to the public wastewater
system and upgrade the sewer capacity from the site down to the sewer interceptor in the
lake south of 3rd Street. As conditioned, this standard is met.
(The Engineering staff notes that at the time of this report,the City is conducting a
capacity analysis regarding the downstream capacity of the existing sewer system
between the site and the sewer interceptor in the lake at the south end of 3rd Street. The
applicant may elect to accept the City's study as its own.)
Water and Hydrants: The Composite Utility Plan (Exhibit E50) indicates abandoning the
existing water services on site and installing three new water services. Each building will
have its own independent service. The Engineering staff notes that the water service for
Building A is proposed to connect to the water main in A Avenue. There is a paving
moratorium along A Avenue through 2017. Any street cuts in A Avenue will require a
higher standard for pavement replacement. Utility vaults for backflow valves will not be
allowed to be located in the sidewalk. The application narrative indicates the design has
not been developed to a point to locate the fire department connections (FDCs) on each
of the buildings. At the time of building permit review, the FDC placement and fire
backflow devices shall be to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal, City Engineer and Building
Official. As conditioned,this standard is met.
LU 13-0046
Page 37 of 63
Storm Drains and Approved Points of Disposal: Storm water management will be required
for the impervious surface areas. Please see comments, above, regarding storm water
management requirements.
Streets: A Avenue is considered a major arterial, while Evergreen Road and 15Y and 2nd
Streets are local streets. All four streets are fully improved. See additional comments
under LOC Chapter 42, below.
Sidewalks: Sidewalks are provided along all abutting streets. See additional comments
under LOC Chapter 42, below.
Other utilities: It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain the availability of electric,
gas,telecommunications and cable TV.All overhead utilities shall be installed
underground.
Compliance with this standard will be assured at the time of building permit application.
Downtown Redevelopment District Exceptions to Standards [LOC 50.08.0051
Exceptions to the DRDD standards, or to any other applicable standard in LOC Chapter 50, may
be allowed in one or more of the following circumstances:
i. The applicant demonstrates that the physical characteristics of the site make compliance
impractical;
ii. New buildings may vary from the design requirements in LOC 50.05.004.5 through
50.05.004.7 if:
(1) The applicant demonstrates that the design should vary in order to create a
complementary relationship with an abutting viable existing structure that is not
designed in the Lake Oswego Style; and
(2) The applicant demonstrates that the alternative design is exceptional in the quality of
detailing, appearance or materials and/or creates a positive unique relationship to other
structures, views or open space in a manner that accomplishes the purpose of the
Downtown Redevelopment District Design Standards.
iii. The applicant demonstrates that the alternative design accomplishes the purpose of the
Urban Design Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to
this standard.
Under the criteria of Subsection (iii), above, the }. 31 11 u
applicant is requesting exceptions to four standards. - 1
The Urban Design Plan (Plan) is a guidebook for 4mo
� w
development of the East End District, and is based on _ AVENUE
the vision statement of the East End Redevelopment48
Plan. The Plan does not have a single "purpose" section. 4 .
Subsection (iii)'s reference to "purpose of the Urban `x
Design Plan" has previously been interpreted to refer to III
A- - AVENUE -_
the Urban Design Plan Objectives. Each of the -
requested exceptions is analyzed below.
—136 E 137 - 138
Residential units on the around floor. LOC _ = - '
50.03.003.1.e.ii restricts ground floor residential use to a _ IIII HI II
EVERGREEN ROAD
small portion of the site along 2nd Street and Evergreen. -
The proposed development provides ground floor - M
LU 13-0046
Page 38 of 63
residential uses slightly outside of the defined area.
One of the Plan's objectives is to create a high-density, compact shopping district to serve the
retail core (Objective 1.3), and the four blocks surrounding the A Avenue/1'Street intersection
are identified as a special retail district. As shown in Figure 50.03.003-A (above),the prohibition
on ground floor retail encompasses all or a portion of seven downtown blocks. The area on
Block 137 where ground floor residential is allowed is an area that is 65 feet wide and 280 feet
deep.
Townhomes- B136 / t„.:
Commercial- B136
2ND STREET
Pi
0aE9a¢ U 0 AiAS.yYU W. ha K •
BUM
_ 1—d-IEI11 r hu. 1 _1 _ I _
Transitions between commercial and residential on Blocks 136 (top) and 137
(bottom)
While retail uses currently abut A Avenue on the north side of the street and on Block 136 to the
west, high density residential uses transition behind the retail storefronts on Block 136 toward
Evergreen Road, and then to lower density residential uses further to the south and southwest.
Additionally,while the retail storefront on
Block 136 wraps around the corner of A
Io3" • 1 Avenue and 2nd Street, it provides only
i. im2=}'...
e- , storefront windows and no retail entrance,
4II ■ -°- limiting its activity level along 2nd Street at
this location. By providing residential use
.l slightly to the north of the allowed area,
-- I• ,1BIB with the east-west walkway abutting it,the
" ' 11 ' Ei its - plan creates a bigger buffer between the
._, commercial uses and the residential
;� - - b�
�. - �o�o- - townhomes on Block 136; it also matches
Exception is i' itt
required for .- more closely the transition between
orange shaded- commercial and residential on Block 136.
area including _ y ' The location of proposed ground floor
11 Units,and # ,__._. residential use along2nd Street
partial U lits— - � I 1
a.i� • "111 -' complements the retail/residentiali ,.. transition on Block 136. While the diagram
i_,mu ■1; Ii above shows abrupt edges to the compact
lr: ...: s -T-i:-.7,17-A..- shopping district, adequate transitions
. 4� 4 1.,1.t .t' I'� ( between uses are necessary for
compatibility between uses.
On Evergreen Road,the property to the south of the site is developed as park and open space
(Millennium Park). As shown on the site plan (Exhibit E40) and illustrated in the applicant's
LU 13-0046
Page 39 of 63
narrative (Exhibit F25), ground floor residential is proposed at the mid-block; storefront retail
wraps the roundabout corner and extends all the way to the north-south pedestrian walkway.
With the narrow width of Evergreen Road, limited on-street parking at this location, existing
topography, and no retail on the south side of the road, this frontage is not conducive to
storefront retail. Ground floor residential uses on this frontage are an appropriate use
considering the existing 8-foot retaining wall and 85-foot setback between Building B and the
activity area at Millennium Park.
As shown on the site plan (Exhibit E40),the applicant proposes three separate buildings on the
site, separated by internal pedestrian walkways. This opens the site up and allows uses—both
residential and retail -to wrap the corners along the walkways. Retail uses are located along the
east end of the east-west walkway on Buildings A and C; retail uses also wrap Building C's corner
at the south end of the north-south pedestrian walkway. Internally, office uses are provided on
the back sides of Buildings A and C, and residential uses are now located on the ground floor
only on Building B. As shown in the graphic above,the ground floor residential uses extend only
minimally outside the area designated for ground-floor residential; this area represents four
units and 11 partial units, as well as the community room. The predominant use on all the
ground floors outside of the area delineated in Figure 50.03.003-A on the site is still commercial.
Staff finds that the project creates appropriate transitions between higher-intensity uses and
streets (retail on A Avenue and 1st Street, respectively) and lower-intensity uses and streets
(residential on 2nd Street and Evergreen Road, respectively). The project meets the following
objectives of the Plan:
Creates a high-density, compact shopping district(Objective 1.3)
Creates a pedestrian network that structures the retail core through connections of parking,
retail and civic places (Objective 1.4)
Creates high density housing to provide greater intensity of use in the retail core (Objective
1.9)
The project also meets the following principle of the Plan:
Creates a lively and attractive urban experience by increasing the density and mix of uses,
integrating these uses vertically and horizontally on the street level (Principle 2.13)
Storefront glazing. LOC 50.05.004.6.b requires that 80%of a storefront be designed with display
windows and entry features. On Building C, which faces 15t Street and Evergreen Road and has
three distinct facades, the proposed development will provide 53- 78%storefront glazing.
This standard requires that new buildings fronting on streets create a storefront appearance on
the ground floor by providing 80%of the ground floor as display windows or entry features.
Buildings A and C, the two mixed-use buildings, have six different planes that are subject to this
standard. The calculations for window display ranges from 53—78%on the three different
planes on Building C (English Tudor). The architectural design provides brick panels in each
storefront of varying widths (Exhibit E43). In the Tudor 1 element,the brick panels are four and
11 feet wide, and the larger panel is bisected by a three foot window. On the Tudor 1 element,
the brick panels are approximately three feet wide. The location and width of the panels
provide proportional support for the upper levels. To achieve the required 80 percent figure,
the panels would need to be reduced in width. A reduction would create an unbalanced base to
the structures,which are intended to be more massive and heavy in character. The type of
architecture achieved through the proposed design is exceptional in that it provides a
proportionate design needed to support the intricate upper floors.
LU 13-0046
Page 40 of 63
Staff finds that the slight deviation from the storefront window requirement provides better
building balance and scale and a more attractive storefront appearance, and that the design of
Building C already has the elements required to create village character, pedestrian amenities
and visual interest. The project creates a high density compact shopping district to serve the
retail core of the downtown district, meeting the objectives of the Urban Design Plan.
Retail Darkina entrance on 1"Street. LOC 50.05.004.10.b discourages parking entrances along a
primary pedestrian way, which includes 1"Street. The proposed development will provide access
to the retail parking garage on 1"Street.
As described previously in this report, the current development on the site is served by nine
driveways:three on 2nd Street:two on A Avenue, and four on 15t Street. The proposed design
will provide two driveways: one on 15t Street to serve the underground commercial parking
garage, and one on 2nd Street to serve the residential garage (Exhibit E5). The commercial
access is located on 1st Street for a number of reasons. First,the access is mid-block and directly
across from the existing access to LVV(see image below).
1.1 ,N - '., ▪ '`N 4'
▪`'.,.
<7 iN 1, .„.
� 4� C3 ti...:N -�
x.,....„.e.,:,_____„_ ___,,_,._.....,,____ .,,,. =-
_ ,.. , . ., 4 !...`
•i __fd-t __ _-
i
Driveways on Blocks 137 and 138 are directly aligned
Both access points provide public parking for uses in the area as well as parking to serve the on-
site uses. In terms of vehicular circulation,the optimal condition is to locate access points for
like uses in direct alignment, which minimizes vehicular conflicts and provides clear way-finding
and navigation for pedestrians. The access on 1st Street will be the only access point on the west
side of 1st Street. Due to the grade change on Evergreen Road, providing access via this road is
impractical. Providing retail parking access on A Avenue is not efficient or desired: because of
medians, access would require right-in, right-out turning restrictions. Patrons coming from the
east would need to either execute a series of right turns or a u-turn on A Avenue; west-bound
patrons exiting the site would similarly either have to circle the block to turn left at 2nd Street
and A Avenue, or execute a u-turn at 1st Street and A Avenue. Additionally, direct access to an
arterial (A Avenue) is prohibited where alternative access is available, as addressed in LOC
50.06.003.1, above. Last, providing retail access on 1st Street directs retail vehicles away from
the existing and proposed residential uses along 2nd Street. The project meets the following
objectives of the Plan:
Creates a pedestrian network that structures the compact retail core through connections
or parking, retail and civic places (Objective 1.4)
Creates high-density housing that will provide greater intensity of use in the retail core
(Objective 1.9)
LU 13-0046
Page 41 of 63
Reinforces vehicle-oriented commercial opportunities for businesses that can coexist with
the compact retail core (Objective 1.10)
Additionally, one of the Principles of Urban Form in the Plan specifically addresses vehicle
parking and access for a suburban community with a heavy reliance on automobiles. Principle
2.8, Park the Cars, states:
New development must be served by convenient and attractive parking
opportunities. Consolidated parking in higher density areas should be
innovatively integrated with development to provide easy access, security
and an attractive setting without "seeing the bumper from the store
window" syndrome.
The underground parking provided on the site is convenient and secure, and provides parking
for 155 vehicles that is not visible from the street or from the retail storefronts. For the reasons
identified above, staff finds that the proposed access plan accomplishes the purpose of the Plan
in a manner that is equal or better than a project designed in compliance with this standard.
Public parking provided on-site. LOC 50.06.002 requires new uses to provide a minimum number
of parking spaces on site. The proposed development provides more than the minimum parking
for both the retail and residential portions; the retail parking will be shared with the general
public.
As described previously in this report, the project will provide parking in excess of what is
required for both the retail and residential portions of the development. Retail parking will be
accommodated in the underground garage,which has 155 parking spaces, and the on-street
parking that abuts the site, which is an additional 27 spaces, for a total of 182 spaces. As the
minimum parking requirement is 132 parking spaces,this represents a 38% increase above the
Code requirement.
Under the Development Agreement (Exhibit F10),the a portion of the commercial parking will
be made available for public parking,to be managed pursuant to a parking management
agreement between the City and the applicant, similar to the shared public parking arrangement
in the parking garage that serves LVV. Of the 155 underground spaces,48 will be dedicated to
tenants, patrons and employees of the retail development between the hours of 8:00 am and
5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Thus, commercial users will be able to exclusively use 48
spaces during business hours, plus the balance of the stalls in conjunction with public users. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation rates for retail and quality
restaurants indicate differing peak hours, with retail centers peaking at 11 am—3 pm and 6-7
pm on weekdays, and quality restaurants peaking at 7-8 pm on weekdays. Office use peaks
between 9-12 and 2-4 pm on weekdays. Staff finds that the project includes 38% more
commercial parking than required by the Code, and that the peak usage hours would not be in
conflict and would provide adequate parking for the proposed uses. The project meets the
following objectives of the Plan:
Creates an overall vehicular circulation structure specifically designed to enhance various
development opportunities(Objective 1.2)
Creates a high-density, compact shopping district to serve as the retail core of the East End
Redevelopment Area (Objective 1.3)
The project also meets the following principles and concepts of the Plan:
LU 13-0046
Page 42 of 63
Integrates parking with development, and consolidates parking for individual uses in parking
structures. Parking in public rights-of-way is integrated with sidewalk and street
landscaping treatment (Principle 2.8)
Creates a lively and attractive urban experience by increasing the density and mix of uses,
integrating these uses vertically in buildings as well as horizontally on the street level
(Principle 2.13)
Staff finds that the requested exceptions comply with the criteria for exceptions to the stated
Code requirements, LOC 50.08.005.
3. Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which
may be applicable to the specific minor development application;
City of Lake Oswego Tree Code [LOC Chapter 551
Tree Removal
As shown on Exhibit E47,there are 55 trees on the site and in the abutting rights-of-way,
and twenty-five trees are proposed to be removed for the development of this site.
There are 11 trees on the site that are five inches in diameter or greater. The applicant
is requesting to remove 10 of these trees in order to construct the proposed
development;the specimen Japanese maple located in the planter at the northeast
corner of the site will be preserved. Additionally,there are 44 street trees located in the
right-of-way at the perimeter of the site. The eleven street trees along 2nd Street are
proposed to be removed and replaced for the reconstruction of the sidewalk,
additionally, four street trees on 15t Street that are in the footprint of the parking garage
entrance and additional street parking will be removed. Trees proposed for removal in
conjunction with major or minor development can be granted tree removal permits if
the following four criteria are met:
(1) The removal is for development purposes pursuant to the City Code;
The removal of these trees is necessary for development because they are located
within the footprint or construction impact area of the proposed mixed use structures
and site access (Exhibit E40).
(2) The removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,flow
of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;
The removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, or flow
of surface waters because the trees are located in a relatively flat or developed area;the
on-site trees are located within the parking lot of the existing shopping center, and the
remaining 15 are in planter boxes in the rights-of-way. The removal will also not have a
significant impact on protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks because the
trees are relatively small (5-21" DBH), are not clustered, and are separated far enough
from other trees that they do not provide a windbreak.
(3) The removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics,
or property values of the neighborhood, except where alternatives to tree removal
have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to
be used as permitted in the zone;and
LU 13-0046
Page 43 of 63
The proposed tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on the character,
aesthetics or property values of the neighborhood because the trees are not tall or of
specimen quality and do not contribute to the treed character of the neighborhood.
The largest tree on the site,the 26"Japanese maple, will be preserved.
(4) The removal is not for the sole purpose of providing or enhancing views.
The trees are not being removed for view enhancement because their removal will not
improve any views,
For the reasons outlined above, staff concludes that the tree removal request complies
with the applicable criteria and may be approved. The applicant will be required to
apply for a verification tree removal permit for the trees prior to approval of any grading
or building permit.
Mitigation
Any tree approved for removal under the Type II analysis shall be mitigated at a
minimum 1:1 ratio. Mitigation trees shall have a minimum 2-inch caliper diameter for
deciduous trees and a minimum 6-8 foot height (excluding leader) for evergreen trees.
As shown in the Tree Removal application (Exhibit E28), the applicant proposes 1:1
mitigation for the 25 trees to be removed. The mitigation trees are 3" caliper, and
include Acer palmatum "Sanger-Kaku",Zelkova serrata "Mushashino", Pyrus Calleryana
"Chanticleer", and Styrax Japonica. However,the mitigation plan (Exhibit E49) only
identifies 9 on-site mitigation trees,when 10 are required. As a condition of approval,
the applicant will be required to submit a revised mitigation plan showing the species
and location of 10 mitigation trees on site. As conditioned,this standard is met.
Tree Protection
The Code requires tree protection measures when a tree protection zone or drip line of a tree is
within the construction zone, whether on or off-site [LOC 55.08.030(1)]. There are several trees
in the vicinity of work areas that will need tree protection during site development; these
include the 29"Japanese maple located in a planter at the northeast corner of the site, and 29
street trees. In general,the protective fencing shall be placed at the tree protection zone,which
is the zone required to protect the critical root area necessary for the continued health of the
trees. The applicant should propose the tree protection zone for each tree,for review and
approval by City staff, on site. As required by LOC 55.08.030(7), no construction, excavation,
root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless directed by an
arborist present on site and approved by the City.
As described in the Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan (Exhibit F4),traditional methods of
tree protection may not be sufficient for the Japanese maple due to its location in the concrete
planter, whether roots have escaped the planter, and whether the planter can be preserved
throughout the construction process. Without knowing the construction details and the
location and reach of the maple's root system, protection measures for the maple were not
identified by the consultant. As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to submit
a revised preservation plan for the maple that identifies construction impacts and mitigation
measures based on root exploration, construction techniques and impacts to the planter box.
A note should be placed on the construction documents that informs the site contractors about
the necessity of preventing damage to these trees, including bark and root zone, and that no
materials should be stored or compaction occur within the root zones of the adjacent trees [LOC
LU 13-0046
Page 44 of 63
55.08.030]. The contractor shall be subject to fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are
damaged or destroyed during construction. As a condition of approval, as required by LOC
55.08.02 and 55.08.030, a tree protection plan shall be submitted with the building permit plans
for staff review and approval. Tree protection measures must be installed prior to issuance of any
grading or building permits. Tree protection fencing consists of 6-foot high chain link fencing
supported by 6-foot high metal posts, placed a maximum of ten feet apart.
City of Lake Oswego Streets and Sidewalks [LOC Chapter 421
Vision Clearance
This standard requires that no vegetation,fence or signage higher than 30 inches be located
within a "vision clearance triangle" for driveways that provide egress from a site. There are two
driveways that provide access to the site; access to the retail parking is provided on 15t Street,
and access to the residential parking is provided along 2nd Street(Exhibit E5). As shown in this
exhibit,vision clearance standards are met at these driveways.
Streets and Sidewalks [LOC Chapter 421
This Chapter authorizes the City Engineer to make specific street and sidewalk
improvement recommendations after taking a variety of policy and site specific factors
into consideration.2 The City Engineer's comments are included for the review of the
overall understanding of the project. The City Engineer's conditions of approval are
included, as they must be included in the decision,to find that the application will comply
with this Chapter.
Full right-of-way frontage improvements will not be required along A Avenue, 152 Street or
Evergreen Street since these frontages have previously been constructed at or close to
current City standards. However, along these three street frontages,the applicant will be
required to reconstruct curb, sidewalks and other street features and amenities where the
project causes damage to existing improvements, and where right-of-way modifications
are necessary to accommodate the project. These include, but are not limited to,the new
driveway on 1st Street, existing driveways will be closed off, portions of sidewalks that
need to comply with ADA requirements, and locations where improvements are needed
to provide for relocating and/or adding street features such as public art, landscaping,
basalt walls, etc.
For 2nd Street, the applicant will be required to construct all new sidewalk, planting strip
area, and other right-of-way improvements including the curb along the east side of rd
Street and the area between this curb and the site's property line. Currently,the existing
street cross-slope is substandard immediately south of A Avenue; the existing street cross-
slope is approximately eight to 10 percent.Typical street cross-slopes are constructed at
approximately two percent. The only opportunity to correct the cross-slope along 2nd
Street is at the time the site is redeveloped. As such, LORA plans to reconstruct the cross-
slope of 2nd Street. This work will need to be done immediately prior to the new street
210 meet the review criteria for a major development,the applicant must comply with "any additional ... Lake Oswego
Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific major development application,such as...the Streets and
Sidewalks Ordinance." LOC 50.07.003.15(d)(ii)(d).The determination of whether or not the application meets the
requirements of LOC Chapter 42,Streets and Sidewalks, is under the review authority of the City Manager or City
Engineer;the requirements of this Chapter are not under the review authority of a hearing body,other than to find
whether or not the City Engineer or City Manager has found that the application complies with LOC Chapter 42,or
whether conditions of approval are required for compliance with this Chapter.
LU 13-0046
Page 45 of 63
frontage improvements along the east side of 2"d Street. Thus,the applicant must
coordinate the street frontage improvements with LORA to ensure the two projects are
constructed in such a way to be compatible with each other and to minimize construction
impacts to adjacent property owners and users of 2"d Street. When the street section is
modified, storm water treatment will be required.A storm water quality facility located at
the low point near the intersection of Evergreen may be required by the City Engineer.
The final design of any and all right-of-way improvements along the four block faces of the
site shall comply with the DRDD Standards and must be approved by the City Engineer and
LORA. To ensure this,the applicant will be required to have a Public Works Permit for all
right-of-way improvements. The Engineering staff also notes that there is a paving
moratorium on A Avenue due to the recent paving work from 10th Street down to State
Street.
The City Engineer has made the following findings and recommendations:
The applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis (Exhibit F3) prepared by a registered
engineer that addresses traffic requirements. The trip generation supplement (Exhibit
F26) addresses the revised application, i.e.,the decrease in the number of residential units
and the addition of 8,500 square feet of office. The Engineering staff has reviewed the
development proposal and field conditions in the context of the City's codes,
improvement policies and Transportation System Plan (TSP), and offers the following
observations and recommendations.
According to the latest traffic impact analysis (Exhibits F3 and F26),the revised project will
generate approximately 185 new trips on the system during the p.m. peak hour(109
inbound, 76 outbound). At the proposed driveways in particular,this results in 90 net new
trips into/out of the site. Additional transit, pedestrian and bicycle trips can be expected
as well. The cumulative effect of new trips (all modes) imposes an additional burden and
concomitant concerns for preserving street capacity and public safety, particularly for
bicycles and pedestrians.
The conclusions from the report are as follows:
The site reduces the number of access points from nine to two driveways.
Five additional on-street parking stalls and two loading zones will be created.
All immediate intersections will operate at level of service C or better in the 2016
future condition, and the State Street intersections will have a volume-to-capacity
ratio less than 1.1.
The development is not expected to exacerbate the crash patterns in the surrounding
area.
The locations of the proposed site driveways are acceptable and meet the standard
for distance from an intersection.
Sufficient sight distance is available at both site driveways.
Sufficient amounts of vehicle and bicycle parking being provided for site users.
Both of the proposed site driveways will function acceptably with stop control.
The additional on-street queue lengths are minimal and are not suggested to be
mitigated, since the available storage is already exceeded without the development.
Worst-case scenario shows queue lengths increasing by one car length.
Increases to existing roadway volumes are acceptable for the current functional
classifications. Second Street will see the greatest increase since all those trips are new,
residential trips, but staff does not recommend re-classifying the roadway because
LU 13-0046
Page 46 of 63
functional classifications depend on several factors,volume being just one. Access points
are being reduced and the speed remains unchanged.
Evergreen Road may experience an increase in traffic volumes; however, it will
continue to operate within the expected volumes for a local street classification. The
majority of traffic will continue to use the arterial and collector system much the same
as today. No new transportation improvements are necessary as a result of increased
traffic impacts from this development.
The Country Club/Iron Mtn./C Avenue intersection to the west currently operates below
the City threshold. The intersection serves as metering point for the signalized
intersections in the downtown core. No improvements to this intersection are proposed
as it is outside the immediate vicinity of the project site. The City has this intersection on
its TSP for a future improvement project.
The applicant offered several recommendations in the traffic impact study, numbered
below. Staff has the following comments regarding each item.
1. Landscaping, signing, above ground utilities, and pavement/sidewalk details should be
configured to ensure safe, convenient and efficient driveway operation, keeping in
mind the ability of drivers to see pedestrians and pedestrians to see approaching
vehicles.
As described previously in this report, the driveways, sidewalks, utilities and
landscaping meet all applicable standards.
2. Create additional on-street parking and/or truck loading zones associated with the
closure of existing driveways service Block 137.
As described previously in this report, additional on-street parking and loading is
created by the closure of five existing driveways. Any changes to the parking and
loading zones are at the discretion of the City Engineer. Staff will work with the
applicant to determine an appropriate layout at the time of public improvements.
3. Consider reordering the traffic signal phases at A Avenue's intersection with State
Street so eastbound left-turns and right-turns proceed at the same time,followed by
eastbound right-turns and northbound left-turns. This will help assure that eastbound
left-turn queues will not extend into and block the nearest right-turn lane.
Staff reviewed and discussed this option with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT),the owner and operator of the State Street/A Avenue traffic
signal. According to ODOT, loop detection on State Street must be repaired and the
signal timing reanalyzed before a decision can be made. At this time,there is
insufficient information to determine if this recommendation would improve the
operation of State Street and A Avenue.
4. Explore coordinating A Avenue's signals at State Street and 15t Street to assure the
following: westbound traffic will not queue from 15t Street and block the flow of traffic
from State Street; westbound vehicles turning left from A Avenue onto 15t Street do not
queue into the nearest through lane;and eastbound traffic is able to access and utilize
all of the green time at the State Street intersection.
LU 13-0046
Page 47 of 63
Signal timing is periodically reviewed and analyzed by the City Engineer and is not a
condition that can be imposed with this development.
5. Consider providing manual traffic control at 15`Street's intersection with the Lakeview
Village and Block 137 driveways during major civic events.
The City Engineer is responsible for permitting temporary traffic control associated
with special events.This is not a condition that can be imposed with the development.
6. Consider adding an eastbound STOP sign at the 2'Street/Evergreen Road intersection,
or possibly stopping all three approaches to the intersection. Currently, only the
westbound approach is STOP controlled.
As a condition of approval to satisfy the standards of LOC 50.06.003.2, On-Site
Circulation,the applicant is required to install stop signs at this intersection,to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Note: Intersection and right-of-way improvements
are under the purview of the City Engineer)
7. Support the timely implementation of vehicle capacity improving projects identified in
the Transportation System Plan, in particular the plan's proposal for the Country
Club/Iron Mountain/C Avenue and State/B Avenue intersections.
Staff concurs with the recommendation and will monitor the performance of these
intersections and prioritization the CIP.
Sign Code FLOC Chapter 471
For compatibility with the design of the structures and abutting development, cabinet signs and
neon signs should be prohibited, and this is addressed under the Building Design standard. This
will be made a condition of approval.
Signs are reviewed for compliance with the specific sign standards relating to the zone where
the sign is to be placed and design standards applicable to all permanent signs per the Sign
Code. No sign permit applications are included as part of this application, although the
applicant has illustrated some signage opportunities in the elevations and renderings (Exhibits
E43—E47). Approval of plans that contain depiction of signage location and general size should
not be considered approval of the signage.
All signage shall comply with the provisions of the Sign Code to be compatible with those in the
surrounding area [LOC 47.06.200(4)]. Sign permits will be required and each proposed sign will
be reviewed for compliance when the sign permit application is received. This standard can be
met at the time of sign application.
4. Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior
development permit affecting the subject property.
There are no outstanding conditions of approval that affect the subject property.
LU 13-0046
Page 48 of 63
VII. CONCLUSION
Based upon the materials submitted by the applicant and findings presented in this report, staff
concludes that LU 13-0046 complies with all applicable criteria and standards.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval LU 13-0046 (revised submittals), subject to the following conditions:
A. Prior to the Issuance of any Grading or Building Permits,the Applicant/Owner Shall:
1. Submit final site and building plans for review and approval of staff that are the same or
substantially similar to the approved plans, illustrated on Exhibits E40—E57 to the
satisfaction of staff, with the following modifications:
a. On Building B, replace the flat roof on the west side of the conservatory gable with a
pitched roof to match the dormer on the east side.
b. All retail canopies on Buildings A and C shall be at least six feet in depth.
c. A complementary color that provides contrast on the reveals on the stucco gable ends
shall be provided on Building C,to the satisfaction of staff.
d. Provide a minimum of 53 guest parking spaces in the residential parking.
e. The lighting levels on the east-west pedestrian walkway shall comply with the
standards of LOC 50.06.004.3.
f. The basalt planters shall be topped with granite.
g. Delineate a minimum 12-foot wide unobstructed pedestrian corridor through the
east-west pedestrian walkway,to the satisfaction of staff.
h. All street furniture shall be consistent with City design standards.
2. Provide a copy of the development guidelines pertaining to nighttime storefront lighting,
to the satisfaction of staff.
3. Submit a final landscape/mitigation plan substantially similar to Exhibit E49, except
modified to show the following information for review and approval of staff:
a. Shrub size shall be a minimum of 3-gallon or 36" in height, whichever is greater.
b. Groundcover materials shall be planted at no more than 18" on center.
c. All burlaps or cages shall be removed from all trees and plants prior to planting.
d. Submit a landscape maintenance and monitoring plan.
4. Submit final engineered construction plans for the public improvements and storm water
management facilities, and an itemized cost estimate for review and approval by the City
Engineer. Drawings shall conform to the City's design standards and the drafting
LU 13-0046
Page 49 of 63
specifications found in the City's booklet "CAD Standards and Design Requirements," May
2006 edition. The plans shall include the following design elements:
a. Along the site frontage of 2nd Street:
i. The new curb and sidewalk along the site frontage shall be designed to
the DRDD standards.
ii. A minimum 5-foot sidewalk clearance width around street elements such
as tree wells, benches, etc.
iii. All new utilities shall be installed underground.
iv. Design of the driveway approach to the residential parking in compliance
with City and AASHTO standards.
v. Design of new ADA ramp at the northeast corner of Evergreen Road and 2nd
Street. The intersection crossings and curb ramps shall comply with ADA
standards.
vi. Design for a 3-way stop controlled intersection at 2nd Street and Evergreen
Road.
vii. Electrical pigtails in street tree wells for seasonal lighting.
viii. Root barriers in all tree wells to protect the new sidewalks from tree root
heaving.
ix. Design of street lights according to the City's lighting standards.
b. Along the site frontage of A Avenue:
i. Design for reconstructing the curb and sidewalks where necessary to close
off existing driveway approaches and to repair portions of sidewalk where
necessary for ADA compliance. All sidewalk construction shall also comply
with the DRDD standards.
ii. Provide a minimum 5-foot sidewalk clearance width around street
elements such as tree wells, benches, etc.
iii. All new utilities shall be installed underground.
c. Along the site frontage of First Street:
i. Design for reconstructing the curb and sidewalks where necessary to close
off the existing driveway approach, design of additional on-street parking
and to repair portions of sidewalk where necessary for ADA compliance.
All sidewalk construction shall also comply with the DRDD standards.
ii. Design of the commercial driveway approach and the location of public
art in the right-of-way in compliance with City and AASHTO standards.
i. Provide a minimum 5-foot sidewalk clearance width around street
elements such as tree wells, benches, etc.
ii. Design of street lights according to the City's lighting standards.
iii. All new utilities shall be installed underground.
d. Along the site frontage of Evergreen Road:
i. Design for reconstructing sidewalks where necessary for ADA compliance.
All sidewalk construction shall also comply with the DRDD standards,to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Lake Oswego Downtown
Redevelopment Agency (LORA).
ii. All new utilities shall be installed underground.
LU 13-0046
Page 50 of 63
e. Design for the water services and sanitary service.
f. Design for the fire service and location of the fire FDCs,to the satisfaction of
the Fire Marshal.
g. Design of public storm water collection for any street frontage improvements.
h. Submit an investigation of the existing sanitary sewer capacity from the site to
the sewer interceptor in Oswego Lake at the south end of 3rd Street, and the
engineering analysis of the mitigation necessary to accommodate the
additional flow from the site. Upon approval, construct the necessary
capacity upgrades to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(The City is conducting a capacity analysis regarding the downstream capacity of the
existing sewer system. The applicant may elect to accept the City's study in lieu of a
separate analysis.)
5. Construct all public improvements as required by Condition A(4), above, or submit a
financial guarantee for all required public improvements, per LOC 50.87.020. The financial
guarantee shall be based on an engineer's estimate that is in turn is based on construction
plans that are far enough advanced to support the materials and quantities found in the
estimate.
6. Submit a final site plan, storm water plan and storm drainage report for the on-site
storm water quality system(s), prepared by a registered engineer,for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
7. Per LOC Chapter 52, apply for and obtain an erosion prevention and sediment control
permit issued through the City of Lake Oswego, and install and maintain all BMPs as
indicated in the permit. These measures shall remain in place throughout the
development period.
8. Provide evidence that an erosion control permit 1200-C has been obtained from the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ).
9. Submit a site plan showing the proposed design for the private water and sanitary
services to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A sanitary clean-out shall be located at
the right-of-way line on 2nd Street.
10. Submit evidence that the fire suppression design is to the satisfaction of the Fire
Marshal. Utility vaults shall not be located in the sidewalk.
11. Pay all applicable System Development Charges pertaining to the development.
12. Apply for and obtain a verification tree removal permit for the 25 trees approved for
removal to construct the improvements. The verification tree removal permit submittal
shall include an 8%2"x 11" copy of the tree removal plan and a mitigation plan showing
replacement trees on a 1:1 basis. Replacement trees shall not be dwarf or ornamental
varieties and shall be at least two inches in caliper if deciduous or at least 6-8 feet tall
(excluding the leader) if evergreens.
13. Submit a revised preservation plan for the Japanese maple prepared by a certified arborist
that identifies construction impacts and mitigation measures based on root exploration,
LU 13-0046
Page 51 of 63
construction techniques and impacts to the planter box for review and approval of staff.
The certified arborist shall be present on site during any excavation or construction
activity within the dripline of this tree to assure compliance with the protection plan.
14. Submit a geotechnical report with the building permit application for review and approval
of staff.
B. Prior to the Final Building Inspection or Occupancy of any Building,the
Applicant/Owner Shall:
1. Complete all public and site improvements required by Condition A(4), above, and
submit certified "as-built" drawings of public improvements conforming to the City's
standards for record drawings.
2. Construct all private utility services.
3. Construct the private water and sanitary services to serve the development.
4. Install all landscaping/mitigation plantings as illustrated in Exhibit E49, and modified by
Conditions A(3) and A(13),above.
5. Install all the bicycle racks.
6. Provide a one-year guarantee (one 12-month growing season from the date of
installation)for all landscape materials, pursuant to LOC 50.06.010.2. The guarantee
shall consist of a security in the amount of five percent of the total landscaping cost
(including materials and labor). The applicant/owner shall also submit a landscape
maintenance plan for review and approval of City staff.
C. Prior to Issuance of any Sign Permit,the Applicant/Owner Shall:
1. Obtain all necessary sign permits. The applicant/owner shall submit sign plans and
elevations in accordance with the Sign Code for review and approval of staff. Color
and material of the signs shall be compatible with the architectural details and colors
of the approved building in the following manner:
a. Internally lit cabinet signs or plastic-faced signs shall be prohibited.
b. Signage on the buildings shall consist of individual letters.
(Note: The Conditions of Approval regarding sign limitations are not exclusive to the
requirements and standards that will be reviewed when a sign permit application is
submitted;there are additional compatibility standards for signs relating not only to the
building itself, but to the surrounding area, in the Sign Code, LOC Chapter 47.)
Code Requirements:
1. Expiration of Development Permit: Per LOC 50.07.003.17, the development approved by this
decision shall expire three years following the effective date of the development permit, and may
be extended by the City Manager pursuant to the provisions of this section.
LU 13-0046
Page 52 of 63
2. Tree Protection: Submit a tree protection plan and application prepared by a certified arborist as
required by LOC 50.08.020 and 55.08.030 for review and approval by staff, including off-site trees
that are within the construction zone. The plan shall include:
a. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, consisting of a minimum 6-foot high
cyclone fence secured by steel posts, around the tree protection zone, or as recommended by
the project arborist and approved by the City.
b. A note stating that no fill or compaction shall occur within the critical root zones of any of the
trees, or that if fill or compaction is unavoidable, measures will be taken as recommended by a
certified arborist to reduce or mitigate the impact of the fill or compaction. Such measures
shall be clearly outlined in the tree protection plan. The note shall also inform contractors that
the project arborist shall be on site and oversee all construction activities within the tree
protection zone.
c. A note that clearly informs all site contractors about the necessity of preventing damage to
the trees, including bark and root zone. The applicant and contractor(s) shall be subject to
fines, penalties and mitigation for trees that are damaged or destroyed during construction.
d. A sign shall be attached to the tree protection fencing, which states that inside the fencing is
a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the
City Manager and project arborist.
Note:
1. The applicant is advised to take part in a post-Land Use Approval meeting. City staff would like to
offer you an opportunity to meet and discuss this decision and the conditions of approval
necessary to finalize the project. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure you understand all the
conditions and to identify other permits necessary to complete the project. If you like to take
advantage of this meeting, please contact the staff coordinator at (503) 635-0290.
2. The land use approval for this project does not imply approval of a particular design, product,
material, size, method of work, or layout of public infrastructure except where a condition of
approval has been devised to control a particular design element or material.
3. Development plans review, permit approval, and inspections by the City of Lake Oswego Planning
and Building Services Department are limited to compliance with the Lake Oswego Community
Development Code, and related code provisions. The applicants are advised to review plans for
compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations that could relate to the
development, i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act, Endangered Species Act. Staff may advise the
applicants of issues regarding state and federal laws that staff member believes would be helpful
to the applicants, but any such advice or comment is not a determination or interpretation of
federal or state law or regulation.
EXHIBITS
The exhibits in bold are included as exhibits to this report. The italicized exhibits refer to the previous
design and narratives and are not included as exhibits in this staff report. However, they remain part
of the record and are available with the previous reports at the following link:
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/lu-13-0046-request-development-review-permit-
construct-mixed-use-project
LU 13-0046
Page 53 of 63
A-D [No current exhibits; reserved for hearing use]
E. GRAPHICS/PLANS
El Tax Map
E2 Vicinity Map
E3 Existing Conditions
E4 Aerial View
E5 Site Plan
E6 Circulation Plan
E7 Floor Plans
E8 Roof Plan
E9 Elevations
E10 Building A Enlarged Wall Section
E11 Building B Enlarged Wall Section
E12 Building C Enlarged Wall Section
E13 Building A Rendering
E14 Building B Rendering
E15 Building C Rendering
E16 Pedestrian Street Rendering
E17 Building C Roundabout Perspective
E18 Millennium Park Perspective
E19 Conservatory Perspective
E20 Building Sections
E21 Materials Plan
E22 Landscaping Plans
E23 Exterior Wall Details and Profiles
E24 Lighting Plan
E25 Grading and Erosion Control Plan
E26 Utility Plan
E27 Roof Top Mechanical Plan
E28 Tree Preservation and Removal Plan
E29 Ramp Sections
E30 Cut Sheets for Lighting
E31 Shade Studies
E32 Elevation Changes to Building C
E33 Color and Materials Board
E34 ADA Van parking details
E35 Building C gable design
E36 Updated On-Street Parking Plan, dated January 22, 2014
E37 Applicant's PowerPoint presentation, dated January 22, 2014
E38 Applicant's submittal:roof, height, ramp, sections, revised elevations, dated January
29, 2014
E39 Drawing List, Notes and Aerial,dated June 22, 2014
E40 Site Plan,dated June 22, 2014
E41 Floor Plans,dated June 22,2014
E42 Roof Plan, dated June 22,2014
E43 Elevations, dated June 22,2014
E44 Sections, dated June 22, 2014
E45 Character Sketches,dated June 22, 2014
E46 Enlarged Elevations and Sections, dated June 22, 2014
E47 Renderings,dated June 22, 2014
LU 13-0046
Page 54 of 63
E48 Tree Removal and Preservation,dated June 22,2014
E49 Landscape and Materials Plans,dated June 22, 2014
E50 Utility Plans, dated June 22,2014
E51 Grading and Erosion Control, dated June 22, 2014
E52 Wall Details,dated June 22, 2014
E53 Mechanical,dated June 22, 2014
E54 Lighting Plan
E55 Engineered Driveway Sections
E56 Revised Courtyard Elevations,July 8,2014
E57 Updated On-Street Parking Plan,dated July 11, 2014
F. WRITTEN MATERIALS
Fl Applicant's Narrative, dated December 20, 2013
F2 Applicant's Exception Narrative, dated December 20, 2013
F3 Traffic Impact Analysis, dated December 9, 2013
F4 Arborist's Report, dated August 6, 2013
F5 Tree Removal Application
F6 Storm water Report, dated October 24, 2013 (page 114 in Oct submittal)
F7 Geotechnical Report from GeoDesign, Inc
F8 Fire Marshal Comments
F9 Neighborhood Meeting Documentation
F10 Development Agreement
F11 Block 137 Evergreen Quarterly Report, dated December 3, 2013
F12 Lake Oswego Urban Design Plan
F13 Applicant's Supplemental Narrative, Dated January 6, 2014
F14 Traffic Memo from Kittleson &Associates, dated August 25, 2013
F15 Main Topic Summary, Eugene Wizer and Evergreen Group LLC, dated January 22, 2013
F16 Memo from Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, to the DRC, Fourth Floor Criteria-"may",
dated January 27, 2014
F17 Memo from Erica Rooney,Asst. City Engineer, to DRC, Response to Inquiries, dated January
27, 2014
F18 Maximum Flow Rate Analysis, GeoDesign Inc, dated October 25, 2013
F19 Applicant's Written Testimony, dated January 29, 2014
F20 (Renumbered as Exhibit G-397)
F21 Corrected Memo from Erica Rooney,Asst. City Engineer, to DRC, Response to Inquiries,
dated January 27, 2014
F22 Applicant's Additional Written Testimony, dated February 5, 2014
F23 Applicant's Written Rebuttal from Kittelson &Associated, dated February 7, 2014
F24 Applicant's Final Written Argument, dated February 14, 2014
F25 Applicant's Revised Narrative,dated June 23,2014
F26 Trip Generation Supplement,dated May 29, 2014
F27 Stormwater Report Update, dated June 2, 2014
G. LETTERS
Neither for nor Against (G1-99)
G1 Letter from Historic Resources Advisory Board(HRAB), dated January 19, 2014
62 Lynn Hennagin MOVE TO G100s
G2 LOCAL Survey results, submitted January 29, 2014
G3 Letter from Bob Galante, February 5, 2014
LU 13-0046
Page 55 of 63
G4 Letter from Ezra Merrill, February 5, 2014
Support (G100-199)
G100 Letter from Mary Bosch dated January 6, 2014
G101 Letter from Harold Mottet, dated January 3, 2014
G102 Letter from Jerry Parsons, dated January 3, 2014
G103 Letter from Curran, dated January 13, 2014
G104 Letter from Robert LeChevallier, dated January 15, 2014
G105 Letter from Paden Pritchard, dated January 15, 2014
G106 Letter from Ellie McPeak, dated January 19, 2014
G107 Letter from Bill Gordon, dated January 20, 2014
G108 Letter from Jan Coulton, dated January 19, 2014
G109 Letter from Michael Wise, dated January 19, 2014
G110 Letter from Rhys Konrad, dated January 17, 2014
G111 Letter from Joe Kappler, dated January 21, 2014
G112 Letter from Brian Mitchell, dated January 15, 2014
G113 Letter from Jeff Patton, dated January 20, 2014
G114 Letter from Lena Araujo, dated January 16, 2014
G115 Letter from John and Linda Eskildsen, dated January 21, 2014
G116 Letter from Brian Johnson, dated January 21, 2014
G117 Letter from C.Allen Martin, dated January 21, 2014
G118 Letter from Julie Balestreri, dated January 21, 2014
G119 Letter from Tom Drewes, dated January 21, 2014
G120 Letter from David Mitchell, dated January 21, 2014
G121 Letter from Sara and Andrew Lewis, dated January 21, 2014
G122 Letter from Cindy Cowling, dated January 21, 2014
G123 Letter from Jill Miller, dated January 21, 2014
G124 Letter from Anne Prior, dated January 21, 2014
G125 Letter from Ray Winge, dated January 21, 2014
G126 Letter from Belinda Winge, dated January 21, 2104
G127 Letter from Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board, dated January 20, 2014
G128 Letter from Sheryl Warren, dated January 18, 2104
G129 Letter from Bruce Brown, dated January 21, 2104
G130 Letter from RA Fontes, dated January 21, 2104
G131 Letter from Corinna Campbell-Sack, dated January 21, 2104
G132 Letter from Jane Taber, dated January 21, 2104
G133 Letter from Rachael Kaapu, dated January 21, 2104
G134 Letter from Claire Castellanos, dated January 21, 2104
G135 Letter from Joel Adair, dated January 21, 2104
G136 Letter from Ming Lacey, dated January 21, 2104
G137 Letter from Andrew Apter, dated January 21, 2104
G138 Letter from Dan Rouse, dated January 20, 2104
G139 Letter from Bob Balen, dated January 20, 2104
G140 Letter from Bob and Mary Bonney, dated January 21, 2104
G141 Letter from Jill Williams, dated January 22, 2104
G142 Letter from Nora Apter, dated January 22, 2104
G143 Letter from Mike Finley, dated January 22, 2104
G144 Letter from Moshin Lee, dated January 22, 2104
G145 Letter from Jan Holibaugh, dated January 22, 2104
G146 Letter from Diana Dutton, dated January 22, 2104
G147 Letter from Elaine Howard, dated January 22, 2104
G148 Letter from Tracy and Bob Moir, dated January 22, 2104
LU 13-0046
Page 56 of 63
G149 Letter from Calyn Meister, dated January 22, 2104
G150 Letter from Robert Vanden Bos, dated January 22, 2104
G151 Letter from Ron Spears, dated January 22, 2104
G152 Letter from Lynne Wintermute, dated January 22, 2104
G153 Letter from Angie Galimanis, dated January 22, 2104
G154 Letter from Laurie Sterkowicz, dated January 22, 2104
G155 Letter from Mike Sterkowicz, dated January 22, 2104
G156 Letter from (No name given), dated January 22, 2014
G157 Letter from Judy and Bob Candello, dated January 17, 2104
G158 Letter from Cliff and Danielle Johnson, dated January 22, 2104
G159 Letter from Karen Jacobson, dated January 20, 2104
G160 Letter from Tyler Frisbee, dated January 22, 2104
G161 Letter from Todd Prendergast, dated January 22, 2104
G162 Letter from Cody Sander, dated January 22, 2104
G163 Letter from Jenna Fallon, dated January 22, 2104
G164 Letter from Paul Graham, dated January 22, 2104
G165 Letter from Gwen Freeman, dated January 22, 2104
G166 Letter from Michael Dotten, dated January 22, 2104
G167 Letter from Bob Sack, dated January 22, 2104
G168 Letter from Douglas Cushing, dated January 22, 2104
G169 Letter from Edward La Berge, dated January 22, 2104
G170 Letter from Kevin Dodds, dated January 22, 2104
G171 Letter from Jennifer Bardell, dated January 22, 2104
G172 Letter from Rob Fallow, dated January 22, 2104
G173 Letter from Victor Hugo, dated January 22, 2104
G174 Letter from Noal Kraft, dated January 22, 2104
G175 Letter from Duane Hoffinger, dated January 22, 2104
G176 Letter from Tom O'Conner, dated January 22, 2104
G177 Letter from Jane Taber, dated January 22, 2104
G178 Letter from Michael LeChevallier, dated January 22, 2104
G179 Letter from Candace Kramer, dated January 22, 2104
G180 Letter from Barbara Balen, dated January 22, 2104
G181 Letter from Margaret Breimayer, dated January 22, 2104
G182 Letter from Robert Balen, dated January 22, 2104
G183 Letter from Dee Denton, dated January 22, 2104
G184 Letter from Kristin Johnson, dated January 22, 2104
G185 Letter from Sally Knauss, dated January 22, 2104
G186 Letter from Paden and Norma Pritchard, dated January 22, 2104
6187 Letter from Tom O'Conner, dated January 22, 2014, This exhibit is removed because it is a
duplicate of Exhibit G176
G188 Letter from Zak Bennett, dated January 23, 2014
G189 Letter from Nancy Gronowski, dated January 23, 2014
G190 Letter from Lynn Hennagin, dated January 23, 2014(Moved from G2)
G191 Letter from Doug Fish, dated January 29, 2014
G192 Letter from Rosie Stephens, dated January 29, 2014
G193 Letter from Norma Pritchard, dated January 29, 2014
G194 Letter from Sandy Leybold, dated January 29, 2014
G195 Letter from Ken Ambrosini, dated February 4, 2014
G196 Letter from Nick Tahran, dated February 4, 2014
G197 Letter from Jim Crowell, dated February 3, 2014
G198 Letter from Max Goins, dated February 4, 2014
G199 Letter from Sonya Fischer, dated February 4, 2014
LU 13-0046
Page 57 of 63
(G200 starts the Opposition testimony so Proponent Exhibit numbers restart at G1000)
G1000 Letter from Diana Dutton, dated February 4, 2014
G1001 Letter from Theresa Graham, dated February 4, 2014
G1002 Letter from Judie Hammerstad, dated February 4, 2014
G1003 Letter from Sandra Cole, dated February 5, 2014
G1004 Letter from Jeffrey Pratt, dated February 5, 2014
G1005 Letter from Chris Schetky, dated February 5, 2014
G1006 Letter from Paul Graham, dated February 4, 2014
G1007 Letter from Andrew Apter, dated February 4, 2014
G1008 Letter from Richard Reamer, dated February 5, 2014
G1009 Letter from Jill Arena, dated February 4, 2014
G1010 Letter from Kathi Misner, dated February 5, 2014
G1011 Letter from Mary Bosch, dated February 5, 2014
G1012 Letter from Mary Ratliff, dated February 5, 2014
G1013 Letter from Tom O'Conner, dated February 5, 2014
G1014 Letter from Calynda Meister, dated February 5, 2014
G1015 Letter from Elaine Howard, dated February 5, 3014
G1016 Letter from Roger Hennagin, dated February 5, 2014
G1017 Letter from Bob Vanden Bos, dated February 5, 2014
G1018 Letter from Kathleen Hopkins, dated February 5, 2014
G1019 Letter from Mike Finley, dated February 5, 2014
G1020 Letter from Jill Williams, dated February 5, 2014
G1021 Letter from Ralph Tahran, dated February 5, 2014
G1022 Letter from Cody Sanger, dated February 5, 2014
G1023 Letter from Barry Dragoon, dated February 5, 2014
G1024 Letter from Jane Thomas, dated February 5, 2014
G1025 Letter from Mardell Lanfranco, dated February 5, 2014
G1026 Letter from Ming Lacey, dated February 5, 2014
G1027 Letter from George Kent,dated July 9, 2014
G1028 Letter from Tracy Saelinger, dated July 10, 2014
Opposition (G200-299):
G200 Letter from William Bigas, dated January 4, 2014
G201 Letter from Debra Cruise, dated January 5, 2014
G202 Letter from Pete Davis, dated January 8, 2014
G203 Letter from Barry Dennis, dated January 3, 2014
G204 Letter from Carey Dienhart, dated January 8, 2014
G205 Letter from Kate Dunham, dated January 8, 2014
G206 Letter from Lori Dunham, dated January 7, 2014
G207 Letter from Mark Dunham, dated January 7, 2014
G208 Letter from William Gilmer, dated January 3, 2014
G209 Letter from Tom Grigg, dated December 27, 2013
G210 Letter from Justin Harnish, dated January 6, 2014
G211 Letter from Ruth Howard, dated January 3, 2014
G211 Letter from Mark and Danielle Lambert, dated January 3, 2014
G212 Letter from Jonathan More, dated January 3, 2014
G213 Letter from Chloe Scott, dated January 5, 2014
G214 Letter from Candy Smith, dated January 10m 2014
G215 Letter from Richard and Shirley Spooner, dated January 7, 2014
G217 Letter from Carrie Ware, dated January 4, 2014
G218 Letter from Leslie Pirotta, dated January 11, 2014
LU 13-0046
Page 58 of 63
G219 Letter from David and Mary Higgins, dated January 11, 2014
G220 Letter from Deanna Glanville, dated January 13, 2014
G221 Letter from Karin Kelsey, dated January 13, 2014
G222 Letter from Dermot and Theresa O'Leary, dated January 13, 2014
G223 Letter from Phil Pirotta, dated January 14, 2014
G224 Letter from Robert Lawrence, dated January 13, 2014
G225 Letter from Barbara Eden, dated January 13, 2014
G226 Letter from Richard and Katharine Cavelli, dated January 14, 2014
G227 Letter from Mark Henry, dated January 14, 2014
G228 Letter from David McLaren, dated January 14, 2014
G229 Letter from Don McMahon, dated January 14, 2014
G230 Letter from Larry(no last name), dated January 15, 2014
G231 Letter from Thomas Steeves, dated January 14, 2014
G232 Letter from Cheryl Petrie, dated January 5, 2014
G233 Letter from Larry and Karen Hayes, dated January 14, 2014
G234 Letter from Pete Davis, dated January 16, 2014
G235 Letter from Jana Fussell, dated January 15, 2014
G236 Letter from Gertrude Otzen, dated January 16, 2014
G237 Letter from Marcie McAuliffe, dated January 20, 2014
G238 Letter from Carol Goss, dated January 20, 2014
G239 Letter from Judy Davis and Jack Kysar, dated January 19, 2014
G240 Letter from Mary Ann Dougherty, dated January 19, 2014
G241 Letter from Diana Boom, dated January 21, 2014
G242 Letter from Shari Gardner, dated January 17, 2014
G243 Letter from Susan Von Tobel, dated January 17, 2014
G244 Letter from Darryl Boom, dated January 18, 2014
G245 Letter from Karen Crichton, dated January 21, 2014
G246 Letter from Steve Richards, dated January 21, 2014
G247 Letter from Tom and Sandy Hagerman, dated January 21, 2014
G248 Letter from Gunnar Sedleniek, dated January 21, 2014
G249 Letter from Katie Williams, dated January 22, 2014
G250 Letter from Terri Hearon, dated January 21, 2014
G251 Letter from Peter Engel, dated January 21, 2014
G252 Letter from Dick and Shirley Spooner, dated January 21, 2014
G253 Letter from Christina Kruse, dated January 21, 2014
G254 Letter from Will and Virginia Mattox, dated January 21, 2014
G255 Letter from Bruce and Ellin Cudd, dated January 21, 2014
G256 Letter from Dave Sengenberger, dated January 22, 2014
G257 Letter from Neil Kozlowski, dated January 20, 2014
G258 Letter from Karen and David Locke, dated January 20, 2014
G259 Letter from Sheri MacDowell, dated January 22, 2014
G260 Letter from Carolyn Gordon, dated January 22, 2014
G261 Letter from Molly McWeeney, dated January 22, 2014
G262 Letter from Martin Donohoe, dated January 16, 2014
G263 Letter from Tom O'Conner, dated January 22, 2014[This exhibit is in support(Exhibit
G176), but was also placed in opposition category by error]
G264 Letter from Kim Rigney, dated Janaury 22, 2014
G265 Letter from Roger Rollins, submitted at 1/22/2014 hearing
G266 Letter from Dienne Irwin, dated January 22, 2014
G267 Letter from Michele Shelley, dated January 23, 2014
G268 Letter from Leslie Walczyk-Drentlaw, dated January 23, 2014
G269 Letter from Patricia Roberts, dated January 23, 2014
G270 Letter from Evie and Jack Fuson, dated January 23, 2014
LU 13-0046
Page 59 of 63
G271 Letter from Gisela Davisson, dated January 22, 2014
G272 Letter from Deanna Glanville, dated January 22, 2014
G273 Letter from Deanna Glanville, dated January 22, 2014
G274 Letter from Mike Glanville, dated January 22, 2014
G275 Letter from Katherine Chartraw, dated January 22, 2014
G276 Letter from Diane Schweisguth, dated January 22, 2014
G277 Letter from Alexander Babin, dated January 22, 2014
G278 Letter from Mary Ann Dougherty, dated January 22, 2014
G279 Letter from Cynthia Egan, dated January 21, 2014
G280 Letter from Garlinn Story, dated January 22, 2014
G281 Letter from Mike Story, dated January 22, 2014
G282 Letter from Jon Bell, dated January 22, 2014
G283 Letter and Materials from Carol Radich/Evergreen Neighborhood Report, dated
January 22, 2014
G284 Letter from Matt Radich, dated January 22, 2014
G285 Letter from Trista Nelson, dated January 21, 2014
G286 Letter from Joan Gale Frank, dated January 22, 2014
G287 Letter from Shawn and Dave West, dated January 22, 2014
G288 Letter from Jonathan Puskas, dated January 22, 2014
G289 Letter from Rachel Verdick, dated January 22, 2014
G290 Letter from Dave Pinch, dated January 23, 2014
G291 Letter from Mary Magrath, dated January 22, 2014
G292 Letter from Terri Hearon, dated January 22, 2014
G293 Letter from Judy Hall, dated January 24, 2014
G294 Letter from Mark Henry, dated January 24, 2014
G295 Letter from R L Riggs, dated January 25, 2014
G296 Letter from Susan Hortung, dated January 25, 2014
G297 Letter from Ken and Jo Ann Slickers, dated January 27, 2014
G298 Letter from Mary Ann Dougherty, dated January 28, 2014
G299 Letter from Linda Brown, dated January 28, 2014
G300 Letter submitted from Maureen Morrison Long, dated January 29, 2014
G301 Letter from Roger Rollins, dated January 29, 2014
G302 Letter from Phil Pirotta, dated January 29, 2014
G303 Letter from Justin Harnish, dated January 29, 2014
G304 Letter from Larry Black, dated January 29, 2014
G305 Letter from Leslie Pirotta, dated January 29, 2014
G306 Letter and Red Balloon photos from Tom Grigg, dated January 29, 2014
G307 Letter and other materials from Tana Haynes, dated January 29, 2014
G308 Letter from Matt Grady, Gramor Development, dated January 29, 2014
G309 Letter from Yvonne Campbell, dated January 29, 2014
G310 Letter from Barry Cain, dated January 29, 2014
G311 Letter from Scott Blau, dated January 29, 2014
G312 Letter from Dave Radich, dated January 29, 2014
G313 Letter and Materials from Lita Grigg, dated January 29, 2014
G314 Letter from Jeffrey Becker, dated January 22, 2014
G315 Letter from Diane Schweisguth, dated January 22, 2014
G316 Letter from Dori Becker, dated January 22, 2014
G317 Letter from Joan Gale Frank, dated January 22, 2014
G318 Letter from Janice Steeck, dated January 22, 2014
G319 Letter from Jon Bell, dated January 22, 2014
G320 Letter from JoAnn Rollins, dated January 22, 2014
G321 Letter from Roger Rollins, dated January 22, 2014
G322 Letter from John Kysar, dated January 22, 2014
LU 13-0046
Page 60 of 63
G323 Letter from Joe Dahl, dated January 22, 2014
G324 Letter from Charles Arbin, dated January 22, 2014
G325 Letter from Judy Davis, dated January 22, 2014
G326 Letter from Shari Gardner, dated January 22, 2014
G327 Letter from Kathryn Christy, dated January 22, 2014
G328 Letter from Carol Nieh, dated January 22, 2014
G329 Letter from (Unintelligible), dated January 22, 2014
G330 Letter from Marcia Cooper, dated January 22, 2014
G331 Letter from Jason Graham-Nye, dated January 31, 2014
G332 Letter from Zach Holder, dated January 31, 2014
G333 Letter from William and Suzanne Bigas, dated January 31, 2014
G334 Letter from John McMunn, dated January 31, 2014
G335 Letter from Becky Richardson, dated January 31, 2014
G336 Letter from Gunnar Sedleniek, dated January 31, 2014
G337 Letter from Jack and Evie Fuson, dated January 29, 2014
G338 Letter from Beta Anderson, dated January 31, 2014
G339 Letter from Shawn West, dated January 31, 2014
G340 Letter from Gary Gipson, dated February 1, 2014
G341 Letter from Mary Dougherty, dated January 31, 2014
G342 Letter from Ron Allen, dated February 1, 2014
G343 Letter from Cheryl Ogburn and Andrew Clark, dated January 31, 2014
G344 Letter from Les Furnanz,Jr, dated January 31, 2014
G345 Letter from Linda Christeson, dated January 31, 2014
G346 Letter from V'Anne Didzun, dated February 3, 2014
G347 Letter from Kristina Larsen, dated February 3, 2014
G348 Letter from Dick Rasmussen, dated February 1, 2014
G349 Letter from Douglas Greenberg, dated February 1, 2014
G350 Letter from Paul and Pam Hopper, dated February 2, 2014
G351 Letter from Arianne Cakarnis, dated February 2, 2014
G352 Letter from Ev Holder, dated February 3, 2014
G353 Letter from Tim Boot, dated January 31, 2014
G354 Letter from Jason and Dmitria Burby, dated February 1, 2014
G355 Letter from Dmitria Burby, dated February 1, 2014
G356 Letter from Anne Cost, dated February 1, 2014
G357 Letter from Maggie and John Conacher, dated February 2, 2014
G358 Letter from Brittany Weiler, dated February 3, 2014
G359 Letter from Steve Campbell, dated February 3, 2014
G360 Letter from Bill Cornett, dated February 3, 2014
G361 Letter from Rose Wood, dated February 3, 2014
G362 Letter from Calvin Wood, dated February 3, 2014
G363 Letter from Ralph and Cheryl Salamie, dated February 3, 2014
G364 Letter from Kay DePree, dated February 3, 2014
G365 Letter from Katie Williams, dated February 3, 2014
G366 Letter from Terri Hearon, dated February 3, 2014
G367 Letter from Judy Wick, dated February 3, 2014
G368 Letter from Cheri and Dave Harris, dated February 3, 2014
G369 Letter from Richard Long, dated February 3, 2014
G370 Letter from Sellers, dated February 4, 2014
G371 Letter from Don Bowerman, dated February 4, 2014
G372 Letter from Janet Schaefer and Jonathan West, dated February 4, 2014
G373 Letter from Diana Boom, dated February 5, 2014
G374 Letter from Nicole Seawright, dated February 4, 2014
G375 Letter from Peter Davis, dated February 5, 2014
LU 13-0046
Page 61 of 63
G376 Letter from Cathy Cain, dated February 4, 2014
G377 Letter from Scott Blau, dated February 5, 2014
G378 Letter from Kathleen Bray, dated February 4, 2014
G379 Letter from Rob Mogentale, dated February 4, 2014
G380 Letter from Patrick Haar, dated February 4, 2014
G381 Letter from Tia Jakotich, dated February 5, 2014
G382 Letter from Donald Mattersdorff, dated February 5, 2014
G383 Letter from Carol Radich/Evergreen Neighborhood Association, dated February 5,
2014
G384 Letter from Jim Bolland, dated February 5, 2014
G385 Letter from Joan Gale Frank, dated February 5, 2014
G386 Letter from Nicole Rice, dated February 5, 2014
G387 Letter from Jim Bolland, dated February 5, 2014
G388 Letter and materials from Tana Haynes, dated February 5, 2014
G389 Letter from Gheen Abbott, dated February 5, 2014
G390 Letter from Mary Schoenbrun, dated February 5, 2014
G391 Letter from Leslie Pirotta, dated February 5, 2014
G392 Letter from Phil Pirottta, dated February 5, 2014
G393 Letter from Lita Grigg, dated February 5, 2014
G394 Save Our Village Response to Proposed Development of Block 137, dated February 5,
2014
G395 Letter from Dave Pinch, dated February 4, 2014
G396 Letter from Lita Grigg, dated February 5, 2014
G397 Save Our Village Response to Proposed Development of Block 137, dated January 29,
2014 (Previously F20)
G398 Rebuttal from Diana Boom, submitted February 7, 2014
G399 Save Our Village Rebuttal(Group Mackenzie), dated February 7, 2014
G400 Save Our Village Rebuttal(Group Mackenzie), dated February 7, 2014
G401 Rebuttal from Leslie Pirotta, dated February 7, 2014
G402 Rebuttal from Evergreen Neighborhood Association, dated February 7, 2014
G403 Rebuttal from Tana Haynes, dated February 7, 2014
G404 Letter from Darryl Boom, dated February 4, 2014
G405 Letter from Dan Ehrenfreund, dated February 4, 2014
G406 Letter from Pat and Laurel Olson, dated February 3, 2014
G407 Letter from Katherine Chartraw, dated February 5, 2014
G408 Letter from Luke Lowther and Debbi Roberston, dated February 5, 2014
G409 Letter from Yvonne Campbell, dated July 7, 2014
G410 Letter from Patrick Haar,dated July 7, 2014
G411 Letter from Liz Martin,dated July 7, 2014
G412 Letter from Daniel Motylewski, dated July 7, 2014
G413 Letter from Nancy Shebel, dated July 6,2014
G414 Letter from Dick and Shirley Spooner,dated July 3, 2014
G415 Letter from Katie Williams, dated July 7,2014
G416 Letter from Sherry Kunz,dated July 11,2014
LU 13-0046
Page 62 of 63
H. EX PARTE
H1 Correspondence received prior to application accepted as complete
H2 Newspaper Articles
H3 Letters to the Editor
H4 Email from Dave Poulson regarding ex parte contact
H5 Correspondence received between February 20, 2014 and June 30, 2014,the date
the revised application was accepted as complete
H6 Newspaper Articles
H7 Letters to the Editor
Date of Revised Application Submittal: June 2, 2014
Date Revised Application Determined to be Complete: June 30, 2014
State Mandated 120-Day Rule: October 28, 2014
LU 13-0046
Page 63 of 63