HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2014-01-29 •
Rove)
ppROV
vt,„
A
my. j CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
., r�
-am
e ` Development Review Commission Minutes
January 29, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Don Richards called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
380 A Avenue.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Chair Don Richards, Vice Chair Gregg Creighton, Ann Johnson, Bob Needham,
and David Poulson. Brent Ahrend and Frank Rossi were not present.
Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner/Staff
Liaison; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds,
Administrative Support
MINUTES
None.
FINDINGS
None.
PUBLIC HEARING
LU 13-0046: A request by Evergreen Group, LLC, for approval of a Development Review
Permit to construct a mixed-use project, including up to 228 residential units and 28,000
square feet of commercial use in three buildings, with the following exceptions to the
Community Development Code standards:
• Residential uses on the ground floor in EC zone [LOC 50.03.003.1.e.ii]
• Fifth floor on a portion of each of the three buildings [LOC 50.05.004.5.d]
• Reduction in the amount of storefront glazing [LOC 50.05.004.6.b.i]
• Retail parking entrance on 1st Street [LOC 50.05.004.10.b]
• Shared private/public parking provided on-site [LOC 50.06.002]
The applicant is also requesting approval of two Minor Variances to the length and
maximum grade of a driveway landing area per LOC 50.06.003.2; and, the removal of 25
trees to accommodate the project. The site is located at: 140 A Avenue, Tax Lot 08300 of
Tax Map 21E 03DD. Continued from January 22, 2014. See the case file with the staff reports and
exhibits at: htto://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/lu-13-0046-request-development-review-permit-
construct-m ixed-use-proiect
Vice Chair Creighton opened the hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedure.
He declared the communications in Exhibits H 1-4 as general ex parte contact because one or
more of the Commissioners may have read one or more of them. Mr. Poulson (civil engineer) and
Mr. Needham (retired lawyer) each reported making another site visit. Ms. Johnson stated she was
a retired housing program manager; Vice Chair Creighton stated he was a licensed architect; and
Chair Richards stated he was a landscape architect/certified arborist. No one present challenged
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 1 of 28
any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Ms. Hamilton had distributed the January 27,
2014 Staff Memorandum. She noted recently received exhibits, including Exhibits E-27 (a
PowerPoint presentation) and F-19 which had been submitted by the applicant.
Public Testimony (continued from January 22, 2014)
Opponents
Greg Hathaway, Hathaway, Koback Connors LLP, 520 SW Yamhill St., Portland, Oregon 97204,
stated that he represented Save Our Village and LO 138 LLC. He introduced their architect,
Christine McKelvey, Mackenzie, 1515 E. Water Ave., Portland, Oregon, 97214. He submitted
`Response to Proposed Development of Block 137' (Exhibit G-397) which he said addressed legal
issues and contained a traffic impact analysis and Ms. McKelvey's presentation. He said their oral
testimony was focused on the issue that the proposed development was too big, too massive, and
out of scale. He indicated his clients' position was that if Block 137 was going to be developed it
was critical that the village character charm that had previously been established in that area of
town through the development of Blocks 138 and 136 was maintained. He recalled testimony about
how important development of Blocks 136 and 138 had been and that Lakeview Village was a
success story and revitalized Downtown. He said their concern was that if development on Block
137 was not complementary to and in keeping with village character as it had been established as
a benchmark by development on the other two blocks, two things were going to happen: the
existing developments would be harmed and adversely impacted because the proposed
development was out of scale with them; and, instead of revitalizing Downtown the result would be
just the reverse because it was out of scale and did not fit. It might prevent people from actually
going to that area of town; that was not what anyone wanted. He said one of the biggest
contributing factors to the fact that it was so large in scale was that this was really a very large
apartment complex with just a little bit of commercial in the middle of the commercial core of
downtown Lake Oswego. He recalled testimony the previous week that 90% or over 200,000 s.f. of
the proposed development was residential and only 28,000 s.f. was commercial. He said his clients
did not think that was a proper mixed-use. They thought the applicant was trying to maximize every
square inch to try to create housing. That was what created the mass and scale.
Mr. Hathaway noted a big issue was whether or not the Commission had the authority to exercise
its discretion to determine whether or not the proposed development was in keeping with the
village character that had been established in this part of downtown Lake Oswego. Staff and the
applicant had said they were handcuffed and did not have the discretion to be able to decide that.
He said he disagreed because the Code said that they implemented village character by complying
with the Lake Oswego style. Appendix A on Lake Oswego Style featured pictures and there were
general design standards, but no concrete, clear and objective standards. He indicated that both
the applicant's architect and staff had each exercised discretion when they each made the call that
the application met Lake Oswego Style (which, he clarified, meant it met village character). Mr.
Hathaway advised the Commission could exercise discretion. They should weigh all of the
evidence and determine whether or not the village character was being maintained with the
proposal for Block 137. He advised that the best way to determine whether the proposal was
maintaining village character was to compare the proposal with the developments on Blocks 138
and 136.
Ms. McKelvey's written presentation was part of `Response to Proposed Development of Block
137' (Exhibit G-397). In her oral presentation she defined village character as a community of small
scale structures that appear and operate like a traditional small town; additionally, an assembly of
smaller, mixed-use, structures which encourage the development of a sophisticated small city,
pedestrian friendly; creates a community and attracts people to the downtown in the same manner,
using design concepts of historic small towns. She advised the Commission to look at the existing
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 2 of 28
surrounding development to see what was successful as far as village character and what had
been established as a benchmark. She used graphics to support her presentation. Lakeview
Village was a series of six buildings that were small scale buildings and each one was its own
unique piece. It was broken up significantly with pedestrian and vehicular breaks and gathering
areas. Block 136 was nine buildings. She noted that Lakeview Village had a significant number of
gathering spaces; vehicles were actually taken off the street before they entered into a parking
garage; and loading areas were internal and not on the street (except for one small one). She
showed graphic massing models she had created of the existing and proposed buildings to
contrast existing development, which was broken up into a series of smaller buildings, with the
three proposed buildings on Block 137. She discussed slides the applicant had presented at the
previous hearing labeled, `4th and 5th floors are at the same level'. She said that while it was not an
incorrect image in a lot of ways, the way Lakeview Village and the townhomes were presented as
far as square blocks was not accurate. She said the precedent that had been established along 1st
Street was commercial on the ground floor, office on the second floor and a third floor which was
unoccupied space, making them actually two-story buildings. She said what was proposed was a
residential development in the mixed-use, commercial core district. She advised the Commission to
consider whether it was truly a mixed-use building with a commercial focus in the commercial zone,
or a residential building that was not appropriate there. [Note: time for the above testimony was
ceded by Tom Grigg.]
Questions
Vice Chair Creighton noted Ms. McKelvey's aerial view graphically showing the two models side by
side did not look like the drawings for Block 137. The flat roofed areas on her view did not exist like
that. She explained her model was meant to show the articulation of the massing of the walls and
the density in plan view but not the roof forms. She explained that she did not have the roof forms
because they had not been in the plans in the record. Vice Chair Creighton asked if, from a
construction standpoint, the six buildings of Lakeview Village were really separate. Ms. McKelvey
indicated that she understood that they were truly separate buildings that could have separate
ownerships.
Barry Cain, 999 Englewood Dr., President of Gramor Development, submitted a written copy of his
testimony (Exhibit G-310). He said the newer developments and the park and street improvements
had helped give Downtown an identity. It had given the community a sense of pride. Downtown
had a nice, very high quality and low-density feel to it and it was very accessible. Parking was
pretty easy to get at Lakeview Village except during Saturday Farmers' Markets. The buildings,
parking, access ways, and uses that were there had been planned with the help of the City and the
neighbors during few years' worth of meetings. He recalled the initial effort to develop all three
blocks had been unsuccessful due to opposition, so they decided to develop one block at a time.
They skipped Block 137 because Gene Wizer had not wanted to be involved in the new process.
Construction of Blocks 138 and 136 was completed about five years later. The projects looked
much better than what they had originally proposed. When they came in for City approvals they
had no opposition.
Mr. Cain related they had considered the scenario of a four-story, 60-unit condo building on Block
136 but dropped it because the City and neighbors did not think it met the village feel criterion.
They ended up building a 15,000 s.f. retail/commercial building and 39 town homes in seven
buildings. He recalled when they planned Block 138 they had been told right away that it was a
compact shopping district and the buildings needed to be small and give the impression that they
were built over time, village-like. It had to be done right and at the right scale because it was to be
the standard for developing in Downtown from then on. They were told they could do two stories on
1st Street and A Avenue and three stories on State Street because it was a highway. He said they
had agreed the six-building plan was the best layout for Block 138. The buildings were big enough
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 3 of 28
to have uses in them but they were small enough to be village-like. They had agreed with the City
that in the compact shopping district the retail shopping experience was to be the primary use on
the ground floor and they would not have any service businesses like doctors or hair salons. They
had even stretched retail use onto some upper floors. He explained they knew readily accessible
parking was critical to the success of the development but they were constrained by the park, the
lake and State Street. Having office use as the second use allowed them to almost double the
parking because of the spaces that became available when the offices were closed. He said they
wanted the parking to be all in one structure with one entrance and exit so they had put all 368
spaces in one place. They purposely had the cars enter into a wide open motor court before pulling
into the garage so cars and pedestrians would easily see each other. They had avoided plans that
had customers entering into a cave cut into a building because they did not feel that was safe. The
garage had wide isles; no grade was over 5%; and it had spaces that fit Suburbans.
Mr. Cain indicated that the buildings being proposed next door were far larger than his company
could have ever proposed. They were over 100,000 s.f. while his buildings averaged 15,000 s.f.
From 1st Street one could see three distinct buildings on Block 138 but one would see a little piece
of one building and then one, big, building as long as a football field on the Block 137 side. It would
appear to be a very long building from A Avenue as well. He noted the shadows exhibit showed
that at 4:30 in the afternoon in August everything was in the shadows. In regard to use, Mr. Cain
noted the proposed use was primarily an apartment project in what was supposed to be the
compact shopping district. In fact, the applicant was trying to get some of the required retail on the
ground floor transferred to residential use. He said his firm was primarily retail developers and it
was pretty obvious to them that retail was an afterthought for the applicant. He indicated they were
concerned to see retail being minimized like that and in the wrong place when the biggest objection
they heard when they were trying to market downtown Lake Oswego to retailers was that there
was not enough retail. The fact that this was primarily an apartment project meant that at times
when retailers and restaurants were busiest the residents and their guests would be at home with
their cars. They only had about one parking space per unit now, so there was going to be a
problem when residents and visitors looked for additional parking spaces. He anticipated they were
not going to go over to 2nd Street secured parking first—they were going to go to on-street parking,
then to Lakeview Village, and then they might go to the project's retail parking area. He indicated
that the steep incline to parking; the fact they had two separate garages; and that there was only a
third of the parking available as there was at Lakeview Village would make things even worse and
parking was not going to get used like it should be. Drivers who went into the proposed garage and
did not find a spot and who exited it via the steep incline and came right out onto a sidewalk with
pedestrians would likely never try to go in there again. In looking at the configuration of the garage
access he questioned whether there was a place the City could position a traffic cop during events
in the park.
Mr. Cain held that Mr. Wizer had unrealistic expectations for his property in that he wanted to sell
the property for a high price, but still own the retail when it was done. That would only work if he
got an apartment developer who wanted to build a big apartment project, but did not care about the
retail. He said everyone in the business knew that this apartment project would be sold to an
institutional owner as soon as it was done. He held this was not a developer who was trying to
design a development that was uniquely perfect for that block, which was what the City deserved.
He said the applicant would tell the Commission that they did not have any discretion because the
applicant had met most of the criteria and they had to approve the project. However, Mr. Hathaway
had already advised them they had plenty of discretion and they had the responsibility to use it and
protect Lake Oswego's living room. [Note: Time for testimony by Mr. Cain was ceded by Jim North,
312 2nd Street.]
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 4 of 28
Chris Clemow, Traffic Engineer, McKenzie, 1515 SE Water Avenue, Ste. 100, Portland, Oregon
97214, pointed out his written testimony was under Tab 3 of`Response to Proposed Development
of Block 137' (Exhibit G-397) submitted by Mr. Hathaway. He clarified that although a parking study
showed there was parking available throughout the larger Downtown area, it was tight, and there
was very little available on-street parking during peak periods in this corner of Downtown. He
indicated that Mr. Cain was correct that in the future parking was going to be at a premium, so that
whatever was done, particularly within the applicant's proposed structure, had to be designed in a
desirable fashion. He agreed that the obvious place for it to be was on 1st Street, where the
applicant had requested a standard exception to allow access onto 1st Street. He said they
concurred with the staff report that in terms of vehicle circulation the optimal condition was to
locate the access point for like uses in direct alignment, which minimized vehicle conflicts and
provided clear way-finding for navigation for pedestrians. However, the applicant's materials
showed the proposed parking access and the Lakeview Village access were offset. He advised
they should be aligned. Because the proposed access was on 1st Street, which was a primary
pedestrian way, it needed to be designed from a pedestrian safety perspective and the variance to
the ramp should not be granted. He noted the graphic labeled `1st Street Garage Ramp' which
showed that an SUV would either have to be sitting on the grade break or on the landing area
where it extended out into the pedestrian walkway demonstrated that the proposed ramp was
unsafe.
Mr. Clemow talked about trip generation. He recalled the applicant had testified that if they simply
reoccupied or re-tenanted the existing building it had the potential to generate more trips than the
proposed development. He said that may be true, but that was not the solution, because LORA
had considered the site a high-priority site for revitalization for years because it was an
underperforming project today. He noted that the applicant had done one count of existing trips
and counted 130 peak hour trips across the driveways, but they did not specify if they were
entering or exiting. He suggested that the applicant's existing development did not generate all
those trips. Mr. Clemow indicated his group had looked and found there were a large number of
vehicles being parked on the Wizer lot by occupants who then walked across to Lakeview Village
because it was a handy place to park. They suggested the applicant count trips over multiple days
and subtract what was walking across the street in order to find existing trip generation. He noted
his written testimony also addressed daily and pass-by trip generation. He recalled hearing people
say that this type of development did not really lend itself to pass-by. He indicated he was not sure
that the applicant correctly calculated the reductions as it applied to specialty retail because that
type of reduction did not actually exist in the ITE Manual. It may have been misapplied from a
shopping center. He addressed the issue of system analysis versus point intersection analysis. He
would argue that a system-wide, comprehensive, analysis needed to be performed on the
intersection because it would particularly highlight what the queuing deficiencies were. While the
solution might not be to improve individual intersections or install a turn-lane it might highlight the
needs for larger comprehensive system improvements such as signal timing. He advised it was not
accurate to look at this on an intersection-by-intersection basis.
Questions
Vice Chair Creighton asked Mr. Cain to compare the amount of retail area in Lakeview Village with
the 28,000-30,000 square feet in the proposed development. Mr. Cain said Lakeview Village had
about 45,000 s.f. of retail on the first level. Vice Chair Creighton asked him to talk about how and
where deliveries were made. Mr. Cain indicated that almost all delivery vehicles made deliveries
after they pulled into the motor court and that was usually in the morning. Large trucks could not
get into the garage, but they came into the motor court area. They could not turn around there so
they backed in or backed out. Some, such as FedEx, might make deliveries by pulling into the
loading area on 1st Street. That was supposed to be limited to certain times of the day because it
was the right turn lane. Vice Chair Creighton asked if they had had any significant difficulties. Mr.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 5 of 28
Cain said they had not and it worked just fine as deliveries came in at times when retail patrons
were not generally coming in. He clarified for Vice Chair Creighton that there were significantly
more service trips and large trucks associated with restaurants than retail. There was a special
place in the motor court for deliveries to retail tenants and then the delivery vehicles drove around
and out. Vice Chair Creighton asked him to compare what the applicant proposed to what
Lakeview Village was doing. Mr. Cain indicated he did not know how they could make it work well,
especially for big trucks. It might surprise drivers because it was right as one came around the
block. Large trucks would probably have to stop on the street somewhere.
Mr. Poulson asked Mr. Cain how he would design Block 138 if he did it again today and if he would
be reluctant to do it. Mr. Cain responded that they had worked on Lakeview Village for ten years. It
did not make much sense to spend that much time, but it was very fulfilling. He would love to
repeat it again someday, but the current economy was not good. They had three projects under
construction. There were plenty of options: there was a lot of retail out there and there were hotels
that were very interested in being there as boutique hotels.
Mr. Poulson said he was a little surprised to see Mackenzie there and he noted that Commissioner
Brent Ahrend was absent that night. Mr. Boone recalled Mr. Ahrend had announced that he was
with Mackenzie and there was no financial conflict of interest because there was apparently no
financial effect on him relative to this decision. Whether it was a bias was up to Mr. Ahrend to
decide. Mr. Poulson inquired when Mackenzie had been retained to deliver written testimony and if
it was prior to the first public hearing. The applicant's representative said it was approximately two
weeks prior.
Mr. Boone raised a procedural point in regard to time limits for testimony in that Mr. Clemow and
Ms. McKelvey were hired representatives of Save Our Village and it was incorrect procedure for
them to each claim five minutes for testimony. He asked if there were any other persons who had
signed up to testify as individuals who were hired representatives of Save Our Village and who
would decide whether to appeal on behalf of Save Our Village. Mr. Hathaway indicated there were
no others and he was not even thinking about an appeal at that time. Chair Richards announced
they could not undo what had been done and so they would move on to citizen testimony.
Doug Lee stated that he was the owner of Zeppos Restaurant, 345 1st Street, which was in
Lakeview Village. He recalled Mr. Cain had talked about how big trucks used their streets and
driveways and what not to try to make deliveries to businesses like his. Mr. Lee said one of the big
benefits of the Wizer property now was that trucks used it. They pulled into the project so they
could back down into the driveway leading to the parking garage; that was not easy. He asked the
Commissioners to imagine what he saw on a daily basis: a semi tractor-trailer backing down when
people were walking around and another one doing the exact same thing. At the same time there
might also be a delivery by a beer truck or two, which was basically as long as a tractor-trailer. He
said they could have four of those huge trucks all at the same time. Ideally, deliveries should be
early in the morning, but the problem was the schedules never seemed to be kept. They were
oftentimes there at lunch time and it was a very dangerous situation even though it was the best
alternative because there was no other place to do those deliveries. He said some of them would
actually pull over to Wizers and unload there, which they knew they were not supposed to do, but it
happened on a daily basis. He said that on any given day one could count five trucks at a time on
the premises and/or right in front of the building trying to load and unload, but mostly unload. He
indicated that when Lakeview Village was developed a study said they really only needed one
loading zone, which was the one Mr. Cain had described between Peet's Coffee and Chico's. Mr.
Lee said no one used that, except FedEx and UPS trucks, because there was no room. He asked
the Commissioners to imagine the total chaos that would happen at Lakeview Village after the
accessibility currently provided by Wizer's was eliminated. Then, if they tried to use the currently
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 6 of 28
designated loading area in a right turn lane it would be an impossibility because the cars were
going to get behind the delivery truck before it ever was able to pull in and maneuver backwards.
He suggested what the applicant was proposing was very similar to that, but it was the way in. He
could not imagine a big truck or a moving van pulling in, loading, and unloading could even be
possible. They were going to back right out onto A Avenue and then have to pull forward, go
around the circle, and come back out. That logistic was worse than anyone could imagine. He said
one had to be there and see it on a daily basis to know what happened. Mr. Cain was not there
that much, but Mr. Lee saw it on a daily basis. He said it was kind of a nightmare and very
dangerous, and it would get worse with this proposal.
Mr. Lee said that being right across from the driveway where all of the cars were going to come out
of the new project meant that every single car light would hit his front door and windows as the
cars came out and turned. He indicated that he was going to lose all of his afternoon sun due to
the mass of the project. It went from curb to curb at 50+ feet to 60 feet high and it had already been
proven that the sun was totally gone. He related that about half of his business was during the
summer when there was sunshine. He would hate to see that go away just because they were
willing to say 'yes' to a project that was such grand scale it did not belong.
Questions
Chair Richards asked Mr. Lee how shading would affect him if it was a three story building instead
of a five story building. Mr. Lee indicated that he had been told that at the level it was proposed
now he was going to lose the sunshine at 1:30 in the afternoon. Right now he had people sitting
out in the sun until 9:00 p.m. so it would be an adjustment no matter what was built. He accepted
the fact that something would be built there. He just wanted it to be something that belonged there
and logically worked and did not rob him of that much sun. Vice Chair Creighton asked Mr. Lee to
clarify that he had said the originally-designated service area was a little patch on 1St Street that
was for the entire block. Mr. Lee said that was where he was told the loading/unloading was to
happen. He said that in the very beginning trucks were backing in on the bricks between the
buildings. That area was never designed for that kind of delivery but it had to be because there
was no place else to do it. The trucks weighed thousands of pounds and unloaded with little
mechanical hand trucks that carried palettes and that activity busted everything up.
Lita Grim, 321 3rd St., read aloud her written testimony (Exhibit G-313). She had formed Save Our
Village. They were opposed to over-development of high-density projects that posed a logistical
disaster for neighborhoods such as this current threat to their village square. She cautioned that it
would set a precedent for future developments currently under consideration in downtown. She
advised the Commission to uphold the City's established codes which defined village character as
an assembly of smaller, mixed-use structures, often centered on a square or gathering area. She
noted the East End Plan stated that new or remodeled structures were to be designed to
complement structures located on Blocks 138 and 136 and Millennium Park. She indicated she
lived in Block 136, a block about the same size as the Wizer block that contained 39 three-story
townhomes. She held the applicant proposed an overly zealous, five-story, 90% high-density,
apartment complex which overpowered and did not complement the surrounding village structures.
She noted that the developer claimed they had worked with and heard neighbors' concerns. She
said those concerns were about the size and density of the project. However, they still proposed an
overbearing mass of apartments with very little mixed-use. She advised that negative impacts on
2nd Street residents were noise, loss of sunlight and solar access, traffic and the potential damage
to their units from vibration during construction. She asked the Commission to follow the
recommendation of Geodesign, Inc. to survey their townhomes prior to, during and after
construction of the development. She asked who would pay for the damage. She noted 2nd Street
was a designated local street. She was concerned the increased traffic from 375 new residents
across the street and their loading zone and garage entry could easily push 2nd Street past its
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 7 of 28
planned capacity. Based on the number of emails and letters she had received; the letters in the
local newspaper; and what she heard during canvassing she believed the majority of citizens did
not want the massive project. It was too much for a town square that represented the very heart of
Lake Oswego. She concluded that they City already had a road map to their future and they should
do it right.
Leslie Pirrotta, 14215 Bridge Ct., stated that she was associated with Save Our Village. She read
aloud her written testimony (Exhibit G-305). She indicated that after months of hearing public
concerns the developer's proposal was still too tall, dense and did not complement the character of
downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. She indicated Lakeview Village and Block 136 had had
established the benchmarks for design and scale of village character. She contrasted the square
footage and number of stories of those developments with what was proposed on Block 137. The
existing developments had 91,000 and 99,000 s.f. and two to three stories. The applicant's
development was three times larger at over 300,000 s.f. and over five stories high. Lakeview
Village was six unique buildings with varied entries, courtyards, fountains and an outdoor fireplace.
Lakeview Village and the townhouses featured Lake Oswego style peaks, steep gabled roofs, and
multi-paned windows. Appendix A of the Code called for aspects such as complex massing and
asymmetrical composition. She contrasted that with the proposed three, large, corner-to-corner
buildings which were repetitive, without breaks, and which did not appear asymmetrical. They were
under the 60-foot height limit but were packed, five-story, buildings with massive proportion that
was not indicative of village character and did not complement the two and three story buildings
throughout Downtown. She said that a solid four-to five-story building mass on A Avenue that
stretched across the entire block would diminish the intimate scale they enjoyed driving by or
walking Downtown. She held the proposed complex could not be construed as a village, because it
was not a community of small scale structures that operated like a traditional small town. She
anticipated that another 300 or more downtown apartment residents using the park as their
backyard would overwhelm Farmers' Market and community events there. She was concerned that
Zeppos and St. Honore would be overshadowed by a 60-foot building. She was concerned about
the adverse impact of a four-story, stark, structure at the roundabout on the charm of St. Honore.
She indicated she sympathized with seniors who might want to downsize there, but suggested they
should wait for the right type of redevelopment there. She indicated that the right development
would be smaller, true, mixed-use housing built with appropriate design and scale that did not
compromise the town's character. She asked the Commission to protect the City's aesthetic beauty
and character and deny the application.
Tana Haynes, 2277 Summit Dr. (97034), submitted Exhibit G-307. She testified she and her
husband supported Save Our Village. They opposed the project because it was primarily massive
residential and not mixed-use and commercial as the Code required. She indicated that they had
moved to Lake Oswego because downtown restaurants and retail had a unique, low-density feel.
She indicated that the proposed project would have adverse effects on the existing surrounding
land uses, on traffic circulation and on the City's aesthetic beauty and character. She asked the
Commission to deny the proposal rather than to redesign it through conditions of approval because
there would be too many conditions. She asked the Commission not to allow the applicant's
personal history or the history of his attempts to develop the property color their decision. Ms.
Haines presented photographs showing six balloons placed at building height around Block 137 to
demonstrate the visual impact. One, taken from Five Spices Restaurant, showed a balloon at the
average height of peaks of the three buildings. She noted it would cut off the light and the view of
the trees and scenery. Another photograph showed a balloon at about 55 feet, indicating that a
bank of trees in this view would no longer be visible from 1st Street. She was concerned that lack of
sunlight would affect their health and they would eventually have to be removed. Another
photograph of a balloon showed how people going through a long, unappealing, pathway would
perceive the height of the building. She said she loved Lakeview Village because of its plazas and
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 8 of 28
openness. She was concerned about the proposed development's five stories. She showed a
picture of a balloon over the townhomes on 2nd Street to demonstrate how the proposed
development would impact the views from their living rooms or bedrooms.
Ms. Haynes held that the applicant was essentially asking for major code exceptions which would
result in a mega-box structure of three massive buildings that was not village character. Peoples'
perspectives would be that the project was a solid, filled block. One could not see the interior
courtyard from any angle. Only people living there were going to experience the inner courtyard.
She held that Blocks 138 and 136 had set the precedent for a low density feel. She said if the
proposed project was ever built she would not park in the parking lots, which were frightening and
unsafe with children. Instead, she would park way down in the residential area and walk. She said
the site should not become a tsunami of high-density dwellings. The public was bound to be
displaced when over 300 occupants came with visitors and pets. Ms. Haynes related that she had
discussed traffic in regard to renting behaviors with an independent traffic expert. The City's 2012
parking study showed they were at congestion and peak capacity on State/A between 4:30 and
6:00 p.m. and the volume to capacity ratio was near one. With the proposed mega-apartment
complex there would be more trips per peak hour on the road and there would be considerable
idling at the intersection. Renters often started off by themselves, but then brought in roommates.
Each of them would have their own cars. Thus it would be more realistic to calculate one car per
bedroom rather than 1.14 space per rental unit. There were 124 units. Counting the extra renters,
visitors, hired transportation vans for seniors (an unloading area was needed that could not be in a
basement) meant that 1st Street would exceed planned capacity projected traffic. She
characterized those who opposed the project as smart, visionary, people who wanted to help and
get it right. She concluded that the applicant was asking for too much. She asked the Commission
to enhance the City with a low-density feel.
Questions
Staff clarified for Vice Chair Creighton that there were no required percentages of residential to
retail in mixed-use. Ms. Haynes clarified that she meant the City had designated the four downtown
block area to be commercial and if they allowed the amount of residential in the proposed project
they would not have a commercial core any more. [Note: Tim Kenan had ceded his time for the
above testimony.]
Heather Westing, 910 North Shore (97034), indicated that she had located her home and office in
Lake Oswego because of its vision and code and because it was a walkable small town. The Code
and the development to date had created a charming and vibrant town center. The Wizer block
needed to be redeveloped, but in a way that complemented and enhanced it. She said it was very
rare to find such a charming village center in the U.S. Typically, residential uses were further away
from the core. It was intimidating to have a big apartment building looming over one. A building of
this scale needed to have green space around it. There should be easy loading and unloading and
the number of residential moving vans should be taken into account. She related that morning and
evening traffic congestion impacted North Shore Road. She advised people to be patient and look
at what the Code allowed so they could keep a vibrant mix of two- and three-story buildings. She
advised the Commission not to accept that they all had to be high-density and they should let the
community's unique personality shine through.
MarvJo Avery, 1575 Ewing Ct., related that she was a developer and a realtor. She noted the Lake
Oswego Review had described the City as 'a nice, picturesque, quaint, vacation spot.' People all
over the United States knew about Lake Oswego Oregon because of the thoughtful decisions and
deep consideration for beauty, design, and architecture. She said she respected and cared about
the Wizer family and only wished them the best and that she understood the development was on
private property. She indicated the site would be over-developed if it was developed at the
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 9 of 28
proposed scale. The buildings were too large and they lacked the picturesque qualities that made
downtown Lake Oswego unique from most other downtowns. The project was too tall, too
aggressive, and lacked sensitivity to the area. She indicated her opinion was it would negatively
affect the values in the neighborhoods located near the project. Existing restaurants and
businesses would also be affected. She offered the examples that her husband, Nick Bunick, had
reduced the scale of his development, Village on the Lake, from 99 to 91 residential lots in order to
provide more frontage for the lots and houses that complemented the neighborhood. He had
chosen to reduce the size of the Westlake development by 200 lots to make it a great community
with a great feeling. She asked the Commission to recognize that extreme density was not what
made the City such a special place to live. Instead, it was being sensitive to how the land was
used. She asked the Commission to deny the project.
Mason Frank, 736 Southview Rd., read aloud a letter from Justin Harnish, 1060 North Shore Rd
(Exhibit G-303). Mr. Harnish indicated that Block 138 offered a sense of community; it had started
the "walk to" movement in Lake Oswego that had helped real estate values; and it had paved the
way for other projects, such as the Zupans project, which was doing the same thing for west side
neighborhoods. He disagreed with the overall scale and size of the proposed project. He compared
its 318,000 s.f. size with the 216,000 s.f. size of Lake Oswego High School. He noted 290,000 s.f.
of the proposed development would be residential, rental apartments. He indicated he did not want
to see rentals at this site. He wanted to see this area of expensive real estate occupied by people
with a vested interest in Lake Oswego. He agreed that Lake Oswego should attract young families,
but he reasoned it would be because of the school system and not because of the night life. He
wrote that he could not imagine many current owners of property would chose to downsize to a
small rental apartment. He reported the current market rate in the Pearl District was $2.10-$2.20
per square foot for a residential rental unit. He did not think that the City should take the most
expensive land in the core of their village and turn around and expect to have affordable and
competitive rents. He noted children living in the proposed apartments would go to Forest Hills
Elementary School where enrollment was way up and there was a waiting list because of families
moving to Lake Oswego. He held that Lake Oswego was not the Pearl and not a metropolitan
wannabe. It was a suburban, bedroom, community with exceptional schools, rich natural
resources, many parks and open spaces, and a downtown village that was at the center of it all. He
concluded that the community got one shot at this and they should make the responsible choice for
the future.
Phil Pirrotta, 14215 Bridge Ct., read aloud his written testimony (Exhibit G-302). He indicated the
City would be making a mistake by approving a proposal with code exceptions that moved away
from the development direction of the original planners and would result in five-story high, flat
roofed, solid apartments. He indicated he disagreed that a building just under 60 feet complied with
village character. He said most people believed it would be 58 feet, including a spire or steeply
peaked gable roof, not five stories of mass with a basically flat roof. He held the proposal did not
resemble the Lake Oswego Style shown in code appendix A. He referred to the applicant's
illustrations. He noted they showed a roof that was really just vertical walls tilted in a little and
trimmed to look like a roof. He noted there were repetitive dormers the entire length of all of the
buildings and they appeared as mostly flat-roof buildings. The proposed massive buildings were
more suited to a larger site with green space around it. He held that repetitious buildings that were
nearly 60 feet high with no breaks or open space was not indicative of village character; not
complementary as the Code required; and not the direction most people wanted downtown to go.
He noted the ENA, LONAC and the LOCAL survey and the majority of letters to the press had
overwhelmingly rejected the proposal. He anticipated that approval of the proposed development
would lead to others like it in the future on other downtown blocks. Those applicants would also
expect code exceptions with regard to size, height and style. Downtown could turn into canyons of
massive buildings.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 10 of 28
Mr. Pirrotta related he had learned from his experience photographing exceptional buildings that a
basic rule was the architecture must complement its surroundings (which was what the Code
stipulated). He said the four-story, flat façade and modernistic corner at the roundabout bore no
resemblance to the character of the charming two-story, Five Spice building on the opposite
corner. He clarified that they were not asking for a village look that resembled 12th Century
England. They expected redevelopment to resemble a small town center, which was often called a
"village" today, and which indicated a smaller scale than a large metropolitan city. He said the
proposed development would best fit in a major city in an area like the Pearl District. It did not fit
the unique, quaint and picturesque character of downtown Lake Oswego. He said residents
preferred the small scale nature of their existing downtown developments. He said many residents
were describing what was proposed as "institutional," "barracks," "mega-box," "monster machine,"
and " prison." He indicated that when the applicant was asked to provide mature tree plantings to
soften the buildings they were not going in the right direction. He asked the City to stick to the
vision of the original planners and the citizens and not allow exceptions to well-thought-out Code.
He said the proposal was too massive and too tall and should be rejected. He said he was a retired
airline pilot who recalled the target slope going up the runway at takeoff was 15 degrees. He said
that was what the slope would feel like.
Questions
Mr. Poulson clarified that the slope the applicant proposed was 15%, not 15 degrees, so it was not
as steep as a 15-degree slope. He explained what he was concerned about was that the applicant
proposed to put a vertical curve in the slope going down to the parking lot. With the vertical curve
cars would be leaving the garage at something steeper than 5%. He was worried about the sight
distance.
Jim Bolland read aloud a letter to the Commission from Larry Black, 460 SW Bemis (Exhibit G-
304). Mr. Black wrote that he and his wife felt the proposed development was not the right project
for downtown, particularly on that very prominent block. It was too tall, too dense, did not
complement the buildings on Blocks 136 and 138, and was not consistent with the village character
described in the Urban Design Plan, in the East End Development Plan and in the Code.
He was especially unhappy with the design of Building A because it was not like any building along
A Avenue. It had an unbroken facade and was consistently four stories high across the block. He
noted Lakeview Village was broken into two buildings along A Avenue and both of them were just
two stories high; and, A Street Station on Block 136 extended no more than half the block and was
just two stories. He held the Code requirement for complex massing was not met on Building A. He
said other exceptions to Code should not be allowed. Allowing five stories and residences on the
ground floors was not what had been planned for Block 137. If allowed, it would set a precedent
that would allow complete transformation of downtown. He wrote that the proposed building at the
roundabout corner was a stark, four-story, building that was incompatible with the inviting, two-
story, Five Spice building. He indicated that 135 onsite parking spaces were likely insufficient to
meet the needs of new retail patrons, employees and the general public. If a development of the
proposed scale and density was allowed it would negatively impact the aesthetic value of the
existing town square and downtown would morph into something quite different than what it was
today.
Lucia Reynolds, , recalled that since downtown had changed from a rundown area
to Lakeview Village coming downtown was fun. However, parking was a big issue during events.
She said she was opposed to the proposed size and magnitude of the building. The amount of
parking space meant the tenants there would use the parking across the street. She said there
were too many living spaces instead of commercial. Downtown should have at least 50%
commercial uses. She suggested it would be great to have the first two stories have an atrium
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 11 of 28
where there could be a nice gathering place/green area that the proposed plan did not offer. They
should reduce density; provide more commercial space; provide more green area; and not allow
the big impact to parking when there was already a problem.
Pat Harr, 4430 Golden Ln., observed the Commission had a duty to assure that the project design
was consistent with applicable standards and minimized adverse impacts on surrounding land use.
He said the purpose of DRDD standards was to guide redevelopment of downtown in a manner
that created a sense of vitality, a sense of place and created a community center that reflected and
enhanced the character of the City. He cited the standard that village character meant a
community of small scale structures that attracted people to the downtown. He said Block 138
created the specified community center effect that they now enjoyed. Block 137 as currently
planned was quiet inconsistent with that. He noted the Project J summary in the East End
Redevelopment Plan indicated that Block 137 should be redeveloped to enhance the compact
shopping district. Mr. Harr questioned why the proposed building design so grossly contradicted
the intent of the standards. He said it just did not fit and it would substantially increase density with
apartment renters and also their friends and relatives. He said he understood the parking modifier
reduced parking below the established standard. He recalled when he attended the last August
Farmers' Market he could not find a parking space in the Lakeview Village garage. He indicated
the answer as to why the applicant had submitted such a huge concept to begin with was in a
comment they made to the local newspaper that the size and scope was necessary for the project
to 'pencil out.' Mr. Harr noted that Blocks 138 and 136 were able to pencil out in their attractive
style and size. He questioned making exceptions to Code that was appropriate, sound and
reasonable. He said the challenge related to developing Block 137 was finding the right balance
between the desires of the developer and owner and an apparent majority of Lake Oswego
residents. It looked like opposition was running two to one against the proposed development. He
questioned why they could not get a development there that was compliant with the CDC and the
East End Redevelopment Plan. He asked the Commission to give them three, or perhaps four
stories, many fewer apartments, much more retail, and other things that attracted people to a
community center type of structure that the Code specified. He asked that the City get this right so
it did not have any regrets. Chair Richards announced a 30 minute recess and thereafter
reconvened the hearing.
Peter Davis, 346 Lake Bay Ct., related that he had served on the 2012 Chamber of Commerce
Parking Task Force as a representative of the Evergreen Neighborhood Association. He was
concerned about the size of the proposed development. It was not compatible with what they had
today, and it would create a big parking problem. He related that parking was already at a premium
around the area of 4th/Lake Bay on Saturdays and during big events at the park when the street
was lined with cars as far away as 5th Street and up 4th and Evergreen Streets. He anticipated that
adding the proposed apartment complex would increase the parking problem. He indicated the
proposed new residential parking lot with 1.15 parking spaces per unit would not be enough if
many residents had more than one car. Many of them would look for on-street parking. The
planned retail parking was even worse. The minimum parking requirement before applying the
parking modifiers was 201 retail spaces. With the modifiers the developer would only provide 135
onsite parking spaces and then depend on on-street parking for the rest. He said the problem was
that many of those on-street spaces were already heavily used today. The Chamber's parking task
force had found that the parking district around Lakeview Village already exceeded 85%
occupancy during peak hours. He said an important goal of East End Redevelopment was to
support downtown businesses. The parking task force had reported that most people would
continue to drive their cars to the downtown business district; parking minimums there were too
low; and it would have a negative effect on future business growth.A 2009 Moore survey
conducted for the City said that for the most part area residents both inside and outside the City
were positive about Lake Oswego. Their biggest concern was lack of downtown parking. He said
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 12 of 28
there were many reasons why the scale and density of the project would have a negative effect.
Shortage of parking would definitely be a problem for both businesses and for the residential area,
including his neighborhood. He added that Evergreen Neighborhood Association had held a
general meeting to discuss residents' feeling that WK Developers was not responding to their
concerns. They had voted overwhelmingly to oppose the project as presently proposed. Part of the
reason was because they did not feel that WK really tried to work with the neighborhood or the
residents.
Ann Menekus, P.O. Box 64, Lake Oswego (97034), indicated she resided in the Evergreen
Neighborhood and had been Chair of the Evergreen Neighborhood Association at the time Blocks
138 and 136 were approved. She recalled that Block 138 had originally been proposed to be a
four-story box. Mr. Cain had been put through a lot. Then they got a collaborative process that
created a win-win result of Blocks 138 and 136. He had reduced density and addressed parking
concerns by providing two spaces per residential unit. ENA had overwhelmingly supported it. She
said Mr. Kessi had not followed suit. She noted the Commission's mission was to assure the
development was consistent with the Code and minimized adverse impacts on surrounding land
uses. She said it was because Mr. Cain presented a project for Blocks 136 and 138 that met the
design code definition of village character that Evergreen was able to support that development so
overwhelmingly. She addressed the topic of dogs. She questioned that pooch porches and
sensitively designed bags for solid waste would be sufficient. She anticipated the dogs would bark,
growl and mark their turf along 1St and 2nd Streets and in Millennium Plaza and that would
negatively affect the experience of diners on Block 138. She advised the only way to clean it would
be to use harmful chemicals to wash the sidewalks and sides of buildings twice a day. She said
she had studied the EPA ramifications and negative impacts of those chemicals. She held the
options were neither LOC Chapter 50-compliant, nor health supportive or pleasant. She concluded
that they could not truly say they supported building downtown when they supported development
of a key anchor project one year only to turn around and edit Code to allow a neighboring
development which was incompatible. Its business success and vibrancy would be undermined by
high density traffic queues and parking shortages.
Question
Vice Chair Creighton recalled the topic of dogs had come up in written testimony. He asked if it
would change the dog factor if the proposed units were condos instead of rental units. He noted
the landlord could prohibit dogs in the rental units. She responded that whether they were condos
or rentals the amount of green space was an issue. Millennium Plaza was hardscape. If they
reduced the number of condos to the level of density of Mr. Cain's project there would be fewer
dogs and less impact, but they would still need a place to walk dogs. She said she believed a
condo association could also prohibit dogs.
Yvonne Campbell, 4330 Orchard Way, read aloud her written testimony (Exhibit 309). She
indicated she understood that that Code did not stipulate density in terms of number of units.
However, if was a core citizen concern and the driver of numerous other concerns related to things
such as dramatically increased traffic and lack of parking. She indicated she hoped the
Commission would utilize whatever leeway they had to shape the proposal to favor fewer, larger,
units and condominiums over apartments and that the end result would reflect the precedents set
by Block 136 and Block 138. She asked them to— at the very least— not grant any of the
requested exceptions that would contribute in any way to an increase in density over what would
be complementary in that particular location.
Dave Radish, 669 Ellis Ave., read aloud his written testimony (Exhibit G-312). He advised that
although the applicant claimed that they were proposing a very low number of exceptions for a
project of its size, it was not the number, but the substance and impact of the exceptions that was
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 13 of 28
important. He discussed the exceptions. He held that granting the 5th floor exception was not only a
Code violation but it was a dangerous precedent for downtown development. He held there was a
related, fourth floor exception for along some walkable areas that was not in the staff report and
that did not meet any of the allowed fourth floor conditions. He indicated that the added stories
contributed to the added scale that was so incompatible with downtown and should not be allowed.
In regard to residential units on the ground floor, he advised that a key objective of the UDP was to
establish blocks 137, 138, 48 and 49 as a special retail district. The Code did not allow those
residential units, except at the southwest corner of Block 137. He held that because the proposal
put ground floor residents on all sides of Building B and most sections of the pedestrian walkways
it was a major area of noncompliance. He noted more than 50% of the total ground floor perimeters
had been changed to residential. He recalled that the applicant argued that Building B was
residential to provide a transition to the residential use on Block 136. He said it was important to
note that the townhouses on Block 136 were designed to be the transition to the residential area
and a redundant transition to the transition was not necessary. He noted the applicant's argument
for no retail along the walkways was that they did not have sufficient visibility for economic vitality.
However, those were the same walkways the applicant claimed would bring life into the core of the
development. He indicated the 80% storefront glazing exception took away storefront display
features, which made the development even more residential and not a part of a compact shopping
district. It did not meet the LORA goal of creating a mixed-use destination place. In regard to
parking he questioned that the 135 onsite, underground, spaces would be adequate for the new
retail and for public parking. The expectation, then, was that parking for Block 137 patrons and
employees would be augmented by on-street parking. He indicated that the angle and landing area
of the retail driveway were critical to safety and no variance should be allowed. As drivers exited
the driveway onto a heavily used pedestrian street they would encounter traffic from three
directions and pedestrians coming from two directions. He concluded that the City should save
their village by building it the right way.
Questions
During the questioning period, Mr. Radich clarified for the Commissioners that the southwest
corner of Block 137 was excepted from the prohibition against ground floor residential in the four-
block area and the applicant could put one apartment there.
Rob Moaentale, 104 5th St., a resident of Evergreen Neighborhood, indicated that he would like to
see the Wizer block developed to look more like Lakeview Village. He said the overall proposed
height and density was way out of scale with the blocks on either side and did not complement
what they already had downtown. The project was sure to make the existing cut-through traffic on
their local residential streets worse. He noted the City's 2006 Transportation Management Plan for
Downtown Neighborhoods predicted that as arterial traffic volume and congestion on A Avenue
worsened drivers would find it increasingly tempting to save time by using local streets. A 2000
DKS study related to redevelopment of Blocks 136 and 138 said the traffic added to Evergreen
Road by those blocks could increase volumes near the maximum level preferred by the City for a
local street. He said that without a current traffic study they did not know if Evergreen Road was
already nearing that maximum. Without a detailed analysis of the projected traffic increase the real
impact of the proposed development on Evergreen and other neighborhood streets could not be
known. He said the traffic engineers' calculations of net new traffic were based on a one-time
count on Block 137. When neighborhood volunteers did driveway counts on three separate
occasions they found the applicant's count was overstated. That would invalidate some of their
traffic projections. He said during the hour he had watched he had recorded several instances of
the traffic in that block being totally jammed as drivers waited to exit and enter. He said he lived
one block farther away from the park than Mr. Davis did. On nice Saturdays he also felt the impact
of parking and their streets were packed. They had not complained about it because it was one
day a week and a shorter period of time during the year and it did not last all day. He discussed
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 14 of 28
the memorandum from Kittleson traffic engineers that had been added to the record the previous
Wednesday which showed the proposed development would produce less traffic than any of five
possible scenarios. He advised that they were only addressing one scenario, which was the
current proposal. That made the comparison of alternate scenarios irrelevant and it did not answer
the question of how much traffic was on their local streets today and how much it would increase
because of the proposed development. He asked the Commission to deny the application because
the applicant had not satisfactorily answered those questions and they had offered no mitigation for
any possible traffic impacts to their neighborhood.
Barry Dennis, 333 2nd St., indicated they were at a critical crossroad, they were about to make a
mistake and this was wrong. This was supposed to be a village with architecture that touched
peoples' souls and made them feel renewed. He advised the Commission not to live by always
erring on the side of bigger. A village in Europe would never consider putting something like what
was proposed in their town because it would ruin the character, people would not like it, and they
would stop coming. Lake Oswego had the potential to become the gem of the state if they stopped
this. Seaside had made a similar mistake of allowing a giant condo that put a shadow over the
character of that city. Cannon Beach had held to their vision of a village no matter how much
money tempted them. It was now the most popular city on the Oregon coast. Lake Oswego had the
opportunity to create something that came close to the villages he had experienced in Europe.
What they needed to do was not get caught up in the momentum of the moment. He suggested
that Lake Oswego did not have to "marry a monster."
Rachel Verdick, 159 5th St., a resident of the Evergreen Neighborhood, held the proposed
development was not compatible with Blocks 136 and 138. It was too big, too dense, and just too
much for a village feel. It did not promote their village, but ruined it by overbuilding it. They would
suddenly be a more urban city than a small town village that was the reason many lived there and
loved it so much. It would negatively affect the Evergreen Neighborhood. It would increase traffic
and parking. On event days the parking problem already impacted the neighborhood. They liked
having the events going on, but they did not want the problem to be a daily impact. That would
drastically change the neighborhood for the worse. She held the proposal did not meet Code or
the intent of the Code. She related that as a residential building designer who did a lot of home
additions she tried to look at the character of the neighborhood and the community and the intent
of the Code. She did not try to meet the Code with exceptions. She felt as if this project only
considered what was good for the owner of that block and not the neighborhood. For a project to
truly be good balance was needed. She held what was proposed was over-building, which would
destroy their village, the character they had, and the community they had created. She asked the
Commission to deny the application.
Mark Dunn, 205 Berwick Rd. (97034), stated he was familiar with applying the rules as he had
been a licensed general contractor, real estate salesperson, and military officer. He agreed with
Mr. Needham that `shall' meant that something shall be done. However, it seemed things were
open to interpretation, and it was the Commission's challenge and duty to ensure this was in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the rules. He said he believed that in addition to the shortfalls
that were the exceptions they were asking for, the pure size and scope of the project failed to
comply with the spirit and intent of the code and the citizens' vision for Block 137. He noted that
every person who spoke for the project spoke in very general terms that the development was
needed. They said nothing specific about the size and they did not address specific issues. Most
indicated that this was the only option and there was no turning back. He said that was not true.
Mr. Dunn outlined his three main concerns as density, vertical size, and traffic. He noted the
proposal was for over five times the number of residential units that Block 136 had. They were high
priced apartments, not condos, so the romantic vision of affordable housing for seniors and young
professionals would not become a reality. He noted that density had immediate and profound
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 15 of 28
impacts on traffic, schools, parking, and the overall appeal of their flagship square. In regard to
vertical size he noted theirs was a sun-starved city. 1st Street would lose much of its sunshine and
therefore, its appeal. The planned public walkways would rarely if ever see sunlight. He said he
did not think any of the renderings and schematics truly gave people the feel and scope of how big
this was going to be. The balloon exercise was a great attempt to do that. But even that could not
give people a feel for the mass. The current plan would markedly change the look and feel and not
add to the City square. Once built there would be no turning back. In regard to traffic, it was
obvious to everyone that the developer's traffic research was flawed, with no concrete remedy.
They had been told the attributes of over 200 residential units - which normally equated to about
400 residents - plus full time workers and customers for 28,000 s.f. of retail would someone
generate the same traffic as the current Wizer block. He questioned that. He said as congestion
on 1st/A and A/State continued to increase many residents, workers and customers would cut
through the neighborhoods. He talked about the Farmers' Market. He said on a good day the traffic
could barely make it in and out of 1st Street. He said he thought this was an event the people in
Lake Oswego took a good deal of pride and joy to be part of it and it was a big part of their culture.
He said because of the placement of the new driveway in the current plan, he could promise that
the Farmers' Market would be gridlock and customers for the existing and new retail would
ultimately just go elsewhere. He asked the Commission to consider an ingress-only entrance on 1st
Street and a right-turn/exit-only onto A Avenue. He said the correct path to take was patience. He
recalled Mr. Boland's explanation of how the Block 138 plan came together so that no one had
opposed the plan. He concluded by indicating he was very much opposed to the application.
Questions
Vice Chair Creighton asked Mr. Dunn to clarify his suggestion in regard to ingress and egress. Mr.
Dunn said he was suggesting making the 1st Street driveway to the retail parking entrance only.
That would alleviate some issues related to traffic coming out into the pedestrian way. The exit
would be a right-turn-only onto A Avenue.
Jan Goodwin, 486 Lake Bay Ct., indicated that she operated three businesses in the City and
resided in the Evergreen Neighborhood. She related that it had been a shock to the Evergreen
Neighborhood when they heard the developer say earlier in the summer that they had been
working for some time almost on a weekly basis with the neighborhood committee and were in
consort with how the neighborhood felt. The neighborhood was surprised to hear it because they
had no prior knowledge of any such arrangement or that anybody had been seeing the developer
on a regular basis. She asked the Commission to ask the applicant to settle the question of what
the rents and sizes of apartments would be. She explained she wanted to know because the
developer had stipulated at the neighborhood meetings that they would be studio or one-bedroom
apartments with a maximum size of 800 s.f.; that the cost would be $2.20 per square foot; and that
the projected rent would be $2,200 per month. She noted that was not affordable housing. She
said she doubted that empty nesters would want to move into an expensive box. She indicated she
objected to the ratio of residential to commercial. She said she believed design review would save
a lot of steps in that it would restudy the surveys and the advantage of the time it took and the
compatible working relationship between Gramor and the Evergreen Neighborhood Committee
during the development of Blocks 136 and 138. She related that she could put up with Saturday
market even though every Saturday her driveway was blocked because people parked in front of it
to go to the market.
Questions
Chair Richards asked Ms. Goodwin to recap the things she wanted to be addressed during
rebuttal. He indicated he thought the square footage was explained in the application. She
indicated when the neighborhood had first heard about the project they had relied on artist's
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 16 of 28
renderings and descriptions that were probably three years old. It had been the previous
developer's composition about probably a boutique hotel, condominiums above it, and some
commercial space. Thus, many of the neighbors had arrived with that vision in mind. As the
meetings went on the developer had then said they would have 217 apartments; then they said
that did not pencil out so it was 228, with the square footage restriction, building costs and rents.
When asked if those things were covered in the application, she said they were in the application,
but the public still suffered from not understanding the constant morphing. When asked, she
clarified that she lived two or three blocks from Millennium Park and the traffic on Lake Bay Ct. on
any given Saturday was wall to wall cars with no concern about whether they blocked your
driveway.
John Bell, 14141 Goodall Rd., said he and his wife had moved to Lake Oswego because of its
small town feel and close proximity to downtown Portland. They had noticed a trend by city
planners to keep pushing developments that seemed completely contrary to the spirit of the
community. At best they were ill-advised and at worst expensive and unwanted. Examples were
that the City tried to put unwanted ball fields at Luscher Farm; and the City had suggested putting a
new and outrageously expensive library at a heavily trafficked location that was an inappropriate
crossing area for children. The latest attempt was this proposal to put a five story, 217 unit
apartment complex and shopping center right in the heart of Lake Oswego. He said they had
attended a developer presentation and looked at the plans the previous week. In principle it looked
appealing, but in its current form they thought it was an oversized complex that would completely
alter the village character of downtown. He recalled 70 condos were originally planned there. Now
it was 217 small rental apartments that would bring 200-400 new residents to the corner at
Millennium Park. There were obvious issues connected with doing that: increased traffic; dogs and
their waste; friction between the new residents and the six-month-long Farmers' Market; and the
transience of renters. He questioned the developer's claim that they had 60 inquiries from retirees
looking to downsize to the apartments because in his experience most retirees looking to downsize
were not looking to rent an apartment. They were looking to buy a condo, which was an investment
that would appreciate and that they could resell. They had little interest in throwing their money
away on rent every month, especially if the rent was going to be $2,200 a month and they would
have to wait for three years for it to be constructed before they could take residency.
Mr. Bell addressed the issue of the five-story height of the complex. He commented that the days
of sitting outside of Zeppos in late afternoon and enjoying the sun were over. He anticipated it
would give the entrance to the park a claustrophobic feel. He said this was Lake Oswego, not the
Pearl District. He suggested perhaps the only way they would possibly consider sanctioning this
development would be if it were reduced from five to three stories, and if there were half of fewer -
perhaps 50 to 70 — units that were condos, not apartments. He and his wife were strongly opposed
to it in its present form.
Dave Pinch, 336 9th St., related that he was one of the 90% of ENA residents who had indicated in
a survey that they did not favor the proposed plan. He discussed specific aspects including
taxpayers subsidizing the project and its impact on property values based on his many years of
finance and accounting experience. In regard to testimony that real estate taxes would help fund
Lake Oswego schools and services, he advised that would not happen for at least 15-30 years. In
the intervening years the so-called taxes would be paid to LORA to repay the $5.5 million grant.
Current Lake Oswego taxpayers would make up the shortfall. He held this would be subsidizing a
money-maker. 220 apartments at rents of a minimum of$2,000 each, plus the commercial rents,
would generate millions of dollars. He contrasted that with Block 136 condominiums, which had
done quite well with one/sixth of the density while contributing their fair share of real estate taxes
for the City and schools. He indicated that peoples' favorable view of Lake Oswego's village
downtown was a big plus factor in staying or moving to Lake Oswego. It seemed that well over
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 17 of 28
50% of the people did not like the Wizer plan. The big switch would affect buying or staying
decisions, which would seriously affect prices. The Commission was to mitigate adverse effects
and this was a serious adverse effect to take into account. If the proposal was approved it would
not be possible to turn back the clock. Future developments would want the same five floors or
perhaps even six or seven. The village downtown would be gone forever. He indicated that he
hoped there would be a new plan for the Wizer block that took into account the reasonable
financial needs of the developer and the reasonable opinions of Lake Oswego citizens.
Bill Gilmer, 1300 Fielding Rd., Vice Chair of the Birdshill Neiahborhood Association, indicated that
he had seen much of the City's metamorphosis since he was a kid in Lake Oswego. He had owned
building material products manufacturing and distribution companies and owned a number of mid-
to large-size commercial/industrial properties around the area. He had traveled the world and seen
many similar projects. He said he had been opposed to this project from the first time he learned
the details about it. It was very imposing; it had rather unusual architecture; it had massive size
and rudely imposing structure and appearance; and it was taking up good central retail light
commercial property and space that was well deserving of a new Wizer's and more. He said if it
were one or two stories lower in height he would be much more in favor of it. He indicated he was
also concerned about the tendency to convert downtown into a very rude residential and/or multi-
story enclave instead of the character it now had. He asked where would the grocery shopping be
or go after its metamorphosis? He acknowledged that in a sense it was already gone. Now
Albertsons had virtually no competition in the downtown area. He did not think that was very good
either. He indicated that he found it difficult to support this project due to the very significant
changes it would bring and because there would be more adverse effects than beneficial ones. He
said although he was somewhat torn at that moment he had to stand against the project as
designed. He applauded the efforts that went into the design and the work that went into their
presentation, which he said he thought was phenomenal from a technical standpoint. However if
Mr. Kessi were to redesign it to include a new, larger, retail, grocery outlet as its core tenant, and
possibly with a Penny's or Sears or the like as a second anchor tenant, it would provide a good
source of men's and women's wear, appliances, etc., that to a great extent they did not have a
source for in town. He indicated he would be much more in favor of the project if they retained the
basement parking concept and removed at least one story— preferably two. Along with that there
should be more onsite parking as the proposed number was woefully inadequate. He indicated he
felt that situation would fill several needs and be much more appropriate to Lake Oswego. The
project could then still have a couple of upper stories for residential use and would hopefully have
much less imposing avant-garde architecture to help it blend into what Lake Oswego had always
been. He concluded by saying that they did not need changes of this type or extent in this town
and he stood against this monstrosity as designed.
Scott Blau, 314 2nd St., had submitted Exhibit 311. He said he and his wife could view Wizer's
parking lot from their home but they also enjoyed a view of the sky, the weather, birds and the
moon. What happened on that block would have a big impact on their use and enjoyment of their
townhome. They had attended the developer's meeting a few months ago and found it hard to
grasp the size of the proposal. They had been pleased that the applicant had listened to the
neighbors and decided to move the vehicle entrance and service area to Evergreen Street from 2nd
Street. He said their eyes had been opened to the impact of the proposed building when their
neighbor put up the red balloon that showed the 57' height directly across the street from their
home. He clarified a balloon photo that had been shown earlier where the balloon was at the very
top of the window was taken from their living room. He said that size of building did not
complement the surrounding buildings and it overwhelmed the homes on his block. He indicated
they knew the view from their second floor living room would be impacted, but with this project it
would be almost completely eliminated from the vantage points they currently enjoyed. One would
have to be very close to the window to see much sky at all below the height of the balloon. Mr.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 18 of 28
Blau indicated now that the parking entrance and service area had been moved back to 2nd Street
it would have a big impact on traffic, parking and noise for them. The use of 2nd Street for the
residents' entrance would probably lead to exceeding the 1,000 vehicle daily limit for a residential
designated local street. He asked the Commission to have an acoustical engineer look at the noise
factor. The current buildings created a virtual concrete canyon that reverberated with noise when a
service truck or motorcycle was on the street. Even though the existing Wizer building was only
one story high it was extremely noisy because of the hard surfaces. They currently had garbage
trucks making three early morning stops a week that were very noisy. They knew what the impact
of having the service bay where it was now proposed would be. He anticipated the addition of more
floors above the street would increase that noise and make it more disturbing. He said they had
moved to 2nd Street because they believed in population density. Their block had 39 units on it and
it was a very livable neighborhood feel. The proposed development's density would have a
tsunami-type effect to it that was inconsistent with Blocks 138 and 136. The proposed 228 units
would probably mean 375 to 425 more residents in that one block area. He found it hard to imagine
having that level of population in one block. He noted it was a block that for years had been
planned for commercial development with some residential use. It would seem that density of
residents per block would be better located on one or more of the other blocks that were
designated for development. The core of the downtown area should serve as an area for more
services and necessities to accommodate the future development of other nearby blocks.
Mr. Blau said he was also concerned about the possibility of damage to their homes from
construction. They had just gone through repairing construction defects of their building; they did
not want to fight this developer for repairs; and they should not have to. He said when they moved
there they felt they would be part of a well-designed renaissance of the downtown area. Now he
feared they would bear the brunt of an oversized, overreaching, development that went well
beyond the principle of consistent and complementary development. He asked the Commission to
turn down this plan so something more appropriately-sized could be built on Block 137. He said
that he had a lot of respect for Gene Wizer, who had been a great neighbor, and they missed his
store.
Neither for nor Against
Ron Smith, 59 Condolea terr., (97035), representing the Lake Oswego Citizens Action League
(LOCAL), submitted Exhibit G2. He described his organization as a nonpartisan political action
committee created by local citizens for more responsive city governance. He said local values were
prioritizing local needs; ensuring fiscal responsibility; focusing on essential city services; preserving
local community character; and respecting all citizens and their rights. He said LOCAL had recently
conducted a nonscientific survey among its opt-in mailing list to gauge public sentiment on the
project. The results and comments indicated the participants had nuanced and divergent opinions.
In keeping with their aim to inform the community and its leadership LOCAL was submitting the
results of the survey to the Commission and they would also submit them to the Mayor and City
Council for consideration. he report could also be found at www.LOCitizens.com. He reported that
800+ persons had opened their email and 356 of them (44%) had responded. A majority (58.4%)
were not in favor of the project as currently envisioned; 26.4% were in favor; and 14.3% were
undecided. Respondents had indicated that they were informed about the project with over 80%
indicating they know a lot or a middling amount about the project. 76.1% believed the number of
residences planned was too many. 70.7% indicated they believed the number of floors planned
was too many. Respondents had been given an opportunity to add further comments and 162 had
provided comments. While there were supporters of the project there was also widely expressed
concern about the nature of the housing (condos versus apartments), density, parking and traffic.
The comments were included in the 44 page document he had submitted.
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 19 of 28
Mr. Boone pointed out the Engineering Department had distributed a correction memorandum (F-
21). Ms. Owings reported that they had corrected it to clarify that when staff reported on vehicles
entering the Six-Corner intersection those included background (growth) traffic as well as site-
generated traffic.
Rebuttal
Christy White, Rather, White, Parks and Alexander, 111 SW Columbia, Ste. 1100, Portland,
Oregon 97201, land use counsel for the project; Patrick Kessi, Evergreen Group LLC, 3330 NW
Yeon Ave. Ste. 210, Portland, Oregon 97210; and David Staczek, architect; spoke for the
applicant. Ms. White recalled that the Commissioners had raised questions about the fourth floor
setback on the interior courtyards and if the applicant could set it back. She reported they had
done that and had a diagram that showed it was the same for the fourth floor setback that occurred
on the exterior. She indicated that if someone believed that was new evidence and wanted to rebut
the setback of the fourth floor the applicant would be happy to have them have that opportunity.
She talked about how the applicant understood village character. They found the zoning code
clearly set 60' as the maximum height in the base EC zone. It applied a tiered effect based on the
distance from the R-7.5 and R-6 zones: Within 120' of the boundary height was 35'; within 240' it
was 45'; and everything past 240' was 60'. One of the applicant's guiding principles was that Block
137 was not in any of the setback reduction areas and it was intentionally targeted for 60' height.
The Code was clear that the allowed height and density was 60' and 3:1 FAR and there was no
reduction to that. Because this was also about the context of the properties around the Block 137
their architects had done a study of that context and looked at the high and low points of all the
buildings around the site. She noted that Block 136 looked like it did because of the tiered height
effect: 35' in one corner; then a 45' swath through; and then 60' on the other side. Block 137 could
go to 60' because it did not have those tiers. She referred to the diagram, "SUN STUDY—JUNE" in
Exhibit E-38. She pointed out the high point on Block 138 was 63' above Frog Pond store and it
was 48' 7" along 1st Street, while the applicant's project was 51' to 54' along 1st Street. There was a
3' to 5' difference along 1st Street, which was certainly compatible, and much less than the 63' high
point at Frog Pond, which was on State Street. She pointed out that Block 136 height ranged from
41' to 44' for the reasons she had previously explained. She concluded that the application
complied with the strict definition of village character under the Code and in the context of what
their neighbors were doing. She held that context was highly compatible with the structure they
were proposing. She pointed out they had submitted a rebuttal document that went through all of
the issues (Exhibit F-19).
Mr. Staczek addressed concern about the fourth and fifth stories within the courtyard side. They
had prepared some new drawings that were new information (Exhibit F-19). They were looking at
addressing it in the same way they had addressed other areas where they had the fourth and fifth
stories. They would push the fourth floor back by five feet—just as they had on 2nd Street and other
places where they had a fifth story. The fifth story would remain in the dormers and be partially set
back from those planes as well. He said this was their way of showing they were listening and
responding to the concerns and questions. Mr. Staczek discussed safety issues at the retail
parking ramp. He said they were comfortable with the design of the ramp based on the view cone
as the driver was coming out, approaching the street. They had bollards at the pedestrian
environment there with potentially blinking lights to signal when a car was coming up the ramp. He
closed by saying this was a wonderful opportunity for the City; the new, upscale, residences would
be fantastic; and the new pedestrian environment would be a wonderful benefit to downtown,
especially so close to Millennium park and Lakeview Village.
Questions
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 20 of 28
Mr. Poulson said it was reasonable to assume there would be a high population of seniors looking
to downsize in the apartment complex. He wanted to know how emergency responders would get
them out fast, particularly if they were on the fifth floor. Mr. Staczek said each building had one or
two elevators to the lobbies. Mr. Poulson asked if they were oversized elevators. Mr. Staczek said
he thought they would be designed to Code and to the maximum size needed to be sure they were
safe. Mr. Poulson noted that dogs marked their territory and comments included that perhaps this
was not the best residential neighborhood for that kind of thing. Ms. White noted the EC zone
permitted residential use outright and it did not dictate a numerical ratio or percentage mix. She
noted the UDP was not approval criteria, but it was enforced by Chapter 50. The UDP talked about
mixed-use ground floor retail with residential on top for this particular area, even though it was in
the compact shopping district. The Code allowed residential above the retail areas at up to 3:1
FAR and it was not dependent on units. She said the City had already decided that residential was
appropriate in this location under the EC standards. She advised that there was no approval
criteria related to pets. Mr. Kessi discussed how the applicant would manage pets. Building
amenities included a pet grooming studio in the parking garage. They were contemplating putting a
pet relief area next to it and still within the building. There were new pet relief facilities they could
purchase, such as a turf system with a watering system and drainage that could be inside the
parking garage. There would be bag dispensers and pet waste receptacles at building exits. They
would also have rules and regulations about pets and promote responsible pet ownership.
Irresponsible pet owners would be subject to fines. When asked how they would size the relief
areas, Mr. Kessi said they would consult their property management company.
Mr. Poulson recalled hearing that the goal for Block 138 was to have buildings that looked like
they were separate buildings that were not all built at the same time. He asked if the applicant had
thought about doing that as a way to capture the village concept. Mr. Staczek said they had broken
their block into three separate buildings; three separate material palettes; and three separate styles
and that was achieving the same goal. Philosophically they wanted the design to be current and
not replicate something that was not real. They had tried to take the key components of village
character and Lake Oswego style and interpret it for the current times and looking forward, not
backwards.
Mr. Poulson asked them to address the question of truck access. Ms. White said from the
testimony she heard she thought that was tied to how much retail. She said she understood there
was about 45,000 s.f. of retail on Block 138 and there was about 16,000 s.f. of retail on Block 136.
The applicant proposed to 28,000 s.f. of retail. In terms of compatibility their project fell right
between the other two blocks. She said that was intentional. It was the result of a market study
regarding what was sustainable and it was also because they wanted to supplement and
complement what was going on around them and not blow out what was going on around them by
over-retailing the block. She clarified that they had ground floor capacity that could turn into more
retail along the interior corridors if necessary in the future. If there was demand for that and it was
the right thing to do they had that flexibility. With 28,000 s.f. they had two on-street loading areas
designated: One was along 2nd Street and one was near the corner of 1st/A. She clarified that none
of the parking spaces within the loading areas were counted toward any of the parking ratios.
They thought those loading areas were sufficient for 28,000 s.f. of retail based on the study. It was
also important to note that the 28,000 s.f. was broken up into a lot of different retail users and the
anticipated service vehicle was not the tractor-trailer, but a small truck. She recalled testimony from
the owner of Zeppos that they could not control everybody's schedule. She said it was mostly early
morning deliveries.
Mr. Poulson recalled a lot of complaints were that it did not meet complex massing and it looked
monolithic. Mr. Staczek referred to the renderings of the buildings. He pointed out the amount of
plane changes and how they had addressed the streets by turning the gables forward. He held
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 21 of 28
there were plenty of complex massing and plenty of steps in the façade. The materials were high
quality, real, stone and brick and it was not a concrete box at all. Ms. White said she was
sympathetic to the concerns because when one looked at the kinds of plans and elevations they
had to submit with applications they looked like big, long, flat, surfaces. But that was not how one
experienced them. If they looked at the elevations that had been submitted for Lakeview Village
they would note that it did not look like that and it felt very good to actually experience the
development.
Mr. Poulson asked if the proposed height was proposed because when the applicant added the
pedestrian pathways they needed to go higher to make it a profitable project. Mr. Staczek said as
long as he had worked for the applicant they had always proposed the east/west pedestrian
corridor and that was not really the driver for making the project as tall as it was. Through the
discussions with the City, the neighborhood and LORA they looked at opening up the north/south
pedestrian corridor. So that was almost a city-wide recommendation for them to look at ways of
expanding the access to the interior courtyard by adding an additional pedestrian walkway. Ms.
White said Mr. Poulson was right about the relationship between the height and the ground floor
open space. The landscape requirement was 15% and they were able to be at 21% because they
were providing the ground floor open space. They were able to do that and stay under the 60'
height by tucking the fifth floor units into the roofline —still below where the roofline could exist
anyway. She noted the Code allowed 100% lot coverage and they were only at 70%. Mr. Poulson
noted they had fully reached allowable FAR.
Vice Chair Creighton related his office was on Block 136 and 50 feet from the site. He had a
question related to the accuracy of the renderings and asked how they were generated. Mr.
Staczek indicated the renderings and floor plans had been generated from their three-dimensional,
virtual, model and everything was to scale. Vice Chair Creighton noted that some of the diagrams
they had used, such as the one that cut through the roof line, seemed awkward. Vice Chair
Creighton asked what drove them to have a 20' north/south pedestrian lane. Mr. Staczek pointed
out on the slide, `PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY—20' 2" ' where the buildings were 20 feet apart and
then where the walkway widened to 27' in the northern part. The sequence of the spacing was a
succession from intimate space to larger space and then back to intimate space one would find in
a little town. Vice Chair Creighton cautioned the applicant that the Building Code limited the glazing
area for corridors and it could affect the interior walls along the pedestrian way on Buildings C and
B. Mr. Staczek said they were aware of that and they would make sure they had those
calculations covered. Mr. Staczek clarified that a room shown along the walkway side of Building
C was not an amenity room, but a storage area for the retail use. They did not think that would be a
spot for deliveries because of the slope of Evergreen.
Vice Chair Creighton recalled testimony about a special exclusion for residential use at the
southwest corner of Block 137 at the intersection of 2nd/Evergreen and asked about it. Ms.
Hamilton referred to the ground floor residential map and said it extended up 2' Street. That was
where the applicant was asking for an exception to have residential townhomes. Mr. Staczek
indicated that the line designating the area where no ground floor residential units were allowed
clipped the southwest corner of the project. They were asking for an exception so they would be
allowed to put residences there. They thought it was much more compatible to have townhomes
and residences on that side of the street, instead of retail, because they would complement the
residences on the other side. He noted a lot of the testimony had been about returning 2nd Street to
residential scale and residential nature and that was what they were doing by applying for an
exception to have residential uses on 2nd Street instead of retail. Vice Chair Creighton asked staff if
they technically would not have to ask for an exception if it were placed in that clipped corner. Ms.
Hamilton referred to the diagram on page 36 of the staff report and pointed out there was a little
notch on Block 137 where ground floor residential was allowed. She confirmed it was allowed
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 22 of 28
along a good portion of the length of 2' Street, but the applicant was proposing residential on the
interior as well and further along Evergreen. Vice Chair Creighton asked if it was correct that if they
did not show residential on the interior courtyard they would be allowed to have it along 2' Street
without any exceptions. She confirmed that. Vice Chair Creighton recalled there were about five
businesses along 2nd Street right now. He asked if it was the desire of the neighbors to return that
to residential. Mr. Staczek and Ms. White recalled hearing testimony that people wanted 2nd Street
to have a local street designation.
Vice Chair Creighton indicated he was concerned that there could be a substantial amount of small
truck deliveries because of the number of residents and because people were using the internet to
shop and had their purchases delivered. Ms. White said 2nd Street had a loading zone for the
residences for that purpose that was sized appropriately for deliveries by trucks the size of FedEx
trucks. Vice Chair Creighton then noted they had submitted a new map that clearly showed that.
Vice Chair Creighton observed they had a break in the roof and it was not all the same pitch. He
asked the applicant to show a cross section. He wanted to know if all of the buildings shared the
same kind of main body roof line. Mr. Staczek showed an aerial view of the roof plan (Exhibit F-19).
He pointed to a white area where the roof was recessed for the mechanical equipment and would
be screened by the pitch of the roof; to rectangles that were the tops of the dormers; and to the
major slope of the roof and the minor slope of the roof. He clarified that the steepest part was
almost a 12:12 slope and the shallower part was at least 2:12. He clarified they would use the
same singled roofing material and would not switch to a different material with the change in pitch
or on the tops of the dormers.
Mr. Kessi clarified for Ms. Johnson that the residential units ranged from 650 s.f. to 1,850 to 2,000
s.f. She asked why they proposed so little commercial in this commercial area. He said they had
done four market studies which suggested the mix of retail and residential they proposed.
Mr. Needham noted they had received more information from the applicant that night that had
answered some of the questions he and others had. He referred to a statement in the
Memorandum in Exhibit F-19 that said, 'A project"shall create a village character" by compliance
with the 60-foot height allowance.' He asked if their position was the only thing required to create
village character was to stay within the 60' limit. Ms. White said this answered a question related
to height. Their position was the proposed height was consistent with village character. The
Downtown Redevelopment Design District section on village character said that a project `shall
comply with village character through the following measures' and listed the measures, which
included that it had a height of 60' or under. Her point was that it numerically defined village
character for purposes of height. Mr. Needham observed that was only one element of village
character. Mr. Needham referred to the 'may' versus `shall' issue. He said he had received the
memo from the Deputy City Attorney and was in complete agreement with it that it was an
inadvertent clerical error in compiling the Code. Ms. White said she agreed. Mr. Needham noted
Memorandum in Exhibit F-19 referred to density. He asked if the applicant's position was that as
long as the project was under 60' and within 3:1 FAR the project could be approved. Ms. White
said it was not. She said those were two elements that the Code defined as village character
elements. The application met both of them. Her position was that the Code was very clear that
they had a height allowance of 60' and a density allowance of 3:1. Whether they had produced
that in Lake Oswego style was a question the Commission would have to answer. An EC zone
provision made it clear if they met the height and density numeric standards the height and density
could not be altered. Mr. Needham remarked that it seemed like the majority of the memo was
telling them what they could not do. He asked her to lay out what the applicant thought the
Commission could do. She said the intent was to provide some clarity to much written and verbal
testimony about how to identify village character and how it was defined in the Code. This was the
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 23 of 28
applicant's interpretation and she felt strongly that it was the correct interpretation. However, the
Commission could apply their own interpretation of the Code and reach a decision. She confirmed
that she thought the Commission could not reduce the height of a building because of village
character when village character was defined as compliant with 60'; and the Commission could not
reduce the density as long as the proposal stayed within 3:1 FAR.
Chair Richards recalled the applicant had made an important point about context. He indicated the
numerical standards were pretty straightforward and he understood them clearly. However, context
could be subjective. He said they had heard about things the Commission had no control over and
could not consider, such as the amount of rents and how they would deal with pet issues. The
Commission did have to look at the design elements and how they would enhance the viability of
the community; draw businesses and new residents; and maintain the values of adjacent
properties within Code standards. That was where it started to become subjective. The
Commission would look at and interpret Code and come to their own conclusions about that.
Chair Richards referred to the exhibit labeled, 'SUN STUDY—JUNE' and asked when the major
effect from the proposed development would happen. Ms. White noted this exhibit showed the
major effect would be at 6:00 p.m. on June 22. The study had been of Blocks 136, 137 and 138. It
showed that they did not shade the Lakeview Village sidewalk until 6 pm on June 22. At that time
and date the same degree of shade was coming from Block 136 onto Block 137; from Block 137
onto Block 138; and from Block 138 onto the State Street sidewalk. St. Honoree's outside area, the
Manzana deck, and Millennium Park were shadowed at no time. She said that was part of the
context of what the building did that was important to the applicant, so they had conducted the
shadow studies even though they were not required to do that. She said the study showed there
was the same shadow effect impact on adjacent sidewalks whether it was a four, five or three-story
building.
Chair Richards referred to a statement in the staff report in regard to the East End Redevelopment
Plan that said `Block 137 should be redeveloped to enhance the compact shopping district,
extending one block in all directions from the intersection of First/A Avenue.' He understood it was
not regulatory, but in context it appeared as though that statement was a reasonable articulation of
the intent of the Code. Ms. White said she would agree that the UDP stated the intent for how the
area should look. It had that provision and also several other provisions that spoke directly to this
development. Provision 3.3.1 was about exploring placing high density, multi-family housing and
commercial office space on upper floors of shopping district buildings to add activity in the core
area. It talked about high density residential in the compact shopping district. It said this was the
retail core of the East End Redevelopments Area. She said one could argue that some of its
myriad of provisions were inconsistent with each other. There seemed to be something in that Plan
for everybody and there were several provisions that would support the proposed development.
Chair Richards said he agreed with that and she was correct that in the EC zone and the
commercial core of downtown mixed-use was encouraged. He noted the difficulty for people was
that it was a change from existing use.
Chair Richards asked the applicant to rationalize having the fifth floor. He indicated that his reading
of the Code was the fourth floor was absolutely allowed. He noted that the staff report said it met
all of the requirements. Ms. White referred to the slide with a graphic illustration labeled, 'HALF
UNIT DISCUSSION /5TH FLOOR DISCUSSION' (see Exhibit E-38). She explained that because of
the slope of the site the exterior along 1St Street was all fourth floor and the interior of the building
had a fifth floor. 2nd Street had an exterior fifth floor and an interior fourth floor. The fourth and fifth
floors were at the exact same elevation. The rationale was that the fourth and fifth floors exactly
aligned and were within the same roofline. That reflected the fourth floor conditions and lessened
any impact the additional fifth floor might have. The exception process applied UDP policies to the
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 24 of 28
fifth floor. When they looked at the UDP they found language like 'high density residential' and they
found no language suggesting that they could not have a fifth floor. They could still comply with the
60' height limit. They took the fourth floor back five feet. Then they took the fifth floor back five
more feet so that the pedestrian experience was that those floors would recede from view and the
impact of aligning a fifth floor with a fourth floor would be minimal to the pedestrian. The rationale
was that the roofline was going to be there because the fourth floor roofline was there and they
could include a fifth floor and mitigate any impacts from it through design and architecture. They
could do it within the allowed height limit. If they had made the bottom two floors 20' high retail
space instead of two, ten-foot high residential stories, it would not change those top floor units.
They would still be there, but the fifth floor would become the fourth floor. It would be exactly the
same building with the same height and the same mass, but one would count the stories differently
because the first and second would become one floor— a 20' retail floor. She said they also
thought activating the roofline with the receded dormers was an appropriate response to the Lake
Oswego style. Chair Richards noted she had just almost argued against one of the exceptions
which was residential on the bottom floor. Ms. White explained that was one of their conundrums.
They did not want to put residential across from retail. They did not want retail traffic, retail parking,
or the retail entrance on 2nd Street because it was more appropriate to do residential there, but the
conundrum was that meant fourth stories became five stories even if the stories were at exactly the
same elevation in the building.
Chair Richards asked the applicant to compare the City's graphic illustration of architecture with
what the applicant proposed (Exhibit E-37, page 34, which included the Code illustration of a
prototype of mixed-use residential found in LOC 50.05.004 and the applicant's rendering of
Building A). He indicated he thought the Code illustration looked like Portland's River Place. He
said he was having a hard time seeing the similarity. He recalled they had testified that what they
proposed would resemble Timberline Lodge. Mr. Staczek clarified that they were not trying to
emulate Timberline Lodge, but the material palette was inspired by Timberline Lodge. Their
building was Oregon Rustic, which was one of the styles suggested for Lake Oswego style. They
had drawn heavily on the key characteristics in the Code to find what defined Lake Oswego and
Oregon Rustic styles. Part of it was the natural materials palette. Chair Richards said he saw that
clearly in the materials, but he was having a harder time tying it to the village styles. Ms. White
pointed out the Code prototype showed a section that had a double-height (20' high) retail ground
floor with three floors of residential above it. The applicant had presented the illustration because
they believed their building was comparable in that respect. Mr. Needham noted the picture itself
was not regulatory.
Vice Chair Creighton related that he was wrestling with village character. In regard to Building C he
had never seen a 100,000 s.f. Tudor building. He noted the truncated gable diagram was
residential. Truncated gables were in reality hips. Mr. Staczek agreed and related they had
struggled with that for a long time. The applicant and staff had considered how to interpret and
apply the Lake Oswego style to a larger building. All of the pictures and references to styles
referenced residential structures. They looked at the characteristics of each one of those styles
and drew upon the prominent qualities and materials of those styles. The dark wood contrasted
with the light stucco color and the dark metals with a hand-worked feel reinforced the Tudor idea.
They tried to interpret, not replicate, the style. Vice Chair Creighton agreed Building C was
asymmetric and it was a modern interpretation of Tudor style. He indicated he understood what
they did had been difficult to do.
Mr. Staczek recalled a question had been posed asking if they were trying to pull a fast one by
truncating the tops to maximize the 60' height limit. He said he had used the Code illustrations of
forms such as gables in the Lake Oswego Style Manual to help them get to Lake Oswego style. It
had nothing to do with trying to maximize the envelope. It had been an effort to embrace the Lake
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 25 of 28
Oswego style and see it could look through a current lens (see the slide labeled, `TRUNCATED
GABLES'). Mr. Needham indicated he did not see the style's very steep, gabled roofs in the
applicant's representation. It was almost straight up, from the bottom to the top, at all of the levels,
and he was not buying that those were dormers because it looked to him that the only space
between the units up there was a chimney and maybe an air space. He did not think it was
reasonable to call those dormers. As for the top of the truncated section, he recalled looking at the
roof plan and seeing no steep pitch there. Mr. Staczek confirmed there was not. This exhibit was
just about the line the applicant was going after. He noted the Code did not require historical
replication. They could have modern designs interpreting or utilizing the intended forms. Mr.
Needham said they could not just take out a scissors and cut out a section they found helpful. Mr.
Staczek said that was not the intention. Mr. Needham indicated that he did not see gabled roofs,
dormers, or steeply pitched roofs, only small elements of what the style should look like. It was not
enough. Ms. White pointed out staff recommended a condition of approval that addressed the
dormers by requiring them to move the dormers in and create air between the chimney and the
edge of dormer. Doing that would expose more of the steeply pitched roof. Mr. Needham said if it
was one third of the steeply pitched roof or less he could call it a dormer.
Mr. Needham indicated he disagreed with the applicant in regard to other things, including the step
back and having 60 feet any place they wanted to. He did not think they could say as long as they
met the 60' limit they could get as many floors as they could fit in. Ms. White said she did not say
that. Mr. Needham said the ordinance was clear. They could get a fourth floor if they proved
something and apparently their position was they had. However, he said he thought asking for a
fifth floor lacked credibility. Ms. White said they were making a credible case. In regard to height
she clarified that the applicant did not proposed a 60-foot building. It had a low point of 47' and a
high point of 58'. Along 2nd Street where the high point was 58' grading was going to bring the
grade up by 2.5' so the building was actually 55.5' high along that frontage. The range was from
47' to 58' and at one corner along 2nd Street it was 55.5'. She confirmed that the applicant's
position was that 60' height was a numeric, objective, Code standard that satisfied Lake Oswego
village character and the Commission could not reduce it. Mr. Needham noted that did not address
the issue of style. He noted that Lakeview Village had very exposed, steeply pitched, roofs. He
asked the applicant to talk about how their frontage opposite Lakeview Village was compatible.
Ms. White said they had measured all of the peaks. They had tried to coordinate their building with
those peaks without replicating what was across the street. They did not intend to have matching
peaks and a matching roofline. With the help of the City's consulting architect they were offering a
modern interpretation and a frontage that was very compatible in terms of overall height. The
difference was between 51' to 54' and 48' 7" which was not even a story across an 80' right-of-way
and with the setbacks. That was the compatibility just in terms of the numbers. Mr. Staczek would
compare the architecture. Mr. Needham explained that he wanted to see some types of
architectural elements that tied into the style of Lakeview Village. Mr. Staczek said the applicant
had gotten cues from Lakeview Village in regard to how they took a full block development and
broke it down into a couple of smaller scales. They had looked at turning the gabled ends out
towards the street in a similar fashion as Lakeview Village. He pointed out the gabled ends and
spacing between major elements looking down 1st Street and similarities between Lakeview Village
and the applicants building. Mr. Needham noted that Lakeview Village had two floors and a
steeply gabled roof. Mr. Staczek agreed but pointed out they had retail and office floors with much
higher floor to floor heights than a residential structure.
Mr. Needham recalled testimony that the building towered over the area. He said it was almost as if
someone took a building envelope and just chiseled off the edges and tacked on certain visual
elements. He said there were are too many things that contradicted what Mr. Staczek was trying to
get to, such as the things that were supposed to be dormers, but did not look anything like
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 26 of 28
dormers. Chair Richards recalled the Code called for compatibility with buildings in the universe
with good design. He said in regard to the Code requirements for a steeply gabled roof, what he
was seeing and he thought what Mr. Needham was also seeing was a steeply gabled façade, not a
steeply gabled roof. Mr. Needham agreed.
Vice Chair Creighton pointed out the illustration of Building A showed a steeply gabled roof with
punctuated dormers. Chair Richards said his opinion was that Building A probably did meet Code.
Buildings B and C were the questionable ones. Vice Chair Creighton advised there was no magic
geometry in regards to where to clip a gable; it varied in the Code illustrations. He noted the
applicant did not have to match historic replication. Mr. Needham explained he did not want a
result that looked like Disneyland. He wanted the applicant to explain which elements echoed the
ones on Lakeview Village. The key word was "echo."
Mr. Staczek referred to an illustration of the view down 1st Street from the roundabout, with
Lakeview Village on the right and Block 137 on the left. He indicated the current proposal was a
collaborative effect between the architect the City hired and the applicant's design team to come
up with a solution that was compatible with Lakeview Village. He pointed out the highly pronounced
base with very heavy materials. He said that was part of what was defining village character and
the Lake Oswego style. He noted there was a lot of detail in the canopy and they had large light
fixtures. it was a very similar look and feel as St. Honore. They had a bay window that projected
out from the building so it was not a flat façade — it had a lot of depth to it. The recess of the upper
floor was very similar to the recess on the upper floor where Five Spice was. It met the roundabout
at a 45-degree angle just like that facade. He explained that there were five to six different criteria
that they were looking to be inspired by and be compatible with. When Mr. Needham asked him
about a steeply pitched roof, Mr. Staczek indicated that one could debate that they were the same,
as they were the same pitch. Mr. Needham commented about truncated style. He said he did not
think it would look any better than that drawing. It seemed like it loomed. He pointed out where
there were two dormer floors and a steeply pitched roof. He asked if there was anything in Lake
Oswego style with double dormers on a steep pitched roof. Mr. Staczek said that was very
consistent with Oregon Rustic Style. They had purposely brought the steeply pitched roof down at
this corner [1St/A] to about 30' height. They were looking at putting two levels of residential within a
steeply pitched roof. It actually brought the scale of the building down at this very important corner
that featured the specimen tree; we did that on purpose.
Mr. Needham indicated that when he compared existing retail square footage in the traffic report
with the proposal to have 28,000 s.f. of retail in the new development he saw that the City was
going to lose 60% of the existing retail. He asked how they had decided on 28,000 s.f. Mr. Kessi
explained that four market studies and their regional retail broker suggested 28,000 s.f. would meet
the current demand for retail for the property. He clarified for Mr. Needham that the most recent
market study had been done in October.
Mr. Needham asked the applicant to clarify how many bedrooms the residential units would have.
He noted that would affect parking. Mr. Kessi said they were currently at 45% one bedroom units;
45% two-bedroom units; and 10% three-bedroom units. He clarified they were setting it up in a
master condominium regime and building the units to condominium quality so it could be
condominiums. Mr. Needham asked if they would have separate meters and limitations on renters
such as limitations on what people could put on their porches. Mr. Kessi advised condominiums
did not need to have separate meters as the homeowners association budgeted for it. here would
be rules and regulations, including about what people could put on balconies.
Mr. Kessi confirmed for Mr. Poulson that they would use a property management company. Their
intention if it was a for-rent product was to keep the buildings. They might be selling individual units
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 27 of 28
as condominiums. He confirmed for Ms. Johnson that they had the flexibility to convert ground floor
residential on the interior courtyard to commercial later by raising the ceilings. Mr. Staczek
confirmed for Ms. Johnson that they had considered lining up the driveway on 1st Street with the
one across the street and now they were slightly offset, but almost perfectly aligned. He clarified
the exception they were asking for was for the depth of the transition, not for the steepness of the
ramp. Chair Richards asked if the public could access the interior courtyard. Mr. Staczek said the
main body of the courtyard was an amenity for the residents. Landscape features differentiated the
open space for the tenants and the north/south passageway as it went through. There would be
security gates with card readers for residents in two locations.
The applicant's representatives clarified for Vice Chair Creighton that they could not comment on
the balloon study because they did not know anything about the details of how it was conducted.
They had only seen the pictures.
Mr. Hathaway, representing Save Our Village and Lakeview Village/Barry Cain, asked for a 14-day
continuance in order to respond to new information in the applicant's rebuttal document (Exhibit F-
19). Mr. Boone advised the City was subject to the 120-day rule; the applicant had not extended it;
and a 14-day continuance would jeopardize the City meeting it.
Mr. Poulson moved to continue LU 13-0045 to February 19, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. for deliberation and
hold the record open for written evidence only by any party by Wednesday, February 5, 2014 at
5:00 p.m.; rebuttal evidence to those materials was to be submitted by Friday, February 7, 2014 at
5:00 p.m.; and the applicant could submit a final written argument by Friday February 14, 2014 at
5:00 p.m. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0.
GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business Chair Richards adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Reynolds /s/
Janice Reynolds
Administrative Support
City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission
Minutes of January 29, 2014 Page 28 of 28