Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2014-07-21 .ip r .. Approved CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO UO Development Review Commission Minutes of G '. July 21, 2014 Chair Needham called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Members present: Chair Bob Needham, Vice Chair Brent Ahrend*, Gregg Creighton, , Ann Johnson, Kelly Melendez and David Poulson. Frank Rossi was not present. Staff present: Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Director; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Amanda Owings, Traffic Engineer; Brant Williams, Director of Redevelopment Agency; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support MINUTES None. FINDINGS LU 14-0007: a request by First Citizens Bank, for approval of the following in order to construct a new building on the site: • A Development Review Permit to construct an 8,600-square foot building; • One minor and seven major adjustments to the Lake Grove Village Center Overlay District standards; and, • Removal of six trees. Location of Property: 15700 Boones Ferry Rd, Tax Lots 3100 and 3300 of Tax Map 21E 08BD. Mr. Poulson moved to approve LU 14-0007-1849 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 5:0. * Vice Chair Ahrend arrived after this vote. PUBLIC HEARING LU 13-0063: An appeal of the staff decision to approve a request by Roy Rasera for minor variances to the maximum retaining wall height and to the combined height of a retaining wall and fence in order to construct a 14-foot high retaining wall with a 6-foot fence along the (specify which property line) property line, and the removal of eight trees. The hearing was continued from June 16, 2014. Location of Property: 1899 Woodland Terrace, (Tax Lot 3800 of Tax Map 21E 09CD). The applicant was not present at the time this hearing was to open, and arrived late, after Chair Needham had moved this item to the end of the agenda. Then, Mr. Boone related the applicant's request for continuance to August 4. Ms. Johnson moved to continue LU 13-0063 to August 4, 2014. Vice Chair Ahrend seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. * * * * LU 13-0046: a request by Evergreen Group, LLC, for approval of a Development Review Permit to construct a mixed use project (revised), including 207 residential units and 36,500 square feet of commercial use in three buildings, with the following exceptions to the Community Development Code standards: City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 1 of 19 • Residential uses on the ground floor in EC zone [LOC 50.03.003.1.e.ii] • Reduced 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 also is requesting removal of 25 trees to accommodate the development. Continued from February 19, 2014, for consideration of revised designs submitted by the applicant. Location of Property: 140 A Avenue, (Tax Lot 08300 of Tax Map 21E 03DD). Chair Needham opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable procedure. Each Commissioner present related her/his business/employment. Mr. Poulson, Vice Chair Ahrend, Mr. Creighton and Chair Needham each declared he had made a site visit. Vice Chair Ahrend declared that if any of his coworkers testified he would consider their testimony the same as anyone else's. No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application or raised any point of order. Staff Report Ms. Hamilton clarified that the July 11 and July 21 Staff Reports addressed the revised design submitted by the applicant and provided background on floor area and pathway widths. Ms. Hamilton reported the applicant proposed to demolish the existing 72,000 s.f. shopping center and redevelop the EC-zoned site for 28,000 s.f. retail use; 8,500 s.f. office use; 207 residential units and 457 parking spaces. The project was three separate buildings, A, B and C. Building B would be entirely residential use. The others would be mixed use with residential on the upper floors. Commercial and residential parking were underground and separated. Each had its own entrance. There were two internal walkways. The effective width of the east/west walkway varied from 19'-27' to 11'-22' due to landscaping, planters and benches. The effective width of the north/south walkway varied from 19'-27'. The revised application contained fewer code exceptions, as the applicant had eliminated the fifth floors on all buildings and was no longer asking for variances to parking ramp grades and lengths. She explained that the project contained fewer exceptions than Lakeview Village and Block 136. Ms. Hamilton advised the staff reports addressed the applicable standards of the code, and she was focusing her presentation on the Building Design standards and exceptions criteria. She clarified that shading and the East End Redevelopment Plan were not applicable criteria; and, that the Urban Design Plan (UDP) was conceptual, not regulatory, but its objectives were considered when exceptions were requested. EC Zone standards. Ms. Hamilton reported that all the proposed uses were permitted outright in this zone. The proposal met all dimensional standards and provided 12% more than the required amount of landscaping. She clarified that the Code did not distinguish between rental and ownership of the residential units. This zone did not impose setbacks; however, the applicant had stepped back the façade of each building numerous times to create multiple plane changes. Maximum height was 60' and the proposed buildings ranged from 47' to 58'. The zone allowed 100% lot coverage and the applicant proposed 73%. The zone capped maximum floor area ratio at 3.0:1. The applicant was proposing 2.74:1. The landscape requirement was 15%, while the applicant proposed 27%. Building Design standards. Ms. Hamilton focused on the main requirements for building design and the design elements for the fourth floor. The Code required that buildings be designed in Lake Oswego Style, defined in LOC 50.10.003 (emphasis added) as: City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 2 of 19 A building design that borrows from the City's historic architectural traditions including the Arts and Crafts, English Tudor and the Oregon Rustic styles. Buildings which use complex massing, asymmetrical composition and natural materials exemplify this style (see photos and descriptions in LOC 50.11.001. Appendix A: Lake Oswego Style). Adherence to the "Lake Oswego Style" is not intended to require historical replication. Modern design interpreting, quoting or utilizing the above noted stylistic forms are also encompassed within the definition. Staff advised that the Code identified characteristics of each of the tree styles: Arts and Crafts; English Tudor; and Oregon Rustic. Features such as gable roofs, prominent chimneys, and dormers were common to more than one style. Lake Oswego style required complex massing, asymmetrical composition and natural materials. She clarified the Code did not require historic replication. She reported that the three proposed buildings incorporated classic elements from each of the styles, but were not reproductions of the styles. Ms. Hamilton advised that the fourth floor was not an exception — it was allowed provided at least one of the following four conditions was met: • Residential and contained within a gable or hipped roof • Sloping site, with three or fewer stories on uphill side • 4th floor is significantly stepped back, or • Design elements break up the building mass, create visual interest, hide mechanical units, and define a function. Staff found all fourth floors in the project were residential and each met at least one condition. Ms. Hamilton then discussed each individual building, pointing out its style and its design features and materials as viewed from outside the project and from the internal walkways. Building A was designed in Oregon Rustic style. She pointed out its intersecting gable roofs, stacked dormers, multi-paned windows, asymmetrical composition, prominent chimneys, plane changes, materials, cornice, projecting bays and residential components (balconies, dormer windows and masonry chimneys). She noted the fourth floors were contained within the roof or stepped back from the lower floors by at least five feet. Building B was an Arts and Crafts building. She pointed out complex intersecting pitched roofs which broke up the massing and created variety in roof height, asymmetrical composition, chimneys, materials, fourth floor dormers, three different gable designs, balconies and plane changes and double and single- stacked dormers. She pointed out how the fourth floor stepped back along 2nd Street, noting that the fourth floors were in the gables and roofs and were stepped back from the lower floors. Building C was designed in English Tudor style. Staff pointed out different styles of gable roofs broke up the massing, the materials, residential components (balconies, dormer windows, prominent chimneys), and fourth floors that were stepped back and contained within the roof. Board and batten siding on upper floors met the standard building design requirement for all three styles that bases be primarily glass and masonry and upper floors were to have a lighter feel with glass and wooden components. Stucco on gables and some of the other design elements created a shadow line suggestive of half-timbering. Ms. Hamilton advised the Code imposed special requirements for building corners at street intersections, which had to create strong building edges and complement other corner buildings. She noted the project's roundabout corner at Evergreen/1St Street and the Lakeview Village corner had similarities with regard to elements, orientation to the roundabout, strong masonry bases, recessed entries, and a unique and substantial entry awning. She compared the 2nd Street/Evergreen corner with the development across the street. The eave line on Block 137 was about 4'-5' lower than that on the townhomes across the street. The heights were the same, and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 3 of 19 both had recessed residential entries, a strong masonry base with lap siding on the upper floors, numerous multi-paned windows, basalt planters and lush landscaping. Ms. Hamilton reported that the proposed 27% landscaping included courtyards, walkways, planters, and espaliered trees. The interior walkways featured some fairly substantial landscaping. Basalt planters buffered ground floor residential use from the sidewalk. Landscape materials were high quality products and designs utilizing complementary colors, material and textures. Fence design would be Arts and Crafts and English Tudor styles. Because a bench style shown was not Lake Oswego style, staff was recommending a condition of approval that street furniture had to be to City standards. Traffic and Parking. Ms. Hamilton advised that two measurements were applied to development: Level of Service (LOS), ranked A-F; and the volume to capacity ratio, a state standard that applied to the two intersections with State Street. The traffic reports analyzed the four intersections around the site as well as 1st/B, State/A, and State/B during peak hour traffic demand. The analyses looked at 2013 existing traffic; projected 2016 background traffic with the existing Wizer development and assuming a 1% annual growth rate; and projected 2016 traffic with the proposed development (which had about a third less retail, but additional residential use). It looked at the worst case scenario and used the apartment rate rather than the mid-rise rate. The analysis showed in 2016 the LOS at the intersections ranged from A to C with the project and a 1% annual growth increase. It showed the state standard of 1.1 volume to capacity was not exceeded with the project, which made the volume to capacity 0.97. It identified 185 new net PM peak hour trips, or 90 more trips at the site driveways than with the existing development. In regard to parking, staff advised there was a base minimum parking requirement which could be reduced if there were modifiers to apply. The base commercial/retail parking requirement of 230 spaces was reduced to 132 spaces due to: street layout; availability of on-street parking and transit; for being close to more than 100 residential units within 1,000 ' of retail; and because the development was over 20,000 s.f. Although the January Staff Report had erroneously said only two modifiers had been used for the final parking determination, an analysis of parking with all three modifiers showed that the third modifier was not necessary for the project to meet the parking standard (see page 32 of the staff report). The residential parking requirement had been reduced from 278 base to 209 spaces due to a modifier for being located in downtown. The applicant proposed 155 spaces in the commercial underground garage and 275 spaces in the residential underground garage. That was 17% more commercial spaces than required and 32% more residential onsite spaces than required. In addition there were 27 parking spaces along the right-of-ways of 1st, 2nd and A Avenue which counted toward meeting the parking standard. Altogether, the applicant proposed 34% more parking than the base requirement. The application more than met the bicycle parking requirement for the combined uses by proposing 220 in the parking garages when 65 were required. Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRDD) exceptions. Ms. Hamilton listed the criteria for an exception and discussed each requested exception. 1. Physical characteristics of the site make compliance impractical; 2. The design is compatible with structures not designed to Lake Oswego style and accomplishes the purpose of DRDD standards; 3. The applicant demonstrates that the alternate design accomplishes the purposes of the UDP in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to the (excepted) standard. She advised the UDP did not have a purpose section so its purpose had previously been interpreted to be the Plan's objectives. • Residential units on ground floor Ms. Hamilton referred to a graphic illustration on page 39 of the (list the date) Staff Report showing the location of the area of exception in Building B where the applicant was proposing City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 4 of 19 ground floor residential units where they were not allowed. She noted they had reduced the amount of exception area in the revised application by proposing office use instead of ground floor residential in some areas along the interior of the site. She noted that the exception area had low visibility for retail use; it complemented the transition from retail to the residential townhomes on Block 136; and that Evergreen Road was not conducive to retail use as it had a steep grade change, limited parking and no retail on the south side, which was Millennium Park. • Storefront glazing standard Ms. Hamilton advised that 80% of the width of a storefront had to have display windows and entry features. The applicant was asking for an exception for Building C along 1st Street, wrapping to Evergreen, where there were three different planes, but none met the standard as they ranged from 53% to 78% of the facade. In order to achieve 80%, the red brick panels on each storefront would have to be narrower width; however, if they were thinner they would not be proportionate to the English Tudor Style and it would create a problem meeting the design elements of that style. • Parking Entrance on 1st Street Ms. Hamilton advised that 1st Street had been identified as a primary pedestrian way where parking entrances were discouraged. The applicant now proposed a parking entrance directly aligned with the Lakeview Village driveway. Three bollards protected the pedestrian way and the garage entrance was stepped back from the pedestrian way about 15' for better visibility. A glassed pedestrian entry flanked the driveway and added more light. The proposed driveway reduced the number of driveways from four to one and located the commercial parking away from residential uses. Alignment with the Lakeview Village garage entrance reduced potential circulation conflicts. Evergreen Road was not conducive to parking entrances due to the grade, width and proximity to residential uses. The Code prohibited direct access to A Avenue, which is classified as an arterial street. This would be a convenient, consolidated, access point for the project. • Public parking provided on-site The applicant's agreement with LORA was similar to the agency's agreement with Lakeview Village. A portion of the retail parking would be leased to the City and the commercial owner would manage and maintain it. She noted the proposed project provided 17% more onsite retail parking than the Code required; and, that office, retail and restaurant uses each had different peak hours which helped balance shared parking with public parking. Ms. Hamilton reported that staff had applied UDP objectives to the exceptions and found the proposal met the objectives: a high density shopping district; a pedestrian network in a structured retail core; and high density housing to provide greater intensity of uses. It reinforced vehicle- oriented commercial opportunities for businesses that could co-exist with the compact retail core. The proposal with the four exceptions met the UDP principles to establish a continuous pedestrian system through and by developments; create a lively and attractive urban experience by increasing the density and mix of uses; integrate uses vertically and horizontally; and integrate parking with development and consolidate parking for individual uses in parking structures. The proposal also met the UDP concepts in regard to having special pedestrian ways and connecting elements, landscaping and features; and, placing high-density, multifamily housing on upper floors of shopping district buildings to add activity to the core area. In regard to meeting Chapter 42 standards for streets and sidewalks, the applicant did not need to improve any frontages except for 2nd Street unless they needed to repair and replace what was impacted by construction. On 2nd Street they would coordinate with a LORA project and provide new sidewalk and planting strips and replace and add to street trees. She pointed out the locations of the 25 trees to be removed from the entire site. Ten were on site and 15 were in the public rights-of-way. The large specimen maple tree on the northeast corner would be preserved in a planter. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 5 of 19 Questions of staff Vice Chair Ahrend and Ms. Hamilton discussed how people at the pedestrian entrance on 1st Street would be able to see cars entering the driveway. She confirmed that the applicant proposed 17% more commercial parking spaces than they were required to; and, that their agreement with LORA was to reserve 48 commercial spaces for tenants and retail users on weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and the balance would be available to the public. She confirmed that the applicant could have asked for even more parking reductions if they provided an analysis of the mix of uses and their peaks at different times of the day, but they had not asked for it. Vice Chair Ahrend noted the rendering and floor plans for the corner at 2nd/Evergreen seemed to conflict and he planned to ask the applicant if the fifth floor there had actually been eliminated. In regard to the shape and size of the exception area for ground floor residential Mr. Creighton noted the graphic specified the 65' dimension but not the north/south dimension. Staff did not have the number available to refer to, but indicated it could be extrapolated by subtracting 130' from the north to south length of the block. She confirmed exception areas had been eliminated from Buildings A and C and those areas were now proposed to be office uses. Ms. Hamilton clarified that the walkway steps and ADA ramp moved up and down to provide clearance for the retail garage driveway. Mr. Poulson was concerned that the clearance for underground parking was too low; that a small car could become high centered on the vertical curves of the parking ramp; and that the proposed cast concrete planters and the steel planters along the walkways were too contemporary for the allowable styles. Ms. Hamilton advised they did not have to be exact replicas of the styles. Mr. Poulson inquired how the waterline would cross under A Avenue since there was a pavement moratorium on that street. Ms. Rooney advised the applicant would have to do more than just apply a small trench patch. Mr. Poulson related that he was concerned because he had calculated there could be 3,833 trucks to haul material for the building. He asked if there was a related condition of approval. Ms. Rooney advised there was not. Mr. Poulson referred to the geotechnical report. He talked about the limited number of borings; that excavation would be below ground water level (as measured in July); what would happen if the slab could not resist the uplift of ground water; and that he had not seen any drain/sewer at the bottom of the parking lot; it could impact the neighbors. The report recommended surveying and monitoring cracks on adjacent properties before, during and after construction. He suggested making that a condition of approval. It would be needed in case the design had to be changed during the building permitting stage. He received confirmation that there was no requirement connected with the performance guarantee calling for a fund to restore structures that were damaged as result of construction. Ms. Hamilton clarified for Ms. Melendez that the Code did not define the height of a story. The number of stories could be as many as the cap on stories allowed as long as the building was under maximum allowed height. In regard to the requested exception area for ground floor retail Chair Needham noted the staff report mentioned that the southwest side of Building B was not suitable for retail. Since the Code distinguished between residential and commercial use, he asked if they had considered the possibility of other commercial uses than retail in that area. Staff indicated she had lumped commercial and office uses together, noting that there was little parking along Evergreen; it had no activity level that drew people there; and there only parking on one side. That was a detriment to both office and retail uses. Chair Needham recalled there was office space downtown and in Lakeview Village that was not necessarily high visibility. He planned to ask the applicant for the factual basis for their statements. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 6 of 19 Mr. Creighton recalled comments about the mix of proposed uses. Ms. Hamilton advised the Code did not prescribe a ratio between uses in mixed-use. Mr. Poulson asked about the 2nd Street improvement project. Ms. Hamilton advised it was a separate project and not part of the application. Mr. Williams related LORA had a conceptual plan at this point to soften the significant grade there. The scope was limited to adjusting the grade— no other improvements. They thought it was a $125,000 project which they could do in conjunction with redevelopment of Block 137. The property owner would be responsible for making the other 2nd Street improvements associated with their project. He was asked and agreed to submit the conceptual cross sections they had into the record. Applicant > Pat Kessi, Evergreen Group LLC, 3330 NW Yeon Ave. Ste. 210, Portland, Oregon (97210) > Christy White, Rather, White, Parks and Alexander, 111 SW Columbia, Ste. 1100, Portland, Oregon (97201) > David Staczek and Gene Sandoval, ZGF Architects LLP, 3650 SE Rural Street (97202) Mr. Kessi related that the applicant was presenting a new and improved design with the changes the Commission had asked for. The major categories of changes were exceptions, Lake Oswego style and compatibility. They were no longer requesting a fifth story. They had increased the amount of commercial square footage by 30%. They had re-designated space in Buildings A and C to office use. They had redesigned the parking ramp for pedestrian safety and to meet Code. The style was now more traditional than modern interpretation, and the design had more complex massing. They had redesigned the buildings facades and roof lines to have variation in planes, materials, and styles. They had redesigned Building B to more strongly evoke traditional Arts and Crafts. They had redesigned Building C to better represent traditional English Tudor. They had softened the color of the stucco gables on that building. Building mass had been broken down into multiple storefronts. They had removed truncated gables and replaced them with hipped or peaked roofs. In regard to corners, at 1st/Evergreen the proportions of the building and the storefront façade had been revised to more closely reflect the proportion of neighboring Lakeview Village. The 2nd/Evergreen corner was now smaller scale. The gabled roof there was a smaller townhouse form that was similar in height, proportion and character to the townhomes across the street. The applicant had increased the amount of landscaping from 21% to 27% to add to village character. It was nearly double the 15% the code required. The applicant had reduced the height on 2nd Street by a full story down to 46' to be more compatible with the townhomes across the street. They had reduced project density. The allowed ratio was 3:1 and they proposed 2.74 to 1, identical to the FAR of the condominiums across 2nd Street. They had reduced the number of residences by 21 units/26,000 s.f. They had aligned their commercial parking entrance with the driveway of Lakeview Village. In regard to concerns about vibrations from construction they had eliminated almost all of the shoring in the parking garage to reduce the impact of construction on the neighboring townhomes by shortening the construction schedule and reducing pile driving and noise and vibration. He concluded by saying that the applicant had made the changes the Commission asked for and the redesign project complied with the Code. It embraced village character and it was designed with traditional Lake Oswego style. It was compatible with its neighbors and it completed the east end of Downtown. Ms. White outlined aspects that met Code standards. The proposal was for permitted uses. The project was under 60' so it met EC Zone and DRDD height limits. Density was under Code allowed density of 3:1. They nearly doubled the landscaping. They met and exceeded the Code requirement for parking spaces. The redesigned project now only needed four exceptions. They welcomed further discussion of the exception [for ground floor residential] on Evergreen and were confident they could reach a meeting of minds on what could be done there to meet the exception City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 7 of 19 criteria. They believed the redesign met Lake Oswego style and village character in multiple ways and the proposed project reflected the vision behind the EC zone and the DRDD. Mr. Staczek offered details about the revised design. They had reduced the scale of the buildings by removing the fifth floor and provided more variety in roof forms. They removed truncated gables. They added more retail to Buildings B and C and broke them into more traditional forms, reinforcing the idea of village character. Throughout his presentation Mr. Staczek referred back to a checklist of aspects of village character the Code called for and the applicant was incorporating, including complex massing, pedestrian-oriented siting, hipped and gabled roof forms, traditional Lake Oswego style, and dynamic asymmetrical composition. He discussed graphics for each street/walkway elevation that showed the previous design and the revised design and included colored lines highlighting how the building face moved in and out and how the roof ridge lines varied along each façade. He pointed out how each street/walkway elevation had been broken up into multiple elements with many changes in plane due to projections and recesses as well as multiple storefronts. He advised the multiple ins and outs and high quality materials created a richly textured and visually engaging building face, which was part of the definition of Lake Oswego style. He noted the parking garage entrance on 1st Street was now recessed 14' for safety and aligned with the Lakeview Village driveway. They no longer needed any variance for the parking ramp. Mr. Staczek reported that the applicant had incorporated Commission suggestions. They had eliminated truncated gables, toned down the white stucco color, and moved from modern to more traditional design elements, reflected by things like the design of chimney caps, canopies and awnings, and smaller scale display windows. He detailed how the applicant had redesigned the roundabout corner at Evergreen/1St to be less glassy and modern and more complementary to the Lakeview Village corner. He detailed the English Tudor and Arts and Crafts elements. In regard to the Evergreen Road elevation, the he pointed out they had eliminated the fifth floor and reduced the scale of the 2nd/Evergreen corner to be more compatible with the townhomes across the street. Mr. Staczek addressed the issue of`story' versus `floor', explaining a floor area was defined as a `story' if the finished floor level directly above a basement (unused floor space) was more than six feet above grade for more than 50% of the total perimeter or was more than 12' above grade at any point. In that case a basement or unused floor space would be considered a story. He noted that on the 2nd/Evergreen elevation one of the floors was not a `story' by that definition. He indicated this corner was complementary and compatible with its neighbors. He highlighted the gate/trellis entry to the north/south walkway entrance across from Millennium Park and the pedestrian-oriented features including stone and concrete planters, awnings, trees, and a pedestrian scale passageway and courtyard. The walkway varied in width from 21' to 30' measured building-face-to-building-face. He noted saving all of the trees on Evergreen meant there would be four rows of mature trees creating a natural transition from Millennium Park to the village and helping to create a lively and useable public space. Mr. Staczek pointed out that on 2nd Street the buildings stepped down with the grade to create a compatible scale with the townhomes across the street. He detailed how the applicant had completely redesigned Building B to embrace all of the characteristics of the Arts and Crafts style. They were using materials and a color palette reflective of the adjacent town homes. The brick detailing matched that on the old Wizer building. The architect related the east/west walkway width ranged from 32' to 38' wide. It was lined with multiple storefronts and items like planters and canopies. It achieved a pedestrian friendly design that felt like a sophisticated small city, which was one of the goals of village character. The architect had made some minor adjustments to Building A which was Oregon Rustic style. He talked about the 1st/A corner where the applicant saved a significant maple tree in an open space that would be filled with people, café tables and activity. It exemplified how the applicant's proposal was compatible and complementary to the village center and surrounding properties. Mr. Staczek concluded that the applicant did not consider the village character checklist a checklist— it was a foundation to build on to exemplify village character and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 8 of 19 create something timeless. They hoped they had showed how they had not only embraced, but exceeded the requirements. Questions of applicant Mr. Staczek was asked to resolve the issue of whether there were four or five stories at the corner of 2nd/Evergreen. He clarified there were four stories with one level of parking that was not visible as it was below grade. Mr. Kessi confirmed that the applicant was setting up a master condominium regime that would allow them to convert the apartments to condominiums when market conditions warranted. He clarified that visitors could be buzzed into the residential garage to access guest parking spaces. Mr. Staczek confirmed that some internal planters would be concrete. He explained they used different roofing types to add variety and break up elevations. Mr. Poulson expressed his concerns regarding potential water table-related problems, explaining they should be addressed now so the plan would not be changed later in the process. Mr. Sandoval assured him his company had a lot of experience building underground parking. Mr. Poulson questioned the evaluation of sewer capacity. He asked how the applicant would mitigate impacts of construction activity on the surrounding area and the roundabout pavers. The applicant's team said they would have an approved construction management plan and they were experienced working around light-rail brick pavers. Ms. Hamilton clarified for Chair Needham that there was no recommended condition limiting which streets could be used by construction trucks. Chair Needham and Ms. White discussed whether the applicant had a factual basis for saying that they needed the exception for ground floor residential use because commercial use could not be put in Building B. [the graphic on page 39 of the July 11 staff report.] She noted that they wanted to discourage retail traffic on Evergreen; the lack of opportunity for parking on one side of the road because of the Millennium Plaza wall; and that the objectives of the UDP supported a mix of uses on that block. She added that if the Commission decided the units in question should be commercial use, the applicant wanted to discuss making them live/work units. Chair Needham suggested the area of no ground floor residential had been carefully laid out for a reason. One of the objectives was a compact shopping district. He and Ms. Melendez contrasted inviting the public to walk through a public walkway with commercial uses on both sides with inviting the public to walk through a public walkway flanked by residential use. Ms. Melendez anticipated it would be uncomfortable to walk past the two or three residential units and see residents watching TV. Chair Needham noted if they were commercial uses along the walkway it would create a draw and more foot traffic that would make all of the commercial uses there more viable. He noted that even though the applicant had increased the amount of commercial by 30% they still ended up with half of the amount the existing shopping center had. In regard to mixed-use they already had three floors of residential in all three buildings. He estimated that only half of the utilized property was in commercial use. He considered the fitness center and the courtyard residential use. Ms. White related the UDP's legislative history showed that that residential would be used in combination with shopping in order to create viability in the core and a 24/7 environment with residents serving as downtown stewards of village character. Chair Needham commented that the exception the applicant was asking for was not insignificant and it would undermine the purpose of a compact shopping center. He clarified that in removing the fifth floor- which was not permitted under the Code - the applicant was not doing what the Commission asked, but complying with the Code. Mr. Creighton asked if the applicant had investigated breaking up the project into more than three buildings. Mr. Staczek responded that they were meeting all of the Code requirements. They were under the height, FAR and density limits. Each of the three buildings was broken up into facades with lots of plane changes, and buildings were small scale structures (with small footprints ranging from 20,000 s.f. to just over 30,000 s.f.) compared to the 72,000 to 78,000 s.f. footprint of a Lakeview Village building (as described in the Lakeview Village application). The subject Lakeview Village building was the one that contained the parking garage. Chair Needham and Ms. White discussed the comparison in terms that included whether there would be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 9 of 19 open space there if the garage component was underground; ease of navigating around the footprints on foot; the mix of uses in each project and related trip generation; and how each block related to the goal of a compact shopping center. Ms. White related the number of daily trips the Lakeview Village mix of uses (retail and office) had been projected to generate was 1,000 more than what was projected for the applicant's mix (residential, retail and office). Chair Needham reasoned that if Lakeview Village increased the intensity of traffic it was because it conformed with the goal of being part of a compact shopping district. Ms. White indicated that a mixed-use compact shopping center with a residential component added to the user base and vitality of the district. A balance was needed in terms of mix of uses. Chair Needham observed the district was only four blocks and they were intended to be a compact shopping district. More retail was necessary. Ms. White commented that there was nothing about the Lakeview Village development that made the applicant's development wrong. The proposed project complied with the Code. They had ground floor commercial and upper floor residential, just as anticipated. If there was a question whether they had utilized all of the space on the ground floor where they were supposed to have commercial they were open to discussing that. In regard to massing, Mr. Creighton indicated there was depth of articulations on Lakeview Village that he did not see in the applicant's proposal, including a deep recess and open sky from A Avenue frontage all the way back to the parking garage. Mr. Staczek pointed out the applicant had two breaks between the buildings and one could circumnavigate around the buildings and experience them. Lakeview Village had a 311' long façade and the applicant's was 273' long. The applicant's design had just as many grade/plane changes and deep projections/recesses to break up their façade including the parking entrance. Mr. Staczek and Chair Needham discussed the width of the proposed walkways (Exhibit E61, Building Separation). Chair Needham was interested in the actual walking space, not the building- to-building separation. He explained he did not want to see another situation like he saw on Block 136, where he had never known a walkway existed because it looked like an entrance to a seating area. Mr. Staczek related the narrowest building-to-building dimension was 21' and the conditions of approval required them to have at least 12' of clear walking space outside of the area of tables, chairs and planters. He had provided renderings that showed how it would look at the narrowest point. It soon opened up to the courtyard. That kind of variety of spaces was part of what added to village character. He discussed eave line heights of 28' 11", 26' 8", and 29' 11". He confirmed the renderings showed accurate scale as they were from their virtual digital model. Public Testimony Proponents > Paul Graham, 4215 Fruitwood Ct. Mr. Graham, a downtown business owner, advised that the proposed project was needed; the time was right; and the alternative might not be nearly as good. Downtown needed to become more dense and populated to survive. The proposal for Block 137 would provide the additional people the downtown center needed. The scale fit village character and made it compatible with its neighbors. It would bring retail, restaurant and office uses to increase the liveliness and shopping diversity downtown that they needed. It would bolster existing businesses. It would draw people downtown where they could walk around in a lively village. He advised that businesses were closing their doors for lack of customers. He noted what was proposed was envisioned in the East End Redevelopment Plan and the Code allowed this kind of development, recognizing the good it would do. The requested exceptions were minimal. The developers had listened and made significant changes to the plan. The revised proposal with four floors, no buildings over the height limit, greater variation in rooflines and facades, more commercial space at ground level, more compatibility with other structures, much more parking and landscaping, and higher quality materials, was more than required by Code. In regard to concern about increased traffic he recalled those concerns had been raised when previous developments such as Palisades Market, City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 10 of 19 Mountain Park Shopping Center and Lakeview Village were planned. In each case the problem had in fact been minimal. In regard to the applicant's proposal the City Engineer had said that additional on-street queue lengths were minimal —only increasing by one car length in the worst case scenario. He urged the Commission to approve the project. > Peter Sweet, 796 1st Street Mr. Sweet agreed with Mr. Graham's testimony that the viability of downtown businesses played into this. He suggested that if opponents were concerned about density on downtown blocks they needed to mount an effort to get the Code changed. Many would prefer two-story buildings, but the cost of land and proximity to Portland meant if a property was to be developed it had to provide a certain amount of cash flow. He mentioned that opponents had stretched the facts and no one knew if the majority of citizens were against the project, or how many dogs would be in the apartments. He disputed that renters did not take good care of their apartments. He recalled that opponents claimed the traffic generated by residents would be greater than that generated by commercial and office use but Ms. White had said they generated fewer trips. He recalled that Mr. Kessi had indicated they would make them all condominiums today if the demand was there. > Tom O'Conner, 1960 Egan Way Mr. O'Conner urged the Commission to approve the application with the staff-recommended conditions of approval. The community needed a strong, vibrant, downtown core and a vital local economy in order to have strong neighborhoods. The proposed mixed-use development would provide both shops and people. The apartments would add to the variety of housing types and attract young people and empty nesters to support existing and new local businesses. It encouraged pedestrian activity downtown and provided the necessary parking for retail, residents and visitors. He remarked on the number of vacant spaces and closed shops downtown. > Norma Prichard, 204 6th Street Ms. Prichard indicated she supported the proposal. The applicant had listened to Commission and neighborhood concerns and made meaningful changes. The revised proposal complemented existing downtown development and would help revitalize the City center. She looked forward to having more restaurants and shops there. > Dee Denton, 580 6th Street Ms. Denton, former Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, indicated she supported the Wizer project because it met the Code which had been created to enhance development. She remarked that Mr. Wizer and his family had proven they cared about and respected the City. > Paden Pritchard, 204 6th Street Mr. Pritchard indicated he now fully supported the revised Block 137 proposal. The applicant had done what he had asked them to do. They had removed the fifth floor; replaced ground floor residential with commercial use; redesigned and articulated the 2nd Street facade to better reflect Arts and Crafts style, break up the building mass, and respect the adjacent residential zone; adjusted the fourth floor so it was contained in the roof structure thereby visually reducing the height; and redesigned the 1St Street façade to reflect the Tudor style and be more compatible with Lakeview Village. The proposed project was now a well-designed group of buildings and it complied with the spirit and vison of the Code, East End Redevelopment Plan, and UDP. It provided enough needed small scale commercial spaces allowed for neighborhood type commercial uses, more public and residential parking than required, and the housing density necessary to help support the existing retail community and schools. The three buildings appeared to be a number of small scale structures which fit the designated architectural styles and complemented surrounding existing development. They had created exciting outdoor spaces and landscaping. Building B now significantly reflected and respected the relationship to Block 138 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 11 of 19 townhomes and the low density of the Evergreen Neighborhood. He asked the Commission to approve the application. > Tris Denton, 580 6th Street Ms. Denton indicated the location was very conducive to this project, the City needed it. It would offer her and others the opportunity to move downtown. She asked the Commission to approve the application. > Sally Knaus, 750 1st Street Ms. Knaus complemented the applicant for making the changes the City required. The revised design coincided nicely with Lakeview Village; the changes reminded her of Paris. In regard to condominiums there was a misconception that they needed new condominiums, but not many were being built. Many people wanted to downsize and live in a condo in Downtown. She advised the highest and best use was what the applicant proposed. > Joseph Buck, speaking for himself and the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Mr. Buck read aloud a prepared statement from the Chamber board in support of the redesigned project. They indicated adding high quality residential options and enhanced retail space constituted vitality, economic development, and jobs in Lake Oswego. They cited the staff findings that the buildings met the Code in regard to height and the project provided more onsite parking than the Code mandated. They noted it would provide property tax revenue and benefit the City and the schools. They recalled that Block 137 had been the focus of several redevelopment efforts in past years which had not come to fruition. Mr. Wizer was a private property owner who should be entitled to sell and develop his property within the City Code. They asked for a prompt decision to approve the revised plans and move the project forward. Mr. Buck, a Lake Grove business owner, then spoke for himself. He talked about the efforts to develop downtown and said this was not the time to prevent or slow development of private property in compliance with the Code. The project was the intended result of an East End Redevelopment effort that began years ago. He advised the downtown business community was dependent on population density to survive. It was not vibrant, but struggling, as demonstrated by store closures and commercial vacancies; there were more to come if the customer base was not increased. He indicated the notion of increasing the retail use at the expense of residential use was absurd to those who were intimately familiar with the state of downtown business community. Having more people living in close proximity was critical to the survival of the town center. It did not matter whether the residents were owners or renters. He said Evergreen Group has responded well to all feedback from the community and it was apparent they desired to have a long term, healthy, relationship with Lake Oswego. They had gone above and beyond in responding to the suggestions of the Commission. He commented that it was a miracle they were still there; that showed their commitment to a high quality project and the unique style of the town. The community should remember they could provide input, but private property owners had a right to do with their property what was allowed under the Code. Staff had reported the plan complied with the Code with minimal exceptions; to stop the project would only serve to detract future investment in the town. The project enhanced and supported the existing commercial and residential community. He asked the Commission to allow the development to move forward without further delay. > Bill Gordon, 341 3rd Street, member of the Evergreen Neighborhood board and President of the Oswego Village Townhome board. Mr. Gordon advised that his concerns had been addressed and he now supported the revised project without reservation. He listed his reasons: it was largely a private transaction and project between Gene Wizer and the Evergreen Group, a vetted area based developer, and they were both committed to a very high quality development; the prospective LORA funding of about $5.5 million was roughly 6% of the total project costs and seemed in line and supported established City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 12 of 19 East End redevelopment goals; the developer had asked for no significant Code exceptions and the staff report recommended approval with several conditions (which should be met). A rejected project would likely lead to much greater financial participation by the City and perhaps litigation; a rejected project would probably delay the long awaited redevelopment of arguably the City's most central plot for many years; if the City supported higher density in some areas this central, downtown, block was the place for it; and the project would further revitalize the East End retail business community. He anticipated that after it was built even the most vocal opponents would acknowledge that their fears were unfounded and the project enhanced the east end of the downtown area as Lakeview Village and Millennium Park and the Oswego Village Townhome development had. > Susan Jones, 126 Touchstone Terrace Ms. Jones indicated that she and other long-term Lake Oswego residents she knew who were also retired professionals wanted to downsize and become residents of the proposed development. She looked forward to living downtown; she was not a pet owner; and, she would not contribute to any traffic congestion because she planned to use her vehicle as little as possible after she moved there. > Ellie McPeak, 123 Furnace Street Ms. McPeak talked about applying laws equally to everyone. She advised the time to influence the rules was at the time they were created or when City Council members were elected. She said they should minimize after-the-fact interpretations of the rules. Property owners deserved to know what they could do with their property because they knew the rules and codes in advance. The Commission should minimize the deviations from established rules. She believed the goal of the rules was to create a town center where people could easily access services and retail for their daily needs. Those businesses could prosper if enough people used them. Mixed-use had been the method they incorporated into the rules to achieve that. It allowed both residential and commercial uses downtown so there were enough people to support the local businesses they enjoyed. The plans and ordinances aimed at that kind of downtown. They mentioned 'a sophisticated small city'. The Wizer project fit properly into the established vision. She objected to opponents saying that they represented a lot of citizens of the City, as they did not know how many were on each side. The elected past and present City Councils listened to everyone when they decided on new or changed rules. A government of laws and not of men was not about people shouting the loudest or writing the most letters to the editor. If they did not like the current vision they ought to change the elected officials and work with them to change the rules they were guided by. In the meantime they should use the existing, carefully-enacted, rules to keep Lake Oswego improving. It had gone pretty well so far in her opinion. > Heather Chrisman, 172 Middlecrest Ms. Chrisman advised the community had grown since 1970, but the businesses had not grown at the same rate. She believed the plan and aesthetics for Block 137 would contribute to the vibrancy of downtown. The design met almost every city standard; it was within the allowed height, number of stories and density. It incorporated recommended architectural styles and accommodated more parking than the City required. The development would contribute to public parking, architectural interest, community spaces, pedestrian walkways and public art space. Downtown needed new residents that would help support local businesses. Block 137 development would bring new retail and restaurants to downtown, enhancing the local shopping and dining experience and increasing the ability of downtown to be a place to live and shop. She looked forward to the development and all of the good she thought it would do for the community. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 13 of 19 > Jan Castle, 16181 Parelius Circle Ms. Castle indicated she appreciated the tenancy, cooperation and expertise of the Evergreen Group. She expected if there were some technical issues they would be resolved and not stand in the way of the development or be used as an excuse to turn down the well-thought-out development that met the needs of the community and was an elegant, yet friendly, kind of plan. She anticipated it would feel great and be a great enhancement to the City. She related she had a small problem with the shape of the awning over the beautiful arch on the far end of Building C; it reminded her of the flying nun's hat. It should follow the curve of the arch underneath it. However, she would not deny the application just because of that one detail. She asked the Commission to approve the application. > Ralph Tahran, 13741 Knaus Road Mr. Tahran a property and business owner in Lake Oswego related that he had participated in writing and analyzing some of the Codes. He thought the project was the centerpiece development they had all been waiting for on the Wizer block. He recalled previous proposals had fallen apart, likely because of funding. He was impressed with both the current and the previous proposals and that all of the Code requirements had been met, except for a very few very minor exceptions. He said staff had done a very comprehensive Code analysis and one of the best he had seen in Lake Oswego for a very complex project. He said the design team was presenting an exemplary project. He related that he had liked the more contemporary interpretations of the three Lake Oswego styles as shown in the previous design. However, that the applicant had listened to the Commission and others' comments was reflected in the current proposal. They had broken up the masses as they were asked to do; they had provided identity to a variety of buildings. They had a stunning design with a lot of personality. He supported the project because of the pedestrian amenities that no other downtown project had. It was well scaled, well designed, an appropriate mix of uses, and he believed it would add vitality to Lake Oswego and enhance surrounding properties. He said he had discussed the project with the other members of the design and architectural community and heard they were impressed with it. He indicated he wanted to see the project move forward. > Mike Hewlett, 17720 Overlook Circle Mr. Hewlett said he was pleased and excited about what he had seen over the 31 years he had lived in Lake Oswego. His hat was off to the City Council, the process, and the fantastic job of many changes. In his opinion the Wizer block plans carried forward and complemented what they had started in Lakeview Village. The appearance of complex mass had been achieved by breaking it up into many facades. It felt comfortable and interesting enough to draw people to the area to shop. He indicated that a mix of uses and having more people there was very important. It could be a place he would want to live. He liked to see crowds of people in the Farmers Market at the concerts and in the restaurants enjoying themselves. Having an area that was interesting and had more shops would be the catalyst that would bring the trade to the retail they looked for. He asked the Commission to approve the application. > Will Denecke, 2180 SW Crest Drive Mr. Denecke related that he had worked on projects including the Gramor project and Bridgeport Village. He felt the applicant's team had created an exceptional project. He explained what he knew because of his experience in retail; development was a timing game. They were at a point where there was a window of opportunity in that financial institutions were loaning on this kind of project; lake Oswego needed to take advantage of it. The existing development on the Wizer block was lifeless and sucked energy out of the pedestrian experience. If the City denied this application other experienced developers would not consider it. There had been previous attempts to develop the block. It was well known that Lake Oswego was a tougher place to do business than in Tigard or Beaverton. A developer put large amounts of money on the line up-front in the development City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 14 of 19 process. If they felt the Code had been met and Lake Oswego turned this project down the reality was that other developers would decide the risks were too great in Lake Oswego. He said Evergreen Group had gone the extra mile and been extremely reasonable when they revised the applicant to reflect what the City had asked for. The City would put itself in a very difficult position if it said no to this project. The staff report was very supportive of the proposal. He estimated it would add 400-500 new affluent residents and potentially $2 to 3 million dollars in additional local spending. He anticipated after the project was approved most would look back and say it was a great addition to Lake Oswego. > Dave Beckett, 17738 Kelok Road Mr. Beckett discussed the argument against the density of the proposed development. He acknowledged that he could understand why the Evergreen Neighborhood residents were concerned about that. He advised the additional 400 residents would only constitute a 1.2% increase in the current city population of 37,000. He advised if the project set a precedent for the downtown area that was where the Code came in. They should think about Gene Wizer, the property owner. Mr. Beckett recalled Mr. Wizer's recurring generous contributions to the Lake Oswego School Foundation and that he chose to remain anonymous for years. He was not looking for glory, just doing what was good and right for the City. He noted this was at least the third time around for Mr. Wizer in trying to do what was right for the City and not just for himself in redeveloping the block. Mr. Wizer had chosen Mr. Kessi's team who had come up with a spectacular design which was what the Code asked for. He was giving the City the kind of mixed- use and density that the City wanted when they wrote the Code. Mr. Becket related that he had asked Mr. Wizer what would happen if the City turned this project down. The answer had been that he would probably just renovate it. In that case it would not be the new and great project they saw in the application. He recalled some worried about the pressure on Millennium Park. He recalled looking at the site from the park and determining that it would show above the trees, but the trees were a great buffer; it would not hurt the park. He said it was the big 'What if?' that he worried about. He was concerned that if the applicant was turned down and the block just sat there or got a simple makeover for some other store to move in it would be horrible. This was an opportunity to move forward with a great design; he asked the Commission to approve it. > Ed Brockman, 1141 C Avenue Mr. Brockman, a real estate broker, related he and his wife lived in Lake Oswego and might consider moving to a place like this close to the downtown. That the architecture was attractive would help Lake Oswego become known as a very interesting and desirable area to check out and draw more and more people there. So many downtown areas died because of shopping malls; this would mean downtown would not die. He commented on the number of 'For Lease' signs on commercial properties - some in Lakeview Village and some in other places downtown. He said he would love to reverse the trend by doing excellent urban renewal and being viewed as a place to go to. As a Realtor he emphasized the importance of predictability for developers. It was important for the town to be builder/developer friendly and offer them predictability. The state called for local codes to offer clear and objective standards for good reasons: for fairness and because of the amount of up-front money developers had to spend just to do due diligence and see if they wanted to do a project or not. They hesitated to make that investment when there was not high predictability that if they met Code the outcome would be approval. He advised that Mr. Kessi had an excellent reputation in this area. He questioned who they could find who would be any better if they did not approve the project and lost him as a developer. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 15 of 19 Opponents > Carol Radich, 669 Ellis, representing the Evergreen Neighborhood Association Ms. Radish read aloud the Association's submittal. They had voted to oppose the revised proposal with only 31 of 177 members supporting it. They objected to the scale and density, which they did not feel was compatible with Downtown. The additional population would vastly increase the population of their neighborhood and exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems. Blocks 136 and 138 had set the precedent for what was `village character.' The Lakeview Village approval record indicated there were six distinctive structures in that project which were each two stories; except for one three story building, with a total combined area of less than 100,000 s.f. Block 136 had 39 residences, three block frontages, an interior courtyard, and two-story retail facing A Avenue. It was also less than 100,000 s.f. With three large, four-story buildings and nearly 300,000 s.f., the proposed project with four stories along every block face was not small and did not blend with the character created by Block 136 and Lakeview Village. In regard to complex massing the revised proposal showed that the volume and height of Buildings A and C had not changed. The scale and massing was not what was envisioned and codified for downtown. The UDP and East End Redevelopment Plans planned the Wizer block as a component of a four- block shopping district. The current proposal decreased the amount of retail on that block by 50%. Only 13 % of the square footage was devoted to retail/commercial use. The new proposal reduced the number of underground parking spaces by 60 spaces. There would only be 189 spaces for tenants. The Association anticipated there would be feasibility issues related to the additional 33 spaces on hydraulic lifts and they might not be permitted by the Code. They calculated that the project would be 75 spaces short of what would be required if on-street parking spaces could not be used to supplement the retail parking. The retail component depended upon on-street parking, which as in short supply downtown. The Chamber parking task force found that the parking district around Lakeview Village exceeded 85% occupancy in peak hours. Increased on-street parking would make walking and biking even more dangerous on local streets. Traffic was not supposed to be allowed to exceed the planned capacity of residential streets. A Avenue/State Street was already congested. 1st and 2nd Streets were going to exceed the capacity for local streets. Staff had acknowledged that in their October 8 response to the developer when they suggested discussing possible up-classification of those streets due to traffic levels. Drivers used Evergreen Road to avoid congestion on A Avenue now; project residents would use it too. There had been no traffic study of Evergreen Road or any local street. Block 138 development had been required to do three traffic studies. The Association believed it was likely the projections of net increased traffic were underestimated because it was a driveway count. The applicant had failed to show the new use would not exceed the design capacity of the street system or adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods. The Association concluded that the design was not consistent with village character; the scale and density were not consistent with the precedent set by developments on Block 136 and 138; insufficient downtown parking would likely have a negative impact on business and residential neighborhood; and the implications of increased traffic on local streets had been ignored. They asked the Commission to deny the application. > Jim Bolland, 804 5th Street, Co-Chair of the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition (LONAC) Mr. Bolland read aloud a statement from LONAC indicating they voted almost unanimously to continue to support the Evergreen Neighborhood Association in opposing the application. That was because of the mass and density of the proposed project and because Block 137 was supposed to be a component of a four-block shopping district. It should be principally retail/commercial uses but the applicant proposed 83% residential and 11% retail, which reduced the current amount of retail at Wizer's by over 50%. It was the wrong project for that location, where the Code required it to be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 16 of 19 comparable, compatible or complementary to development on Blocks 136 and 138 and Millennium Park. LONAC was concerned about the damage to traffic movements; retail businesses in Lakeview Village; and the value and redevelopment potential of Blocks 48 and 49. The proposal almost maxed out FAR with huge density of 207 apartments, which would make it difficult for the other property owners to fully redevelop their blocks due to the downtown traffic impacts. Mr. Bolland recounted the history of downtown policy and development starting with the creation of the compact shopping district in the mid-1990's, highlighting that the community had supported a retail district in the core area; Gramor had addressed all concerns before Lakeview Village was approved; Gramor had to revise their Block 136 proposal to fewer residential units (39); the Commission had expressed concern that even 39 was too much density and would have a negative impact on traffic; a proposal for a monolithic apartment building at 2nd/B had been denied because it was not compatible with village character or the surrounding blocks; and, the developer of the 555 2nd Street condo project had been required to break up the mass and put a courtyard in the middle. Mr. Bolland related that during that period `village character'; `groups of small buildings functioning as a village'; and `compact shopping district' were constant standards. He explained the definition `village character' did not appear in the code definitions section because the Code relied on the UDP and the East End Development Plan for its definitions. Mr. Bolland advised that downtown Lake Oswego blocks were much bigger than downtown Portland blocks and the applicant's proposed project would not fit on a Portland block. He indicated the proposed project had the character of an articulated big box. Lakeview Village set the bar for redevelopment in the compact shopping district. The applicant's proposal would negatively reset the bar and approval would be turning their backs on the Code and plan requirements for village character. LONAC asked the Commission to deny the application. Mr. Bolland recalled Mr. Kessi had indicated that Block 137 would complete downtown redevelopment. However, there were still blocks to be redeveloped on the north side of A Avenue. He said Mr. Wizer's inability to bring projects to fruition in the past was no reason to approve something that was not the right fit and did not meet the Code. > Lita Grigg, 321 3rd Street, speaking on behalf of Save Our Village Ms. Grigg related she had founded Save Our Village because of citizens' concerns about the proposed overdevelopment of Block 137. When she lived in California she had personally experienced what could happen to towns that were overbuilt. She stressed the importance of honoring the Code. She noted that `village character' was defined as a community of small scale structures that appeared and operated like a traditional small town. She described the proposed project as massive — not small scale. It did not fit Lake Oswego's town square. City plans said that new or remodeled structures were to be designed to complement Lakeview Village, Oswego Village Townhomes and Millennium Park. This proposal overpowered the neighbors. Developer Barry Cain had to revise his original proposal for Lakeview Village. He returned with a well thought out design which brought to life the blue print of village character as an open cluster of buildings with pedestrian friendly alleys and pathways providing retail access and other opportunities. She noted that Block 137 was one of four blocks where City plans called for a high density, compact, shopping district to serve as the retail core. They said 'no residential on the ground floor' for good reason. The UDP recognized high density residential, but not on those four blocks. The Plan stated that 'a village is often centered on a square or gathering area' which was just what the Farmers' Market and Millennium Park provided. The town square was visited by over 21,000 people attending over 60 events annually, mostly on the weekends. Most renters moved in and out on weekends. The turnover rate was over 50% annually and first year occupancy turnover could be over 100%. That was more than 200 trucks a year which would cause gridlock on 2' Street. She remarked on the number of people, pets, moving trucks, loading and delivery vans, parking issues, noise, etc. She noted that 2nd Street was also the entry for Oswego Village Townhomes. The City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 17 of 19 Comprehensive Plan required negative impacts to be resolved. In this case she did not believe they could be. Ms. Griggs discussed the geotechnical report, noting they were on very unstable soils. She was concerned, as she recalled Mr. Poulson was, that the testing did not go down deep; that they recommended that each of their units be photographed before, during and after construction; and that those decisions should be made before moving forward and approving the project. She indicated she was confused regarding what LORA planned to do on 2nd Street which could impact their nice frontage or damage their townhouses; and regarding how much it would cost as she had heard Mr. Williams mention a cost that was less than the approximately $500,000 he had told the City Council it would cost. She noted the UDP called for meeting the needs and desires of the entire community and enhancing the civic square. Unlike Lakeview Village, which opened its doors and walkways, the proposed large apartment complex did not bring any sense of community. It towered over the square, sitting alone as a private entity. She held that variances and exceptions to the Code should be used sparingly without violating the zoning. The codes were there to preserve and protect the town from just this type of overdevelopment. If they needed amending then there was a process for that. They needed to follow the plan for what their city officials envisioned for our community. They had honored and respected those ideals and the Code in the past. If they ignored their codes and constantly searched for another variance or exception to convince that the project was the right one the town would no longer be special; it would just be another town of many. She said the high density project would undo everything that the City and its citizens had done right to make the town unique and special and it would leave a permanent negative impact on its core long after the developers and their political team had left town. She concluded that this should not be about money, but about doing it right. She asked the Commission to honor the Code and save their village by denying the application > Jerry Good, 312 9th Street Mr. Good related he had submitted written testimony regarding village character. He addressed things he had heard in the testimony based on his experience in the retail business. In regard to vitality, he said when he developed shopping centers the last thing he wanted next to them was a four-story building because it turned people away. He said they were going to wind up with less retail space than they had now, so he did not know how the project would increase the vitality of downtown. He said at an average of two persons per apartment there would be about 400 residents, which was a 1.2% increase in Lake Oswego population. He advised that the four-story building and the construction were going to drive people away from downtown, not bring them there. The people of Lake Oswego were used to the open spaces in downtown now. To put a building of the proposed scale there would be a deterrent, not a draw. It would be just fine in New York City, but not in a small town like Lake Oswego. He recalled hearing people talk about how it would help the local retailers and that they had empty space. He said he did not think the commercial vacancy rate in Lake Oswego was a high percentage. He did not think cutting the available retail space in the Wizer block by half was going to increase the draw of downtown. In fact, he thought that remodeling it and putting some good shops in there would be more of a draw because it had street level parking, vibrant shops, and would not have a four-story building. He said a lot of those who had testified earlier had no real perspective on what vitality, traffic, volume and retail was really all about. Chair Needham announced that the Commission was going to continue the hearing to July 24, 2014, when it would continue hearing testimony. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS None. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 18 of 19 ADJOURNMENT There being no other business Chair Needham adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of July 21, 2014 Page 19 of 19