HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2023-12-18 PM
503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023
The Commissioners convened at 7:02 PM.
Members Present: Chair Randy Arthur, Vice Chair Bruce Poinsette, Dwight Sangrey, John
Dewes, Kristen Bates, Helen Leek, and Russ O’Connor
Members Absent:
Staff Present: Johanna Hastay, Planning Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney;
Evan Fransted, Senior Planner; Erica Rooney, Public Works Director/City
Engineer; and, Kat Kluge, Administrative Assistant
MINUTES
November 20, 2023: There were no revisions noted.
December 4, 2023: There were no revisions noted.
Commissioner Leek moved to approve the Minutes of November 20, 2023, as submitted.
Seconded by Commissioner O’Connor and passed 6:0, with 1 abstention.
Commissioner Leek moved to approve the Minutes of December 4, 2023, as submitted. Seconded
by Commissioner Dewes and passed 6:0, with 1 abstention.
PUBLIC HEARING
LU 23-0002: A request for the approval of:
• Serial lot line adjustments resulting in five (5) residential lots, two of which are flag lots;
• Unavoidable utility (sewer) crossing of a delineated Resource Protection (RP) District (a Class
2 wetland); and,
• Removal of 43 trees.
This site has no Situs - Unaddressed lots are located at corner of Kimball St. and Baleine St. (Tax
References: 21E07CA00100, 21E07CA02902, and 21E07CA03000). The Staff Coordinator is Ellen
Davis, AICP, Senior Planner.
The hearing on this project was continued from November 20, 2023, to allow for additional oral
and written testimony.
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 2 of 12
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process, outlined the
applicable criteria and procedures, and gave instructions for any verbal testimony given. Mr.
Boone indicated that, in regard to LOC 50.07.003.4.a.9.1 and ORS 197.763.6.b, if new evidence
were submitted, any person may request an opportunity to respond in writing to the new
evidence by requesting a continuation of the Public Hearing (following that, there will be no
rebuttal period).
Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or
financial conflicts since the last meeting, except as follows. Commissioner Leek declared that she
had been to the site previously. Chair Arthur declared that he read a piece relating to this issue in
the Lake Oswego Review; however, it would not persuade him one way or the other. All DRC
members present declared that they had no ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest, and no bias.
There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the application.
Staff Report
Johanna Hastay, Planning Manager, added Exhibits G-605 to G-625, in Ms. Davis’s stead. Ms.
Hastay then informed members that an error had been made in the initial staff report regarding
the 120-day deadline; correcting it to December 26, 2023. She relayed that the Applicant had
been made aware. There were no other updates to the staff report.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Sangrey asked what implications there may be with the 120-day deadline. Mr.
Boone answered that there was no implication for DRC members or for the City Council, rather, it
was an option that the Applicant had to transfer t he case to Circuit Court. Ms. Hastay added that
the Applicant had already extended the deadline by 45 days, to address a stormwater issue with
the application.
Chair Arthur requested an explanation of how the Community Development Code (CDC) related
to the City Charter (in regard to the Chapter X argument), or whether it was separate . Mr. Boone
replied that the CDC was separate; explaining that most of the Charter was given to the
organization and powers of the City (e.g., not to what the height shall be in a particular zone). He
pointed to his memo in the staff report, discussing Charter X, Section 46.a, which established a
limitation on the City, to itself or to authorize any person within a residential zone, to construct a
structure greater than 50 feet (this was interpreted to be a land use regulation because it applied
to all properties within the zone). He then stated that LOC Chapter 50 was subject to the adoption
of ordinances by the City Council; acknowledging that the Charter was t he "premier law of the
land," to the extent it was applicable, and that was the issue with Chapter X . Mr. Boone pointed
to LOC 50.07.003.14.d.2.1 being the review criteria for the DRC . Chair Arthur then asked if there
was a provision in the Charter that di rected how different sections were to be interpreted in
relation to each other. Mr. Boone answered that Chapter X had its own provision on how it
should be interpreted (liberally construed to accomplish the purposes held within Chapters 41
through 46). Mr. Boone then explained that the purpose of Chapter X (either to constrain the City
of Lake Oswego in management of its parks, or as a land use regulation to constrain all property
owners, within a residential zone) needed to be interpreted first, in order t o determine how to
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 3 of 12
liberally construe it. In reply to Chair Arthur's next question, Mr. Boone affirmed that members
may consider the headings within Chapter X, but they should look at the text to determine intent.
Applicant Testimony
Bonnie Magdelain, Project Coordinator with Emerio Design, explained that her company was
brought onboard in 2021 (during the annexation) to design and engineer the required sanitary
sewer extension, which had been determined by the City and based on the Wastewater Master
Plan. The extension would go from the existing manhole in West Waluga Park, crossing Inverurie
Road (after exiting the park) to go up the Baleine Street right-of-way (ROW), and then go south
on Kimball Street to the southern property line on the adjacent lot to the annexed property . The
extension would also serve any existing homes on the route not yet connected to City sewer and
any future development (an estimated 60 properties upon completion). Her company was tasked
with designing the extension to align with the recorded covenant, minimizing disturbance to the
RP District wetland, and mitigating, restoring, and enhancing the overall project area. She
informed members about some of the sanitary sewer engineering basics . Alternatives were
investigated, but none were found feasible based on the preferred gravity flow method or on the
installation of a pump station. The temporary access road width was reduced to 17 feet to
minimize tree removal and impact on the wetland. A slide was shown depicting the location of
the current sanitation/utility lines within West Waluga Park . The mitigation plan includes the
removal of invasive species, replanting with 292 native trees and 1,458 shrubs, and
maintenance/monitoring for 3 years after planting.
Ezra Hammer, Attorney with Jordan Ramis and representing the Applicant, thanked everyone for
participating in the public process. He acknowledged the deep civic pride existing in the citizens of
Lake Oswego; opining that there must also be a strong commitment to the rule of law . He relayed
that the Applicant was in the process of adhering to a stringent set of obligations , and that they
were looking to mitigate any impacts to the existing park (to recreate the tree canopy that exists
now). Mr. Hammer reminded members that they did not have general jurisdiction, nor did they
provide a forum for the consideration of every aired grievance, rather, they were tasked with
reviewing and making determinations only on the materials properly brought before them . He
pointed to ORS 227.173, which required that any approval or denial of an application be based
solely on the development criteria contained in the CDC (preventing members from even
weighing whether or not an ordinance or charter section was applicable to the project). He
opined that Chapter X did not contain development criteria applicable to housing (it was not clear
nor objective) and was outside of their purview for consideration. He noted that any objection
should have been raised to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) during the annexation process .
Mr. Hammer extolled the Applicant’s efforts to comply with every recommendation set forth by
the City for the last 3 years. He requested that members reject the appeal and concur with staff’s
recommendations.
Questions of Applicant
Chair Arthur asked for further elaboration regarding the short-term above-ground disturbance.
Ms. Magdelain replied that the disturbance would occur during construction , finding that the
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 4 of 12
easement could be narrowed to a maximum width of 17 feet, thus saving a substantial number of
trees (increasing the root protection zone).
Commissioner Leek inquired whether the construction would occur only during the months of
April to October to further decrease adverse impacts . Ms. Magdelain affirmed that the
Applicant's goal was to complete the project during the summer.
Chair Arthur inquired whether Mr. Hammer felt that the term "all development" (as used in
Chapter X's verbiage) was ambiguous or that it lent itself to an argument that the Charter
somehow influenced or controlled the CDC. With regards to ambiguity, Mr. Hammer answered
that substantial evidence was introduced by City staff regarding what development was or was
not allowed, while the project opponents vehemently disagreed. This disagreement answered the
question of ambiguity, as it was unclear what the limitations were. Taking a step back further, he
stated that they had to look at whether this argument was appropriately before the City, as State
regulations required that members only look at the items in the CDC when reviewing a land use
permit. Mr. Hammer pointed out that the language in Chapter X was not found in the CDC. Chair
Arthur asked if it was the Applicant’s position that the DRC was precluded from doing other than
approving the application because of the Wastewater Management Plan directive and the
annexation that had already taken place, and that the appeal period would have lapsed. Mr.
Hammer affirmed that this was essentially so, as these requirements already existed on the City's
books, and discussion regarding the applicability of Chapter X was for a different time.
Commissioner Leek inquired whether she was incorrect in her review of Cha pter X (remembering
that the drafting had to do with precluding the raising of cellphone towers in City parks); seeing
only the mention of above-ground structures and not of anything below ground. Mr. Hammer
answered that his understanding of Chapter X concurred with Commissioner Leek's.
Public Testimony
In Opposition
Carolyn Krebs (appeared remotely), Board Member of the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association
(LFNA) and speaking on their behalf, 16925 SW Denney Court, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, read parts
of Exhibit G-621 into the record.
Chair Arthur asked for Ms. Krebs to repeat the City Code she mentioned at the beginning. Ms.
Krebs replied that it was LOC 38.04.305. Mr. Boone replied that the memo was written in 2021
and LOC 38 had been revised since then. Ms. Krebs noted that codes typically showed that they
were repealed by an ordinance, but they could find no reference to it. Mr. Boone relayed that he
would continue to research this. Chair Arthur then inquired after LFNA's position regarding Mr.
Hammer's assertion that Chapter X was not applicable since it was not referenced in the CDC. Ms.
Krebs answered that they were not talking about housing in the clear and objective standards,
per se, because this was a utility crossing and a parks development limitation; adding that she
saw the difference there.
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 5 of 12
Commissioner Leek requested further clarification about one of their tenets, which talked about
bringing the sewer extension down Kimball Street (to benefit approximately 60 potential houses)
being a financial burden to individual homeowners; explaining that affordable housing and middle
housing were not tied together. Ms. Krebs stated that it was their understanding that middle
housing was not designed to be placed in Goal 5-oriented locations (i.e., wetlands). Regarding the
sewer extensions, she stated that the LFNA was talking about the affordability of houses, in
general, not about affordable housing. Kate Myers, Chair of the LFNA, 5750 Carman Drive, Lake
Oswego, OR 97035, added the engineering report made it sound as if the cost of the extension of
this line would be borne by all 60 potential new homes; clarifying that they had seen, with prior
sewer extensions, that the homes with immediate access to the line, become part of the zone of
benefit (thus incurring a prorated cost). Mr. Boone indicated that they were getting off topic but
explained that zones of benefit could include any property identified as potentially benefited by
the extension. Going back to the code section in question from earlier, Mr. Boone relayed that
the correct code citation (from the March 2021 memo) was LOC 38.18.305. Erica Rooney, Public
Works Director/City Engineer, explained that zones of benefit applied to the development, its
upstream boundary, and its downstream boundary (anything that could eventually hook into that
same extension line); adding that, for this development, the zone of benefit could include some
current properties on Kimball Street, and that the line was necessary to serve the other 60
upstream properties on Kimball Street (it being a vital connection to serve all of th at area, but not
being a zone of benefit for those additional properties).
James Bolland (appeared remotely), 804 5th Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated that he was a
little confused by the alternatives analysis presented by the Applicant that evening, as they had
not heard this testimony previously, and that the deed covenant specified that no alternatives
could be considered. He opined that the City forced the developer to be the proxy for
constructing this utility, and in doing that, they blocked the ability to propose an alternatives
analysis. He pointed to the annexation hearing held before the City Council on November 2, 2021,
where the question was raised regarding damage to the park, and the answer was that it would
be addressed in the land use hearing. When this question was raised during the November 20,
2023 land use hearing, the answer was that the annexation was a "done deal," thus nothing in
that could be discussed. He opined that, with the deed covenant, the City was trying to avoid the
sensitive lands requirement to avoid the wetland and performing an alternatives analysis . He
then stated that he thought this was egregious, and was an intentional and negligent attempt to
manipulate the City Code to achieve the sewer connection they desperately wanted. He pointed
to the Wastewater Master Plan last being updated in 2013, but there being major changes to
environmental protections and a Charter amendment passed; however, there were still no
amendments made to the Wastewater Master Plan or to the CDC following these (again opining
that this was intentional and negligent). He relayed that the City Manager sent them an email
yesterday which stated that she believed that they needed to take this in front of a judge (based
on this, they are requesting another continuance), as the Charter issue needed to be resolved
outside of this process, possibly resulting in the annulment of the covenant . He requested that
members deny the application until all of the issues could be sorted out in a way that the
community could move forward in concert on this.
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 6 of 12
Chair Arthur requested the citing of the email referenced. Mr. Bolland replied that it was in
evidence, but he did not know the number, and that they would meet in early January to discuss
it. Ms. Hastay informed Chair Arthur that the email was found at Exhibit G -622.
Scott Handley (appeared remotely), Founder of LoveLOParks and cowriter of Chapter X, 18360
SW Delenka Lane, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, read portions of Exhibit G-623 into the record.
Chair Arthur noted that Mr. Handley’s written testimony suggested language that may be added
to the CDC; asking why there was not an effort to also amend the CDC as part of their
park/natural lands preservation efforts. Mr. Handley answered that they did not try to amend the
CDC because Chapter X had been in existence for 43 years as the authority for Springbrook Park,
up until they revised the Chapter (preventing the City from intruding upon the park, as the "law of
the land"). He further explained that they wanted to ensure that they remained in the same
context as what was presented to the voters of 1978 (that the 15 natural areas be maintained as
natural habitats, free from development). He noted that it was written as a Charter to prevent
any future mayor, member of City Council, or City staff from altering it without voter approval.
Betsy Wosko, Member of LoveLOParks, 320 Durham Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, also
answered Chair Arthur’s last question to Mr. Handley by stating that it was the responsibility of
the City Council, not the citizens, to do so. She read the verbiage of Chapter X into the record. She
opined that the plain language of Chapter X was unambiguous and clear, and that installing a 17'-
wide by 500+'-long road for the entrenching of a sewer line would directly violate the letter and
spirit of Chapter X. To the extent that Chapter X did not provide clear and objective criteria, she
opined that it was the obligation of the City to enact ordinances providing the same (having since
November 2, 2021 to enact such but has not done so). She stated that the City could not avoid
application of Chapter X by avoiding enacting ordinances to implement it . She requested that
members take administrative notice of learned studies concluding that they had seen a 30% loss
of songbirds in the last 40 years and a 40% loss in the insect biomass in the last 30 years . She
referenced Mike Kohlhoff's written testimon ies as containing a legal basis for denying the
application.
Chair Arthur inquired what it was, about the installation of the underground sewer line, which
would be more than a minor short-term above-ground disturbance. Ms. Wosko answered that
the sewer line would probably need to be maintained and that the road, itself, would destroy
mature trees (these would take 50 years to grow back) and would be an ongoing scar on the
landscape, and there would be more destruction to the wetlands, to the point. Mr. Boone
indicated that the chapter may be referred to as "Chapter X" or as "Chapter 10," consisting of
Sections 41 through 46, as Section 10 was something different.
Kate Myers, speaking as a resident, 5750 Carman Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, stated that she
always felt that the City was the hands of the people (citizens giving power to the government
through the charter). She shared her confusion over the redacted public files received by one of
her neighbors, as she could find no legal reason, other than potential future litigation, for this to
occur. She noted that the unredacted memo showed inconsistencies in how the wastewater code
was being applied; expressing her concern that the City Attorney's office holding sway over the
process. She opined that if the citizens vote something in, then the City has the affirmative
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 7 of 12
obligation to update any policies, codes, or ordinances needed to resolve any gaps (this omission
should not preclude the voter's voice from being applied). She relayed that she was trying to live
up to her grandfather's example of following processes to create outcomes for the greater good.
Chip Corbett, 1040 Upper Devon Lane, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, stated that the interesting thing
he heard that night was that there were alternatives to driving through the park itself; opining
that members should also be interested in these alternatives . He informed members that he was
an engineer; explaining that a vertical displacement of 6', 7', or 11' could be overcome by su b-
surface submersible pumps (used in the oil industry at depths of 20,000'), which would only
require an electrical connection. He then noted that it would not be unusual to find a sewer pipe
designed to fit within a road surface of a width acceptable for the fire department (his own road
measures 17'-wide). He requested that members consider alternatives to driving through the
middle of a wetlands. He described the relationship between the ash and fir trees (working in
harmony through fungi in the near-surface areas); explaining that if the ash trees were removed,
there would be a negative impact on the fir trees.
Chair Arthur asked if there were limitations, in terms of reliability of electrical supply, with the
submersible pumps. Mr. Corbett affirmed that there were always problems that needed to be
solved but there were many ways to do things to counter any limitation.
Kathy Lundeen, 15825 SW Kimball Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, apologized for not being as
organized during her last testimony. Adding on that testimony, she explained that the neighbors
across from her (and next to the flag lots) had the same type of septic system installed . She
opined that the City boxed the Applicant in by saying that no septic systems would be allowed,
but they should be, in this case. She noted an uncited land use planning law which stated that any
development decision will not negatively affect neighboring properties; pointing to prior
testimony which supported these negative impacts . She indicated that she could find no recourse
offered to offset the expected damage to the wetlands . She requested that more research be
done, and more careful consideration be given to the neighborhood.
Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Hammer requested that the slide depicting the existing sewer lines within West Waluga Park
be reshown. He countered concerns by stating that: no road remained within the park to service
the existing sewer lines (the proposed construction access will be replanted with shrubs in the
middle and trees on each side); the Applicant, on their own accord and at the behest of
neighbors, performed an alternatives analysis, even though the City had been clear about the
expectations from the start; and the purpose of this process was to allow for the future
development of single-family homes on these lots, to show that the homes will not impinge upon
the wetlands (clear and objective criteria would apply). Ms. Magdelain added that it was there
intent to restore the natural beauty of the area.
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 8 of 12
Questions of Applicant
Commissioner Bates asked how the 17' swath would be maintained. Ms. Magdelain answered
that it would be temporary access, with erosion control measures in place; adding that the shrubs
would be maintained for 3 years (pointing to the mitigation plan slide). Commissioner Leek
shared that things grow back in her own experience. Mr. Boone instructed Commissioner Leek to
wait to comment until deliberations. Mr. Hammer added that the overhead view showed that a
tree canopy could be seen over the existing sewer lines in the park . Ms. Magdelain relayed that
the mitigation planting was exponentially more than what was being removed.
Deliberations
Mr. Boone asked if anyone requested the opportunity to present written evidence to respond to
new evidence presented after November 20, 2023 (the record would remain open for 7 days).
Kate Myers, on behalf of LFNA, requested a continuance. Ms. Hastay relayed that written
testimony would be received through 5:00 PM on December 26, 2023, due to the holiday. Mr.
Boone indicated that the hearing will be continued to Wednesday, January 3, 2024, also due to a
holiday. Mr. Boone informed the Applicant that they may provide a final written argument by
5:00 PM on January 2, 2024.
Chair Arthur closed the public hearing, then called for a recess at 9:12 PM and reconvened the
meeting at 9:20 PM.
*************
LU 23-0040: A request for modifications to an approved Development Review permit (LU 21 -
0036) and Design Variances to maximum floor area and parking dimensions for the hotel building.
This site is located at 500 1st Street (Tax Reference: 21E03DD01200). The Staff Coordinator is Evan
Fransted, AICP, Senior Planner.
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, gave an overview of the public hearing process, outlined the
applicable criteria and procedures, and gave instructions for any verbal testimony given.
Mr. Boone asked DRC members to declare any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases, or
financial conflicts. All DRC members present declared that they had no ex parte contacts, conflicts
of interest, and no bias, except as follows. Chair Arthur declared that he ran a conflicts check
through his firm and found that there were one or more open items where Kittleson & Associates
was identified as a client of the firm ; however, he was no longer a shareholder in the firm, nor did
he work on those matters (knowing nothing about them nor receiving any monetary benefit from
them). All members indicated that they were familiar with the site but had not made a specific
site visit. There were no challenges to the Commissioners’ rights to consider the application.
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 9 of 12
Staff Report
Evan Fransted, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
The site is located on the corner of B Avenue and 1st Street. It is zoned East End Commercial (EC)
and is located in the Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRDD). This application pertains
only to Parcel A of the entire site. The proposed modifications to the public improvement plan
include the incorporation of an egress stairwell into the southwest corner of the building,
resulting in an increased setback along the west lot line (approximately 8'); a change in location of
2 bicycle parking spaces along 1st Street; moving a transformer from an inside vault to inside a
parking garage, the installation of a new spa area and restaurant (in the new level 1.5); modifying
the parking spaces to a 2-tier stacker (changing the number of interior spaces to 41 and 11 on-
street spaces). The Land Conservation Development Commission (LCDC) rule was applied as
access to public transit is less than 0.5 miles from TriMet bus line #35. Staff finds that the parking
requirements are met, as the LCDC rule supersedes the City's rules.
Each level will see an increase in the number of available hotel rooms. Artistic renderings and
elevations were shown. The new proposal includes 4 updated storefront windows . The design
modifications maintain the approved design from LU 21-0036. The Applicant proposes to adjust
the total height from 59.93' to 60' (this complies with the maximum height allowed in the DRDD
zone. The proposed modification decreases the façade by 8' by pushing the wall away from the
alley. This results in an increase to the window glazing, from 38% to 82.6% along B Avenue and in
an elimination of the previously approved design variance. The amount of ground landscaping will
increase from 1,647.4 square-feet to 1,850 square -feet. Overall, staff finds that the proposed
modifications comply with the DRDD overlay design standards.
Staff finds that the original design variance criteria are still met . The 2 new variances request an
increase in overall floor area from 50,211 square-feet to 51,200 square-feet (989 square-feet
increase in total) and to reduce the parking aisle travel width from 24' to 20'. Staff finds that both
new variances comply with the applicable design variance criteria.
In conclusion, staff recommends approval of LU 23-0040, subject to the recommended
conditions.
Questions of Staff
None
Applicant Testimony
Jennifer Dzienis, Project Manager with Hacker Architects , updated members on changes made to
the project and design teams. She briefly summarized the proposed changes and the items
remaining the same. She explained that they wanted to maintain the functionality of the building,
as raised by the neighborhood association (i.e., passenger loading area and parking lot entrance).
Additional design features were added to the open porch area. The parking stackers will be
operated by valets hired and tra ined by the hotel. Amenities will be consolidated to the lower
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 10 of 12
floors and additional rooms will be added on Level 2 in their stead. The roof deck will be
maintained as an additional public amenity. There will be no changes to the outer design
elements/materials. The west façade contains the most visible changes.
Questions of Applicant
Chair Arthur asked if reducing the number of parking stalls would help support the viability of the
hotel project. Ms. Dzienis replied that they performed a study of comparable hotels, which
showed the number needed for daily use, and within the footprint of the site (using the
mechanical parking). She added that they made private agreements with adjacent businesses to
utilize additional parking, if needed.
Commissioner O'Connor inquired how parking for the hotel staff would be addressed. Ms. Dzienis
answered that staff would need to find parking in the area or they could park in the garage .
Commissioner O'Connor asked how many staff would be hired, as this would be a key component
to the parking needs. Ms. Dzienis replied that she did not know but the hotel operator may be
able to answer the question; adding that the study included the full function of the hotel, not just
the guests.
Commissioner Leek asked if the num ber of parking spaces were regulated by state law and that
they could not mandate more than a certain amount. Ms. Hastay affirmed that this was correct,
and that there were no state minimum requirements for this site.
Public Testimony
In Favor
Carole Ockert, Land Use Liaison for the First Addition Neighbors/Forest Hills Neighborhood
Association (FAN/FHNA), 910 Cumberland Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, pointed to the
increased momentum seen in the revitalization of the downtown corridor. She shared their
appreciation for the Urban Development Partner team, and how they worked with FAN/FHNA
throughout the process (concerns over parking). Following a neighborhood meeting, FAN/FHNA
gave its support for the renovations before members that evening . She acknowledged that all
neighbors wished to see a good flow in traffic on B Avenue, and also wished to see that the alley
remain clear from obstructions (citing staff's verbiage regarding signage to be placed in the alley
and on B Avenue). She called attention to the road improvements still needed on B Avenue.
Questions of Applicant
Commissioner Leek asked if parking would be an additional charge or included in the room rate.
Jennifer Grosclaude, representing Columbia Hospitality, answered that there would be a charge
for parking, in addition to the room rate. Commissioner Leek then asked for confirmation that the
hotel guest may choose to park on the street. Ms. Grosclaude affirmed that guests may so
choose.
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 11 of 12
Chair Arthur inquired whether the operator was satisfied that the reduction in parking, with the
increase in hotel rooms, was sufficient. Ms. Grossklaud answered that they were satisfied,
following the studies done of comparable properties owned by the company.
Commissioner Sangrey asked if they could speak to the arrangements made with nearby
businesses to utilize additional parking. Eric Cress, Partner with Urban Development Partners,
replied that they had discussed the issue with several area businesses, who indicated that they
would be interested in a shared parking agreement; explaining that optimal occupancy for the
hotel was 75% and that for 80% of the time, the parking would be more than adequate . He then
relayed that parking needs may spike on the weekends or over various holidays, and that parking
for office buildings may not be used over those same days . Ms. Hastay clarified that these would
be private parking agreements, not subject to review or enforcement by the City.
Deliberations
Mr. Boone asked if anyone wished to submit additional new testimony or if the Applicant wished
to submit a final written argument. No such requests were made. Mr. Boone instructed Chair
Arthur to proceed to deliberations.
Commissioner O'Connor stated that he was pleased that the project team and the neighborhood
association worked closely together, for their mutual benefit.
Chair Arthur agreed and noted that he appreciated Ms. Ockert's participation in the project.
Vice Chair Poinsette moved to approve LU 23-0040, with staff’s conditions. Seconded by
Commissioner Bates and passed 7:0. Mr. Boone instructed staff to return the Draft Findings,
Conclusion, and Order on Wednesday, January 3, 2024, at 7:00 PM.
SCHEDULE REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT UPDATE
Ms. Hastay informed members that: AP 499-23-001116 TREE had been appealed and would likely
go before the City Council in February; the new Council liaison will be Councilor Rapf; and
elections will need to be held again on January 3, 2023 (both Chair Arthur and Vice Chair
Poinsette were eligible to reapply for these pos itions).
Ms. Hastay then updated DRC members on upcoming meeting s:
January 3, 2024 has the adoption of Findings for LU 23-0040 and Continuation of LU 23-0002.
January 11, 2024 has the Annual Boards and Commissions Summit meeting at 6:00 PM, at the
Adult Community Center.
January 22, 2024 has the Planning Commission joint session to review the Urban Community and
Forestry Plan draft update, at 6:30 PM, in the City Council chambers (members may request to
attend via Zoom).
Development Review Commission Minutes
December 18, 2023 Page 12 of 12
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Arthur adjourned the meeting at 10:16 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Kat Kluge, Administrative Support