Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2014-01-22 t. 0 APO° P" " CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO mgousi) Development Review Commission Minutes January 22, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Don Richards called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. ROLL CALL Members present: Chair Don Richards, Vice-Chair Gregg Creighton, Brent Ahrend, Ann Johnson, Bob Needham and David Poulson. Frank Rossi was not present. Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Erica Rooney, Assistant City Engineer; Amanda Owings, Traffic Engineer; Todd Knepper, Engineering Department; Brant Williams, Redevelopment Director; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Reynolds, Administrative Support MINUTES None. FINDINGS LU 13-0043: Request to develop a Goodwill Donation Center and a retail commercial building at 17150 Boones Ferry Road. Vice-Chair Creighton moved to approve LU 13-0043-1829 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. PUBLIC HEARING LU 13-0046: A request by Evergreen Group, LLC, for approval of a Development Review Permit to construct a mixed-use project, including up to 228 residential units and 28,000 square feet of commercial use in three buildings, with the following exceptions to the Community Development Code standards: • Residential uses on the ground floor in EC zone [LOC 50.03.003.1.e.ii] • Fifth floor on a portion of each of the three buildings [LOC 50.05.004.5.d] • Reduction in the amount of storefront glazing [LOC 50.05.004.6.b.i] • Retail parking entrance on 1st Street [LOC 50.05.004.10.b] • Shared private/public parking provided on-site [LOC 50.06.002] The applicant also requested approval of two Minor Variances to the length and maximum grade of a driveway landing area per LOC 50.06.003.2; and, the removal of 25 trees to accommodate the project. The site is located at: 140 A Avenue, Tax Lot 08300 of Tax Map 21E 03DD. Planning Department case file (including reports and exhibits): htto://www.ci.osweao.or.us/plannina/lu-13- 0046-request-development-review-perm it-construct-mixed-use-oroiect Chair Richards opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. On behalf of the Commissioners Mr. Boone made a general declaration of ex parte City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 1 of 30 contact in regard to communications staff had compiled in Exhibits H-1 (letters to the City prior to determination that the application was complete); H-2 (Lake Oswego Review and Oregonian newspaper articles); and H-3 (published letters to the editors of the newspapers). He advised that the communications in those exhibits were not part of the public record to be considered by the DRC. Declarations were that Mr. Poulson (principal engineer/office manager of an engineering firm) related that he had tried to avoid reading some signs around town and he owned rental units in the First Addition neighborhood. Mr. Needham (retired lawyer), Mr. Ahrend (traffic engineer), Vice-Chair Creighton (licensed architect), and Chair Richards (landscape architect/certified arborist) each reported a site visit. Ms. Johnson (retired housing manager) related she was familiar with the site. Vice-Chair Creighton reported that he had declined to discuss the application when someone with offices in the Wizer block brought it up. Mr. Ahrend reported that persons in his office had been hired to review the application for one of the neighbors, and that he would consider their testimony the same as he would anyone else's testimony. No one challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Staff Report Ms. Hamilton reported the 2.45-acre site was zoned East End Commercial (EC). The site featured an existing, circa 1960s, shopping center which would be demolished. The existing development was about 72,000 s.f. of retail, 171 onsite parking spaces, 55 trees, and nine driveways. The proposed site plan showed three separate buildings: Buildings A (along A Avenue) and C (along 1st Street) were mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail and residential above. Building B (along 2nd Street) was entirely residential. The specimen maple tree on the northeast corner of the site would be preserved in a planter in a small plaza. Two pedestrian walkways were proposed that went east/west and north/south. The applicant proposed to develop 28,000 s.f. of retail; up to 228 residential units (the current plan showed 217 units); 457 underground parking spaces in two separate underground parking areas; and 32 parking spaces along the site frontages. The retail parking entrance was on 1st Street, while the residential parking entrance was on 2nd Street. Staff reported the applicant was asking for five exceptions. She noted that Lakeview Village project had received eleven exceptions, while Block 136 and the Banner Bank received six and three exceptions, respectively. The exceptions and the minor variance the applicant was asking for were related to the following: • Location of ground floor residential • Five stories on a portion of each building • Width and height of storefront glazing • Retail parking entrance on 1St Street • Public parking provided on site • Driveway design standards (Minor variance) Ms. Hamilton advised that all of the proposed uses were permitted outright in the EC Zone. She clarified that the Code did not distinguish between rental and owner occupied units. The proposed uses include: • 28,000 s.f. of retail (including 9,300 s.f. of restaurants and 19,000 s.f. of specialty retail) • Up to 228 residential units • 457 underground parking stalls (322 residential/135 retail) She reported that staff had concluded that all EC Zone dimensional standards were met and the landscaping standard was exceeded. The site was not subject to any setback requirements; however, the applicant had designed in setbacks by configuring buildings that stepped in and out City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 2 of 30 from the property line and a plaza area around the specimen maple tree. All three buildings were under the zone's 60' height limit. Building A ranged from 47' to 52'. Building B from 55' to 58', and Building C was 51' to 54'. The zone allowed up to 100% lot coverage and this project was about 70% coverage. The zone set the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) at 3:1. The proposed project's FAR was about 2.98:1. The zone required 15% landscaping for mixed-use projects. The proposed project had 21% landscaping. Ms. Hamilton discussed the building design requirements of the Code which prescribe the project to use Lake Oswego style. Lake Oswego style was defined in LOC 50.10.003: A building design that borrows from the City's historic architectural traditions including Arts and Crafts, English Tudor and the Oregon Rustic styles. Buildings which use complex massing, asymmetrical composition and natural materials exemplify this style. Adherence to the "Lake Oswego Style"is not intended to require historic replication. Modern design interpreting, quoting or utilizing the above noted stylistic forms are also encompassed within the definition. An appendix in the Code identified characteristic elements of each of the prescribed styles. Many characteristics, such as gabled roofs and prominent chimneys and dormers, were common to more than one style. She pointed out the Code did not require historic replication and it allowed modern interpretation. Staff found that the three proposed buildings incorporated classic elements from each of the styles, rendered in a streamline form. Ms. Hamilton reported that some were questioning the Code allowance for a fourth floor. She advised the applicant did not need an exception to have a fourth floor. The Code allowed it if one or more of the following conditions were met. All proposed fourth and fifth floors were residential use and met one or more of the following conditions. • Residential use contained within a gable or hipped roof; or, • Sloping site, with three or fewer stories on uphill side; or, • 4th floor significantly stepped back; or, • Design elements break up the building mass, create visual interest, hide mechanical units, and define a function. Ms. Hamilton discussed each building, referring to the renderings. Building A — Oregon Rustic. There were elements of Oregon Rustic style: intersecting gables, double stacked dormers in the roof, multi-pane windows, asymmetrical composition, and offset, prominent chimneys. The first floor was commercial and the other three floors were residential. The fourth story residential level was contained within the gable roof and significantly stepped back. There were six plane changes along A Avenue. The materials were natural and substantial: basalt planters, textured natural stone foundation, brick on the gables that ran all the way to the top, and horizontal siding and wood panels. There were balconies, dormer windows and chimneys on the residential levels, Building B—Arts and Crafts. This building faced two streets: 1st Street and Evergreen Road. The characteristics of Arts and Crafts were the complex, intersecting, pitched roofs that broke the massing into smaller-scale forms; asymmetrical composition; generally rectangular shape with offset chimneys; dormers on the 4th and 5th floors; and brick and horizontal siding used in combination. The upper stories were set significantly back from the façade (the fourth floor was stepped back 5' and the fifth another 5'). The conservatory was in the fifth floor in the Evergreen gable. The fourth and fifth stories were contained within the gables and each of those floors City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 3 of 30 stepped back. Materials included a red brick base, lap siding, wood panels, and numerous windows on the upper floors. The residential components included balconies, dormer windows, and masonry chimneys. The residential entries on the ground floor were recessed to be similar to the townhomes across the street. Staff referenced a vertical cross section showing how the floors related to each other. She pointed out the fourth floor was stepped back 5' from the wall plane of the first three floors, and the majority of the fifth floor was stepped back 5' from the fourth floor. Building C— English Tudor. This building had prominent stucco gables that broke the mass into smaller scales. The gables were symmetrical; there was asymmetry within the window patterns and gables; there were offset chimneys; and there was a classic Arts and Crafts combination of brick and stucco. The materials would be dark red and warm brown brick; lap siding; and board and batten siding on upper floors. Horizontal and vertical trim elements on the stucco created a shadow line that was suggestive of half-timbering. Balconies, dormers and masonry chimneys defined the residential levels. Staff pointed out the ground floor was commercial, there were two residential floors above it and then the fourth floor stepped back between 4' and 9' depending on the unit. Staff recommended a condition of approval that would improve the relationship between the proposed stark white stucco gables and very dark base: integrate the base and gables; reposition some of the base elements; and use a softer stucco color. Ms. Hamilton discussed how the proposed design related to the following standards for corners: • Create strong building edges • Complement other corner buildings by creating similar focal points such as entries, towers, material or window alignments Roundabout Corner- 1st Street/Evergreen Road. Staff compared drawings of this corner of Building C with the southwest corner of Lakeview Village. They recommended a condition of approval to modify the eave line so that it was a more similar to Lakeview Village's longer eaves that dipped down a bit. 2nd Street/Evergreen Corner. Staff compared this corner of Building B with the Block 136 townhomes. Ground floor entries on both buildings were recessed. They both featured a strong brick base transitioning to lap siding on upper floors. They each had numerous multi-paned windows. Illustrations showed the relationship of the eave lines of the buildings. The fourth and fifth stories of the proposed building were stepped back and moved away from the existing townhomes on the corner. Ms. Hamilton discussed the landscaping. The proposed 21% landscaping exceeded the 15% code requirement. She pointed out the courtyards with Japanese maples; walkways lined with planters; and Arts and Crafts and English Tudor-like fencing. She noted the proposed landscaping materials were high quality in product and design and the design utilized complementary colors, materials and textures. Landscaping would be used as a buffer between the sidewalk and ground floor residential units. Staff reported a number of comments had been received regarding traffic. The two applicable measurements were Level of Service (LOS) and the volume to capacity ratio (a state standard) at the A and B Avenue intersections with Highway 43. The standards called for the following: Assure the functioning of the adjacent street system within Service Level "E"or volumelcapacity less than 1.1 during p.m. peak hour(4:40— 5:40 p.m.) The traffic report analyzed six intersections and one driveway entrance under the following conditions: 2014 existing traffic; 2016 background traffic (including with the existing Wizer City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 4 of 30 development); and 2016 projected traffic with the proposed development. She compared the proposed development with the existing development. It had about a third of the existing retail and all of the new residential units. She clarified that the analysis used the worst case scenario, including apartment-use parking generation rather than a mid-rise rate. A table in the report showed the existing LOS for the intersections ranged from LOS A to C. With the project, the LOS would continue to range from LOS A to C and the volume/capacity ratios were still under the 1.1 state standards. The report showed there would be 185 net new trips during the PM Peak Hour and 90 more trips at the site driveways. The Six-Corners intersection had also been analyzed. No mitigation was recommended at that intersection for two reasons: the 25 additional cars the proposed project would send through it during PM Peak would not change its existing LOS F; and the Transportation System Plan already anticipated a project for that intersection. Staff reported that there had been a lot of comments about parking. The retail and residential uses would have separate parking garages. Residential parking rates were based on unit size (number of bedrooms). The applicant had excess spaces to use if unit sizes changed. The applicant proposed the following: • 489 parking spaces (373 spaces were required) • Retail: 167 spaces (31 spaces, or 22% more than required) • Residential 322 spaces (85 spaces, or 35% more than required) • Bicycle parking: 74 spaces (67 required) Ms. Hamilton discussed the requested Downtown Redevelopment Design District Standards (DRDD) exceptions. There were three criteria for an exception related to site characteristics, compatibility with a structure that was not in a Lake Oswego style, and exceptions related to the design. The latter was the one that was applicable to this application: Applicant demonstrates that the alternative design accomplishes the purpose of the Urban Design Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to the (excepted) standard. Exception: Residential Units on Ground Floor. Staff pointed out an area marked in red on the site plan where the EC zone did not allow residential use on the ground floor, but the applicant was asking for an exception. Staff found having residential there would provide a softer transition from the existing residential uses on Block 136; and that retail uses in the middle of the block would not be very good retail spaces due to the grade change, limited parking, and lack of adjacent retail. Exception: Five Stories on a Portion of each Building. Ms. Hamilton advised the proposed fifth floors met the conditions for a fourth floor regarding a step-back and containing residential uses within a hipped or gabled roof. Only 15 residential units were proposed in the fifth floor and the majority of those units were along interior walkways. No height exception was necessary. Staff referred to the building elevations and pointed out the locations of fifth floor residential on each of the three buildings. Exception: Storefront Glazing. The applicant was asking for exception to the following standards: • 80% of the width of a storefront must have display windows and entry features • Window base must be between 12"-30" above sidewalk. Staff reported that Building A met the 80% standard. Building C had three different facades and none of them met the standard completely. The retail garage entrance was not counted as glazing, but if it were counted that storefront would come close to meeting the 80%. Staff had calculated that if the 6' to 8' wide bricked panels under each of the gable ends on that façade were reduced to about 2' wide it would meet the 80% standard. However, that would not be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 5 of 30 proportional to the style. Building A windows along 2nd Street did not meet the height-above- sidewalk standard where the grade dropped going toward Evergreen. Staff found that allowing a higher windowsill there allowed a retail floor at a constant elevation and de-emphasized retail on 2nd Street at the transition to residential in the development and on Block 136. Staff supported this exception. Exception: Parking Entrance on 1st Street. Ms. Hamilton advised 1st Street was considered a primary pedestrian way where parking entrances were discouraged. Staff supported this exception for the following reasons: The applicant proposed to consolidate four existing driveways into one. All of the retail parking was provided on 1st Street, which moved it away from the residential neighborhoods. The access was roughly aligned with the Lakeview Village garage entrance. The Engineering staff reported it would not create conflicting movements with the existing movements to that garage. There were reasons not to provide retail access on the other streets: Direct access was prohibited along A Avenue. There was a grade change, narrow width and proximity to residential on Evergreen. Staff reported there were bollards and significant material changes to alert pedestrians there was a driveway. Exception: Public Parking Provided On-Site. Ms. Hamilton clarified this exception applied only to the retail parking. The project provided 22% more retail parking than the Code required. A portion of it would be made available for public parking. 48 spaces would be dedicated to the retail tenants, patrons and employees during weekday hours. That was similar to the arrangement that had been approved for Lakeview Village, which had worked well. Peak usage hours differed for retail and restaurant uses so the parking should be able to accommodate the proposed uses. Retail parking would be leased to the City and the retail owner would manage and maintain it. Because many of the concepts of the Urban Design Plan (UDP) applied to the exceptions, Ms. Hamilton discussed the five exceptions as a group. They met the following UDP objectives: • Create a high density shopping district. • Create a pedestrian network that structures retail core through connections of parking, retail and civic places. • Create high density housing to provide greater intensity of uses. • Reinforce vehicle-oriented commercial opportunities for businesses that can co-exist with the compact retail core. The proposed plan met identified Urban Design Plan Principles: • Establish continuous pedestrian systems through and by developments. The pedestrian walkways opened up the site. • Create a lively and attractive urban experience by increasing the density and mix of uses, integrating uses vertically and horizontally. • Integrate parking with development and consolidate parking for individual uses in parking structures The proposed plan met the following UDP Concepts: • Create special pedestrian ways, similar to alleys and connecting elements, landscaping and features. • Place high density multi-family housing on upper floors of shopping district buildings to add activity to the core area. Minor variance to landing area and grade. Ms. Hamilton clarified the variance request was only for the retail driveway. A similar variance in regard to the residential entrance was not necessary because it had a 25' landing area with a grade of less than 5%. Applicable standards were: City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 6 of 30 • A 25' landing area so cars could come up and stop before proceeding into the public right-of- way. • A grade of 5% or less. Criteria for a Minor variance were: • Not detrimental to public health/safety or materially injurious to properties within 300 feet. • Not adversely affect existing physical or natural systems such as traffic, drainage, sensitive lands, historic resources or parks. Ms. Hamilton reported the proposed retail driveway design showed a 13.5' landing area at a 5% slope that transitioned to a grade break of about 14% for the remainder of the driveway. Staff advised it would make the driveway safer to provide a vertical curve at the break rather than the grade break. The Fire Marshal and the Building Official had determined that the variance would not violate any building or fire code standards. It was not detrimental to public health and safety. The variance affected internal driveways and did not require alterations to footprint or height, location or access points. There were no historic resources or sensitive lands on the site. The project met all drainage standards. Staff found the standards were met and recommended approval of the Minor Variance. In regard to streets and sidewalks staff advised the frontages on A Avenue, 1st Street and Evergreen Road were constructed at or near current city standards, so no additional improvements on them were required except replacement and repair as necessary for construction. There would be a new sidewalk and planting strip along 2nd Street. Reconstruction would be coordinated with frontage improvements connected with a LORA project that would correct the substandard slope on 2nd Street. There were 55 trees on site and in the right-of-way. The applicant proposed to remove 9 of the 10 on-site trees and preserve the specimen maple tree at the northeast corner in a basalt planter. They would replace trees on 2nd Street. They would have Japanese maple and Japanese snowball along the interior walkways. They did not propose to remove the street trees along Evergreen. Ms. Hamilton reported that staff recommended approval of the proposed development subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Questions of Staff Vice-Chair Creighton asked what determined a significantly stepped-back fourth floor. Ms. Hamilton recalled in other developments staff had found it was five feet. Vice-Chair Creighton referred to a drawing showing the Five Spice building and the proposed building at the roundabout corner. He noted one corner was two stories and the other corner was four stories, but they did not look that much different. He asked if the scale was correct. Ms. Hamilton confirmed it was. Vice-Chair Creighton asked if it was different floor-to-floor heights on the structures that created that impression. Ms. Hamilton did not have those measurements and suggested he ask the applicant. Ms. Hamilton confirmed that the courtyard that Building B was wrapped around was private and it would be gated off at the pedestrian walkway. She clarified that other areas of the walkways were proposed to be open, with no gates. The east/west walkway was in a public easement but the north/south walkway was not. Vice-Chair Creighton wanted more information regarding what the 'half units' on Building B were. Ms. Hamilton related that staff had not checked the floor plans to determine that. The applicant could explain how that would work internally. Chair Richards asked if the Code considered a 'gable roof' and a 'flat-topped gable roof' to be the same thing. He recalled one of the requirements was a gable roof and the applicant had called out a 'flat topped gable roof' on two of the buildings. Ms. Hamilton clarified that both were considered City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 7 of 30 gables. She clarified for Chair Richards that street trees were not counted towards the tree mitigation requirement of the Tree Code. Chair Richards asked if the traffic report addressed how traffic would be handled along Evergreen and 1St Street during the Farmers' Market. Ms. Hamilton confirmed the report had briefly touched on that and it had some recommendations for how to handle traffic in those situations. Chair Richards asked for clarification regarding where the fourth and fifth floor step backs were measured from. Ms. Hamilton clarified she was measuring from wall plane to wall plane. He asked if the proposed street parking on 1St Street would be designated for Block 137 patrons and if those spaces would be timed or just public parking. She replied they were just public parking spaces. Chair Richards asked if there was a requirement for multi-family residents to rent the top floors or could those units be rented by individuals who just wanted larger units. Ms. Hamilton advised that the City had no control over that. Chair Richards referred to the shading study in Exhibit E-31 (pages 53 and 57) and asked what time of day the graphics on pages 53 and 57 represented. Ms. Hamilton noticed the date/time labels that were on the original submittal were not on the copies. She recalled they showed the winter and summer solstices at three different times she thought were 9, 12 and 3. Ms. Hamilton clarified for Mr. Needham that the Code did not distinguish between a gabled and flat roof. Appendix A, which detailed the characteristics of the three styles, showed different types of gables which were hipped, clipped, and flat. Mr. Needham indicated that all of the pictures he saw they showed roofs that had a ridgeline; however, the proposed three buildings did not have ridgelines and they were all flat on the top. Mr. Poulson referred to the queuing analysis in the traffic study (Exhibit F-3, page 25, or page 205 of the bound hearing packet): • A Avenue's westbound left-turn lanes at 1st and 2nd Street have calculated 95th-percentile queues less than the available left-turn lane storage. • A Avenue's westbound through lane queues approaching 1st Street have calculated 95th-percentile queues that will not reach back to State Street. • A Avenue's eastbound left-turn and right-turn calculated 95th-percentile queue lengths are already greater than the available lane storage without the influence of Block 137's redevelopment, but are not expected to increase. • State Street's calculated 95th-percentile southbound through queue length will not increase after Block 137 redevelops. However, the 95th-percentile queue will be greater than the distance to the adjacent intersection at B Street. Queues in the two southbound through lanes are calculated to be 9 car lengths longer than the distance between A and B avenues. Because of these p.m. peak hour conditions southbound drivers destined for Block 137 could choose to use B Avenue, 1st Street and 2nd Street instead of A Avenue. • State Street's exclusive northbound left-turn is already unable to accommodate the demand even without the influence of Block 137's redevelopment. The 95th-percentile queue length is calculated to increase by one car length after Block 137 redevelops. That increased queue will be accommodated in the adjacent northbound through-left combination lane. He inquired if staff had taken a really good look at the queuing analysis because he thought it would probably be necessary to coordinate between signals at 1St/A; State/A; and State/B. The traffic report indicated those that were critical, even without the development. Ms. Rooney (Assistant City Engineer) confirmed that staff had looked at that the analysis and the recommendations in the study. They would be talking with the applicant in more detail about City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 8 of 30 them. Mr. Poulson asked if staff had also looked at the Six-Corners intersection. Ms. Rooney confirmed they had been aware of that intersection for many years because it was very problematic and the solutions were not very simple. There was a related project in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. It was currently an unfunded project because of the magnitude of the cost and the impacts on adjacent properties. Mr. Poulson noted the traffic report said it was an LOS F intersection, which metered out cars slower and actually reduced the trips that accessed down A Avenue. He wanted to know if the traffic issue would be even greater after that situation was improved. Ms. Rooney said that would be part of the analysis. If they fixed Six-Corners they still had the stop control at 10th/A which was another metering point. She advised that both of those intersections would have to be addressed simultaneously. Mr. Poulson noted the applicant had not addressed water pressure for up to five floors. He asked if staff had looked at that. Ms. Rooney advised they did not have a water pressure problem right now. When they came in with their calculations they would have to determine that. She did not know what their plans were for their water system. Mr. Poulson asked if staff had looked at any issues related to the sewer treatment plant. Ms. Rooney advised there would not be impact to the plant, but there might be localized impacts. There were recommended conditions related to that. Mr. Poulson talked about the retail parking entrance. He noted it went from 5% to 14%. The way he calculated it they would have to have a vertical curve where the maximum length would be about 27' because there was only 13.5' that was at 5%. When they put a vertical curve in there would be no point along the curve that was at 5% - it would be greater than 5%. He asked if staff had looked at the driver's sight line perspective coming up the driveway. He was concerned when they reached the edge of the building where the pedestrian way was their eyes would be looking up and they would not be able to see a pedestrian walking across. Ms. Rooney said staff was still working out the details with the applicant regarding what the final vertical curve would be. She confirmed they believed the grade break was too great. They would prefer that the applicant implemented a vertical curve in the design instead of the grade break they were showing right now. A vertical curve would still require the variance. Mr. Ahrend referred to the queuing analysis in the traffic study. He noted it talked about coordinating State/1St signals to better manage flow. It talked about each individual intersection. He asked if staff had asked the applicant to do a simulation to review queuing and signal operations. He noted sometimes traffic backed up from one intersection to the next. He said he was also concerned about variable phasing and left turns on State and A. The proposed development would be adding more traffic there. Ms. Owings related that the City had been talking about doing a simulation of the signals prior to this application. The trouble was that ODOT and the City had different systems for coordinating their signals. Modeling would be difficult until they were both using the same system. For that reason staff had not asked the applicant to do a simulation. Mr. Ahrend questioned why some of the existing volume counts did not match the volumes used in the figures and capacity calculations. He indicated he was concerned the applicant assumed standard trip generation pass-by rates which he thought made sense for a suburban pass-by facility, but not the proposed project, which he saw as more of a destination. He was also concerned about the applicant's assumption of internal trips. He inquired what methodology they used. Ms. Owning responded to the question about matching trip numbers. The counts were from two different studies and because the time periods were fairly close staff accepted the counts so the applicant would not have to go out and recount at certain intersections. Mr. Ahrend then observed that Figure 21 on page 234 showed TSP volume numbers and said he now understood where they got the numbers. Ms. Owings recalled Mr. Ahrend's question about pass-by trips and internal trips. She confirmed those were based on national standard, ITE numbers. Mr. Ahrend City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 9 of 30 related that he questioned whether applying a standard ITE rate was appropriate for the development's uses because he thought it was more of a destination than a stop for someone on their way home. He planned to talk with the engineer who did the study about that; about the internal capture trips numbers; and about how many trips were added to each intersection. He asked if there was a requirement for motorcycle parking. Ms. Hamilton clarified there was none. Ms. Hamilton clarified for Mr. Ahrend that the conservatory was on a fifth floor of Building B. Mr. Ahrend indicated he was concerned that it would seem like six floors from the perspective of someone standing on the sidewalk and looking up at the units. He referred to the building elevations in Exhibit E-9 on page 15 of the bound hearing packet. He pointed to the profile of the corner of the building at 2nd/Evergreen. There were entrances to the residential uses there (the site plan indicated it was the P1 level), so there were five floors and then the conservatory was one floor above the fifth floor on the rest of that building. Applicant Pat Kessi, Evergreen Group, LLC, and PHK Development, 3330 Northwest Yeon, Ste. 210, Portland, Oregon, 97210; and David Staczek, ZGF Architects LLP, 3650 SE Rural St., 97202, represented the applicant. Mr. Kessi said the applicant's goal was to present a long-lasting, timeless, project within the code that enhanced village character of Lake Oswego. Their team included local experts and the highly respected firms of ZGF Architects and Ankrom Moison Architects. He said this was a long-term asset for everyone and there were quite a few key attributes. They were providing upscale residences for the area. They had been contacted by 60 persons who wanted to live in the new development. Many already lived in Lake Oswego and wished to downsize. He said the development would provide approximately 30% more parking than the Code required. The parking would be underground so they could open up the site for pedestrian-friendly experience and light. A generous pedestrian walkway connected 1st and 2nd Streets and enhanced the pedestrian experience. The development would benefit Lake Oswego economically. They were creating over 100 new, permanent, jobs. They anticipated property taxes would increase from $50,000 to approximately $680,000 per year. They anticipated paying a construction excise tax of a quarter million dollars that would be allocated to the School District. Mr. Staczek supplemented his presentation with the slides in Exhibit E-37. He indicated the applicant's goals for the project paralleled and reinforced the City's goals. They would enrich Downtown with new best-in-class local retail opportunities and enliven street life; foster a rich pedestrian experience that connected Millennium Park and Lakeview Village; provide a new option for walkable, upscale, lakeside living experience; complement the Lake Oswego village character and culture of high quality, timeless, architecture and construction; and minimize the environmental footprint by designing a stable development and targeting LEED Platinum certification. He presented a calendar with circled dates indicating over 40 meetings with neighborhoods, local leaders, and city agencies, who had helped shape and mold the final design. He noted they had worked with staff to incorporate staff's feedback and the staff report recommended approval. Mr. Staczek showed the slide, "Downtown Redevelopment District/ EC Zone" (Exhibit E-37). He said Block 137 was ideally suited for mixed-use development and was truly at the hub of commercial, residential and public spaces. It had active commercial spaces on the east and north; active public space to the south with Millennium Park; and quieter residential uses to the west. The site currently featured a single building. The applicant proposed three separate buildings that addressed each street edge so that it could support and respect the adjacent uses. A Avenue and 1st Street would have retail focus on the ground floor. 2nd Street and Evergreen would have residential units on the ground floor. The separation of the buildings with pedestrian walkways and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 10 of 30 a courtyard broke down the scale of the full-block development and reinforced and emphasized the village character of Downtown. Mr. Staczek showed slides that detailed particular aspects of the site plan (Exhibit E-37). He pointed out the location of the retail uses. There were three retail areas designated to accommodate new restaurants and the rest was intended for best in class local retail. He pointed out the entries, including the vehicular entries to the public retail parking (off 1st Street) and to the residential parking garage (off 2nd Street). He pointed out where retail patrons came up from the parking garage. He said the applicant was providing 35% more residential parking than required as well as 22% more retail parking than required. He said one of the project goals was to have the landscape, streetscape and building amenities all work in concert to create a rich pedestrian experience. He said in addition to the pedestrian walkways through the site there would be an internal courtyard for the residents adjacent to a private club room with resort-like, amenities. The court yard would feature a bocce court, putting green, double sided fireplace, fountain. It would be visually open to the north/south pedestrian walkway, with two gated access points for the residents to get into the courtyard. The east/west pedestrian walkway began with a piece of outdoor art at 2nd Street. It was 37' wide there. It would have street lights, potted plants, benches and landscape planters similar to the look and feel of the surrounding streetscape and adjacent properties. At the 1St Street portion of the walkway there would be two flanking planters at the entry, tables and chairs for outdoor dining, and large scale potted plants. The width of the walkway there was 32' 7". The entrance to the retail parking garage was highlighted by a skylight and a canopy. Mr. Staczek discussed the 1St Street elevation. He presented an illustration of the view of the pedestrian street from 1St Street to show it was generous size; it would have lively and active retail spaces; and it showed that the applicant had accomplished their design strategy to only have three levels visible from this vantage point (the fourth floor receded above the eave line). A slide compared the widths of the proposed pedestrian walkway at 1St Street (32' 7" wide) with the pedestrian parking entrance to Lakeview Village at Peet's Coffee (20' 1" wide). He said the 1st Street streetscape would expand and complement the successful environment across the street at Lakeview Village. They proposed to have similar plantings, site furnishings and street trees. He clarified the sidewalk at Lakeview Village was 28' deep and the project's sidewalk would be 30' deep. He highlighted two areas where the design had been influenced by collaboration with the City and neighborhood groups: the applicant had notched the building on the northeast corner to save the specimen maple tree; and, they had also notched the corner at the roundabout to be complementary to the St. Honore corner of Lakeview Village. Mr. Staczek discussed the 2nd Street elevation. The applicant would build townhomes across the street from the existing Oswego Village Townhomes instead of retail storefronts. That would restore 2nd Street to a fully residential feel. They would replace the street trees with new trees that complemented the canopy of trees to the west. As on 1st Street, they were expanding the environment of the adjacent properties by using similar dimensions and setbacks. They were incorporating tree wells, potted plants, generous sidewalks and landscaped planters in front of the residential units. Mr. Staczek showed a slide with pictures of the site furnishings and light fixtures. He said they would all be of the highest quality; conform to city standards; and reflect the furnishings and fixtures of the adjacent properties, further contributing to the village character of Downtown. Mr. Staczek compared the proposed height and stories with the height of existing buildings (see the slides, "Height and Compatibility with our Neighbors;" and "4th and 5th Floor are the Same Level" slides in Exhibit E-37). The applicant's survey showed that Lakeview Village had a high point of 63' on State Street (utilizing an exception); the tallest portion of the Building B (at City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 11 of 30 Evergreen) was 58'; Building A at A Avenue/2nd Street had a peak at 47'; the highest point of the 555 Condominiums was 51.7'; and the maximum height [of Oswego Village Townhomes] on 2nd street was 44'. To compare heights/stories, he showed a slide with a cut-through illustration of a section of Block 137. He pointed out there was a total of four stories - ground floor retail space plus three floors of residential above - on the 1St Street side of the building (this was the same configuration as they were proposing on A Avenue). He pointed out how the fourth floor on that street side was the same height as the fifth story on the courtyard side of the building. He clarified that there were 14 fifth-floor residential units in the development and only five of them faced the street side. The other nine faced the interior courtyard. He said that demonstrated that with or without the fifth floor the building elevations that faced the street would remain the same height at four stories. Mr. Staczek discussed the project design. The applicant's goals were to embrace the Lake Oswego style and create a design that was timeless, with high quality architectural materials, and which contributed to the village character of Downtown. Each of the three buildings would have its own character, material palette, and architectural style (Exhibit E-37). Building A was inspired by the Oregon Rustic Style. The Code highlighted characteristics such as moderately hipped or pitched gabled roofs; large stone chimneys; asymmetrical composition; multi-pained windows; and natural materials. He pointed out the rendering of the corner at 1St/A showed asymmetrical composition; large stone chimneys; gabled roofs and double stacked dormers. It reflected the material palette inspired by Timberline Lodge. This view showed how they carved away the building at the corner to save the Japanese maple tree and how they had purposely sloped the gabled ends down to reduce the mass at the corner. He noted the building was four stories tall there, with the third and fourth floors completely recessed within the dormers of the roof and the gabled end sloped down to 30' 6" above the street. He pointed out aspects that exemplified village character and Oregon Rustic style: use of quality materials like brick and stone; a heavy base and lighter upper stories; ornamental hand rails and recessed balconies to provide depth, character and reinforce residential scale. He noted the rendering of the view along A Avenue revealed the complexity of the elevation and the variety of materials and details on the facade. It also showed the four-level building frontage: a single level of ground floor retail with three residential floors above, with the fourth floor fully recessed in the dormers. He compared a drawing in the Code illustrating the intended character for a mixed-use development with a rendering of the development building. He noted the applicant had captured the spirit of that intended character. Building B was inspired by Arts and Crafts style. It had characteristics such as steeply pitched, gabled roofs; prominent chimneys and asymmetrical composition. The key elements on this building that reinforced village character and Arts and Crafts style were: the material palette that reflected the red brick and light colored siding of the Oswego Village Townhomes across the street; strong vertical, brick chimneys that broke up the façade and provided privacy between the recessed fourth floor terraces; custom hand rails and hand-worked elements in details that were indicative of the style. He showed a view of the portion of the building that had five levels that faced the street. He noted from this view one did not perceive the fifth floor at all. He said the fourth floor was recessed 6' back and the fifth level was completely within the dormers. He pointed out a cross section showing the plane of the building going up from the sidewalk illustrated that the fifth floor would recede behind the eave edge. He discussed a view from the Farmers' Market area of Millennium Park. He pointed out how the proposed building peaked above the rows of trees. He explained the top floor room was the conservatory, which would act as the residents' living room with a view of the lake. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 12 of 30 Building C was inspired by English Tudor style. Characteristics of the style were: steeply pitched roofs; fluted chimneys; projected, stucco gable forms. The material palette and color scheme was very recognizable as English Tudor style. A detailed view of the east elevation facing 1st Avenue highlighted the dynamic composition with projected stucco gabled forms contrasted with the recessed balconies and strong masonry chimneys. The facade's adherence to village character was accentuated by horizontal cornice lines separating the retail and residential above it, as well as special detailing at the balcony guard rails, unique canopies and detailed storefronts. One could see the dynamic, asymmetrical composition of the façade and the deep, active sidewalks populated with planters, benches, artwork, and street trees. He pointed out there was one story of retail below three levels of residential where the fourth story was set back and recessed within the roof dormers. Mr. Staczek discussed a rendering of the view from the roundabout at Millennium Park. He said it showed how the proposed design used cues from Lakeview Village on how to address the park. The proposed building had a strong retail base and the gabled ends addressed the square at a 45-degree angle. The unique canopy, large scale light fixtures, and recessed upper floor would complement the successful corner of Lakeview Village. The architect indicated they had incorporated Historic Resources Advisory Board suggestions to re-use the existing tile mosaics (in the main lobbies); protect and emphasize the Japanese maple; and repurpose some of the wood beams (in the lobbies and club room). He pointed out the locations for public art and indicated the applicant would work with the Arts Council to select new pieces and participate in the Gallery Without Walls program. He said the applicant was targeting LEED Platinum certification and this would be the first LEED-certified residential project in Lake Oswego. The applicant would achieve it by using efficient mechanical systems; water collection and reuse; and sustainable, recycled, and re-used materials. He closed by thanking everyone present for caring about the project. He hoped the applicant had demonstrated how the proposed project would enrich Downtown with new retail opportunities, provide a new option for a lakeside living experience, reinforce the village character of the Lake Oswego style with its quality design; and provide a new, rich, pedestrian experience for all of Lake Oswego. [See Exhibit F-15, "Block 173 Main Topics Summary, January 22, 2014, Before the Development Review Commission" Submitted by Eugene Wizer, Evergreen Group, LLC.; Exhibit E-37, the applicant's PowerPoint presentation 01.22.2014; and Exhibit E-36, Block 137 On-Street Parking Proposed Site Plan, Figure 10.] Questions of the Applicant Mr. Staczek confirmed for Mr. Needham that the commercial square footage was about 10% and the residential square footage was 90% of total square footage. Mr. Needham referred to Exhibit E-8 and asked if he could assume the white part of the roof was the flat part of the roof. Mr. Staczek clarified the white area indicated wells for mechanical equipment in the middle of the roof. Mr. Needham asked what percentage of the roof was flat. He noted it appeared to be about 25% of it. Mr. Staczek said they had never calculated that. Mr. Needham asked how the applicant had determined the need for the amount of commercial use they proposed. He commented that the development looked residential with a little retail thrown in. Mr. Kessi said they had done a market study. 1st Street and A Avenue were the streets with the most valuable retail, so they placed retail on the ground floor of those streets. 1st Street would be double-sided retail created by the proposed development and Lakeview Village. That was how they came up with about 28,000 s.f. of good, standard, retail. Mr. Needham commented this was one of the most important blocks in town zoned for commercial. Mr. Needham indicated that he had not found the comparison of the east/west pedestrian walkway with the entrance to a parking lot across the street at Lakeview Village to be a useful City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 13 of 30 comparison. Mr. Staczek explained they had displayed the slide in Exhibit E-37 which contrasted the 32' 7" Pedestrian Walkway at Block 137 with the 20' 1" Walkway at Peet's Coffee to give people who were familiar with the feel of the Lakeview Village walkway an idea of how much bigger the east/west walkway was. Mr. Needham observed that not many people walked through there and it was just a parking lot entrance. When Mr. Needham asked the applicant to point out how wide 20' was, Mr. Staczek pointed to a span of 20 ceiling tiles in the room. When Mr. Needham asked, Mr. Staczek estimated the east/west walkway walkable zone was about 20' wide without the planters and tables and chairs; and he said he believed the north/south walkway 20' wide from building to building and the planters probably took up 3'. Mr. Needham noted there were five stories going straight up from the walkway. Mr. Staczek said there were five stories there, but it was open to the courtyard on one side. Mr. Kessi commented that the typical Lake Oswego alley was about 20' wide and designed for cars to go through, but the 27' to 37' wide east/west walkway and the 20' wide north/south walkway were just designed for people. Mr. Needham asked where in Lake Oswego one could find two buildings that were five stories high separated by an alley. Mr. Kessi indicated that he did not know. Mr. Kessi confirmed to Mr. Needham that they agreed with staff statement that the interior ground floor was not suitable for retail uses. Mr. Needham asked if the applicant had seen any successful projects where the retail was on the inside of the project. Mr. Kessi said those places would be where there was a lot of pedestrian activity coming through the inside. Mr. Needham indicated he was familiar with another project where interior retail had worked. Mr. Kessi indicated that commercial brokers had advised them not to have retail along the inside pedestrian walkway. He said it was a flexible space that could be converted to retail if retail there became very attractive, but right now they had some residential on that level. Mr. Needham commented that he could appreciate that there was a demand for housing of this nature in Lake Oswego. However, he was very perplexed why the applicant would choose a commercially zoned property to create what were in essence residential structures. Mr. Needham related that he interpreted the Code differently than Mr. Boone (Deputy City Attorney) and Mr. Boone was going to issue a written opinion on whether the Commission had discretion regarding allowing fourth floors. If they assumed for now that Mr. Boone was correct about fourth floors, how did the applicant get to a five-story building? Mr. Staczek said the Code presented a conundrum because it had both a height limit and a story restriction. The Code allowed them to have the fourth floor if it met certain conditions — it was not an exception. That was in direct conflict with the 60' height limit which would accommodate five 10' floors. In designing the project with four stories primarily around the outside of the building they were staying under the 60' height limit. Mr. Needham clarified that his concern was in regard to the structure the Code intended for that area. If it was supposed to be a small village one could imagine certain types of structures or rooflines that might project a larger visual frontage. However, by cutting the tops of the roofs off it seemed to him they were trying to have it both ways: They were trying not only to go from three to four stories, but they were using that as an excuse to go to five stories. Then they cut it off at the top to make sure to keep it below the 60' height limit. He said he was struggling with it being consistent with the general plan and the codes that were enacted to support the plan. He commented that it looked like it missed the boat. Mr. Kessi referred back to a slide labeled 'Site Analysis' (Exhibit E-37). He pointed out that retail would be facing existing retail along A Avenue and 1St Street, and the proposed 100% residential building was across 2nd Street from Oswego Village Townhomes, which were also zoned EC. Mr. Staczek clarified for Mr. Needham that the existing townhomes were 41' tall. He thought they had three floors. Mr. Staczek clarified for Mr. Needham that the entrance to the parking garage under Building C did not access any residential parking spaces. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 14 of 30 Mr. Needham related that he could understand staff's analysis of the reduction of glazing on the retail section, but it seemed to him that was an example of a number of design issues the applicant had introduced that ended up compromising or actually taking them outside of Code standards. He asked if they had looked at ways to satisfy the Code. Mr. Staczek said they had and found they were challenged with the opening to the garage. They figured once they were not that close they would make sure they looked at the storefront to see that it had an active, pedestrian rhythm to it and they would apply for the exception. Mr. Needham said he thought that was problematic in the design. He suggested A Avenue would not be a bad place for a vehicle entry. Where the applicant proposed it would interfere with using that space for commercial or retail. It was a very important location that faced Lakeview Village and a prime spot for retail. He asked if they had looked at vehicular access on Evergreen. Mr. Staczek confirmed the applicant had looked at putting it there early on and found it was problematic because of the slope. Chair Richards referred to a rendering on page 25 showing part of the 1St Street elevation (see it also in the slide, "4th and 5th Floors are the same Level" in Exhibit E-37). He asked if the graphic should show the fourth floor facing 1St Street set back about five feet. The illustration showed a straight up and down face. Mr. Staczek said the fourth floor was set back in part of the areas, but at the gabled end in this graphic it was not set back. In this section, which they had taken out of a 3-D physical model to use as a diagram, it just happened to be at the face of the building. Chair Richards inquired how the applicant would achieve LEED certification in regard to water collection and reuse. Kurt Lanao, 1100 NW Glisan, Portland, Oregon. 97209, the applicant's landscape designer, stated they would use water efficient sensors. At this point they were not sure they could capture enough water for reuse for the landscape areas. They had water quality swales and were considering whether they would use a cistern for water reuse. They were not sure if it would be in the budget or not. However, they had other ways to mitigate the amount of water use for plants and trees. Mr. Lango clarified for Chair Richards that the applicant was looking at using a green wall in the center courtyard amenity space in two areas. He confirmed for Chair Richards that the applicant would reduce heat island affect by maximizing tree plantings; using reflective materials; and they were looking at using a certain type of pavers. Chair Richards referred to the shading study in Exhibit E-31. He asked what times were represented on pages 53 and 57. The applicant's representative clarified that page 53 showed the shadows on June 21St at 6:00 p.m.; and page 57 showed the shadowing on December 3. Chair Richards recalled that many opponents were concerned about shading, especially shading of Millennium Park. Mr. Staczek confirmed it would not shade the park at all, since the park was located south of the site. Chair Richards noticed it would have a significant effect on Lakeview Village across the street, depending on the time of day. Peet's Coffee and other companies across the street that relied on outdoor seating would probably be affected by shading. Mr. Staczek noted the sun studies showed the applicant's development would receive a lot of shade from the properties to the east in the morning. It was a kind of trade-off. Mr. Poulson observed there was not much of an overhang or dripline to keep water off of the stucco. Mr. Staczek anticipated that when they worked on the construction drawings they would work on getting the proper projection so there was no running and staining. Mr. Poulson advised that keeping water out was critical. Mr. Poulson recalled the geotechnical report indicated there was potential for some ground water and the plans showed a sump pump. He asked what kind of waterproofing was planned around the parking area. Mr. Staczek said they would detail it properly so there was no water in the parking areas. They had not yet done the calculations that would show whether they needed a dewatering system under the bottom slab. They would be sure to pay attention to that. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 15 of 30 Mr. Needham asked the applicant what architectural term they would use to describe each of the roofs. Mr. Staczek pointed out Building A had a gabled roof that had a slight truncated top to it; Building C had a truncated, gabled end with a sloped roof that had dormers in it; and the other rendering showed a sloped roof with double-stacked dormers on it and a gabled end. Mr. Needham commented that it seemed as if all of the roof designs were the same. Mr. Staczek recalled Ms. Hamilton had explained that there were six to eight characteristics that were common between all three of the styles. Mr. Needham noted the Code regarding enclosures for mechanical equipment called for it to be mounted within a gable or hip-roofs' attics where possible. It also said that roof-mounted mechanical equipment on flat roofed structures was to be screened by parapet walls. He explained he was looking at what the Code said and reasoned that the applicant had put in the mechanical equipment as if it was a flat roof, because they did not put it in the attic. Mr. Staczek sketched what he explained was a sloped roof with a mechanical well in it. He asked staff to clarify what the Code said. Mr. Pishvaie advised that the technique that was being proposed was normal practice. Blocks 136 and 138 used it. Basically, the gabled roof extended a certain distance from the façade (10-20 feet) and then stopped, with the remainder of the roof being flat. That was where the mechanical units are placed. Vice-Chair Creighton indicated he was glad to see an existing access point along 2nd Street that was dangerously close to the intersection be eliminated. He noted the applicant proposed to put the retail parking access point on 1St Street across from the existing one. He recalled that area was very intense right now. He was concerned about conflict between crossing pedestrians and vehicles. He asked why the applicant could not take access off of Evergreen even with the slightly sloped street. Mr. Staczek answered that would mean drivers would be driving through the roundabout, or come in via 2nd Street, which they did not want to encourage. They thought keeping the retail parking entrance adjacent to the existing retail parking entrance to Lakeview Village that people were familiar with would be the best match that would create a safe and pedestrian friendly environment. Vice-Chair Creighton referred to a graphic illustration in Exhibit E-32, "Suggested Revisions to East Elevation of Building C — Block 137" by Rich Farrington (Architect). He asked if these suggestions had been implemented into the proposed design. Mr. Staczek clarified if was part of the staff report. The applicant had met with Mr. Farrington on a number of occasions. Brant Williams, Lake Oswego Redevelopment Director, explained the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) had hired architect Rich Farrington to serve as a technical expert and help LORA review the proposal. He recalled quite of few of his suggestions were included in the proposal, but he did not know the exact number. Vice-Chair Creighton recalled when the Oswego Village Townhomes were constructed they hit a lot of water and had to drive pilings along Evergreen. He asked what the applicant's geotechnical advisor had told them. Dirk Otis, 1800 SW First Street, Ste. 650, Portland. Oregon, testified they had a geotechnical study done which included onsite borings to determine ground water levels. He described the parking garage wall sequence the geotechnical expert and a structural engineer had established to address water. He said they had shared this with the City as a viable alternative. He clarified for Vice-Chair Creighton that he believed they would use pads for the garage foundation system. They had a preliminary structural design done. Vice-Chair Creighton asked the applicant to clarify where the conservatory was located and how it was designed. Mr. Staczek said it was located in Building B, on the top floor, almost mid-block on Evergreen. He showed a rendering of that portion of the building, pointing out four stories and that City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 16 of 30 the only fifth story portion was just the conservatory room. It had large glass windows and served as the residents' public living room with a view of the lake and park over the trees. He confirmed for Vice-Chair Creighton that the taller gabled elements were on the eastern end of the arm of Building B right before the pedestrian walk. Vice-Chair Creighton voiced a general concern about the repetitive nature of development in the area over the past 15 years. The common elements of the Lake Oswego styles seemed to generate a lot of the same looks. However, he acknowledged that there was nothing the applicant could do about it because that was what the Code called for. Mr. Ahrend referred to page 16 of the bound hearing packet (Sheet A3.02 in Exhibit E-9). The Pedestrian East Elevation showed the fifth floor in the roof, with four floors of residential below it on the walkway side, but one the street side of the building there were three floors and the fourth floor was in the roof structure. He questioned how the pedestrian walkway side of the building could meet the criteria for allowing a fourth floor. He indicated it did not seem that the fourth floor met them, but the fifth floor would. In this location he did not see anything that distinguished the fourth floor form the lower three floors. Mr. Staczek responded that it the project met the 4t" criterion for allowing a fourth floor. Mr. Ahrend observed the fourth floor looked exactly like the third floor. Mr. Staczek related that applicant would have to research the question. Chris Bremmer, Kittleson and Associates, answered the questions about the traffic study the Commissioners had posed. He recalled Mr. Ahrend had commented on the lack of documentation for the internal trip generation. He said they worked closely with staff on utilizing ITE trip rates to get to that. He would provide a separate memorandum that documented the specific calculations. He recalled Mr. Ahrend had asked about individual pass-by assignments at intersections. They would provide that documentation as well. In regard to the question of whether the pass-by rates were too high he said he thought they could have a reasonable dialogue on that. It was important to know that they made some pretty conservative assumptions with respect to trip generation by the apartments. They used general apartments and not mid-rise apartments, which would have qualified. If they had used the mid-rise apartment trip generation rate it would have reduced apartments trips from 140 PM Peak down to 89 PM Peak. That indicated they had a potential overestimate of 51 PM Peak Hour trips that would more than offset the pass-by trips. Mr. Ahrend related that he would disagree with that based on the location of the development and the likely tenants it would have. They were more likely to drive here than if the development was in some other part of the metro area. He would have questioned it if they had gone with mid-rise apartments, especially when the number of parking spaces that were provided was more than one per unit. Mr. Bremmer advised that if they had simply reoccupied the existing building's commercial space floor area the trip generation would exceed that of what was being proposed, whether or not they included the internal pass-by trip reductions they had shown. He said he would provide those calculations as well. Mr. Ahrend asked for the leasable retail square footage of the existing shopping center. Mr. Bremmer said his documentation indicated there was approximately 56,400 s.f. of essentially specialty retail space and another 16,300 s.f. of restaurant space. Mr. Ahrend advised a simulation analysis would have been helpful. This would be a great opportunity to make some improvements to the coordination on A between State, 1st, and some of the other signals if this project was approved. He said his primary concern was there would be a lot more people turning left from A onto 1st Street while there was a lot of opposing traffic. If the signals were not coordinated cars could back up into the through lane. If they were coordinated City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 17 of 30 that would help. A simulation would have helped to identify where the problems were and maybe they could have found some ways to improve it. That was something he would like to see. Mr. Bremmer submitted a copy of a memorandum the applicant had prepared that provided the building area of the existing shopping center and the comparison of trip generation (Exhibit F-14). Mr. Ahrend noted the 1st Street driveway was slightly offset from the existing driveway across the street. If drivers were making left turns at the same time they would be in each other's way. He was not too concerned about left turns coming from the roundabout because he did not anticipate there would be many of them. He asked if there was a way to better align the driveways. He suggested the applicant considering doing bolt-outs at the residential driveway entrance to give exiting drivers additional sight distance. Vice-Chair Creighton asked how service vehicles would get supplies to the restaurants. Mr. Staczek indicated the applicant would encourage them to use the existing loading zone on 1st Street near A Avenue as the primary service drop-off location. If there was a restaurant at the roundabout space, the deliveries might park in front on the roundabout to drop off supplies in the morning. He confirmed that no deliveries would be made from the garage. He pointed out there was also a loading opportunity where the pedestrian walkway connected with Evergreen Road. Mr. Needham had highlighted portions of the roof illustration on his copy of Exhibit E-8 (see page 13 of the bound hearing packet). He had questions about where the ridgeline was; where the changes in roof slopes were and if this was a mansard roof. Mr. Staczek came forward to look at it and point them out. He clarified the steeper part of the roof was the part facing the street. He confirmed that a mansard roof featured two slopes and one was much steeper than the upper one. Mr. Needham commented that the proposed roof resembled one. Vice-Chair Creighton asked what the roof pitches were. Mr. Staczek said there were several and they were all quite steep. Vice-Chair Creighton asked him if the main body of the roof was slightly shorter and Mr. Staczek confirmed that. Chair Richards asked if the applicant had looked at traffic during the hours of operation of the Farmers' Market and if they had found conflicts. Mike Coleman, Kittleson and Associates Inc., 610 SW Alder, Portland, Oregon, said the traffic report recommended an alternative of having manned traffic control to manage conditions at the driveway during special events in Millennium Park. Concerts during the evening peak hour would create a pretty demanding scenario. He clarified that was a service they were recommending that the City, or whoever was holding the event, should provide during the event. Mr. Poulson observed that the applicant had made assumptions of growth and traffic patterns. He referred to the statement and recommendations on page 179 of the bound hearing packet: RECOMMENDATIONS The findings of this report indicate that the transportation system can adequately and appropriately serve redevelopment of Block 137. No mitigation measures are needed for the proposed redevelopment of Block 137 to meet city requirements. He questioned how the applicant could say that when the queuing analysis said distressing things about queuing already exceeding limits. Mr. Bremmer clarified what they were saying, particularly about State Street, was that the queuing backed up today. The project's incremental impact on that queuing that was marginally longer (a table in the appendix showed it would be on the order of a car length or less) and it would not City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 18 of 30 create a new problem there. The City knew it was an existing problem and there was a need for a larger remedy for intersections. The applicant was saying there was no basis for requiring the proposed project alone to fix it. The memo he had just submitted said if they simply re-occupied the existing retail space in the building that was there today the trip generation would put more trips onto the road network than the proposed project would (Exhibit F-14, August 25, 2013 Memorandum from Kittelson &Associates, Inc.: "Traffic Generated by Alternative Developments") Mr. Poulson indicated that after the project added more retail to the area there could be a critical mass of activity that would draw more people to the area and generate activity over and above what the increase the retail and the number of people living in the development generated. The applicant was not providing mitigation to offset their traffic impacts. Mr. Bremmer noted the proposed project generated fewer trips than if the existing building were re-occupied, so from the system perspective it had fewer impacts on the system. From a project perspective related to trying to improve the transportation situation, the applicant was going to consolidate multiple driveways and make multi-modal improvements along the frontage that would help create the Downtown environment the community wanted to see. While they were not providing new, major, mitigations offsite in terms of improvements like turn lanes, they were making frontage improvements and at the end of the day there would be fewer trips coming in and out of this property than there otherwise would be if they simply reoccupied it. In terms of creating more trips to the overall Downtown he did not have an answer as to what the net effect of all of the redevelopment there was. He could tell them the City was going through a transportation planning process that was looking at what that long term vision was. That big picture look was beyond the scope of what an individual development project would be required to do. Mr. Poulson explained that because he lived in Lake Oswego he knew what it was like at 5 o'clock at night and he knew what it was going to be like. He anticipated he was going to recommend that the DRC look at imposing some mitigation measures. Mr. Bremmer responded that from a nexus perspective the applicant did not see the need for offsite mitigations. Chair Richards announced a ten-minute recess and thereafter reconvened the hearing. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Witten testimony can be read at the case file website: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/lu-13-0046- reauest-development-review-perm it-construct-m ixed-use-proiect Proponents Mary Ratcliff 706 6th Street; and Lisa Adatto, 1960 Egan Way, presented the Sustainabilitv Advisory Board's recommendations (Exhibit G-127 containing the January 20, 2014 Memorandum from the SAB, "Wizer Block 137 Development (LU 13-0046) — Sustainability Considerations). They indicated the SAB supported this kind of development because it was moving in the right direction of meeting sustainability goals and creating a livable and walkable community. They related that SAB members Gary Hanifan and Andre DeBar, who had extensive experience with LEED standards, had reviewed the proposal for the SAB. The SAB memorandum talked about the recommendations outlined below; they confirmed they had already submitted the recommendations to the applicant. • Plug-ins for electric vehicles. • Solar panels on roof tops. • Energy star certified heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); including use of best engineering practices; additional insulation and ductwork; and a centralized energy management system. • Waste management infrastructure for recycling and working with the City's contracted waste management program to optimize waste management. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 19 of 30 • Energy management Considerations which included SMART metering and lighting; an integrated building management system; or at minimum ensuring the building was upgradable to ensure SMART metering in the future. • Noise reduction considered in materials selection. Acoustical products could provide both acoustical absorption and thermal efficiency. • Water management through systems for rain water harvesting and storage and grey water reuse for landscape irrigation or indoor water use. Designing the site to minimize erosion and storm water runoff. Roger Hennagin, Lake Oswego, expressed his concern that Downtown styles were becoming repetitive to the point it was boring to view. He testified that he would like to see more disparity in the design of buildings, which would make it more interesting and more attractive. He supported the proposal to have three buildings that did not look identical. He said it would even be better if they were even more dissimilar than they were. Jim Crowell, Wilsonville, submitted Exhibit G-197. He indicated that he and his wife had lived in Lake Oswego but now they lived in Wilsonville because they could not get a decent apartment in town. He related his background, which included a degree from the University of Oregon School of Architecture. He related his experience designing systems that rarely used any utilities and projects that had taken 200 mph winds; serving as a delegate to the World Focus on Housing conference in China; serving on the commission that took the three regional building codes and blended them into the Uniform Building Code for the U.S. He noted the applicant was going to try to make it a LEED development, which was the goal for Lake Oswego. He predicted by 2030 they would see more of these developments Downtown due to population growth. He reasoned there had to be places for the new residents to live. He opined that if some other developer besides Gene Wizer came in they would have proposed a rectangular, concrete, building; and painted to match the decor the City wanted. As long as they stayed under 60' and built it to code, the courts would have forced the City to accept it. Jane Tabor read aloud written testimony from Richard Reamer, Lake Oswego. He wrote that the project would have a positive impact on the community and Downtown. It would not alter the aesthetic of Downtown. The City's current height regulations were more than adequate for preserving the village feel. The development had a terrific variety of high quality materials. Setbacks of upper floors would reduce the mass and give it a great village feel. Three buildings broke up the block into a more pleasing form than one, massive building would. The proposed project provided a walkable neighborhood by taking advantage of and adding to existing transit, entertainment, restaurants and retail opportunities. He noted the City had been having a density discussion for years and it seemed to come up whenever a project of any scale was proposed. He was in favor of limiting density in neighborhoods. The Wizer block was exactly where increased density should go. The project would bring new businesses to Downtown and new residents who would benefit existing businesses. The City would benefit from the increased tax revenue. There would be a nice, one-time bump for the school district. He encouraged the DRC to approve the project. Debra Lapardo, Lake Oswego, asked the DRC to do their best to improve the plan and let the citizens know their concerns were addressed. She indicated she had been concerned about the project size, parking and height, but now she was realistic and wanted the plan to go forward because it was important for the overall vitality of the community. She was not sure she was able to truly evaluate height. The height of buildings in the Pearl District did not seem to impact her experience there. But the DRC should not ignore people's concern about the height and whether the fifth floor was reasonable. They should work out something reasonable. She related that she had talked with the developer and learned they knew enough about the community to make it a City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 20 of 30 feasible operation. She advised that if they stopped this development nothing would happen; they would lose their village by not building their village; and Lake Oswego would be viewed as bad for builders. She recalled naysayers had agreed Lakeview Village was a true value after it was done. She noted A Avenue currently featured a lot of old and not very inviting buildings. Downtown needed to have more updated places like Lakeview Village and Millennium Park to compel people to come to shop and dine and fill their variety of wants and needs. She asked the DRC to seriously consider the traffic reports and resolve the issue of whether traffic needed to be addressed. She indicated they should push for more than 10% retail space. She asked the Commission to address the issue of whether or not the conditional approvals related to fire and sewer would mean the City would be in line for future expenditures. She indicated citizens needed to understand the Commission's job was mostly about code compliance and not a taste issue. She commented that it was hard for someone from the west side of the lake to understand FAN's and Evergreen's concerns about this project because their values had skyrocketed after the last development was built and if this project was done right they had the most to gain from it. Lynn Hennagin, Portland, read aloud her written testimony (Exhibit G-190). She related that had lived in Lake Oswego for many years. When it came time to downsize they had spent 18 months looking for the right property within walking distance of Downtown, but eventually moved out of Lake Oswego. They would be the first to consider moving back if Lake Oswego developed comfortable smaller condos. The City should keep in mind there were people who were approaching retirement and wanted to live in smaller, well-designed condos within walking distance of the core of the City. Mike Dotton, Lake Oswego, submitted Exhibit 166. He observed that Downtown had improved over the years because increased density improved the climate for commercial activity. He indicated he found the aesthetics of the proposed development were top notch; it did not exceed the code limit of 60', even with five stories; and it fit well with the adjoining uses. He recalled hearing that if use of the existing development on the site was optimized it would generate more traffic that the proposed project would. He advised that good government set ground rules for people to follow and applied them uniformly and in a way that was predictable. He said the developer had met the ground rules. He said the ground rules for increasing density allowed efficient use of facilities, utilities and transportation. He asked the Commission to approve the development very much as proposed because it would contribute to the City. He noted it had taken a long time for any kind of development to be proposed for this site. If the City said `no' to it, or conditioned it so much the current developer decided not to build, what might come in its place was a project they would not like nearly as well; that would require far more conditions because the development would not meet the code requirements; and that might not be as aesthetically pleasing. He asked them not to allow the collective objective of"perfect" to defeat the actual, achievable goal of"excellent." He said he thought the proposed project was excellent. Mark Jacobson, Lake Oswego, recalled that in 1960, when his father purchased the Texaco Station at State/B, most of the block at State/A looked terrible. Due to lots of opposition it had taken 40 years to build that new block. He said he thought Lake Oswego was the best city in Oregon, but sometimes it took too long to do things. Mary Bosch, Lake Oswego, indicated she was a Lake Oswego resident and a professional who worked with communities to create sustainable economies and revitalize downtowns. She endorsed the proposal for Block 137 as a strong contributor to successful downtown Lake Oswego. The project supported the economic development strategy the City adopted in 2010. That vision included `higher density infill and redevelopment of a broader range of housing options and additional locations for business.' She noted that over$44 million in urban renewal dollars had been spent on public infrastructure and related projects Downtown. She reminded that City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 21 of 30 LORA's chief purpose was to invest in underperforming areas like Block 137 in order to enhance the business environment and stimulate private investment. She said community members should be demanding that public investment be quadrupled in the related private investment. It was a testament to the success of the public program that Downtown had attracted a first-rate development proposal. The concept reflected market realities and market demand and a strong desire to serve the needs of Lake Oswego residents. The market research had involved dozens of discussion groups and over 500 Lake Oswego residents had been interviewed. Three out of four interviewees were highly supportive of the project after being shown the concepts, facts and visuals. The project added quality, market-rate, housing the City needed. The plan was based on the analysis of demand from baby boomers, young professionals and retirees (many of whom did not commute to work) who desired to live in a walkable downtown neighborhood. It would have positive economic benefit for the City. Over 200 new Downtown residents would provide the stable, increased foot traffic that local retailers and restaurants needed every day of the year, not just on Farmers' Market Saturdays. She advised the typical residents would have higher education levels and often had home based businesses. The City would benefit from increased tax revenue. She encouraged the Commissioners to vote for the development. Bob Sach, Lake Oswego, read aloud his written testimony in Exhibit G-167, entitled, "Evaluating the plan for the Wizer property." He talked about the New Urbanism movement that would have housing, work places, shops, entertainment, schools, parks and civic facilities all within walking distance. This was an opportunity to provide the opportunity in Downtown. His submittal discussed how the proposed development related to the ten principles that were fundamental to good urban planning: • Walkability. The development would provide a walkable neighborhood. • Connectivity. The three buildings created an attractive pass-through that would tie the three blocks together. • Mixed-use and diversity. With the proposed housing this would be the first true, mixed-use neighborhood in Lake Oswego. • Mixed housing. The development would offer a range of sizing and prices. • Quality architecture & urban design. The developer was using some of Portland's best architects and offering a variety of styles • Traditional neighborhood. This project was organized around a recognizable center with a quality public space and helped complete the broader neighborhood. • Increased density. Density was the key to walkability, efficient use of services and resources, and resulted in more face-to-face encounters with other people. • Smart Transportation. More residents would live close to the transit center • Sustainability. The building would be LEED certified. • Quality of Life. The residents would enjoy living there and form meaningful relationships. It would make Lake Oswego a friendlier town. It would provide more freedom and independence for children and the elderly. It was located close to the lake, bike trails, parks and nature. The developer would involve more efficient use of tax money, with less spent on spread-out utilities and roads. The presence of more people day and night would mean less crime and less spent on policing. He said the project would benefit local businesses by increased sales due to more foot traffic and less need for small local businesses to advertise. He asked the Commission to approve it. Patrice Denton, Lake Oswego, indicated that she had been concerned when she heard the Commissioners question the applicant that they might have already made up their minds. She said she often walked past the site and believed that was the perfect area for Lake Oswego to grow in. She stressed that redevelopment was vital to the community and the schools and this was the perfect vehicle. She asked the DRC to work with the applicant in regard to concerns City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 22 of 30 about things like traffic. She indicated someday she might consider living there because of the perfect location and the amenities. She asked the DRC to approve the project. Paul Graham, Lake Oswego, read aloud his written testimony in Exhibit G-164. He and his wife owned a Downtown business but did not anticipate they would accrue any special business benefit as a result of the proposed development because they were near retirement. They supported the proposed development. He recalled Downtown had been an eyesore for many years. They had worked with the Chamber and other groups to develop a roadmap for improving it. Each Downtown improvement had brought comments related to how it would harm the village character; while competitors developed Washington Square, Bridgeport Village, Costco and Walmart; and they and Amazon all competed with Downtown. He said they had to continue to grow Downtown to enable residents to do business locally. Mr. Graham indicated the proposed development was the kind of development the East End Redevelopment Plan envisioned. It complemented Lakeview Village and the townhomes to the west. The 28,000 s.f. of retail along A Avenue and 1st Street would have a positive synergy with the surrounding businesses, serve the residents, and draw more people there. All three buildings were below the maximum allowed height limit of 60'. The 228 one- to three-bedroom units were good for Downtown and the community. They were ideal for current residents to downsize to and for younger people who wanted to get a start in Lake Oswego. The density of activity would be good for a thriving downtown. The residents could walk to downtown destinations. They would add to the tax base that supported the City and their schools. It accommodated needed parking onsite and underground. Retail and residential parking areas were separate and they each provided more parking that the Code required. Reducing the number of driveways from seven to two provided more spaces for parking and delivery. The architecture, materials and street art was high quality. The diversity of styles, attention to detail, and landscaping would positively affect subsequent developments in the area. It proposal met the CDC and DDRD design standards. The exceptions were minor. The proposal was in sync with the vision, planning, design and code standards that had successfully guided Downtown development for the past 27 years. He asked the Commission to approve the application with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Tom O'Connor, Lake Oswego, read aloud his written comments in Exhibit G-176. He urged the DRC to approve the application with staff's proposed conditions. He said the community needed a strong, vibrant, downtown core to complement its healthy, viable neighborhoods. The proposed project would help the City provide a variety of housing types; encourage pedestrian activity downtown; and the proposed apartments would attract young people to support local businesses. He held Downtown was the right place for this kind of mixed-use development. The Downtown plan encouraged it. Kristin Johnson, Lake Oswego, submitted Exhibit G-184. She indicated there was a significant need to have apartments for young professionals, and they would want to live in a small apartment with one parking space. When she served on the City Council and had to live within the City limits it had been very difficult for her to find an affordable apartment. She knew many young professionals lived in walkable communities in Portland and drove to work in the Kruse Way area. She suggested the City should make it possible for them to live in Lake Oswego. They would support the businesses in the community. They wanted safety, walkability and an interesting place to live. The proposed secured parking and buildings would provide safety for young women. There was already a lot of walkability Downtown, and Lake Oswego was already an interesting place to live, but younger people needed rental apartments there to benefit from it. Based on her experience, she anticipated if the City lost this opportunity the site would just be remodeled. That would result in increased traffic. The City would lose the opportunity for apartments in Lake Oswego. She addressed questions she had heard the Commissioners ask. In regard to traffic she City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 23 of 30 suggested they should consider that likely tenants who wanted to live in a walkable community would prefer to walk than to drive to the grocery store; and that older people could not drive. In regard to traffic management, she noted the City leased the spaces in Block 138 and it was proposing to lease these spaces. It was not unheard of for the City to offer to manage traffic during big events. In regard to the architecture, she said the City did not need another Block 138 on Block 137. It was important to have the residential buffer on the outside and the commercial closer to Block 138. When the City had looked at the Lakeview Village they wanted buffers. Roger Martin, Lake Oswego, noted that Mr. Graham had described how Downtown looked when Mr. Martin moved to the City. He related he had been active in Lake Oswego for many years; and he had represented Lake Oswego in the state legislature and had helped open Kruse Way. He indicated he was testifying because some of the letters to the editor of the newspaper had inferred that Gene Wizer was greedy, when Mr. Wizer was anything but greedy. He was also there because he knew, based on the publications he was seeing, that someone had hired a public relations firm to try to get the community to turn the project down. He asked the Commission to decide based on the facts and not the number of opponents' emails. The PR firm was trying to convince people that what was proposed was a straight-sided, five story structure. However, what the applicant had shown that night was complementary to everything else in Downtown. He asked the Commission to not get caught up in trying to find a detail to use to say 'no.' They should approve the project as it was a good project and a big improvement for Downtown. Shari Newman, Lake Oswego, related she was a city resident and business owner, Realtor, and Chair of the Arts Council. She recalled there had been no shopping, dining, art or park Downtown when she moved to Lake Oswego in 1991. The subsequent developments there had benefitted the City and its citizens through increased property values and city revenue. She noted the proposed development was within what the Code allowed and met the intent of having density in the downtown core area. She reported the Arts Council had found that the developers were willing to work with them. She advised that it would be good to have the proposed rental units because the average price of a house was $500,000 plus and young professionals could not afford the down payment. It would give the people who wanted to retire in Lake Oswego an option to do that. Once young professionals with good incomes came to Lake Oswego to live in the apartments they would stay in the City because of the great schools. She indicated that the Wizers were among the prominent citizens who had given the community the best years of their life. They were ideal citizens who quietly gave more to philanthropy than most people. She believed they had been presented with many proposals and had been very selective. They wanted to work with the City. She urged the DRC to support the development. Bill Gordon, Lake Oswego, read aloud his written testimony in Exhibit G-107. He was President of the townhome association on Block 136. He said that his overall preference would be a project that was smaller and less dense, with condos in the mix. However, he generally supported the proposed project with some reservations for the following reasons: • Gene Wizer and the vetted, area-based, developer were committed to a high quality development. • LORA funding of$5.5 million, or roughly 6% of cost, seemed in-line with East End Redevelopment goals of increased public parking. • The developer asked for very few code exceptions and staff recommended approval with conditions, which should be met. The fifth floor exception did not add many more residential units, and the project would still be under the 60' foot height limit. He said the DRC needed to carefully address that exception or deny it. • A rejected project likely would lead to much greater financial participation by the City, and perhaps litigation. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 24 of 30 • A rejected project would probably delay for many years the long awaited redevelopment of the City's most central block. • Even though the project was a bit too dense for his taste, if the City supported higher density in some areas, this central downtown block was the place for it. • The project would further re-vitalize the east-end retail business community. He said the developer should work with their townhome residents to control ongoing traffic affects around their complex and also minimize negative impacts during construction. He said that regardless of what happened with this specific proposal it seemed that a fresh review of the EC Zone code would be appropriate Ralph Tahran, Portland, related he was an architect and had been involved in Lake Oswego planning and Code writing for over 35 years. He said this was the best and highest quality project he had seen proposed for Downtown. They had a good start with Lakeview Village; then the 555 Condominiums raised the bar higher; and the proposed project had put the bar quite high because of it was a centerpiece development proposed by a premier design and development team. He noted they gone to great expense to bury the parking so the buildings could be broken up into three manageable sized buildings with pedestrian spaces connecting not only the project's buildings, but also the townhouses and Lakeview Village. The four-sided design provided many lively urban design frontages. The proposed public access and mix of uses energized Downtown. The buildings respectfully honored Lake Oswego style. He indicated that he shared the concern about repetition and "gable-itis," but that was what the code said, so that was why it was proposed. In his experience the apartments were very generously sized. They were lifestyle apartments for people who chose to live in apartments in a nice location with a lot of conveniences about them. They would like to live in this area, but they were not finding anything that would fit that lifestyle in Lake Oswego so they went to places such as South Waterfront or the Pearl District. There were a lot of people who worked in their homes and wanted to live where it was convenient to get to cafes and supplies. He said he supported the exceptions. He thought the requested exceptions were very minor and they asked for them because they were important for design quality - not to skirt the Code. His experience as an architect in Lake Oswego was that the Code was so complex that many times one had to ask for exceptions. He noted staff had reported the project met all standards; exceeded the parking requirements; and met the height and density requirements. He asked the Commission to approve the project because he believed it would be a tremendous asset to the entire community. Jeff Lose, Lake Osweao, indicated he was testifying strictly as a Lake Oswego resident who was interested in seeing the City on a path of high quality development. He was an architect employed by Ankrom Moison Architects, but he had no personal involvement of any kind in the design of the applicant's project and he would be retiring in the next few weeks, so he would derive no financial benefit from it. He recalled when he came to Lake Oswego 22 years ago he had been disappointed to see a tired, run-down image Downtown that did not reflect the quality of the community. He heard it was the result of neglect and local resistance to anything that would advance the livability and vitality of the downtown area. He said it had been gratifying to see the revitalization of Downtown since them. Each of the improvements, such as Lakeview Village and Millennium Park had been initially met with vocal opposition because it represented a change to status quo. He noted Lakeview Village was now considered a jewel of the community. It had taken seven years to work through that process due to encumbrances put in front of it. He agreed with previous testimony that Lake Oswego had been slow to change. He called the proposed development the next important and long overdue ingredient to improving the vitality of Downtown and a great asset to community. Some had said the scale and height of the buildings relative to the image of Lake Oswego or its congruence with the immediate area gave them concern. He had tried without success to understand their perspective. He said the City was wise to select sites for City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 25 of 30 higher density and height for the nucleus of the City. It was an intelligent and appropriate use of this specific site. The proposed development was exactly what the City wanted to facilitate; it was conforming to or exceeding the requirements of the Code; and it went beyond meeting the letter of the law with a design of high aesthetic quality. He anticipated that after the development was completed people would wonder what all of the fuss was about. He said that he and his wife were getting ready to retire and they did not want to move out of Lake Oswego. He had been looking for a walkable community to live in and found few options in Lake Oswego. He said he fully supported approval of the proposed project. Questions During the questioning period, Mr. Lose spoke to how long it had taken to get Lakeview Village approved. He related that Lakeview Village developers had said that if they had to do it all over again they were not sure they would do it. Ken Ambrosini, Portland, submitted Exhibit G-195. He related that he and his wife had sold their Lake Oswego house to downsize. They had found few options to stay in the City without renting or buying a house, so they moved to the Pearl District. Rents there were not cheap, but that was offset by the fact that they now had only one car; rode bikes to Safeway; and walked to shopping. He said because Lake Oswego did not have that kind of density it was losing people who wanted to live a lifestyle in larger density developments with smaller footprints. It was losing artists like his wife. The City should try to retain retirees and the younger generation. He indicated the proposed project would be an asset and an architectural improvement to the community. The applicant was a quality developer and the architects were top notch. Paden Pritchard, Lake Oswego, read aloud part of his written testimony in Exhibit G-186. He was a residential building designer and served on the Evergreen Neighborhood Association Board. He supported the project because it had many demographic and financial benefits and was the right type of development at the right time and by the right team. He noted the applicant had made many changes to the plan based on what they heard at community meetings: putting all of the parking underground; adding pedestrian walkways through the site; moving the residential parking entrance from Evergreen to 2nd Street; removing a planned tower at 2nd/Evergreen; preserving the maple tree; improving 2nd Street; and using three separate Lake Oswego styles instead of a single building type. Mr. Pritchard clarified that he supported the project, but believed there were things that needed to be modified to make the plan completely comply with the CDC and the DRDD. He had detailed them in his written testimony. Building B at 2nd/Evergreen did not comply with all four of the fourth story criteria. The Code called for the living space to be within the roof. That eave should be at the base of the living space and the space should be a dormer coming out of it. He advised if that was done it would lower the effective height of Building B as it faced the neighborhood. He said he did not see specific language in the Code regarding a fifth story, but he did not have too much of a problem with a fifth story in the center of the block. However, he did have a problem with it along 2nd Street. He said that building was four stories in back and five stories in the front. He advised that if the fifth story was pushed back, away from the street, it would not be visible and it would then be mostly a four-story building. The 1st/Evergreen (Millennium Plaza) corner did not meet the DRDD requirement to design a corner to complement and be compatible with other corner buildings. It should be redesigned to be no more than three stories right at the corner and then it could step up to four stories beyond that. He advised the result would be a minimal loss of square footage. He referred to the staff report about the Building C facades along 1st Street. He could not find mention of truncated gables in his books on Tudor architecture. A slight modification could make that work better. The facades of Building C were just a little too edgy for Lake Oswego. He said Building A was well designed. He wished to see retail uses in the ground floor at 2nd Street City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 26 of 30 and along the walkway. He said he thought parking was inadequate. He noted LORA funds were being used for the retail section of the garage. He suggested fully excavating the north and east sides of the lower residential level of the garage to accommodate 50 to 60 more parking spaces that could be used by employees so the rest of the retail garage was for public parking. Rich Dorfler, Lake Oswego, related that he walked from his residence to work at the Wizer block. His experience was that the area was dead evenings after 7 p.m. except in July and August; and there was very little traffic after rush hour (after 8:30 or 9:00 a.m.). He had seen an issue with queuing. He said his observations were that traffic would not be an issue. He defined a `village' as people moving around 24/7. He said the only way they were going to get that in that area was to have people living there. He asked the DRC to approve the application. He added that he had known and worked for Gene Wizer for eight years. He had been sad to hear what some people said about Mr. Wizer, because Mr. Dorfler had personally moved about a ton of Christmas hams Mr. Wizer had given to families who would not otherwise have had a Christmas dinner. Kristen Johnson, Lake Oswego, read aloud written testimony from Jackson Freeman, Lake Oswego. He attended Lakeridge High School. He said he and his friends did not go to Lakeview Village or Millennium Park because most of the restaurants were too expensive; the retail stores did not market to teenagers; and the only place for them was the yogurt shop. He wrote that this should matter to the City because there were 2,465 public high school students in Lake Oswego. He thought the proposed development on the Wizer block could be really great for young people because it would be an interesting place to go and it would be walkable, once they were dropped off there. It would allow kids to be part of the larger community and not just go to friends' houses. It had to be walkable because many students did not have drivers' licenses or have their own cars. The design that featured more retail space and more public pathways created an inviting environment for young people. He hoped to see more businesses that catered to young people. He could not guarantee that he would like the stores that went in, but he did guarantee this was a step in the right direction. He wrote that he did not think the buildings were too big, especially since they were under the code height limit. He said density was good for young people because they did not want to walk a long way to get from one place to the next. Having apartments on the block meant it would be a safer place to go, especially after dark, because there would always be people around. He noted Lake Oswego did not have a traditional community center to draw students and other generations around each other. Developing the Wizer block as proposed fit that need. It should happen as soon as possible. He asked the DRC to consider how great the proposed development was for young people. Opponents Carol Radich, Lake Oswego, testified on behalf of the Evergreen Neighborhood Association. She highlighted points in "Evergreen Neighborhood Association Report to the DRC — LU 13-0045" in Exhibit G-283. They had voted overwhelmingly to oppose the development plan for Block 137. Only 10 of the 153 persons who responded to a neighborhood questionnaire supported the design. Their Association's position was supported by LONAC and the Hallinan Neighborhood Association. The proposed scale and density were not compatible with Downtown and the huge increase in the population would intensify existing traffic and parking problems. The neighborhood held the proposed development did not meet the intent of village character. The DRDD called for creating 'a community center that reflects and enhances the character of the City of Lake Oswego.' The Urban Design Plan (UDP) envisioned Downtown as 'a random village style with a mix of two, three, and four stories.' The Code interpreted village character as 'an assembly of smaller mixed-use structures often centered on a square.' The neighborhood noted that Blocks 136 and 138 had set the precedent for how the Lake Oswego village character should develop. Lakeview Village consisted of six visually distinctive two- and three-story structures. Block 136 had a mix of 39 three-story residences and a two-story retail building along A Avenue. Each of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 27 of 30 those blocks was built out at 90,000 s.f., so the proposed development, at over 300,000 s.f., including 220 or more residences, was not small scale. The Association's letter detailed how certain requirements for village character were not met. In regard to number of stories, four stories might be permitted by Code under certain conditions. There were places where the fourth story did not meet any of the conditions. For example, the pedestrian walkway elevations showed that the fourth stories on the south side of Building A and the west side of Building C appeared to be flush with the first three stories. They were not stepped back and they were not within a roofline. In regard to the exception for a fifth story on every building: This was clearly not allowed and it would set a very dangerous precedent for development in the Downtown area. A fifth story was not consistent with UDP objectives. It clearly stated that multifamily housing should be two and three stories. In regard to corner buildings, buildings located on street corners were to be designed to complement and be compatible with other corner buildings on the same intersection. The most non-complementary design was at 1st/Evergreen opposite St. Honore Bakery and the entrance to Millennium Park. The Lakeview Village corner was only two stories and it was set back from the roundabout with ample room for outdoor dining and pedestrians. The second story had an attractive open terrace at the corner where restaurant patrons could sit and enjoy view of the lake and park. The corner of the proposed building was austere design of a flat, four-story facade set so close to the roundabout it would overpower the town square. The Association pointed out the UDP did not envision residential use on Block 137. The UDP and the East End Redevelopment Plan looked to the Wizer block to be a component of a four-block, compact, shopping district, not an apartment complex. There were a number of retail-related code requirements the project did not meet. The Code restricted residential units on the ground floor, so much of Building B did not meet the Code. Buildings fronting on streets or alleys designed for pedestrian uses were to have a storefront appearance on the ground floor. That was not met. A minimum of 80% of the exterior ground floor abutting pedestrian ways was to be storefront with display windows and entry features. That was not met. The Association held the proposal failed to meet the vision of village character and also some significant Code requirements that defined that character. The Association recognized it was the responsibility of the DRC to assure adequate parking and that site design was consistent with applicable standards and minimized adverse impacts on surrounding areas. They believed the project's dependence on available on-street parking would have an adverse impact on Downtown businesses and the nearby residences. The residential parking spaces, with 60 reserved for visitors would leave just 1.15 onsite parking spaces per unit. Residents with more than one car, or their visitors who could not access the electronically controlled gated parking would be looking for on-street parking spots. The retail public parking used the downtown modifiers to reduce required onsite spaces and depended partly on on-street parking. Even now, close- in parking was in short supply. The Chamber's 2012 parking study found the downtown core parking district already exceeded 85% occupancy in peak hours. Downtown businesses could suffer and overflow parking would end up crowding their narrow local streets, making walking and biking even more difficult and dangerous that it was today. In regard to traffic the DRC responsibility was to review the relationship between land uses and traffic with particular emphasis on not exceeding the planned capacity of residential streets. Evergreen residents had consistently told the developer that traffic on their residential streets was a major concern. The increased Wizer block traffic would impact already congested A Avenue; push 1st and 2nd Streets past their capacity; and would cause motorists to find alternate routes through the Evergreen and FAN neighborhoods and onto North Shore. Their biggest worry was Evergreen Road. It was a local street and the neighborhood's major pedestrian and bike thoroughfare. It was already a popular shortcut to bypass congestion on A Avenue. It could easily be pushed past its design capacity. The Association had made some observations that led them City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 28 of 30 to believe the developer's projections of net increased traffic could be underestimated. Also, there had been no current traffic study of Evergreen Road and no plan for mitigation measures to ensure the safety and livability of their neighborhood. The Association letter concluded that because the design of the proposed development was not consistent with the definition and requirements of village character; because the scale and density were not consistent with the precedent set by Block 136 and 138; because insufficient downtown parking would likely have a negative impact on businesses and on the residential neighborhood; and because implications of increased traffic on local streets had been ignored, they asked the DRC to deny the application. Questions Ms. Radich clarified that there were two areas along the pedestrian walkways along buildings A and C where it looked as though at least a part of the fourth floor was not set back and it was only inset at the fifth floor. Thus the fourth floor did not meet the criteria. The Commission should look at that. Vice-Chair Creighton asked staff to clarify whether the required five-foot setback was there. Ms. Hamilton said the fifth floor was set back five feet. Vice-Chair Creighton asked if a five foot setback was required for the fourth floor. Ms. Hamilton advised that was one of the options. Jim Bolland, Lake Oswego. Co-chair of LONAC related that LONAC had voted overwhelmingly to support the Evergreen Neighborhood Association position. They were not opposed to redevelopment of the Wizer block. They wanted it to be redeveloped in a way that was compatible with Downtown village character and provided a benefit to the community. The primary issue was the sheer massiveness and that it was out of scale with village character. He contrasted the size of what was proposed with Blocks 136 and 138. Lakeview Village had about 90,000 s.f. and the condos on Block 136 had square footage in the high 90,000's. Block 136 featured seven buildings and Lakeview Village featured six buildings, which averaged about 15,000 s.f. each. The proposed development's total square footage of 318,000 s.f. was not at all compatible with the blocks next to it. He said with only 28,000 s.f. of retail it was a stretch to even call it mixed-use. Mr. Bolland recalled the history of planning leading to the East End Redevelopment Plan. Many charrettes had been held in the 1990's to define what Downtown was going to look like. The focus had been on 1st Street. The four blocks between B Avenue and the park (Blocks 138, 137, 49 and 48) were to be a 'compact shopping district.' The concept had always been to allow some housing, but it was intended to be primarily the retail/commercial core of Downtown and a catalyst for redevelopment of the rest of downtown. Mr. Bolland observed this proposal was far from that vision. He compared the design of the six buildings on Block 138 with what the applicant proposed, which he said was basically a solid wall along A Avenue and along Evergreen, and mostly solid facades along 2nd and 1st. It looked nothing like Blocks 136 and 138. He noted the renderings made it look like a line on the top broken up by a couple of chimneys and gables. He contrasted that with how the Lakeview Village buildings along 1st Street looked. The peaks went to 45 feet; there were only two stories below them; and there were a lot of ups and downs. That created a very different feel. He said the City established the village character for this part of downtown when it approved the developments on Blocks 136 and 138. It would not be appropriate to approve an adjacent development on Block 137 that was not compatible and was out of character and scale with the existing developments. He said the design/development agreement (DBA) the City Council had approved last August required the proposal to be complementary to its surroundings. Mr. Bolland held the applicant failed to do that and the application should be rejected. Mr. Bolland discussed parking impacts and the request for a minor variance to shorten the landings at the 1st and 2nd Street entrances. He indicated approving it would create a safety issue City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 29 of 30 when cars were trying to exit directly in conflict with pedestrians during events. He said the variances should be denied. He believed that comments about the project were running 3:1 against it. Letters to the Review were running about 2:1 against it. PAC survey responses were running 2:1 opposed: 76% said 'too many units'; 70% said 'too high.' He reminded the Commissioners that the ENA and LONAC had each voted overwhelmingly to oppose the proposal. The Save Our Village group had received about 300 emails and letters in opposition. He contrasted that with what happened in the Lakeview Village development process. In that process the City had formed an ad hoc committee including stakeholders from downtown businesses and neighborhood representatives. They had met with the Gramor design team for over a year and hammered out all of the issues relating to the size, mass, traffic, parking, and impact on neighborhood. Then, when the proposal came to the DRC no one testified in opposition. Everyone there said they were satisfied the issues had been resolved and the project went forward with unanimous support. He asked the DRC to deny the application and let the applicant go back to the drawing board and decide how to deal with the community's and the Commissioners' concerns. Questions Vice-Chair Creighton asked Mr. Bolland if it was true that the applicant could meet all of the requirements of the Code without the pedestrian walkways and that there was no requirement for the applicant to build the project in three separate buildings. Mr. Bolland indicated he thought they would have a problem meeting village character. It would be even denser that currently proposed. Ms. Radich indicated she thought they would have trouble meeting FAR because it was currently right up to the maximum FAR. Vice-Chair Creighton and Mr. Bolland discussed whether Lakeview Village was essentially one building. Mr. Bolland clarified it was six distinct buildings that each had slightly different architecture. He noted it addressed massing by utilizing the incline to put a taller building along State Street and keep everything along A Avenue and 1st Street lower. Mr. Poulson moved to continue LU 13-0046 to January 29, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 5:1. Mr. Ahrend voted no. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business Chair Richards adjourned the meeting at 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of January 22, 2014 Page 30 of 30