Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2006-04-17 (02)  City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes April 17, 2006   CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of April 17, 2006, to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. The Planning Commission met in joint session with the DRC during the first part of the meeting. ROLL CALL Development Review Commission members present were Chair Tierney, Vice Chair Sheila Ostly, Bob Needham and Halliday Meisburger. Commissioners Nan Binkley and Krystyna Stadnik were excused. Planning Commissioners present for the Joint Work Session portion of the agenda were Chair Daniel Vizzini and Commissioners Mary Beth Coffey, Julie Glisson, Scot Seigel, Mark Stayer and Alison Webster. Commissioner Colin Cooper was excused. Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee members present were Ken Sandblast (Chair), Adelle Jenike, Donna Jordan (TAB representative), Cheryl Uchida (Waluga Neighborhood Association representative), Darcey Eaton (member at large), Carolyn Krebs (Lake Forest Neighborhood representative), Norma McNulty, and Sid Smither (representing commercial property owners). Planning Commissioner, Julie Glisson also served as the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association representative on the Committee. Staff present were Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Manager; Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, Dennis Egner, Long Range Development Manager; Paige Goganian, Assistant Planner; Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney; and Jean Hall, Administrative Support. JOINT WORK SESSION P 01-0002 – Lake Grove Village Center After the participants introduced themselves, Planning Commission Chair Vizzini and Lake Grove Village Center Advisory Committee Chair Ken Sandblast, explained that the Development Review Commissioners’ input regarding the draft Lake Grove Village Center Plan was important because key components of the Plan would be implemented by standards that would be applied by the DRC. Chair Vizzini said he hoped that other City boards and commissions would also have an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Lake Grove Village Center Plan. Mr. Egner said he hoped the DRC would offer advice regarding how the overlay zone dealt with building design; the storefront environment; and compatibility issues in the transition areas. He recalled everyone involved had worked to achieve the goal of making the District pedestrian-friendly. A critical part of that was how buildings were sited, their scale and height. He recalled there had been a lot of discussion about building height, and finally a compromise between residential interests and business interests had been reached. Buildings were to step back from the street, and their shapes were controlled. He asked the DRC to comment on what they thought would work, and what might cause confusion. He said a design handbook would eventually be fashioned to more clearly show allowable building styles in the District. He related that site planning and landscaping requirements had been based on West Lake Grove Design District standards. Chair Tierney stressed the responsibility of the DRC was to assure compliance with the Code. He advised the Code should be very clear regarding when exceptions were allowed, and he questioned whether the standards related to building height were clear enough. He recalled the DRC sometimes found there was conflict between special local area plans and the more general requirements of the Community Development Code that the DRC had to try to interpret in a sensible manner. Mr. Egner reported that staff was working on the next version of the draft to make it clearer, to add illustrations, and to address potential conflicts without changing the substance of what the Committee proposed. He anticipated that version would be ready to distribution by May 12, 2006. Committee Chair Sandblast, first highlighted key parts of the draft Plan. He said the Committee had followed the guiding principles which included maintaining and enhancing the business climate in the District. He said they used incentives-based standards to do that. He said the Committee also recognized there were existing community and regional goals and expectations to be met. He said each Committee member had done a good job of communicating with his or her individual interest groups. He said they tried to put a plan together that would achieve what they envisioned the area should be like in the future. He said they recognized they had to deal with a district that was linear and bounded by residential areas. So they used the “Great Street” concept to address Boones Ferry Road and incorporated a landscaped median and more pedestrian crossings and provided opportunities for both public and private gathering spaces, which made the area more inviting. He acknowledged the Committee’s plan modified the previously adopted Boones Ferry Corridor Plan. However, it made the space more inviting, and it offered incentives to developers who provided a gathering space. He said the Committee agreed they wanted to maintain the current eclectic mix of architecture in the District and avoid a corridor of buildings that all looked the same (e.g. Kruse Way). He reported the architectural subcommittee had recommended how to achieve the preferred mix of architectural styles, and the draft Code listed allowable architectural styles. He anticipated the styles would eventually be described in a design handbook. He said the Committee recognized more expertise would be needed to design Boones Ferry Road, and they recommended testing the street design concept in a demonstration project. He noted that City Council had allocated funds for such a project. He stressed that the Committee wanted to support the District’s existing retail community. He pointed out the document listed and prioritized implementation projects. During the questioning period, Mr. Sandblast clarified that the draft Code specified the dimensions of a gathering space, and applicants would be offered incentives in the form of increased lot coverage to install one. Mr. Egner explained there were two types of public spaces. A developer could chose to build a plaza along the street and set his/her building further back, and the draft Code prescribed the size and dimensions of a “pearl” gathering space along Boones Ferry Road. Mr. Sandblast noted the Committee recommended the City do more work on “Green Streets” and street design. He clarified that they recommended a consistent streetscape theme that would unify the District, but they wanted individual buildings to have different character from each other then identified specific properties that would have their zoning change as a part of this process. Chair Vizzini opined the Lake Grove Village Center Plan concept of using transition areas was an improvement over the specific boundary requirements that had been used in West Lake Grove. Mr. Egner recalled the Committee had discussed the idea of form based transition areas from the start, and they had eventually reduced the number of Village Transition Areas (VTAs) from five to three. VTA 1, which was closest to the neighborhoods, was to have buildings that were closer to the size and scale of the residences next to them. VTA 3 offered a size and scale more similar to GC standards, and VTA 2 was in between. Chair Tierney asked what would “trigger” application of the new standards. Mr. Egner clarified that section of the Code had not been developed yet, but the “trigger” might be a percentage increase in value. Mr. Sandblast recalled that the business community representatives were keenly interested in this concept. He pointed to the “Code Framework” diagram on 1-5 of the draft Code that showed the relationship of applicable Plans to the base zone requirements and the Village Center Overlay. Chair Tierney stressed that it was important to address potential conflicts by being very clear regarding when the Overlay overrode base zone standards. Mr. Egner related that staff was working on accomplishing that in the next version of the draft. Mr. Sandblast clarified that if different portions of one parcel were each in a differently regulated area, each portion would be regulated by the area it was in. He pointed out notation boxes on page 2-5 anticipated that a clause would be inserted that identified what scope of development would “trigger” application of the Overlay standards and requirements; and that there was also to be a mechanism for Code adjustments. He explained that the Committee wanted to offer the possibility of an adjustment that would allow a development to go forward when the applicant could make the case that he/she had met most of the regulations - and the intent of the Code to minimize impacts, etc. He said the Committee felt too many regulations would not work because they saw a need for flexibility. He said the adjustment process had not yet been developed, but he anticipated it would require a discretionary decision by the DRC, which he said would be better than using the Class 1 or Class 2 Variance process. Chair Vizzini observed that the DRC might need more guidance in this section. Mr. Sandblast reported the Committee had worked on the final draft the previous Wednesday, and that work was not yet reflected in the draft. He anticipated staff would continue their work on it so it would be ready by the May 12th Open House. Chair Vizzini clarified for DRC Commissioner Needham that although the Planning Commission had been discussing concepts related to Lake Grove planning for a longer time, Planning Commissioners had received their copies of the draft Code only a short time before the DRC. Commissioner Needham explained he would have preferred that the DRC and the Planning Commission had met jointly to discuss more general planning issues first, rather than just this specific plan. Chair Vizzini acknowledged it might have been better over the years for the two bodies to have met together more frequently for that purpose, and they still could. However, in regard to the Lake Grove Village Center Plan, he invited the DRC to offer their comments and suggestions to improve it, eliminate conflicts in it, and make it work, between now and sometime in July, when the Planning Commission will make their recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Sandblast agreed that DRC input was critical to implementation. Commissioner Ostly anticipated the DRC would receive cases related to irregularly shaped parcels, where the applicant was pushing the margins to maximize floor area. She recalled those kinds of cases were agonizing for the DRC. She asked if the Committee had looked at how the draft Code would apply to those parcels and what could be built on them. Mr. Sandblast reported that Ms. Goganian had provided the Committee with conceptual site studies of specific parcels in the District and the Committee members had examined existing parking ratios, lot coverage and setbacks and concluded that existing development had maximized the amount of available parking. He said they called for projects to build public parking. He said that how and when that happened was yet to be determined, but the Committee was aware that public parking had to happen before a lot of more intensive redevelopment was physically possible on some parcels. Chair Tierney asked if the Committee expected underground parking. Mr. Egner advised that parking for a three-story building had to be tucked underneath to even meet existing regulations. Chair Tierney observed that would put pressure on an applicant who wanted to build a multistory building, and Commissioner Needham anticipated that developers would argue that was not cost effective unless they were allowed to build higher, or granted variances to make underground parking economically feasible. Ms. Jordon recalled the Committee recognized the small size of some parcels would present a challenge to applicants, but they anticipated smaller parcels would be consolidated to make it easier and economically feasible to develop under the standards. Chair Vizzini commented that planners of West Lake Grove might have been overly optimistic that applicants would consolidate small parcels there. However, Mr. Egner advised that was actually happening in West Lake Grove. Chair Vizzini observed there was no guarantee that small parcels in Lake Grove Village Center would be consolidated, and the planners should figure out how the plan would work if they weren’t. He suggested realization of the entire Plan, including the design component, would require a City/community joint effort to plan public parking to reduce the need for parking on individual lots. Commissioner Needham said his experience was the parking problem should be resolved first, by a parking strategy and public parking funding strategy. He stressed that transportation and parking drove the look of development, and applicants had to know what to expect. He estimated a development review body spent 90% of their time considering issues related to 10% of properties that did not fit a plan. Chair Vizzini confirmed for Commissioner Ostly that forming an assessment district was on the project list and identified in the funding strategies section. He said the Planning Commission would discuss that before they made their recommendation. He observed that the Committee had done a good job of identifying related “work items” that had to be addressed in order to implement the Plan. Mr. Sandblast noted the “Revisit Clause” on page 2-21 of the draft Code called for a future review and adjustment after the Code was adopted that would allow the City to evaluate whether the parking strategy was working, and if that was why parcels could not be developed. Mr. Egner clarified for Commissioner Ostly that there were properties in West Lake Grove that had not been redeveloped under that Plan because it specifically called for consolidation of parcels. He noted the Lake Grove Village Center Plan took a more incremental approach that might allow more leeway to applicants and reflected existing interests within the corridor. Commissioner Ostly recalled the first applicant in West Lake Grove had to install a traffic signal. Mr. Sandblast related the Committee had observed there were still some “stand alone” parcels in West Lake Grove when they agreed to offer the opportunity for an adjustment when an applicant met the intent, but he could not, quite, meet all of the standards. Chair Vizzini recalled the Planning Commissioners did not want West Lake Grove to look like Barbur Boulevard or the Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway – a series of strip malls and convenience stores – or West Lake Grove might have redeveloped faster. Chair Tierney observed a new development on the southwest boundary of the Village Center that was close to the street, with parking and the residential area behind it, would provide a good example to the DRC of what a development should look like under the new standard. He observed that the Code offered a choice of many styles. Chair Vizzini commented that there should not be as much brick or glass on every building. The group then discussed allowable height along the Boones Ferry Road public right of way. Staff advised the right of way varied in width, but the Plan envisioned an 82-foot wide right of way, and that would allow a 41-foot tall building at the street front, or it could slope back to a maximum 45 feet tall, as long as the building met the other standards. However, because allowable height was a factor of the street width, building height along the street would vary as the street width varied. They noted the Overlay would allow buildings to be closer to the street than the Special Street Setback of 50 feet from the centerline. Mr. Sandblast pointed out the draft Code had requirements, but also offered incentives (for adding a choice of two design features) that would allow a building to be higher than two stories, or 35 feet. Ms. McNulty reported hearing that people had a hard time envisioning how the roadway would look because they could not tell how wide the street was. She also reported people were asking where the access to the Post Office was to be. Mr. Egner said Sunset Crossing offered an example of what the right of way width should look like. Chair Vizzini recalled the Corridor Plan contained aerial photos that showed the right of way. Ms. Krebs observed the Hasson and Avery buildings were good examples of what was required by the current Special Street Setback. She also noted West Lake Grove offered a good example of how wide the Village Center corridor should be. Mr. Sandblast explained the Committee did not want to see buildings higher than three stories unless there had been a Residential Infill Development (RID)-type review of the design that related the building to the street. He pointed out if a building had more than three stories, the draft Code required all stories above the second floor to be used for housing (see p2-11). Mr. Egner clarified that applied to four-story buildings within 45 feet of the street, which he anticipated would be rare, because there would have to be 10-foot floor-to-floor spacing and a flat-roofed building. Commissioner Needham indicated it was unlikely that anyone would build a three-story building only 35 feet high. He advised that if the Committee was concerned about controlling height, they should address height - not the number of stories - in order to keep the regulations simple, and avoid confusion. Mr. Egner confirmed it would be possible to put three stories in a 35’ vertical space, but he advised that first floor retail space might need to be taller. Ms. Krebs explained the third story was an important trigger point. Commissioner Needham questioned whether the draft Code language actually reflected what the planners envisioned. He asked the group if they really wanted to see short, three-story buildings - if applicants were willing to build them - where the first floor was higher (to be inviting to retail uses), and the second floor looked smaller. He said the “worst case scenario” was brick and glass, three stories, 35 feet high buildings, all the way down the roadway. However, Ms. Jordan pointed out that would not be the case, because the second floor was to be stepped back from the lower story. She confirmed for Commissioner Ostly that the Committee had examined drawings showing how the step-back would look. Ms. Krebs said they found the best example of that was the Sellwood Library, and the planning group liked that look. Mr. Sandblast and Mr. Egner pointed out the draft Code addressed the Village Edge by calling for stepping-down toward a low-density residential area along the back edge of the commercial district. This replaced the existing GC height requirement and actually allowed a little more height there. However, the Village Transition Areas (VTA 1, 2 and 3) applied to front and side yards along the street on the way toward the neighborhood (see the illustration on page 2-16). Chair Vizzini noted it was a stepping-down of intensity from commercial to residential use. Chair Tierney anticipated the DRC would continue to consider how they would interpret that part of the draft Code. The discussion then turned back again to how the draft addressed height. Commissioner Needham advised the planning group’s intent was unclear. He asked if the problem they intended to address was height, or the number of stories. He asked if the “trigger point” was to be height, or adding another story. Commissioner Siegel recalled that when he read the draft he assumed they intended to make the upper story ceiling lower in order to invite housing, rather than office use. Ms. Krebs recalled discussion of this section had been very contentious, and the design standards applied whenever a building exceeded two stories, or 35’ to 45’. She said both the third story, and the height, were issues of concern to the people she represented. Commissioner Needham explained that a development review body would not know exactly what they meant. Chair Tierney asked if a building could be 35’ even if the right of way did not support that. Mr. Sandblast advised then the RID-review-type criteria (for more than three stories) on pages 2-11 to 2-13 applied. Ms. Jordon explained that while the Committee did not want to require housing, they recognized they needed additional housing in order to make the District a more viable area for businesses as well. So they thought about what would be likely above a 15’ high storefront, and they assumed that would be housing, because an applicant would likely not put offices in the next two stories if he had to step the third story back, as that did not make much economic sense. She said the Committee was trying to offer flexibility to the applicant, while encouraging housing or different kinds of thought in the design process, and at the same time avoiding a view of box-shaped buildings stretching down the corridor. Ms. Krebs confirmed the Committee wanted to offer options and not require one particular look or use. Commissioner Needham agreed it made sense to encourage housing in a transit corridor, where it required less parking. Commissioner Siegel asked the DRC to look at how well the allowable styles would fit the District, and if the Code provided sufficient direction for an applicant to follow to meet the burden of proof that his/her style was compliant. He also favored using incentives to encourage applicants to build public spaces. He asked them to consider if there was anything in the draft Code that was unclear or would present obstacles to that goal. He asked them to consider what was to “trigger” the new standards and how that would affect small, odd-shaped parcels that may or may not be consolidated. He asked them to consider what level of exterior remodel would make the project a “Major Development.” He asked when it would be appropriate for the DRC to apply the provision that called for weather protection awnings. He asked them to consider how much discretion staff should have to decide minor development applications. He said he was very interested in the great potential for improving the quality of development through the adjustment process by providing an option for an applicant to bring a proposal to the DRC, if the developer proposed a better design than the Code allowed, the Commission would be allowed to approve it. He asked DRC to look at those things in detail and advise the Planning Commission. Commissioner Needham asked the DRC to consider whether including photographs of good examples of styles was appropriate, and to consider how “eclectic” was supposed to look. Commissioner Meisburger advised there was “good Cape Cod” and “bad Cape Cod”, and he asked the Committee to clarify what was it about “Cape Cod style” that was desirable and should be encouraged. He said he thought they should focus on what was the desirable result, instead of simply listing the style. He advised the listed styles could be found in an entire range of outcomes. He said they should specify what it was about a style that was good, because there were very specific stylistic requirements that came with each one of those types. He saw a need to further refine that section. Ms. Krebs clarified that the Architectural Design Subcommittee had an architect helping them. She said he had confirmed to them that the draft Code would provide sufficient direction to applicants. She said the Committee advocated the design handbook because they knew more direction was necessary than words in the Code. But meanwhile, the Code language was to ensure the diversity the planners wanted. Chair Vizzini thanked the DRC for their time. The joint session ended at 7:34 p.m. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 05-0080 Persimmon Construction LLC Staff reported that the applicant had decided to withdraw the application and submit a new one later in order to take advantage of new Code provisions related to lot coverage. PUBLIC HEARING LU 05-0084, a request by Mary Jo Avery and Avemere Lake Oswego Investors, LLC, for approval of the following: A Development Review Permit to construct a 8,229 sq. ft., 3-story office building. A major modification of an Approved Development Permit (LU 00-0071/LU 03-0009) to modify the Resource Conservation Protection Area (RCPA) boundary on Tax Lot 5000, in order to provide access to the project site from Tax Lot 5000. Establishment of a RCPA through the site. Removal of two trees to accommodate the development The site is located at 4580 Kruse Way, Tax Lots 5000 and 5500 of Tax Map 21E 08BB. The staff coordinator was Debra Andreades, Associate Planner. The hearing had been continued from the March 6, 2006 DRC public hearing. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, explained the applicable criteria, procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to each report their business or occupation and any additional ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, since the previous public hearing. All of the Commissioners present reported they had been present at the previous hearing. Ms. Ostly, a real estate appraiser, said she had driven by the site. Mr. Needham, a lawyer, said he had driven by the site and observed the City owned adjacent property. Mr. Meisburger, an architect, reported that he had not made another site visit since the one he made before the previous hearing. Chair Tierney, who in the utility inspection business, reported he had made a quick site visit during which had had come to no conclusions. No one present challenged any Commissioner’s right to hear the application. Applicant Frank Charbonneau, Charbonneau Engineering, LLC, 9370 SW Greenburg Rd, Ste. 411, Portland, Oregon, 97233, distributed copies of his April 6, 2006 Memorandum to the Engineering Department staff (Exhibit F-10). He reported that since the previous hearing he had re-evaluated the intersection sight distance at the Carman Drive access and found it was more than the minimum ASHTO standards called for at 25 mph speeds on Carman Drive. He recommended that sight distance there be regularly reviewed to ensure newly planted trees along the sidewalk did not obstruct it when they matured. He said he had conducted a traffic gap study and found there were adequate gaps of sufficient length to allow a driver to turn either left or right from the access. He reported that during AM/PM Peak hours the worst case was in the PM Peak hour when approximately 10 trips left the site. His field survey showed there were a total of 34 available gaps during that time, so there were enough gaps, and the gaps were longer than required by ASTHO standards. He said that meant there were opportunities for a driver to turn safely during the worst-case period. He said the Level of Service (LOS) of the intersection during peak hours was LOS D, so it would work satisfactorily. During the questioning period, he clarified that although dividing the Peak Hour period by 34 gaps resulted in two minutes per gap, a driver would not have to wait two minutes to turn because not all drivers would turn. He reported he had also done a queuing analysis and found vehicles would not stack up behind the proposed access point. He said he understood the Engineering staff had also looked at the area and arrived at the same conclusion (see the Engineering staff recommendation on page 16 of the staff report). Mr. Charbonneau said he recommended full access, allowing all movements, at the proposed driveway location. Bill Horning, Western Planning Associates, 4621 SW Kelly, Portland, Oregon, 97201, and Mitch G. Gilbert, Architect, 139 NW 13th Avenue, Ste. 201, Portland, Oregon, 97209, gave a PowerPoint presentation to show the architecture of other buildings in the area (Exhibit E-15), and they submitted a colored, one-page perspective of the site (Exhibit E-17). They pointed out there were some multistory buildings (some up to four stories) with residential style pitched roofs. They confirmed the undeveloped Kruse Farm property and the site were both zoned CR&D. They compared to-scale drawings of Kruse Way Plaza and the proposed building and pointed out they were of similar height, but the proposed building would appear to be lower because the eave was lower. They indicated that the applicant’s roof and building design would fit the residential feel of the buildings north of Kruse Way, and it would serve as the gateway to the neighborhood to the north. Mr. Horning stated the applicant would agree with the City Engineer’s request to extend the length of the right turn lane, because they would be allowed to use SDC credits to build it. He estimated that would reduce the amount of landscaped area by 1,500 sq. ft., however, he said the revised plan would still contain the pedestrian sidewalk, circulation system, bus shelter and trees the applicant previously proposed to save (Exhibit E-16, Revised Site and Landscape Plan). During the questioning period, Chair Tierney asked if there were other buildings in the immediate vicinity that had a similar arrangement where parking was below the building. Mr. Horning recalled Kruse Woods Corporate Center buildings had that arrangement, as well as a building being constructed at the corner of Pilkington Road and Lower Boones Ferry Road. Ms. Ostly observed the proposed building seemed very small and tall and she asked how its scale related to the Avemere development. Mr. Horning clarified that the upper finished floor level of the Avemere project was at elevation 300, and the applicant’s site was at elevation 264 – a difference of 36 feet. He said that showed the applicant’s illustration was of accurate scale. Mr. Meisburger recalled the applicant’s team showed photographs of residential quality, pitched roof, buildings that seemed to be more like two-story structures than a three-story structure. Mr. Gilbert explained there were additional features, such as fire escapes, that had to be planned when a building rose to three stories. Mr. Meisburger observed that nearby multifamily buildings had overhanging eaves and design elements that helped reduce their mass and resembled residential uses. Mr. Gilbert clarified that the applicant proposed horizontal eaves that projected 18 inches, but the bay windows projected the same distance. Mr. Gilbert acknowledged there were other non-residential use roofs in the area that were not as steep as the proposed roof, but he explained the applicant wanted to emphasize residential style. Mr. Horning pointed out a four-story, pitched roof structure at Daniel Way and Kruse Way. Mr. Meisburger observed that building was set farther back than the proposed building, and Mr. Horning noted it was a much larger building. Mr. Gilbert recalled that the applicant had changed the design from a hipped roof that did not step down that the staff did not favor. Mr. Meisburger said the proposed building looked taller than other buildings in the area and it seemed too fragmented. Mr. Gilbert pointed out the applicant had to design the building for the pie-shaped lot. He then clarified that the ground floor of the building would contain the lobby, stairs, elevator and an opening to the parking area. He confirmed the applicant planned to plant vegetation to screen the parking area from Kruse Way, and they proposed a total of 44% landscaping. He confirmed the ground floor material would be concrete that looked like a heavy stone base. Nick Bunick, 1575 View Lake Ct., reported that 25 people had attended the Waluga Neighborhood Association/developer meeting and no one had criticized the proposal at that time. He noted there was a letter in the record from the Association indicating they supported it. He said he believed Cheryl Uchida personally opposed the project because she wanted the applicant to donate the site to the City for a park. He reported the applicant and the City Attorney had come to agreement regarding construction of another lane on Kruse Way. He held that a left turn was adequate, feasible and safe, and he noted that he had provided photographs of many other “right turn only” locations in the City. He reported that he had discussed the project with the president of the Westlake Homeowners Association that extended to Carman Drive. He said they had no objections to the project. He addressed the issue of allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). He reported the allowable FAR in the CR&D zone was 55% but the applicant only proposed 28%. He said they had reduced the initial size of the building by 20%, to less than the Code allowed. New Public Testimony - from those who had not testified at the previous hearing (None) New Testimony and Evidence – from those who had testified at the previous hearing Cheryl Uchida, representing the Waluga Neighborhood Association, read aloud her April 17, 2006, letter. She related that she had represented the Association at the pre application meeting. She clarified that the site was within the Waluga Neighborhood Association, and she reported that hearing notices had not correctly reported the site address as 4580 Carman Drive. She said the notices also incorrectly stated the proposed square footage. She said the proposed sight distance at the access was unsafe and it did not afford enough room for large vehicles to turn around. She said the proposal would result in more cut-through traffic. She said the building was too tall (at 60 feet) and it should be downsized. She requested the hearing be continued so those issues could be resolved. She observed the area had an eclectic mix of designs and styles. During the questioning period, she confirmed that the Association board had reviewed and approved her letter, and she was present on behalf of Association Chair, Jeff Novak, who was out of town. Elaine Johnson, Holly Orchard Neighborhood Association, offered her own personal testimony, and then presented a letter from Bob Harding, President of the Association. She reported that drivers quickly turned right onto Carman Drive and pedestrians took a risk and crossed the roadway from the Avemere facility in order to get to their cars. She said the building did not fit the “context” of the area or the site. She said pedestrian safety in the area would be exacerbated by the applicant’s project. She then read Mr. Harding’s letter aloud. His letter related that it was often hard to see the posted notice of the hearing driving past the site. He also reported the notice had incorrectly reported the site’s address and the proposed square footage. He said the Association disagreed that the applicant should be allowed SDC credits to improve the roadway. He contended the applicant had not appropriately flagged trees and the notice had not clarified that the applicant was to replace all impacted trees. He contended the applicant’s plan for access modified the Avemere conditions of approval; that a more complete parking analysis was required; that the bus shelter was placed where it would cause a hazard; and that the applicant had not correctly evaluated the line of sight from the Carman drive access. He wrote that access and parking for the site and the adjoining project should be shared, and the proposed dimensions and circulation on the site would pose problems on the street. Erin O’Rourke-Meadors, 5261 Coventry Ct., President of the Westlake Homeowners Association, testified that the Association board had met and discussed the application. She submitted her own letter dated April 17, 2006, with attachments. She reported that the Association was concerned about design and traffic impacts. They believed the applicant should look to the developments along the north side of Kruse Way for complementary architecture, and not as far as Meadows Road. She observed buildings there were two-stories or less. She submitted information describing the SAFECO building and site. She observed that the applicant’s site was at the entrance to the neighborhood, and she opined that it was too small to provide the type of mixed-use development envisioned in the Code, so development there should be more than just “comparable,” it should be “complementary.” She noted a smaller building would not need as much parking area. She said her Association was concerned the proposal would not preserve the “feel” along the north side of Kruse Way. She asked the Commission to further analyze the proposed right turn and ask the applicant to redesign the project so it was more complementary in design, scale, height and materials. During the questioning period, she explained the applicant should provide complementary development in relation to the north side of Kruse Way, but not the south side, and the south side was different, because it had been developed as part of the original master plan. She explained the Code appendix contained a comment to the effect that properties on the north side of Kruse Way were to be compatible with the intensity of the surrounding residential area. She said that was the “context” of the area of the site. She submitted photographs that she said contained examples of the designs of buildings she had referred to. She noted that even a three-story townhouse property on the south side of Kruse Way featured a landscaped berm that made it look less than three stories tall. She submitted two aerial photographs that she said would help show the context on the north side of Kruse Way Rebuttal Mr. Bunick advised that a 48,000 sq. ft. office building, and second one, just as large, had been approved on the north side of Kruse Way, east of the site, and the SAFECO site was to be redeveloped in the future. He said that showed the personality of Kruse Way was changing dramatically. He agreed there was land west of the site that was residential use, but he pointed out there was a complex of multi-story buildings at Kruse Way/I-5. He said he relied on the expertise of the staff and his traffic consultant, but if the Commission did not agree with them, that the other alternative was to configure right turn off Carman, which he preferred because a large number of people were attracted to Westlake’s park and playing fields and shopping center. He said the shopping center had been planned to serve a four-mile radius. He said there were numerous places in the City with restricted right turn only access. He stressed the applicants had planned the project over six years and had agreed to make many changes suggested by staff. Mr. Boone then reported he had heard three parties ask that the record be left open, including the Waluga Neighborhood Association, Ms. O’Rourke-Meadors, and Bob Harding (in his letter). He recalled the new evidence submitted at the hearing had been Exhibits 15-22, F-10 (traffic report), and G 201-203, (letters from the neighborhood and homeowners associations). Chair Tierney announced there would be no more oral testimony, but the written record would remain open until April 25th to allow parties to respond to the new evidence. Ms. Ostly moved to continue LU –05-0084 to May 1, 2006. Mr. Meisburger seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. The Commissioners asked staff to provide them with more information related to notice requirements and why the CR&D zoning was proposed. Staff advised them to presume the CR&D zone was already in place in their analysis because the City Council had ask the DRC to do that. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS (None) ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 9:35 pm. Respectfully submitted, Barb Dillinger Administrative Assistant L\drc\minutes\04-17-06.doc