"If I'm angry at anything, I'm angry at the staff of the city, because the
staff should know, and they're trying to ram this thing through. And I
think if the people really understood what they're trying to ram
through, there'd be a lot of angry people in Lake Oswego," said
resident Barry Cain.
Note: Barry Cain is the developer and owner of Lake View Village and Kruse Way Village.
KOIN TV 7/31/2014 Headline article and video.
The DRC voted 3-2 to deny the application for development of the Wizer Block.
At first it like watching a game of hot potato with commissioners tossing the debate back and forth, tentative about his or her opinions and the meaning of the codes. Chair Needham led with a strong and clear review of the basis of the code within the Downtown Redevelopment Overlay. While there are development codes that apply to the entire city, the overlay codes take precedence within the district. It was the purpose of the Redevelopment Plan itself that played pivotal role in determining the outcome of the decision.
East End Redevelopment Plan Page 21 excerpts below, see also diagrams in sections 3 & 4 that show specific design districts in the plan that show where each area type is.
1. Urban Design Plan Objectives
The Lake Oswego East End Redevelopment Plan adopted Area-Wide and Specific Area Ojectives.
1.3 Create a high density, compact shopping district to serve as the retail core of the East End Redevelopment Area.
1.9 Create areas for high density housing to provide greater intensity of use of the retail core, cultural and recreational facilities.
Starting with the purpose statement and moving to overlay codes that require first floor retail that support the shopping core, siting and mass, the stage was set for discussion of the merits of the design.
The video of the meeting is on the city website, but be prepared for a mini-series-length viewing of about 5 hours.
The main arguments against the development plan were that it did not fulfill the requirement to create a compact shopping district, nor did its mass fit a small scale village character. Walking into the interior passageways was uncomfortable after the initial commercial area at the entrance on 1st St. The private, residents-only areas dominated the first floor and one pathway, leading from Evergreen to the center was too narrow to invite public strolling and there was no opportunity for window shopping as required. Simply put, there was nothing much public about the interior spaces save for offices that were not a destinations that supported pedestrian-oriented, retail activities.
The main argument supporting the development was that economic conditions, market studies and the ability to secure bank loans were more important than the code they were there to interpret. Since the applicant had made a sincere effort, to meet all requirements, the design should be approved.
I was dismayed to hear a commissioner argue that he believed in the rule of law, yet argued against following the code in favor of meeting the developer's economic needs. How many times have I heard, if you don't like the codes, change them. But until they are changed, they are the rule of law.
I'm the end, the structures were determined to be too big, too massive to be small scale village character, and the development was essentially an apartment complex with retail tacked on rather the other way around. The spaces were not divided or inviting to the public and failed to meet code. Cconditions could not correct the flaws because they came from the design itself. As Commissioner Needham said, sometimes a design is presented that is flawed from the start because it was not designed with the intent of the codes in mind. In this case, it appeared that the developer designed an apartment complex with some retail around some of the edges, instead of main level retail with some housing above.
No doubt the decision will be appealed to the City Council which is on hiatus until September, but may meet earlier to hear the case. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment