feel to it as well some of the things that are not obvious that um from this view is we double
the size of the green roof in response to some sustainability uh concerns as well um we added a
pocket park along ridge ave as well which is kind of farther down that that area there i mean uh
further up um uh there you go thank you uh that's the pocket park um but there were some kind of
really smaller moves as far as how we um how we can steal the parking on merrick road
by extending the facade along there some more urbanistic moves that we tried to do as well
is moving the bike room closer to the corner of merrick and ridge um but again it was all about
kind of warming it up and making it more relatable we think and the massing kind of in smaller
chunks to what Sean stealing my thunder at the very beginning about stacking plates up the hill
but it was about not overwhelming the site it's kind of you know understanding the site
and and just responding and you know what the site offered us and not overwhelm it so we feel
we did that and still kind of delivered 185 units and um i mean thank you mr brailler i two points
that um i actually didn't steal your thunder on and didn't mention before at all is can you describe
how the parking is accessed from this property and why it was designed like that sure um the
parking is Merrick Road right there where Sean is circling the idea there would be is to not to
create which we you know as far as keep giving some buffer between cars moving in and out of
the site that they can you know almost you know stack along Merrick Road a little bit is the kind
of big breathing space to Ridge Ave a little bit and extend it up so essentially that's where we
put it. We also put the residential lobby up there as well. We just felt that was more appropriate
as opposed to a long ridge. So we have retail space on the corner to kind of activate that
zone and kind of connect it across to the east. Thank you, Mr. Braylor. And is there, in this
current design, is there any parking visible to the public or the kind of pedestrian or public
view should we don't think so we what we tried to do again was um in addition to kind of putting
the parking up the hill is also put the the mass of the building up the hill right so that the
screen along ridge kind of gives you that nice um kind of transition space between this and
the next property up which becomes on west on west ridge it becomes super steep and rocky
and we don't see any development happening there.
So we thought this was a nice way
of creating that cavern is provide a buffer,
but also set the building back off the street.
And Mr. Braylor,
would you agree that we maximized the parking allowable
in this, or not allowable,
but possible in this current configuration?
um i think we could have parked more but that would require some taller retaining walls
along ridge ave which nobody wants so we thought it was kind of a nice um balance of providing the
parking for one-to-one to keep cars off the street but also not bringing it towards the street and
kind of sending it back in the woods a little bit or what we consider a woods which would be a
heavily screened um landscape element along ridge and to were you trying to prevent any type of
parking garage look or feel to the development
parking garage look or feel to the development definitely that's if beyond that not only is
there an elevational change right so from a pedestrian level and this view you're looking
at is actually the eye point is taken probably 15 feet of grade which is a little misleading
but being lower at more of a pedestrian level that is even going to make it feel even more
you know, less of a parking, a parking structure. There's one level of parking back there.
So it's not at all the parking structure. Okay. And is there any parking access or
vehicular access off of Ridge into the project? There is no. Okay. And then you can see it right
here. Could you describe for me one of the changes that you made to this project showing right here
and why you made that change? Sure, I apologize. It's one of the major changes we made
prior to the last RCO meeting was we added three townhomes there. And essentially to get,
we added three townhomes here and we added a few on Merrick Road, really to get eyes on the street
for you know more of a feeling of comfort for people walking around um it's east falls is a
great area but it's always feels you know people feel more comfortable when as opposed to the
retail and the cafe or whatever that ends up being being not so much a 24-7 thing is that
people feel like they can walk around there by having residential industry walk-ups
okay thank you and is there anything that i haven't covered do you feel
should be brought up to the board's attention in addition to what we've already described
uh the one clarification was when you were going through the site photos is when you were on merrick
road and you mentioned that it was you're sitting on an image and you said this is the end of our
site the end of our site was actually closer to a silver card there up up for there that but that
was really the only thing that i saw um but it was it was just a clarification i i appreciate
that clarification. And now, are you, Mr. Brailler, familiar with CMX3 zoning and CMX3
commensurate projects? I am. And in your design of this building and other design iterations that you
looked at for this project, was it possible to design a CMX3 commensurate project at this
property without disturbing the steep slopes in your opinion i think it's it's possible to and i
only say that but it's a completely different development we're talking about doing a tower
and i don't think anybody wants to do a tower on here there's no height limitation
in this right so the intent is to keep it mid-rise right so i can't say with certainty that
you couldn't do something but it looks a lot different and it's a lot taller so we think this
is a good good place to be and we did multiple multiple options on this and so in your opinion
would would you opine that this pro this project as proposed and as revised uh for the board today
meets the requirements for the issuance of a variance?
I do. Thank you. I have no further questions and would ask the board if they have any questions.
I have none. Questions from the board at this time?
Yes, yes. Where's the entrance to the loading dock?
Do you want me to take that? It's to the, actually if Sean could point to it there,
yeah that that larger opening there it's to the right of the residential lobby which is immediately
to the left of there right it's set back into the building thank you any other questions from the
board no okay let's proceed all right um i have some questions please mr chairman may i have some
questions? Yes, please. Okay, thank you. Good morning, Mr. Breller. In explaining how you got
from the first image to the current image, and by the first image, I mean the one that was sort
of darker with more gray materials, yes, to the current image which is the lighter material
with some other changes. Is it correct to say that both
Is it correct to say that both versions have 185 units?
And in fact, in your testimony, and I wrote this down, you said that you, quote, still delivered 185 units, close quote.
Was that a design requirement that the client gave you?
Yes, it was.
I want to, looking at the exhibit K4, which is currently on the screen,
you know, why couldn't you just have a building along Ridge?
Why does it have to go uphill on this site where the steep slopes are located?
And, Sean, maybe you can go back to the steep slope image, if you could, if you don't mind.
Yeah, let me remember what number that was.
right so at the bottom of the property um you know there are two bands of steep slopes one is
much bigger at the at the top of the property and one is relatively narrow at the at the bottom of
the pro towards the bottom of the property but there's still in my opinion a healthy amount of
uh land but below that uh original sheet and i scratched it off i don't want to make another
mistake all right no worries i just want to make sure you got it thank you thank you
mr chairman just so you know we can hear you having your conversation so if you want to
um but it was it was nothing interesting
uh so mr brawler um you know there's a healthy amount of uh property that's not steep slope
along ridge and mer and the intersection with merrick um you could put a building in there
right i mean it may not maximize your far under cmx3 but there's no requirement to
maximize your your uh your far well we're not even close to that far but we looked at multiple
options mr bonnie um and it may look like more space there but once you put a a conventional
marketable building there you don't have the width to make that happen and if you start
maneuver or manipulating the building and plan what you end up with is a taller building
so you lose floor area per floor so what would happen is a much taller building
and we think that is inappropriate for the site so i appreciate the idea but this is an idea that
we vetted and at we feel that what we're doing sticking the building the majority of it up the
hill is the best move for the site i understand i have a question mr bonnie excuse mr baller
on that subject about a taller building uh hypothetically i believe there's no height
restriction is that correct that's correct i'm sorry i didn't hear that that's correct
okay thank you mr bonnie i'm sorry okay thank you i understand that you're saying it's better but
you know we're talking about hardship here uh and you know whether there is sufficient hardship
demonstrated to um for a variance to impact the steep slopes let me ask you this question
um how about if you impact only the lower band if you impact only the lower band of steep slopes
then you have i'm just eyeballing this you know about two-thirds of the property
um that would be non that would be available for development but what would what it would mean
is in essence you you cannot either build or disturb a steep slope or park on it right what
what we're then talking about is a hybrid you know tall building with parking garage along ridge
avenue to us that is is not a sensitive move for the site well i understand what you're saying
but if you do not um impact those man-made slope areas
then you're talking about a taller building and you're talking about a parking structure on Ridge Avenue.
then you're talking about a taller building and you're talking
about a parking structure on ridge avenue
Well, that may be. I'm not sure you're correct, but that may be.
But I'm, you know, we're not here about preferences.
We're here talking about whether it can be done.
So I take your answer.
Uh, and, and, um, why do you say a parking garage?
I mean, uh, you could put, um, surf, you have surface parking, uh, shown in your, uh, design,
right?
And you also have, uh, some parking along, um, underneath the building.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
So, Chairman, I would simply object here.
there is no legal requirement for anything that we're presenting today to show that we could put
a conforming building or a by right building for any purpose. You know, so I would just
state that we're kind of going down a tangent at which I understand that Mr. Bonnie's sort of
getting involved in engineering issues about what could or could not be disturbed. And I'm happy to
call my engineer to discuss those issues um but i think we're getting a bit far afield well i was
merely pointing i was merely pointing out that i think the witness was um describing the worst
case scenario with a horrible garage and incredible height and i think that a much smaller project um
i don't understand why a much smaller project uh could not be fit could not fit at the bottom of
the site and not impact the steep slope at all, or with a lesser minimum variance, impact only the
lower, much more narrow band of steep slope. And, you know, I'll let the board make its decision,
but I haven't heard anything even close to anything except preferences.
Chairman, with all due respect, I mean, Mr. Bonney's making legal argument, and, you know,
If he wants to stipulate that I could put two townhouses or something here, of course we could.
But his opinion as to whether or not what is a CMX3 commensurate project and whether it would disturb or not disturb steep slopes is wholly irrelevant.
We have presented the board with a heavily revised project in line with the RCO's comments.
and you know our engineer will testify as to the steep slope disturbances and what's required
and the mitigation that we're doing from that i'm happy to call him yeah i think i'd like to get to
that that issue okay because you know the buy right we could sit here all day and come up with
all kinds of uh you know other ideas lower shorter less dense and all that but the buy right uh as
was stated could be significantly higher could be a tower there uh so i'd like to get into this
if if the client if the design requirement is 185 units that's correct
if that was relaxed you know i think the height would come down uh correspondingly so
i'll i have no further questions for the witness thank you excuse me this is sharon
the board may want to call the planning commission representative out of the usual order they
apparently have some concerns about how this uh the latest proposal differs from that that
was considered by cdr sure let's do that thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair members of the board um this project completed civic design
state your name please sorry ian litwin planning commission staff uh this project completed civic
design review uh with two visits to the civic design board um they made changes including
revisions to the loading dock layout however the drawings presented today differ from those
presented at cdr uh therefore we request the board hold their decision so that cdr staff
the executive director of planning commission and the civic design review chair can review these
changes with lni to see if this project needs to return to civic design review oh thank you um
well would that then sharon i'm i'm going back to you would that then require us to have a
new hearing i i think it would be at least a limited resumption hearing for um planning
Commission to report any objections by the CDR committee.
So we continue with this case and then continue the case or?
You should continue with the case and then schedule a result.
You should continue with the pace and then schedule a resumption hearing for the limited purpose of hearing from the CDR committee.
That works, Russ. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Whalen.
I appreciate that input. I think that there will be no issue found by the Planning Commission.
You know, the changes were made in line with CDR comments.
I would simply note that this matter has already been continued from April because we had to return to a CDR second meeting, and in June because the RCO wanted further meetings, which we abided by in both instances.
and now as I'm sure the chair is aware there are significant deadlines coming up with regard to
the end of the year and therefore would just request that we proceed with the case today
and the board can certainly hold its vote for a limited resumption limited only to the planning
commission doing what I would assume to be confirming that we don't need to return to CDR
But I have no issues with Mr. Litwin's proposal.
Excuse me.
This is Sharon again.
Mr. Litwin, can you give us an estimate of how much time you would need in order to report back?
So the design we see today has changes to the site plan.
So we would need to confirm with L&I that it doesn't need a return visit to CDR.
If it doesn't, then it would be quicker than if it does have to go to CDR.
But we're okay with a resumption hearing just for the CDR.
And if that were to be held in a week, could you manage, should you get back to us in that time?
If it doesn't need to go back to CDR, then yes.
Or maybe, can we have two weeks?