Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody. I'd like to call to order the development review commission meeting for November 17, 2025. Uh before we call roll, are there any updates to the agenda needed? No updates. Um, I do want to state a reminder to make sure your microphones are on while speaking so we can actually pick up the audio within the recording. Um, we also will not have an electronic presentation. We'll be doing it by paper. We're having some technical difficulties, but we'll power through it. Uh, will staff please call the role? Yes. Chair Lindstöm, present. Vice Chair Leak, present. Commissioner Dues, here. Commissioner Bates,

here. Commissioner Sangri here. Commissioner Amino here. Commissioner Solun here. Thank you. Uh item number three, we're going to move on to approving the minutes for September 15, 2025. Are there any notable changes needed to those minutes? I will move uh acceptance of the minutes of September um 25 15 2025. I second. Staff please call the role. Lindstöm I.

Leak. Duce I. Bates abstaining. Balinka. I Mino abstain since I was not at the meeting and sangri I 502. Thank you.

Um now we're moving into item number four. We'll be opening the public hearing for LU25-000018. It's a request for approval to construct an addition to our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church for internal circulation and a major variance to project further into the street front setback plane on at a Avenue. The request includes the removal of nine trees 6 to 30 in DVH. This site is located at 790 and 650 A Avenue. The staff coordinator is Courtney Sims, associate planner. And I will now turn direction to attorney Crane to state the meeting procedures to the public.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, first, do we have anybody online? We do not.

Okay. Um, so then let me make silence that for everyone here in the room. Um, the following procedures, I'll describe the procedures for tonight's hearing. um they've been adopted by the city um pursuant to state law and lakego code article 50.83. If you're ever interested, you can look those up uh and familiarize yourself with them. The uh development reviews commission must be based on the criteria and standards that are in the lakego development code um which are then the applicable ones are listed in the staff report. So the decision must be based on those standards and criteria. any testimony you might give tonight or other evidence should be dress uh directed to those criteria because or other criteria you think might apply because again those criteria have to form the basis of the city's decision. Further uh failure to raise an issue in sufficient detail to allow everyone an opportunity to respond to it uh precludes an appeal to the city council or land use board of appeal on that issue. So if you have any issues tonight make sure you raise them and get them on the record. Further for the applicant, um failure to raise an issue uh about any of the conditions of approval, be it constitutional or otherwise. Um failure to raise those issues again in sufficient detail to allow everyone a chance to respond precludes an action for damages in circuit court on that. Um the um okay well if we're going to follow the script then Mr. Chair, you will open the meeting. Yes. So, let's open the hearing.

Okay. Do um any of the commissioners have any ex party contacts, bias, or conflict of interest you need to declare or disclose? Commissioner Leak. Yes. My name is John Dues. I'm a retired architect. I have not visited this I although I drive by it every day but I haven't visited as part of this application I don't have any exparte contacts uh nor do I have any bias or financial conflict of interest thank you anyone else

hi uh my name is Mal Sarank I'm a landscape architect by occupation I have not visited that site uh although I am familiar with it. Um I have not had any expart contacts or nor do I have any bias or financial conflict of interest to declare. Thank you. I'm Helen Leak. I am a realtor. Um I have no conflict of interest, no exparte communication. Obviously I know where the site is because as we said we drive by it a lot. Um, and I have not visited it physically to walk it.

My name is Larry Lindström. I'm a um constructing, excuse me, construction executive. Um, I know where the site is, but I have not visited during construction. I have had no exparte communications. I do I do not know the parties involved. I do not have any financial interest or conflict of interest in this case and I do not have a bias.

I'm Dwight Sangry. I'm a retired civil engineer. I am familiar with the site. I have not had any uh visit to the site nor have I had any expartate discussions related to this project. I um do not feel that I have any involvement with the project or the parties of the project and I certainly do not feel that I am biased regarding this project.

Hi, my name is Yuko Mino. I am an architect. I know of the site uh but I have not gone there in relation to this project. I do not know the parties involved nor have I had any exparte communication. I do not have a financial interest or a conflict of ind interest in this project. Um I do not have a bias. My name is Kristen Bates. I'm a real estate attorney. I have not had any exparte contact on this matter. I don't have any bias on the matter. Um no conflict of interests. Um and no pecan interests.

Thank you. Um are there does anyone wish to challenge anyone's ability to participate in the decision tonight? Seeing no challenges, um the the testimony tonight, we'll pursue we'll first hear from uh staff, get the staff report, then the applicant. The applicant typically gets up to 20 minutes. Um then we'll listen to people who want to testify in favor of the project, then those opposed to the project, and anyone any neutral testimony. Um, so without further ado, we'll turn to the staff report.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Courtney Sims, associate planner for the city. As the chair said, tonight we're discussing land use application 2518 for a development review modification to Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church, which includes major variance to allow uh the addition to encroach into the Evergreen frontyard setback plane. If you'll follow along, we're going to change the page. Um, before we start, I'd like to note that exhibit G101 was added to the record after the staff report was published. The Evergreen Neighborhood Association public uh provided a comment in support of the application. Next page. This was going to be smoother when it was on a PowerPoint. Apologies. Uh, so some site basics. The church is part of a unified site that includes Our Lady of the Lake School at 790A and 5 650A Avenue. Uh it is zoned R75 and within the Evergreen R75 overlay district. It's surrounded by mostly single family uses with a small exception to the northeast which is zoned eastside commercial and contains an office use. Both religious facilities and schools are allowed through conditional use approval in the R75 zone. These uses were approved as part of a conditional use permit when the school was rebuilt in 2009. The proposed alterations are really limited to around the church, and the school and most of the parking area are not proposed to be altered in any way that should impact traffic, parking, or vehicle circulation in the long term. The addition's purpose is to improve the on-site pedestrian cir uh circulation from the parking area to the main entrance along a avenue and will not increase the capacity of the church. The addition will result in a foyer that connects visitors from the interior parking area to the second story main entrance via an elevator and stairwell. This is to ensure that all visitors including those who need an elevator will be able to enter the chapel from

the main entrance rather than from the side entrance uh which is the current configuration. This requires extending the existing gable roof to the east. And additionally, a small adoration chapel is proposed at the southeast corner of the church building for more individual prayer use. Next page. So, some information about the building design. Institutional buildings are reviewed to ensure that the building will integrate with the existing buildings on site. In this instance, we look at how the addition will be compat compatible with the existing church and the school buildings. The applicant is proposing similar finishes and materials as the existing church with additional elements like storefront glazing and light gray brick accents at the adoration chapel to tie into the school. The majority of the original church brick wall will be visible through the large windows and the roof extension will match the existing roof steep pitch style and materials. The lower level at the parking area where the new foyer is proposed will be highlighted by dark bronze awning with a green roof and wooden slat sophets. Staff has found that the proposed addition meets the building design standards. Next page. Uh so on to the major variants. The site is within the evergreen overlay. The overlay uh sets a different front yard setback plane and applies to all development regardless of use. The front yard setback plane acts as a sort of tent that development must stay under. It's measured from this front setback line, goes up 16 ft in this overlay, and then pitches in towards the site at a 612 pitch. In order to continue the existing gable of the roof, uh, which is non-conforming to the standard, a major variance is required. When we review a major variance request, there are three major criteria that we look at. The first is whether there's an unnecessary hardship on the property. To determine

that, we consider a few key factors. Whether there's a physical circumstance on the site or structure that creates this hardship, whether the hardship was self-created, and any other factors that may be relevant. We're going to turn two pages. Actually, um let's start with the physical hardship. In this case, the challenge here comes from both the existing site layout as well as the site topography. Um, while much of the site is relatively flat, there is a steep incline between the main parking area that includes the ADA stalls and the main entrance along A Avenue a Avenue. Because of that grade change, the main church entrance to the chapel sits one full story above the parking area and an elevator is required to provide access so that visitors can come from that parking area to that entrance where the services are held. Next page. Um, their site is also uh non-conforming to the Evergreen front yard setback plane because the church uh the site is a church with steep roofs that was built before the standard applied. That makes in addition to provide circulation to the front entrance difficult without adding on near the front entrance. Uh by extending the existing non-conforming roof along A Avenue a Avenue, there would be enough space to house the elevator equipment without major renovations to the rest of the church's roofs or floor plan. Sorry, next page. Uh sorry, the uh current floor plan doesn't have room east of the main entrance uh to provide that internal circulation between the lower parking area and the upper level without the gable expansion. An eastward expansion at the main entrance would create the needed space to connect the lower parking area to that traditional main entrance. Right now, church g goers who must use an elevator have to enter from the side of the chapel nave which is not

ideal both functionally and from a traditional worship layout. Going on to the next page with the new floor plan. Um it allows the ste allows that connection with uh along the northern portion of the building. Next page. Another factor staff found relevant was the use. The existing church was constructed in the 1950s, well before the evergreen overlay district was adopted. It's also the only non-residential property in that overlay. Under our code, religious facilities are have allowed are allowed to have taller buildings, but the evergreen overlay imposes a lower setback plane, which is at odds with that taller height. Typically, setback claims only apply to single family and middle housing projects in the rest of the city. But the evergreen AR overlay applies it standard to all development in that area, including this church site. That creates an unintended consequence. More restrictive residential setback plane now now applies to a non-residential use. Uh and the purpose statement of the evergreen overlay supports this. Uh it's to ensure that residential development fits the character of the neighborhood. This is not residential development and since the church predates the overlay and it's not residential, it's reasonable to conclude that applying these standards here was not intentional. So in short, this condition was not self-created and applying the standard to this development creates an unnecessary hardship to provide accessible circulation staff. Based off of those findings, staff concluded that the first criterion, unnecessary hardship, is met. Next page. The second criterion is whether the proposal would not be injurious to the neighborhood. And reviewing this, staff looks at physical impacts of the development, including visual traffic, noise, drainage, erosion, landslide hazards, as well as perceived impacts. The physical impacts are relatively

limited for this addition. So, the addition is interior to the site uh and not increasing the capacity of the church use. The applicant has submitted a preliminary storm water and geotechnical report which staff has found can meet applicable code. The perceived impacts of projecting into the front yard setback plane are relatively minimal as well. The extension will continue east about 20 ft from where the gable currently is compared to the existing non-conforming structure which is both closer to avenue and taller than the proposed addition. Yeah. Uh so the uh addition will not be considered the most looming portion of the building for pedestrians walking along a avenue. Furthermore, the use specific standards for religious institutions which allows for taller structures requires larger setbacks for residential uses. So while the taller portion of the roof is projecting into the setback plane, the setback is 37 ft, reducing impacts when viewed from the street. And finally, when looking at the properties most impacted by this encroachment, we're talking about properties that can see the addition, which in this instance are properties across a avenue over 150 ft away from the building addition. At this distance, the perceived impact from the variance will be minimal. Staff finds that the variance would not be injurious. And the second criterion is met. Next page. The final criterion is that this is the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The applicant described the architectural alternatives they uh explored in their narrative to connect visitors to the main entrance. This projection is the minimum necessary expansion of the building to allow the elevator and stair connection to the entrance from the parking area and continuing that existing gable roof would be the least impactful visually. There is no minor variance to allow encroachment into the setback plane. Nor is there a design variance option available for this site

based off of this use. Staff finds that this is the minimum variance necessary to allow for this improvement and that all major variance criteria were met. Next page. Finally, I'm going to briefly discuss tree removal. Nine trees are proposed for removal. All but two of these trees are less than 15 inches in diameter and not expected to impact physical systems or neighborhood character. The two trees that are larger than 15 inches in diameter are 30-in Doug fur and a 20-in eastern hemlock. While staff did not consider them significant due to size or species, they are fairly prominent in the skyline when viewed from a avenue. So, alternatives to removal were required to be explored. While staff uh these trees are about 20 feet from the existing building. So with the building expansion of 20 feet to the east towards these trees, the impacts of development will be well within the tree protection zone. Uh as discussed previously, the applicant has considered numerous alternatives to uh the proposed development as part of the major variance criteria. So reasonable alternatives to removal have been considered and staff finds that the tree removal criteria are met for these two trees as well as the seven smaller trees on site. All trees are proposed to be mid mitigated with incense cedar trees proposed to replace the two large evergreen trees in a similar location. With that staff recommends approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report and I'm here for any questions you have. Thank you. Really quickly before the DRC asking any questions for anyone watching online, this presentation from staff will be posted as an exhibit later tonight. Thank you. Do any commissioners have any questions?

No questions. All right, I have a question. Okay. in your report um you have a much more detailed list of the conditions that apply to this project. Can we uh take your written report as the specific definition of the criteria that you will set for this? I'm just thinking when we come to recommend a decision, I want to be able to reference that rather than something you presented here. Yes. I'm not recommending any additional conditions in my presentation. Yep. Okay. Any more questions?

Okay. Thank you. I'd like to request the applicant's testimony. Um just to remind you, you'll have up to 20 minutes, not including questions from the commission. There'll be three lights up there at the table when you sit down. on the green light means it's active and it's your turn. Yellow light re um means 30 seconds. Red will mean the time is up. A flashing red means 30 sec seconds past allowed time. I'll try to be uh quick with this. My name is Stephanie Fitzu. I'm with Darto Architecture and I'm the project manager for this project. Um, I will briefly go over the design. A lot of what Courtney said kind of mirrors what I'm going to say a little bit and go over the major variants in the discussion of the trees. Um, this project has been in the works since about 2015. The church built the school in about 2009 and since they were able to finish the funding for that they've been really trying to raise money in order to bring the church building up to the same standard and modernize it. So this project was really met with uh the need to upgrade all of the systems which are original or were original from the 1954. So, there was a big giant boiler in the basement and uh original electrical and lighting and all of that. Um upgrade uh the circulation, which is a common problem on the site because uh if you're coming to the church and you haven't been there before, you park in the parking lot, you don't really know how to get up into the church unless somebody tells you. Uh they built an addition in the '9s that housed an elevator and a staircore that drops you off upstairs in the nave. Um, and then there's another stair edition that drops you off it into the narex at

the front of the church, but you have to kind of go into the parish hall and go up some stairs and down some stairs. It's a little bit of a maze to get there. So, part of this was how do we replace all of the systems? How do we uh increase ADA access? How do we do a light upgrade to everything and make sure that the circulation's very clear and all of our visitors and parishioners understand how to get through this building and uh use it properly. So, a lot of that came with uh our need to look at how to touch this building very lightly. The intent was not to um put an addition on this building that looked different. The intent was let anything that we put on here, let's let the existing building uh shine through that and we just kind of want you to be able to see through anything that we're putting in front of it. Um the two additions that were there originally kind of blocked stuff. So while we're sort of removing them and putting the same uses back, the the intent was to make the circulation working a little bit better. The site itself because uh at a avenue uh is much higher than it is down where the parking is similar to this site where you're dealing with a large grade change and so you therefore have to deal with ADA access and parking and getting people to both levels. Um we were really trying to put the elevator back kind of in the same location on the south part of the building. Um, but because of the configuration of the building and where you were dropped off and uh the height of the roof at that location, we couldn't physically get the elevator uh with the overrun and all of it to fit in that location. So, we spent a lot of time trying to make that addition work and try and put the elevator kind of back in the same spot and it became clear that that was not going to be a viable solution. We looked at all the other elevations, too. Due to setbacks where the existing church is, we can't really add to any of the other parts of the building. So, uh, then we started looking toward putting the elevator on the north end of the addition, which is where we're proposing

to put it. So, that and, uh, we did a bunch of studies to basically show that this is kind of, even though it seems further in plan, it's actually the closest way to get from the parking, the ADA parking up into the elevator. Um, and there's a lot of kind of grade changes that they built when they built the school in order to marry the two sites together. And this also kind of um uh gets rid of a lot of that. So we're trying to unify it, make the whole site a little bit more friendly and easier to circulate from the parking lot into the church into the parish hall and between the school and this building as well because there's a lot of uh use that goes back and forth. The school building also uh houses the parish center which is essentially all of the offices for the church. So everybody's going back and forth between the buildings constantly. So, that's sort of a little bit of the history of of how we ended up putting things where we needed to put them. So, I'll quickly go through this and um uh first page is just a a rendering just showing the outside of the building. The intent is to have a a single volume kind of foyer. It's uh has a green roof on top of that to lighten the load of it. It also deals with the storm water for our new impervious area. And then the volume that's going to house the stair and the elevator is that two-story volume and it's essentially an extrusion of that. end of the building. We're not trying to uh we wanted it to look make the church look as same as possible. We didn't really want to put anything in front of it. Um when they built the school, they took cues from the church. So the brick on the school and the storefront and all the thing the materials on the school were used to uh match the church. So we weren't trying to add any more new materials. We're trying to keep with the same palette, um, same types of brick, even the textures of the brick, um, and the storefronts to keep and match just to keep a holistic look on the campus itself and make everything look cohesive. Um, when you look, uh, the first page, uh, this is just an existing site plan. It shows the tree removal and the

demolition. This essentially just shows you where the existing staircore, uh, it looks like a little greenhouse stair that goes up the side of the building. And there's an existing elevator edition, and those were built in the '90s. Those are the things we're intending to remove and the trees are in those zones or adjacent to them and I'll I can address those further. Um that's essentially the demo portion. If you flip to the next page, it's essentially just an existing floor plan. It's just familiarizing you with the use of the building. The bottom floor is the parish hall. It essentially has a large kitchen down there. All the mechanical uses are down there. You can see the two additions we're tending to remove which have the um kind of diagonal hatch on them. shows where the existing elevator and the existing stairs were. Um and uh the the the footprint of the church itself, the original footprint of the church. We are not modifying anything that we're adding to. It is um kind of taking away what was there and putting new back. Uh second page after that is the existing floor plan of the church level up above. really just for you to be able to see the size of the nave, where the pew layout is and ex how the existing elevator kind of dumped you into the front of the church or near where the altar was. So, this became a little bit of a conflict. If people were needing to use the restroom or coming into church late, it would be disruptive because you could hear the elevator dinging and you could hear people coming in and out right at the front of where the altar was. So, another component of us trying to relocate or or mitigate some of these things was to make sure we were having the elevator and any of the circulation come in toward the Narthx, which is where everybody should be entering. Um, and there's also a choir loft that's on the second floor that's shown here too. Next page, this is a just overall site plan just to orient you. I think most of you know where this site is. There's a existing school and parish building. There's a large site. There's a parking area and a playfield and a playground for the church and the school. We are

not intending to modify any of those things, keeping the parking lot existing. The only modification that's being done to the parking lot are two ADA stalls that are being shifted over to another area um because we're putting the adoration chapel right in that area. Other than that, the intent is to keep the site as is. They spent a lot of like time and money doing all of that when they built the school. So, kind of really trained us to um be responsible to the site, fix the things that weren't fixed during that time, and make sure that we're they're spending all of their money and time in the church building itself. Um, and the next page is just the uh floor plan of the parish hall. Essentially, it's a the same use. We're moving some restrooms around, remodeling the kitchen, and you can see the addition of the foyer. The area that is hatched is the existing building that is um the original building that is remaining. We're doing some interior remodeling and then the foyer and the elevator and the stair edition are on the east side of the building and there's a small adoration chapel um which has its own standalone restroom um toward the entrance on the south end of the building. Next page is uh the upper floor which essentially shows the nave. We're modifying the sanctuary. We're doing some interior remodeling to upgrade all the finishes in that space. They are, like I said, putting all new mechanical and electrical in this building to replace all of um outdated systems to modernize everything. And on this uh level, you'll see that the kind of hexagonal hatch is where the green roof would be. And on the north side of the building, you see the stair coming up and the elevator dropping you off in the northx. and the choir left on a loft. Uh we'll now have two stairs going up to it. Originally only had one. So this is also creating some ADA access within the building. We're also adding a um ADA ramp up to the sanctuary which has never

existed before. Um next page is the elevations. Here you'll see all of the areas that are hatched or gray. That's the existing building to remain. The areas on the north elevation you'll see the addition. It's on the left hand side of the existing building. The height of that while if you look at it in elevation looked quite tall from Avenue A was not not not uh taller than the edge of the existing gable. Um the roof material is to match the existing roof in that location and it is set back a distance even though we are seeking a very major variance um due to our setback um into the evergreen overlay. Uh and then on the east elevation you'll see the elevation of the uh single volume addition and the gable end um that house the foyer as well as the elevator. And then on the left hand side of that east elevation is the adoration chapel which is kind of nestled back in that spot. Next page, just a simple uh design palette drawing just to let you know or illustrate the intent of matching most of the existing uh materials. Again, we're trying to keep all of the materials essentially that are used for the church. That was what was used to build the school and kind of keep the same pallet throughout. The existing brit brick on the church is a a red like uh a scratch pick or rug texture they call it sometimes. Um and there are a bunch of pre-cast um window sills and a couple of large entryways that are this kind of cream color or castle gray is the closest we're matching to. So any brick that we're using new, we are matching that color. a similar color, the same color that's used over on the school and um matching

the roof where it is and some of the exterior sophets are going to be wood. Next page is um just that rendering again where you can see uh the circulation how you can go up the stairs. You should be able to see through all of that. All of the brick on the outside of the building that we are enclosing, we are exposing. So the intent is that you're can see and touch and feel the church that's always been there. We don't want to cover it up. We want you to be able to see it. Um and then the left side, you can see the little white brick volume. That's the Adoration Chapel and um new landscaping kind of up toward Avenue A where we're intending to mitigate those trees. Next page is just an evening rendering showing kind of site lighting and uh what that would look like from the parking lot facing north. I don't know the sky is ever going to look like that, but I hope it does. Um, and then these next two pages are just real quick, uh, an interior rendering of the foyer where you can see how you get into the elevator and go up the stairs. Um, and that on the left hand side you could see that the intent is to expose all of the brick on the existing building even though that volume is enclosed. And then the next page, um I know this doesn't matter too much, but they're we're doing just kind of a remodel of the interior of the church to relamp their lights and um do a painting upgrade and mess with some of the finishes and redo the sanctuary. So, they're doing that throughout the whole building. Um and then real quickly, I know Courtney went through this. The next page goes over the uh the setback plane in the evergreen overlay um and how the addition partially goes into that and why we're seeking that as a major variance because we spent a lot of time trying to make the elevator fit on the south transcept of the building and we weren't able to. It led to this location. Although we looked at design

options for all around the building, um this location in particular, uh as you look at it, we're um I think we're the only church and maybe even the only commercial use in this zone or in this overlay, excuse me. So, uh, while we're applying a a residential setback to a commercial building, an old commercial building, um, an indust or institutional use, it it isn't necessarily, you know, uh, the easiest way to to, um, think about how a setback plane would um, intersect this in such a way. So in this diagram, it basically shows what the property line is to the face of the church, what the existing base zone setback is. So our addition is essentially within that existing base zone setback, but because of the way that the pitch is needed for the evergreen overlay, uh it cuts off this little triangle at the top of the addition. And so this diagram essentially goes through what exactly which portion of the addition is going through that um and the size of it. Um, and because you see so little of that addition from Avenue A, it isn't a large area, but it definitely does go into that area. I think Courtney went over some of that. We talked about the criteria for it. Um, and the the use and the need for that. And if we weren't able to put the elevator in this location, I don't really know how uh we could get the ADA access or the elevator access into the Northx, which is the main component of this building. So, um, that's major variance. I kind of went through and blew these up because I I wasn't sure we were going to be having these paper. So, this goes through each of those here. I'll speak through this. Sorry. If you look at the blowup, it gives you a little bit better a sense of the

diagram of where we are, where the existing setback is, and what the proposed addition is and what that section of that roof is that's going through that area. Same these next two pages. I'm sorry. This is talked about it before we turn the pages. Um I'm going to go to the last uh the second to last page. It's a building section. Just trying to illustrate when you when you look at the building section um through the gable end where the elevator is. You can see that the elevator is in the um volume to the south and it's kind of covered by brick. The existing end of that whole gable is all stained glass. So, another part of this was that we had to organize the elevator around all of that in order to maintain all of the existing openings. Um we're also contending with a lot of structural needs for this building and we couldn't put any more openings in the existing brick exterior for lots of structural reasons. Um, and another major fun thing that's going on here too is we're putting sprinklers in this building. So, while trying to organize all of this, they're filtering sprinkler pipes through all of this. So, a lot of this has to do with um maintaining the existing building as much as possible while still trying to put all these new systems inside of it. Um, but you can just see there that we're trying to make sure we weren't covering up any of the existing stained glass, so we had to push the elevator over to the side. Um, and then the last little bit of information I think is about the trees. We spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to save as many of the trees as possible. The the site has a lot of trees on it that are very old and lovely all over. Um, a couple of the trees that we are needing to take out are were planted when the school was built. A couple of them are parking lot trees. Um, and they're going to be replaced essentially in similar or

similar locations. they exist within the footprint of the construction. The two biggest trees are along Avenue A, we spent some time trying to figure out if we could save those. Um, and once it became clear that we needed to put the elevator in that location, the constructionability of it was that they have to do a lot of excavation in that area and arborist recommended the removal of those. his kind of point was they're not uh while they are large trees and they are at the front of the site, they are um they aren't in any if if if we were to to uh excavate any of the roots out of them, they would probably not survive. So, it's not good thing to try and save them. But also that once we put the addition in that location that those trees would be too close to the building. So the suggestion was to remove those trees up at the front of Avenue A and mitigate them and put more trees closer to the street a little bit further away from the building so we didn't have these pretty big trees right up against a new new building. And I think that concern was for weather. Um the sorry the last page really just shows the areas of new landscaping and where the trees are new trees are intended to be planted. We're wanting a couple of large evergreen trees to replace those ones that we are taking down because I think that is part of the identity of the site. If we could have left them, we would have liked to have. So, I think the intent is to put some back there in a similar location but a little bit further away because they feel like they're part of an anchor to the site itself. Um, I'm going to let you all go. I appreciate everybody's time. Thank you. Stop. Do I Thank you very much. Do any commissioners have any questions for the applicants?

No questions. Um, I have a question. Hi, I have a question. Sorry. Can you help clarify for trees one and one and two? Would you help clarify uh why those trees uh need to be removed? Is that a staging area or is that a new paving?

It is a staging area. Essentially, they're intending to bring a crane on site to bring some of the materials in. We put those trees on here. They're hoping that maybe they don't have to take them out. If so, we're putting them back in the same spot, but it is really for them to be able to bring the crane in and bring all the materials in. If they can leave them there, we'll leave them there. And one final one. Um, it seems like there's going to be new stairs on the east side of the building, right? Where maybe it's like bike racks. Can you say that again? I'm sorry. There's there's new stairs right at the on the east side of the building. Yes.

Um, north northwest of the ADA stalls. So, is that something that's going to be new grades or how is that getting tied with the existing grades? Because my concern would be there there seems to be two existing trees east of that spot and the limit of work seems to be going very close to them. So are those trees likely to be damaged? Do you know which ones? I mean there's like a circle on the site plan uh to the east of the building like a like a opening.

Mhm. And from the stairs, I assume that there's going to be new grading or something like that. The limit of work goes very close to those trees around that circle. Th those trees there's a there's a big kind of grass area in in that existing area. And it's all surrounded by trees. They're all I think they're flowering um plum maybe. I forget exactly what kind. Uh those were all installed when they put the school in. We are we were really trying to leave all of that area alone. So we don't want to touch any of the trees outside of the area that we're touching. They there's essentially there's a there's a easement that goes through the middle of this uh right in that area and that is essentially the line of when they built the school and we're trying to essentially there's a bunch of ups and downs and a couple trees in that area that we're trying to unify that area and make it one kind of big it's like a little bit more of a plaza. Right now it's a couple of different grades. So we're trying to you the existing ADA access or the ADA ramp from the parking lot. It goes along that curved area. So when you see where the ADA parking is, you get out of your car there and the ramp goes up around the curve. We're leaving that in place.

Okay? And so the plaza that we're building and making it all relatively flat and level is to meet with the top of that ramp. So we're trying to meet all of those things all together, but we're not intending to mess with any of the trees that are around the round area. Okay. So what I understand is that there'll be no grading in the root zone of those trees. No, there the trees essentially that that are along that side are a little bit in planters too. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Mhm. Any other questions? We have any other speakers on the docket?

Turn it over to you, Attorney Crane. Do I understand correctly then? There's no test. Nobody wants to testify in support of the application. No, nobody in opposition or neutral. Okay. Um, and there was no need for rebuttal. Does anybody wish to hold the record open for an additional seven days? No. Sorry, I have to jump ahead several pages. Um, okay. Oh, unless um we we do have to by law wait an additional seven days for you for the applicant to file their final written argument unless you want to wave that seven days and allow them to looking at staff. I may be getting your procedures wrong here.

Um, excuse me. There's an opportunity for the applicant to request an additional 7-day extension to provide final written argument. That is up to you to say yes or no to. Yeah, there's no testimony. So, there was and that would be why we're doing it right now. That's typically Yeah. So, you wave a final written argument. Thank you. So, we can proceed to a decision deliberate and a decision this evening then.

Thank you. So, the public hearing is now closed. I'll direct the commission into deliberations. Um, I think it's a great project. You've thoughtfully put it together. Um there was no adverse comments from the Evergreen Neighborhood Association and then and another letter was written in support. So I see no reason why we shouldn't go ahead and approve the um LU25-000018. If that was a motion, I will second the motion with the additional caveat that the conditions that were prescribed or described in the staff report would apply to this decision. Okay. So, I guess city staff call the vote. K Lindstöm.

Hi. Vice Sherik. Hi. Commissioner Juice. Hi. Commissioner Bates. I Commissioner Saluca. Hi. Commissioner Mino. Hi. Commissioner Sangry. Hi. 70. The motion having received a majority uh constitutes the commission's tentative decision. The final decision will be then made upon the adoption of the written findings which staff will prepare and bring back to you.

All right. Well, thank you very much. So now we'll move before we finalize that portion of the of the evening. Um I will let you know that staff will return on December 1st or we'll present findings to you um the Friday before December 1st. Do we have a date on that, Cat? Sorry, I don't have a calendar. We have uh the holiday coming up next week. Sorry, what? It would be November.

Oh, right. Because it's Thanksgiving next week. Yes. I'm sorry. So, thanks. Uh, so yes, the staff will prepare findings um and they will be sent out to you Wednesday the 26th of November. Um, and we will meet again on December 1st. We also uh for adoption of those findings. Thank you. Will that be I guess we can discuss if that's going to be via Zoom. Are we going to Yeah, we'll get to that with a management update. Okay. Thank you. So, I guess there's nothing left on the public hearing. We'll move into item number five, which will be the schedule review and management update. I'm sorry. I'm management update. Okay,

turning it over to you. Sorry. Lots of uh

back and forth and dates to figure out. Um, okay. So, uh, looking at upcoming hearings, um, I have been emailing you and, uh, about the next three dates. Um, and it looks like we have a quorum for all of those. So, thank you. Uh, findings will be adopted on December 1st for um, LU25008, our lady of the lake here tonight. We also have a public hearing uh for a multif family residential project on Lake View and Bryant um that night. Um we are also uh so then we adopt findings hopefully for the multif family on December 15th. We also have another public hearing that night for an 11 lot subdivision. Um and then coming back hopefully just that one night on January 5th for adoption of the findings for the 11 lot subdivision. So, we do have a full schedule um throughout January 5th so far. Um I will come back on December 15th to determine whether or not there's just findings to be adopted on January 5th and we can figure out if we want to meet on Zoom at 6 p.m. in a month or two weeks later. So, we'll figure that out. It'll be clear. Um that is the only uh management update that I have for you. Um unless anyone has any questions about some of the bigger projects that are going on, uh I can let you go. Any questions, necessary updates? All right, let's get out of here. Thank you so much.

Yep. So moving to that uh item number six, which would be the adjournment for the evening. So apologies. everybody for your time. Thank you city staff for the reports. You have a great evening and I journ the meeting. Thank you so much.