DRAFT
West Highlands Stakeholder Group Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Key: CD1: Councilwoman Shepherd’s Office, District 1; HMA: Highlands Merchants Association; NHR: No
High Rises *purple Carrie E. and orange Christine M .; RP: RedPeak Properties; RNL: RNL Design; SKG: Sky to Ground; WHNA: West Highland’s Neighborhood Association green Jay Scoggins
1.
Introductions and Purpose a.
After the first Listening Session, it was decided to peruse two tracks: 1) Informational session C.M. where CPD made a presentation on zoning on 12/6/11, 2) Design input session on 12/7/11 C.M. to discuss what the build out will look like.
b.
The stakeholder group can influence what the development will look like
2.
Facilitation a.
C.M. NHR questioned Nanci’s background and her moderator role given her ties to the development community b.
RP is concerned if they engage SKG’s without agreement by the Stakeholder Selection
Committee, RP or SKG could be criticized for biased facilitation. c.
C.M. Discussion around SKG’s payment and who would be responsible. RP is prepared to pay SKG’s fees or split them amongst the Stakeholder groups. d.
It was agreed the matter would be referred back to Stakeholder Selection Committee.
C.E.: NHR asked SKG to explain their background and questioned the company’s mission of helping land developers push their projects through city government faster. We questioned how Nanci could be a neutral facilitator.
3.
HMA: What is the purpose of the Stakeholder Group? How much influence does the group have? a.
SKG: RP is seeking community input, while still having a use by right. b.
C.M. RNL: Design group doesn’t have any formal power, but can impact the design through their input c.
C.M. RP: Question around schedule and frequency. Tonight’s meeting is preliminary mass and bulk discussion, not a true design forum. RP to go back and see what they can impact.
d.
RP: Directed RNL to seek input from the community and, to the best of their abilities, apply the input. e.
WHNA: Is the purpose of this meeting to mitigate the tension and opposition to this project? i.
RP: At the beginning of the process, a Listening Session was held at the suggestion of CD1. From the Listening Session, RP discerned two buckets of issues: C.E. Did RP discern this or did CD1?.
1.
Reservations with an incorrect/disputed zoning
2.
Other stakeholders (this group) who felt that their concerns could be addressed and mitigated through design (solar access, site, density, impact, etc.) C.E. please note that it has never been said that members
Page 1 of 10

DRAFT
West Highlands Stakeholder Group Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 of this group feel that their concerns can be addressed and mitigated soley through design input.
f.
C.M. RNL: Goal of the meeting/track is not about zoning but making the best design given the economic realities for RP, density requirement, net leasable square footage requirements, etc.
g.
CD1: Suggests focusing on issue definition: what are the issues at hand, how they defined and what the options are. i.
Meeting held on 12/6/11 to describe the zoning history and overview. ii.
CD1 will be taking input until next Friday to make a decision on what actions
CD1 will pursue. h.
HMA: Doesn’t want to be involved if there isn’t buy in from the community. It could be a fruitless exercise if the Stakeholder group comes to a conclusion and exterior community groups proceed with or without the group’s verdict. C.E. Brad Buchanan made the statement “this group has no power”; CD1 then questioned if that’s what RNL
(Brad) really meant. C.M. Meaningful compromise is critical and if the developer makes concessions, this needs to be communicated back to community. i.
RP: This is an opportunity for the people in favor of the development to voice their opinions in a less intimidating environment. j.
SKG: There is a strong possibility both tracks will proceed (downzoning and design). k.
RP: It is not a requirement of the Stakeholder group to be in favor of the development.
4.
Schedule and process: a.
C.M. RNL: Series of formal meetings. Anticipate 3 to 4 meetings for mass and scale, and then a break, then a few meetings on skin, materials, and then a series of meetings on the construction process (possibly same or different group).
b.
Concerns from several groups that the timing is too tight with the holidays, several members will be unavailable on the 21 st .
c.
RNL: Mid January is the target date for RP’s plan to submit plans to the City. This is a formal submittal to the City. No need to resubmit concept plans.
d.
RP: RP has a contract in place regarding land ownership and for them to keep their terms, some milestones are associated with their contract. Need to hit mid-January deadline for first set of plan submissions. e.
RNL: Hoping to have another meeting in two weeks to show how the Stakeholder’s feedback is incorporated. C.E. meeting is scheduled for 12/21/11.
f.
Estimated two meetings on size and scale, then a break, and then a few meetings on fenestrations and skin. C.E. RNL/RP actually stated there would be 3-4 meetings on form/mass/scale and then 1-2 on skin/materials.
g.
NHR: What is RNL/RP schedule to submit an application to the City? i.
RNL: A Concept Plan was submitted five months ago. Site Plan tentatively scheduled to be submitted in mid-January. C.E. RP answered that they have
Page 2 of 10

DRAFT
West Highlands Stakeholder Group Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 deadlines that they have to meet per their contract and that mid-january was an absolute for making their first formal submittal for site review plans. Then would make another within about four months. ii.
RP: In order to pull a construction permit, Site Plan review must be completed. h.
RNL: Suggests during the next 30 day the Stakeholder group organize and group issues by “agree” issues, “kind of agree” and “disagree”. i.
RNL: Ideally, the Stakeholder group could meet four times prior to the Site Plan submittal. j.
SKG: Restates concerns that could be an aggressive schedule for the Stakeholder group.
C.E. every stakeholder group raised concerns about the aggressive schedule. 3-4 meetings between mid-december to mid-january – during the busiest/craziest time of the year/holidays – seemed very aggressive and unrealistic to most members. RP again stated they had a deadline to meet.
5.
Communication a.
SKG: If or how would you like communication from this group to be handled? b.
HMA: Do not want to be a spokesperson for the commercial property holders. c.
RP: Questions how to insure this group is separate from the night before meeting. C.M.
Need clarity around objectives, we are not supposed to be representatives of our larger group’s interests, we are present as individual stakeholders not to represent all interests from the groups that volunteered us.
d.
RP: It is not a requirement of the Stakeholder group to be in favor of the development. e.
Individual members of the group are uncomfortable representing the interest of our specific groups. f.
WHNA: It would be easier if it there could simply be one track to get through zoning issues and then move on to the design considerations, but the reality of the situation is that RP has contractual obligations to move forward. The result is a dual track. g.
CD1: Perhaps the neighborhood association could take the meatier position in terms of communicating the recommendations of this group. i.
WHNA: But a conflict could arise when the association decides to take an official position external to these meetings. That doesn’t mean that WHNA can’t continue contribute to the Stakeholder group. C.M. Currently, WHNA is serving as a facilitator of communication, not taking an official position at this time, a vote would be needed.
ii.
WHNA: HMA Seeks buy in from the community members otherwise this becomes merely an exercise. iii.
WHNA: Everything that RP wants to do is their purview. C.M. RedPeak doesn’t need resident buy in. They have current zoning rights.
Page 3 of 10

DRAFT
West Highlands Stakeholder Group Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 iv.
RP: Does not feel the consensus of the Stakeholder group means agreement or support from their respective groups. RP is looking for a way to capture community input. v.
WHNA: Seek good faith from RP that the time the group puts in counts. vi.
C.M. HMA: Is this a feel good exercise or does this group have merit? vii.
RP: Opinions are binding, not a listening session, work to achieve a consensus viii.
WHNA: No way we can say that no one in our organizations can pursue other actions. We are on a compressed timeline.
6.
Confidentiality a.
C.M. RNL: Address issues of confidentiality and exaggeration. b.
CD1: Need to set ground rules what individuals do with the information that is discussed in the meetings. It needs to be treated carefully. c.
If there is misinformation information then it only fuels to fire and that’s a problem. d.
NHR: Need to report back honestly and as accurately what was discussed. e.
NHR: It’s hard to say what the compromise is when nothing’s been shared. f.
NHR: Don’t know what’s going to happen until the next meeting as there is no baseline for comparison. g.
RP: There are going to be building restrictions on given the maximum and minimum conditions. h.
RP: Will discuss with the group why it might be able to act on some suggestions.
7.
Design Topic Definition a.
RP: The architect that submitted the Concept Plan is no longer with the project. RP started over. i.
NHR: Is RP going to re-submit a Concept Plan?
1.
RP: No need to. b.
NHR: To what extent is RP planning to develop the sites? i.
RNL: There needs to between 140 and 260 { C.E. should say 160} units based on the sales price of the land. {C.E. RP: 25% 2 bedrooms, 75% 1 bedrooms and studios; RP seeking leed certification}. C.M. Must be because of the known land price and those are the constraints. c.
RNL: Tonight’s presentation shows the most allowed under the current zoning, C.M. use by right. But, this not what is being proposed. C.E. RNL showed maximum height allowed for the buildings but said they did not plan on using the total 28ft allowed for utilities and said most was about 5ft tall. They stated they didn’t plan to go any higher than the church peak.
8.
Issue Identification a.
Vehicular access points C.E. - NHR; WILL GARAGE DOORS FACE THE STREET OR
WILL/CAN AN ALLEY OR SIDE ACCESS ROAD BE USED/CREATED. C.M. where are garage doors placed (alleys or facing streets)?
Page 4 of 10

DRAFT
West Highlands Stakeholder Group Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 b.
Materials and detailing. C.M. choice. Concern that input should not stop once the site plans are submitted, it needs to continue.
c.
Transitions i.
Scale from the single-family to 5 stories C.E. [NHR QUESTIONED THE
TRANSITION OF FLOOR HEIGHTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE
ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND THE EXISTING BUSINESS'S. NHR
SUGGESTED THAT THEIR BE A TRANSITION OF HEIGHT BETWEEN THE EXISTING
COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL]. C.M. massing transitions.
ii.
Interface with the sidewalk/pedestrian experience C.E. [NHR: PLEADED WITH
RNL TO CONSIDER ON MEADE AND MONCRIEFF USING THE SAME SET BACKS
FOR THEIR BUILDINGS AS THE EXISTING HOMES ON THE BLOCK SO AS NOT TO
CREATE A WALL NEXT TO THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNER AND KEEP WITH THE
STYLE/CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING STREET TYPE]. C.M. streetscapes.
iii.
C.M. Setbacks to adjacent homes. Variance is quite different iv.
Transparency of main level d.
Size and unit mix. C. M. square footage, retail sizing e.
Request for a grocery store f.
Overhangs and related privacy issues C.E. [NHR; SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED NO DECKS OR
BALCONIES OR ROOF TOP DECKS BE ALLOWED ON ANY BUILDING DUE TO PRIVACY AND
NOISE CONCERNS FOR THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND NEIGHBORS].
C.M. deck/balconies.
g.
Mechanical issues and utility housing i.
NHR: Do not to use coil system for garage doors. Propose sheet-like mechanism that makes less noise like Creekside Lofts ii.
C.M. Keep noisy intrusive mechanicals away from adjacent homes h.
Pet interface and waste pick up i.
Will pets be allowed? C.E. [NHR; REQUESTED THAT NO DOGS BE ALLOWED IN
ANY OF THESE 3 BUILDINGS. 1, BECAUSE THE MASS OF 200-300 MORE PEOPLE
IN THE AREA WAS A LOT ALREADY, WE CAN'T HANDLE ANOTHER 200 DOGS. 2.
THE TENANTS WILL WALK THEIR DOGS ACROSS STREET INTO RESIDENTIAL iii.
C.M. Potential no pet policy? iv.
Trash and waste in general i.
RTD
HOMES LAWNS FOR THEM TO "DO THIER BUSINESS". ii.
Will there be a pet park in the building? i.
CD1: C.M. Bus Service Cuts. After 7 pm buses will not run past Broadway j.
Parking
Page 5 of 10

DRAFT
West Highlands Stakeholder Group Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 i.
RNL: Parking requirements outlined in the zoning code are insufficient and RP requests 1.5 times the parking required by code. C.M. (.75 parking space per unit is code for residential)
1.
Resident driven vs. retail driven
2.
Main Street is forgiving for business.
3.
On street parking does not count towards minimum standards.
4.
RP usually exceeds parking code in order to meet resident expectations.
5.
Site is challenged with a high water table. Two stories below grade structured parking is not available . C.M. About a level and a half below the grade would be maximum.
6.
RP: Anticipates 2 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of retail and 1 per bed, and then visitor parking.
7.
RNL: At the next meeting anticipate have the parking layout to share. ii.
WHNA/HMA: Is there a plan for public parking?
1.
Yes, for the shoppers at RedPeak retailers and guests of the apartments.
Not for the general public.
2.
HMA: Suggests designated parking. iii.
RP: Plans retail on the street level and parking behind it. iv.
C.M. Designated parking for retail tenants. Specifics will be put in place on lease. v.
HMA: What is the effect of the development displacing the parking on the three existing parking lots?
1.
RP: Counted the number of cars using the lots and the number is surprisingly low (8-9). C.E. [THIS IS RP OPINION; NO OFFICIAL STUDY
CONDUCTED YET] k.
Shadowing effects C.E. [NHR; 5-STORY PLUS TALL BUILDINGS WILL OBSTRUCT MANY
SURROUNDING STREETS AND HOMES FROM GETTING SUNLIGHT (ESP IN WINTER
MONTHS); STATED CONCERNS FOR STREETS, ALLEYS AND SIDEWALKS BEING
DANGEROUS/HAZARDOUS TO NEIGHBORS AND VISITORS FROM ICE/SNOW BUILD UP.
HOW WILL THIS BE MANAGED? ALSO RAISED ISSUE OF HOMEOWNERS LOSING SOLAR
ENERGY TO HEAT THEIR HOMES]. C.M. Solar access.
l.
Structural concerns i.
NHR: Construction in an old neighborhood damaging adjacent properties. C.E.
[NHR: HOW DO YOU PLAN ON INSURING THE SURROUNDING HOMES AND
PAYING FOR ANY DAMAGES CAUSED TO STRUCTURES/FOUNDATIONS? THIS
NEEDDS TO BE COVERED BY THE DEVELOPER NOT THE INDIVIDUAL
HOMEOWNERS PLOICY] ii.
C.M. Will insurance be provided?
iii.
RP: Investigating the issue. m.
NHR: Suggesting limiting to tenant mix of local businesses. C.E. No national chains.
Page 6 of 10

DRAFT
West Highlands Stakeholder Group Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 i.
HMA: Would hate to have that restriction on his property. ii.
RP: It is their intention to have tenants that are compatible with the characteristics of the neighborhood. n.
Managing construction traffic, hours of construction and street closures . C.M. placement of equipment, parking for workers.
o.
Managing outdoor lighting and light pollution p.
HMA: Is RP joining the Maintenance District? i.
RP: Need to investigate the design requirements are in the Maintenance District and what makes sense. q.
Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, gas, electric i.
SKG: Is there enough capacity? ii.
RP: Yes, and they are obligated to pay for any capacity upgrades. r.
Signage and lights s.
RP: It is possible a roof top garden could be included in the parking garage design is areas that are one to two stories. C.E. I DO NOT RECALL ANY MENTION OR DISCUSSION
BY RP OR RNL OF INCLUDING ANY ROOF TOP GARDENS. THIS WAS A TOPIC THAT WAS
MY NUMBER ONE REQUEST THAT THEY DO NOT ALLOW. I SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT UP
THAT I DO NOT FEEL THESE BUILDINGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE
DECKS/BALCONIES OR ROOF TOP DECKS /PATIOS BECAUSE OF THE PRIVACY CONCERNS
FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND NOISE ISSUE. I DO NOT RECALL THIS BEING MENTIONED IN
THE MEETING AND WOULD LIKE IT REMOVED FROM THE MINUTES t.
Is RP seeking special certification? i.
RP: Seeking LEED certification. ii.
C.E. Traffic study, NHR asked that a traffic study be done on surrounding streets/intersections and study of pedestrian crossing safety.
9.
Presentation (RNL/RP) a.
Lot A Meade; B Lowell; C Moncrieff b.
Images shown are the “zoning bulk plane,” this is the maximum development that can happen under the current designation. c.
Mechanical and accessory structures i.
Up to 28’ above the roof. ii.
Mechanical equipment is typically 4’ to 5’. iii.
Taking sight lines into account, accessory structures will be set back from the roof and will not be visible from the street. d.
It is not advantageous for RP to push the development up vertically because buildings are more expensive the higher they get.
10.
Lot B Lowell a.
Heights of surrounding structures i.
Church is over 65’
Page 7 of 10

DRAFT
West Highlands Stakeholder Group Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 ii.
Argyle Condos are 68’ b.
C.M. Church Sanctuary building to be preserved c.
RNL: Understands every edge of this has sensitivities attached to it d.
RNL: L shaped buildings work better than square shaped buildings in order to create double loaded corridors. Bulk plane diagrams do not effectively communicate this design practice. e.
Commercial transitions i.
RP: The zoning code considers the main street application of the commercial building as the transitional from the street ii.
C.E. NHR questioned transition of building height between commercial on 32 nd ave (1-2 stories) and the proposed 5-story apartments. RP/RNL stated there would be no transition on that side, their 5-story structure would be built right next to the 1-2 story structures. Only transition is on the side next to protected residential structures.
f.
WHNA: What about parking garage access from the street? i.
RNL: Garage doors will be setback from the street one to two car lengths for drainage and queuing purposes. ii.
C.E. NHR: STATED CONCERN FOR GARAGE ENTRANCE BEING SO CLOSE TO THE
BUSY INTERSECTION OF LOWELL AND 32ND AVE; COULDN'T THIS CAUSE A BACK
UP OF TRAFFIC ESPECIALLY WHEN CARS TRAVELING NORTH ON LOWELL ARE
STOPPED TRYING TO MAKE LEFT HAND TURN INTO GARAGE. THIS IS ALREADY A
CONGESTED TRAFFIC AREA.
iii.
C.M. HMA: Will the alley be vacated? No. Dedicated Loading area required for vehicles.
11.
Lot A Meade a.
Proposed square footage is 13,325 sq. ft. b.
NHR: Is concerned about the pedestrian view of the building’s sidewall when walking south bound on Mead Street. C.E. NHR MADE A DISTINCT PLEA TO RNL/RP TO SET BACK
THE BUILDINGS ON MEADE AND MONCRIEFF TO MATCH THE EXISTING SET BACKS OF
THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES c.
WHNA: Will the materials of the church be considered with the design of the new building? i.
RP: Yes ii.
C.E. NHR: HOW DO YOU PLAN ON BUILDING A NEW/MODERN STRUCTURE NEXT
TO AN OLD HISTORIC BUILDING. WON'T IT LOOK OUT OF PLACE?
12.
Lot C Moncrieff a.
RNL is working on the integration between the commercial and proposed development.
C.E. [RNL DID HOWEVER STATE THAT THEY DO NOT PLAN (NOR DO THEY HAVE TO)
STAIR-STEP OR TRANSITION THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE COMMERCIAL
Page 8 of 10

DRAFT
West Highlands Stakeholder Group Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
STRUCTURES ON 32ND AVE. THEY CAN AND DO PLAN ON BUILDING 5 STORY SIDED
BUILDINGS NEXT TO THE EXISTING 1-2 STORY COMMERCIAL. MS ZONING ALLOWS THIS
TO HAPPEN.
i.
Commercial along 32 nd Ave is zoned for 55’ ii.
RP: Looking at the best way possible to preserve the character of the neighborhood by addressing those transitions. C.E. [AGAIN RNL/RP STATD THAT
PER MS ZONING THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE TRANSITION OF HEIGHT
BETWEEN THEIR BUILDING AND THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND DO NOT PLAN
ON DOING SO] iii.
C.M. WHNA: Connection to commercial lots should be a consideration. 1 or 2 story buildings next to a 5-story structure, need to preserve the streetscape.
This is the gateway to the community.
b.
HMA: Alleys between Lot A and B are congested i.
RNL: In order to vacate an alley, 100% of all property owners adjacent to the alley must agree.
13.
NHR: Has RP considered/completed a traffic study? C.E. RNL STATED THAT HE HAD CONDUCTED
HIS OWN "TRAFFIC STUDY" BY COMING OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD A FEW TIMES ON
DIFFERENT DAYS/HOURS; HE DIDN'T SEEM TO THINK THERE WAS A PROBLEM AND ALWAYS GOT
THROUGH THE LIGHT AT 32ND AVE AND LOWELL WHEN TURNING LEFT.
a.
RP: Trip generation estimates between what is there and what is proposed have been prepared. C.E. [HOWEVER, NO ACTUAL TRAFFIC STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY HAS
BEEN DONE YET] i.
The 32 nd and Lowell intersection is a concern
1.
NHR: Crossing at this intersection is currently hard and is a safety hazard.
2.
RNL: Disagrees with this conclusion, vehicles appear to be able to make the light within two cycles.
3.
C.M. RP: Pull traffic and the parking garage access further away from the intersection at 32 nd and Lowell, advise against being adjacent to the cheese, bike shop storefront ii.
NHR: How would the traffic generated from the building on Meade impact the mainly residential streets? b.
NHR /WHNA: Traffic is bad from 10 to 11 except Sundays. C.E. [I THINK THIS IS SUPPOSE
TO READ 10AM-11PM]. C.M. Traffic starts to increase around 10am and is constant until late in the evening. Sunday mornings are more quiet as many merchants are closed this day or do not open until later. In general, steady traffic flow from 10am to 11pm all days
Church traffic on Sundays isn’t bad because the neighborhood isn’t alive yet. i.
By 10:30 am, Meade Street side street parking fills up. Both sides of street are consumed with parked cars all day and night. Parking congested generally all
Page 9 of 10

DRAFT
West Highlands Stakeholder Group Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, December 7, 2011 day peaking at 2-3 pm until late hours of the evening. C.E.[I THOUGHT WE SAID
IT PEAKED DURING LUNCH 10AM-2PM; THEN AGAIN AFTER 5PM] ii.
The narrowness of the residential streets is a concern. One car has to pull over in order for another to pass.
14.
HMA: Has RP considered a BID to finance a public parking garage? a.
RP: Would be willing to consider at BID along with other property owners. b.
RP: Where such a parking structure would go?
15.
Next steps a.
Meeting on the 12/21/11 i.
Proposed to meet at RNL’s office. ii.
C.M. RNL: Easier to view design mock ups on large projection screens b.
Minutes reviewed by the group and could be released by Thursday 12/15/11. i.
CD1 was recently CORA’d. Researching if Stakeholder names can be redacted from emails. ii.
C.M. Draft minutes to be released by end of business on Monday for review, 72 hours for comments. Final version to be communicated by stakeholder groups.
Page 10 of 10