Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2007-05-21I. CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes May 21, 2007 Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of May 21, 2007, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Tierney were Vice Chair Sheila Ostly and Commissioners Bob Needham and Krystyna Stadnik. Commissioners Nan Binkley and Halliday Meisburger were not present. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support. III. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 06-0073, a request by Blazer Development, Inc. Ms. Stadnik moved to approve LU 06-0073 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it was passed 3:0. Mr. Needham abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARING LU 07-0001, a request by Medallion, LLC, for approval of the following; • A Development Review Permit to construct a new 3,776 sq. ft. commercial building. • A Class 2 variance to LOC 50.45.010(7) that requires new structures to be located within 30 feet of a public street • Removal of six trees to accommodate the project Location of property: 2 Monroe Parkway (Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 2 1 E 05AA). Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Chair Tierney reported he had visited the site and the other Commissioners present related they were familiar with the site. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation. No one present challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 5 Minutes of May 21, 2007 Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated May 11, 2007). She advised the site was subject to both NC zone standards and Mountain Park PUD requirements. She said the applicant was requesting a variance from Building Design Standards that called for the building to be located within 30 feet of a public street. She said staff recommended approval of the variance because they had examined alternative locations for the structures and found those alternatives would cause access and internal circulation conflicts. She reported that the applicant proposed eleven parking spaces, which was more than the eight spaces they were required to provide. She said staff found the building style and materials were compatible with nearby residential uses, but they recommended a more appropriate style of light fixture on the south elevation, and a more muted color on the canopies. She noted the canopies were proposed to be modified to accommodate toppers for the gas receptacles. She said staff found the site was nonconforming under the Landscape standard, which required 15% landscaping, so the existing 9% landscaped area should be expanded incrementally in proportion to the amount of increase in the size of the building. She said that would require an additional 487 sq. ft. of landscaping. She said staff had suggested that the applicant reduce the amount of proposed parking in order to have more area for landscaping. However, the applicant had just submitted a revised landscape plan that showed where they would install additional landscaping to meet the standard, without reducing the parking (Exhibits E13 and E14). She said the Engineering staff had advised the propane tank had to be moved from over a utility line and the parking lot should be lighted. Applicant Chris Davies, 5430 NW Skycrest Pkwy, Portland, Oregon 97229, related that he had purchased the site from Chevron and planned to build a unique design that would fit the neighborhood. Dave Kimmel, PDG Design Group, 1335 SW 66th Avenue, #210, Portland, Oregon, 97225, explained that the applicant had submitted the application with a request for the variance because staff had recommended that early in the process. However, the applicant had subsequently determined they did not need a variance because the Code considered the fueling canopies "buildings." He pointed out that the staff report referred to the project as a "multi -building complex." He asked that the City credit the applicant for the variance -processing fee. During the questioning period, he clarified that the only change to the canopies was that their roofing material would be composition instead of cedar shakes; the columns would be covered with stone, instead of brick, and an interior spanner would be replaced. He noted that the Code defined "building" as "any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy." Mr. Boone confirmed that the Building Design Standards called for a building to be located within 30 feet of a public street. He observed staff had not used a "multi -building complex" analysis to examine the need for a variance, but to find that the fueling stations were nonconforming parts of a "multi -building complex" that did not trigger full compliance with the 15% landscaping requirement, but would only require the landscaping to increase an incremental amount related to the amount of expansion of the complex. Ms. Andreades explained they had also used a "multi -building complex" analysis to examine compliance with the Sign Code. She said staff had found a fuel island was a "structure" to house fuel oils, but not a "building" when they assessed the application in relation to Building Design Standards. Mr. Boone advised that the Building Design Standards City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 5 Minutes of May 21, 2007 would allow an exception if the configuration of the lot prevented buildings from being located near the street, but he said the configuration of the site on a corner offered ample opportunity to position a building near the street. Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director, clarified that the Code allowed an exception to the 30 -foot access from a public street due to challenges related to the configuration of the lot, but it did not allow an exception to the 30 -foot limit for a "multi -building complex." He noted that to move the pumps and canopies would compromise access and circulation. He noted the islands were not "occupied" space because they featured no doors. Mr. Kimmel held that fuel islands were an "occupancy." Chair Tierney asked the applicant to clarify whether he wanted the Commission to consider the variance request or if he intended to submit a new application. The applicant indicated he wanted the Commissioners to continue to hear the application as it had been submitted. The applicant explained the lighting on the south wall was utilitarian, and not very visible beyond obscuring landscaping and the sidewalk there was basically for utility purposes and not a pedestrian way. He said staff was recommending nicer fixtures that were easily damaged and might be vandalized. He explained the applicant wanted to refresh the paint on the fascia in the existing Chevron trademark colors instead of changing the hue as staff recommended. Mr. Needham said the colors should reflect the standards of the community and he noted that many other communities had demanded that gas stations change colors. The applicant said he did not want to have two different hues of the same color on the project and he related that Chevron had already conceded to local requirements to downsize the canopy. Chair Tierney noted the City was only asking for a slightly different hue. The applicant asked to be allowed to keep the existing hue. He also asked the Commissioners to remove the condition calling for dark window frames because vinyl frames were not manufactured in dark colors and to paint them voided the warranty. He said almond color presented a "cleaner look" than tan. He asked to be allowed to remove one of the two trees on the corner. He said his arborist advised that pine tree was not in good health. Mr. Boone advised the health of a tree was not applicable criteria for a development review decision, and if the tree were a hazard, the applicant had to use a separate process to obtain a permit to remove it. He explained a tree could be removed for landscaping or development purposes if that would impact the trees, and the Commissioners could consider that. Chair Tierney noted the application was to remove two trees. The applicant explained that he wanted to remove the pine tree to make room for the propane tank, and he had decided to put it where the pine tree was growing because that was the unhealthy tree of the two trees there. He said he proposed more than 15% landscaping in the revised landscape plan. He noted in that plan the project was shifted two feet further north to create more separation from the south boundary. He said he wanted to have a cohesive landscape design so he would prefer to plant all new trees, but he especially wanted to remove the pine tree because it was not a pretty tree. He asked why the conditions called for an ADA -compliant access on Monroe Parkway. Staff reported that was based on traffic the project would generate and an Engineering Division requirement to conform to current ADA guidelines. The applicant objected to the recommended condition to remove the existing 30 -foot high flagpole. Staff explained the existing flag size was acceptable, but the pole should be lower so it did not dominate the site. They clarified the building was 26 feet high, measured to the midpoint of the roofline. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 5 Minutes of May 21, 2007 *Ms. Stadnik left the hearing and Mr. Boone observed there was no longer a quorum, the Commissioners could continue to hear testimony, and Ms. Stadnik could listen to the recorded record of it, but they could not take action that evening. The applicant referred to the revised landscape plan and asked to be permitted to leave the ADA space where it was and to have 11 parking spaces, plus one handicapped space. He said his calculations showed the minimum required spaces were 9, not the 8 staff calculated. He explained he proposed enough parking to accommodate employee and customer parking and he explained why the slope of the site meant the ADA stall had to be where he proposed it for easy access and to meet allowable grade for such a stall and the sidewalk. Staff explained they had suggested moving the ADA stall in order to make room for additional landscaping that would also soften the front of the building. They explained the original landscape plan showed planting outside of the south property line of the site. They referred to the new plan and questioned whether there was actually room to plant more trees along the south property line. They advised that if the propane tank were moved to the street corner, it should be better screened by landscaping, and the trash enclosure needed more screening. They wanted to know how large the tank would be so they could consider how it would look from Booties Ferry Road. They observed that would be a prominent location. They recommended the tank be repositioned slightly west from the southeast corner to accommodate the sidewalk there. They said they did not recommend all new trees, and they recalled that similar projects, such as a nearby Shell station, featured a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees to provide year-round greenery. They said the existing corner pine tree offered a presence and a sense of scale and evergreen trees along the perimeter of the site would frame and screen it from the residential development across the road. They reported the trend was not to have all the same type of street trees along a new development. They said if the pine tree were diseased, the applicant could apply for a Hazard Tree permit. The applicant confirmed the revised landscape plan showed they had widened the southern planting strip so planting there could all be onsite. He explained that Fire Code setbacks prevented him from locating the propane tank on the southern boundary, and if it were located where he proposed it on the corner it would be screened by the Mountain Park sign and landscaping. He said he did not believe there was enough room to plant more than shrubs along Booties Ferry Road, and he explained that part of the trash enclosure staff wanted landscaped was used to access a roofed, can recycling area. The applicant clarified the size of panels and battens for Ms. Ostly. Mr. Needham explained to the applicant that he questioned putting the propane tank at a busy intersection. He said he considered the project complete redevelopment of the site and he suggested the applicant propose a more compatible style canopy. He suggested the applicant reconsider the amount of parking and the need for the utility sidewalk. The applicant said it could not be seen because it was 12 to 14 feet higher elevation than Booties Ferry Road. He said the project needed halide lighting for security and safety, and it did not make sense to mix lighting types. He said he proposed to reduce the existing lighting from 400 watts on 24 -foot poles to 250 -watt lights on 20 -foot poles. Chair Tierney observed the hearing had to be continued to June 4, 2007. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 5 Minutes of May 21, 2007 V. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p. m. Respectfully submitted, anice Bader Administrative Support III L\dre\minutes\05-21-07.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 5 Minutes of May 21, 2007