Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2002-02-27City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes _ February 27, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sheila Ostly called the February 27, 2002 meeting of the Development Review Commission to order at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 A Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Ostly were Vice Chair Nan Binkley, Julie Morales, Dave Powers, Bill Tierney, Krytsyna Stadnik and Gary Fagelman. Staff present were Doug Schmitz, City Manager; Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Paul Espy, Associate Planner; David Powell, City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. MINUTES None. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER None. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 01-0076, a request by Gramor Development seeking approval of the following: 1. Six commercial buildings with retail and office uses, including two restaurants. 2. A four-story parking structure providing 367 parking spaces. 3. A two -parcel land partition to create an interior lot under the City's ownership to contain the proposed parking structure. The exterior lot, to be owned by Gramor Development, would contain the proposed commercial/retail buildings. 4. A request to remove 24 trees (including 6 trees on State Street). The site is located at: A portion of Tax Lot 500 and Tax Lot 5700 of Map 21E IOAA, and Tax Lots 7200-8201 of Tax Map 21E 03DD. Staff coordinator is Paul Espe, Associate Planner. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 Ms. Ostly opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. All Commissioners indicated they had visited the site. Ms. Ostly, Ms. Morales and Mr. Tierney reported they had discussed the project at a Development Review Commission work session. No one responded or challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Paul Espy, Associate Planner, pointed out exhibits that had been recently added to the record, including a February 25, 2002, letter and follow-up memorandum from the applicant proposing changes to staff -recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit E- 62, "Clarifications and Changes"), and a set of perspective drawings (Exhibit 63). He explained that he planned to focus staff presentation on several primary issues and the exceptions the applicant had requested. He advised that the primary issues related to the application were traffic impacts to the Evergreen Neighborhood; queuing lengths on First Street; parking; and assorted design issues, including signage. Mr. Espe reported that traffic studies had analyzed the combined impact of local projects on the performance of ten intersections in the area through the year 2017 (Exhibits F-11 and F-14). He advised that the study assumed that all recommended improvements would be made and parking would be prohibited on the north side of A Avenue between State and First Streets. He said the City had already accomplished some of the recommended improvements, which included exclusive lane designations, signal coordination, and installation of a new signal at 2nd Street and A Avenue. He noted the traffic studies recommended that traffic along Evergreen Road be monitored to measure eastbound traffic generated by project customers attempting to avoid A Avenue by using Evergreen Road. It recommended a traffic -calming device be installed between 9th and 10th Streets if traffic counts demonstrated that traffic had substantially increased there. He said staff recommended that the applicant be required to conduct a second traffic study as the project approached full occupancy and fund the design and construction of the traffic -calming device if the study showed that was necessary. He reported the applicant and staff had agreed on the type of improvements and they had estimated the cost of the improvements. He reported that the most recent traffic study had investigated queuing on the northbound First Street approach to A Avenue and found the need for a longer right turn lane there than had been shown on the site plans in Exhibits E-3 and E-10. He related that the study had predicted that a 200 -foot long PM peak hour queue would almost reach the site's driveway and encourage a significant number of drivers coming from the project to look for ways to circumvent the queue by using other local roadways. Mr. Espe explained that because the site's parking garage was to be located on a separate lot owned by the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency and the City — not by the applicant — it was technically "off site," and its parking spaces could not be included in the site's count of required onsite parking spaces. He said that staff supported the applicant's request for an exception that would allow them to count the garage spaces. He advised that the Code required the development to provide 449 parking spaces (based on its square footage), but after application of Code -allowed parking modifiers City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 (for availability of on street parking, and proximity to transit and residential development) that number could be reduced to 305 spaces. He said that staff agreed that the planned 367 spaces within the garage structure that were illustrated in Exhibits F-1, and F-10 to F-13 would meet the standard. He said the applicant had met the relevant criteria required by the Code and staff recommended approval of the request. Mr. Espe then addressed the list of changes to staff -recommended conditions that the applicant had requested in their February 25, 2002, letter. He explained staffs position related to each requested change, as follows: • Condition B(6): Staff agreed with the applicant's request to relocate recommended Condition B(6) and use it to replace Condition C(2). • Condition B(11): Mr. Espe advised that this condition to declare the motor court as a fire lane should not be eliminated because the Fire Department found there was a need for a 20 -foot -wide fire lane to allow emergency access to the inside of the garage (Exhibit E-25). He explained that this condition required the applicant to designate an emergency access on the plat and then address its design prior to the final project review. He clarified for the Commissioners that the Fire Marshal's memorandum had not addressed curbs and the lack of curbing at the access would create a wider access way for emergency vehicles. • Condition C(1)(f): Staff agreed that this condition related to street tree spacing along State Street could be modified to require the applicant to submit a street tree management plan that would assure proper clearance between street lights and the maple tree canopy. Mr. Espe clarified that the intent of this condition was to maintain the existing trees - not to replace them. • Condition C(1)(h): Staff agreed with the applicant that this condition related to tree removal could be eliminated, because it was redundant and Condition D(2) also provided for tree protection. • Condition C(1)(m): Staff recommended this condition requiring a permit from the railroad company for work being proposed in the railroad right of way be retained and not moved to Condition G. (Miscellaneous Provisions), as the applicant had requested. Mr. Espe explained the condition would provide clear and enforceable performance requirements for the applicant. He reported that staff and the applicant had discussed the request and they had then agreed on a storm drain system and utilities that would not encroach into the railroad right of way, so no railroad right of way permit would be necessary. • Condition C(1)(d): Staff recommended this condition requiring a final grading plan be submitted, even though the applicant found it to be redundant. Mr. Espe explained that the presence of the condition would support City enforcement in the event that any future changes to finished grades might not comply with grading plans. He advised that the City had observed that common parking lot drainage City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 problems stemmed from conditions where the storm drain was at a higher elevation than the puddles. He said the condition would also provide the City with base data for building height measurements. • Condition D(2): Staff suggested that the language in this condition related to tree protection be amended to read "under the supervision of a certified arborist." • Condition F(1): Staff recommended that this condition limiting the project to one second story sign per building should be retained because multiple signs could produce a cluttered appearance and detract from a building's upper story architectural features. Mr. Espe recalled the applicant's position was that projecting signs would be tasteful, unobtrusive and positive architectural features and were a crucial marketing tool for leasing the upper floor areas, especially if the occupancy was split. • Condition F(2): Staff advised that although there was no specific City standard that addressed the height of ID markers identifying proposed commercial buildings, staff believed the proposed markers were too tall to be compatible with the surrounding architecture and public art and should be lowered closer to eye level — about 6 to 7 feet. Mr. Espe recalled the applicant's position was the size limitation was unjustified and not based on any standard within the Commercial Zone. • Condition F(6): Staff agreed that this provision could be amended to reflect the proposed condition in Exhibit F-23 and to eliminate plastic or acrylic type sign signs and signed foam. Mr. Espe explained that those types of signs were popular, but were not specifically addressed in the Sign Code and could create a regulatory problem for the City if they were not addressed in the conditions. • Condition G(1): Staff agreed this provision could be amended to include changes requested in the applicant's memorandum in Exhibit F-24 to focus the second traffic study on Evergreen Road on eastbound PM Peak Hour traffic counts (excluding event times in Millennium Park). Mr. Espe explained the results of the study were to determine whether the impact of the development at 50% occupancy was sufficient to require a traffic -calming device on Evergreen Road near 9th Street. • Condition G(2): Staff advised that this provision related to possible installation of a traffic calming device could be amended to cap the applicant's cost for the device at $8,000. Mr. Espe recalled that the cost of a similar device at Evergreen Road and 4th Street had been between $5,000 and $6,000. • Condition G(3): Mr. Espe clarified that this provision required the applicant to provide a monthly occupancy report until 50% occupancy (of the total project) had been reached in order to determine when and if the level of traffic there required installation of a traffic calming device. He recommended that the condition be retained, and not eliminated. He noted the applicant believed that the project would reach the 50% threshold by the time the certificates of occupancy were issued. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, clarified for the Commissioners that the traffic -calming device at 4th Street and Evergreen Road had been required as a condition of approval of the Block 136 development, but there had been no requirement for a second traffic study after construction of that project. Mr. Espe recommended that Condition C(3), which required a final site plan and building elevations, should contain additional references to new exhibits E-62 and E-63. After determining by a show of hands how many of those present planned to offer testimony at the hearing, Chair Ostly agreed to allow the applicant one hour to testify. Applicant Barry Cain, Gramor Development, Inc., 19767 SW 72nd Avenue, Tualatin, Oregon, 97062, presented the applicant's plan for Lake View Village, Block 138. He reported the applicant had held numerous meetings with City staff and neighborhood residents, and had discussed the project with the Commissioners at a September 19, 2001, Development Review Commission workshop. He said the process of designing the project had involved 1,000's of hours by over 100 persons, and that effort had been necessary due to the high level of detail the City had required prior to design review. He indicated his concern that the applicant would have little opportunity to make minor changes after approval of the application. He said that the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA) had been involved in every stage of planning and had made valuable suggestions pertaining to the project. He explained that it was important for the applicant to begin construction in August 2002, so that the project's tenants could be open for the 2003 Christmas season. He then introduced the project team of Sienna Architects; WRG Design; Tri -Land Design Group; Mayer Reed Landscape Architects; Scott Edwards and Kelly Edwards (architects for the Manzana restaurant building); DKS Traffic Engineers; International Parking Design; MKE Mechanical; R&H Construction; office leasing agents Mike Diamond and George Diamond; Doug Schmitz, City Manager; and Bob Galante, Lake Oswego Redevelopment Director. He introduced Gramor Development, Inc. staff, including David Copenhaver, Senior Project Manager; Paul Dunlap, Construction Manger; Mark Hanson, Leasing Director; Dean Sorenson, Vice President, Construction; Debby Naoni, Marketing Manager; Matt Grady, Block 138 Project Manager; and Pat Nicholas, Controller. Mr. Cain then presented slides of Block 136. He reported that the commercial building on Block 136 was fully leased and would feature an Italian cafe. He also announced that two-thirds of the 18 town homes that had been constructed were sold and construction of the remaining town homes was to begin in two weeks. He then presented slides illustrating the plans for Block 138 and the elevations of each building. He explained there were to be six buildings surrounding a screened parking garage. He explained the project team had intended to create the feeling that different people had constructed the buildings at different periods, but that the buildings connected well to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 each other. He predicted that completion of Blocks 136, 138 and Millennium Park would help achieve the City's goal to invigorate the Downtown District. He showed drawings of the future Manzana Rotisserie and Grill, which was to be located in Building D (Exhibits E-50 through E-56). He noted that Building C would be the only three-level building in the project. He explained that Building E (near the park turnaround) was to feature an upper story view restaurant and a lower story garden store. He anticipated that Building C would contain a gallery and apparel store (including the Grape Vine). He said the applicant was negotiating leases with a national women's apparel business and a 5,000 square foot office tenant. He anticipated that a home interior business would be located in Building A. He confirmed there could be a number of restaurants in the development. He explained the applicant wanted to be allowed to use signage to identify one or two upper story office tenants. Bob Galante, Director, Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency (LORA), described the design of First Street. He reported that LORA and the rest of the project team intended to create a more successful downtown area for both business and residents. He observed the City had completed Millennium Park and had made street improvements in the area. He anticipated that the quality of the design and materials used in the redevelopment blocks would raise the bar for future development in the area. He said the City was achieving its goals to create a pedestrian oriented, neo -traditional, mixed- use area; to improve pedestrian and vehicle circulation there; and to connect the north and south sides of A Avenue. He agreed with comments he had heard from Development Review Commission members that some changes in the Code could help the City continue to create high quality developments in the future. He observed the Block 138 project was complex and the project team had dealt with many Code and structural issues in their effort to create a plan where different buildings would appear to have been designed by different people over time. He recalled that the Code had been written with the intention that the exceptions to design standards for Downtown would allow many projects there to exceed Code standards without being subjected to a variance process. He said the exceptions the applicant was requesting (including an exception for signage) would improve the design. He indicated that he supported the request for upper story blade signs because they were necessary on buildings that were corner buildings or that fronted on courtyards; that one to three blade signs would not be out of scale on a building; and that blade signs helped enliven the area and made the development look more like a village. Mr. Galante explained that First Street redevelopment was a LORA project. He said the streetscape was to transition from concrete sidewalks on A Avenue into the bricked features of First Street and that 4.5 -foot high stone columns were to be installed on First Street at the crosswalk at the applicant's project that would match similar columns along the street. He noted there were to be fewer bollards installed than had been indicated in the slide presentation and they were to transition from the applicant's lighter colored bollards to the black street bollards on the remainder of the street. He said the tree grates, bike racks and other street furniture would be black cast iron and there would be basalt walls, pots, granite caps on top of the walls and granite headers in the parking stalls along First Street north of A Avenue. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 Michael Lee, Sienna Architecture, 411 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, stressed that locations of the buildings on the site and the landscaping design focused on connectivity for pedestrians and vehicles and the appearance of the development to the rest of the community. He pointed out how buildings had been pulled back in some areas to create open pedestrian spaces. He said that basalt features and potted plants on the corners of the site helped anchor the project. He pointed out the development's "front door" was at the intersection of State Street and A Avenue, where the architecture created a strong statement and the building was pulled back from the street to make room for landscaping and to create more plaza open space. He noted that bollards, landscaped areas and iron fencing protected pedestrians along State Street. He said the project team believed it was important to visually draw people to the area of the site and Millennium Park. He pointed out they had designed stairs to allow pedestrians to directly access the park, the Manzana restaurant building, and the motor court. He said the development was to feature various gathering space nodes in plazas and courtyards between buildings which would each be distinguished by unique plants and water features, but which would also be linked by common materials, such as wrought iron detailing, guardrails and softening landscape plants. He said the State Street entry would feature scored concrete accented with slate pavers. He said the A Avenue courtyard would feature more brick and a wall water feature. He said that First Street spaces would reflect the warm colors found on Building A and would provide outside seating for that building. He anticipated the motor court space would reflect a combination of concrete paving and antique pavers that would give it the feeling of a traditional European piazza. He clarified there would be no curbs and trees would accent the pathway through the space so that the entry to the parking structure would seem more like an open space than a driveway. He explained the courtyard plaza between the Manzana restaurant and Building E was to serve as a transition space from Millennium Park to the motor court. He noted there were to be a series of wet ponds with water plants and benches for patrons waiting to dine at the restaurants. Carol Mayer Reed, 319 SW Washington, Ste 820, Portland, Oregon 97204, explained that each gathering space would provide a slightly different character and microclimate and they would all have a lot of flowers and fragrant plants. She advised that the landscaping along State Street would feature red maples spaced 30 feet apart. She advised the mature maples would spread to 15 feet. She said that her experience with 20 -year-old maple trees in the City of Portland had demonstrated the maple was the perfect species for the State Street location. She clarified that the trees would be distanced from light poles by at least 7 or 8 feet. She advised that the Harlequin Glory Bower was hardy in the local climate and could be found in many Portland neighborhoods. She advised that they released a powerful fragrance and blossomed into September. She acknowledged that the proposed Tulip Tree would drip sap. However, she predicted it would eventually become a Heritage Tree. She said it was important to position it where it would have lots of space around it and to keep it limbed high so it would not block the view of the lake. She advised it would provide shade. She also proposed a Northern Red Oak tree, which she said would stand alone as a single City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 specimen tree for future generations. She clarified that she had not proposed chestnut trees in this project. She confirmed that spherical bollards were no longer planned for the site. Mr. Lee then presented the building designs. He stated that Building C's State Street frontage was the appropriate place for this three-story building. He said the Arts and Crafts style building with stone details would complement Millennium park stonework. He noted that the building's recesses accommodated a wide sidewalk space and its multiple roof planes created interest. He pointed out bridge connections between buildings. He said the heavy masonry base, heavy cornice line and gables of Building B would create a strong sense of presence along State Street. He pointed out its octagonal -shaped frontage was set back and the roof shape was connected to the lower story with bracket gables in order to bring the roof down as far as possible. He said a combination of flat canopies and canvass awning canopies would help to visually break up the fagade and wrought iron planter boxes and solid boxes would help define the upper level. He said that Building A would convey a European village style with a cleaner, lighter look. It would be predominantly stucco, with stone and tile accents and a silver gray tiled roof. He explained that the design of Building F would serve as a transition between Buildings A, E and Millennium Park. It was to be an English Arts and Crafts style design with steep roofs that would be sloped down over the retail level. It was to be tied to Building A by an upper level bridge. He said the parking garage had been designed to resemble a pavilion and it was to face the motor court. He noted it could be viewed from the courtyard between Buildings E and D. He said it would feature extensive columnar landscaping along its front fagade and landscaping on the upper deck of the garage would cascade over the walls to soften the look of the building. He said Building E would be an Oregon Rustic Style building that would face the park and the upper story restaurant there would overlook the bay. He pointed out that a trellis would tie the building to the courtyard. The architects for the Manzana restaurant building then presented their plans. Kelly Edwards, Scott Edwards Architecture, 1630 SW Morrison, Ste 210, Portland, Oregon, 97205 presented the proposed design of the Manzana Rotisserie Grill restaurant that was to occupy Building D. He related that the owner, Pacific Coast Restaurants, also owned Newport Bay and Stanford's restaurants. He pointed out the building would be covered in basalt and stucco and would feature wrought iron detailing. He explained the applicant was requesting an exception that would allow the building to include a two-story portion so that portions of the restaurant could feature high ceilings. He noted that two lake boats that were to be installed in the bar would reflect local lake history. He pointed out the locations of the parking structure behind the building and a courtyard between the restaurant and Building E. He said the restaurant would have a capacity of 300 diners, not including seasonal outside seating. He said the wood supply for the grill was to be located next to the entry and would be enhanced by decorative wrought iron. He noted that artwork would cover blank walls next to the grand staircase coming up from State Street. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 Matt Grady, Gramor Oregon Inc., 19767 SW 72"d Avenue, Ste 100, Tualatin, Oregon, 97062 testified that although the applicant agreed with most of the conditions recommended by staff, they were requesting some changes. He said the two most important requested exceptions were related to the number of upper story projecting signs to be allowed and the heights of the three proposed building ID markers. He pointed out illustrations of projecting signs in the staff report. He said the project team anticipated there would be two such signs on each building that would primarily serve the courtyard side. He said projecting signs would add interest to the architecture and the request was not an unreasonable one. He said approval of the signs would help the applicant negotiate leases for upper story tenants. He asked to be allowed up to two 16 square foot projecting signs, as allowed by the Sign Code. He said the applicant would design high quality signs constructed out of solid metal materials. He then discussed the ID markers. He pointed out Exhibit E-39, which illustrated how the height of an 11.5 -foot tall marker related to that of a car or person. He said that height would allow the marker at the motor court to be visible to motorists approaching the site from down the street He clarified that the motor court marker was to be located on public property and the other two ID markers would be positioned to denote the entry to courtyards on private property. They were to contain a directory of buildings and tenants and could also include historical information. He said the markers were to be masonry with metal details to reflect the City's iron industry. He noted that staff recommended they be limited to seven feet tall. He asked for latitude that would allow the applicant to install the markers at heights between 7 and 9.5 feet. Mr. Grady asked for an additional condition in section G that would allow storefront upgrades that had been requested by prospective tenants. He pointed out the applicant had listed 13 items that should be considered upgrades of the plans being reviewed at the hearing. He noted the upgrades would allow a tenant to install a door that was up to two feet taller than the existing limit of eight feet; to change the sill to tile; to recess the door; to install lights on pilasters; to give special identity to recessed storefront entries by use of tile, masonry or colored concrete; to allow customized door handles and glass, wood or metal doors; to allow double doors; to allow leaded glass in a clerestory window transom; and to add canvas or metal awnings. He explained that if these upgrades were approved as part of the current application, the applicant would not need to apply for modifications for future changes that were not quite identical to the design review plans that had been approved. He suggested the conditions could specify that the changes would be allowed up to a specified percentage of change. Mr. Grady presented the applicant's "Clarifications and Changes" document (Exhibit E- 62). He explained the document listed changes the applicant desired to make in the elevations already in the record. He said the applicant was requesting to be allowed to add clerestory windows above the steel canopy on Building B that would reduce the size of metal panels on the three octagonal facades of the building. The document also requested that the applicant be allowed to extend the roof of Building F towards the parking garage so it would not appear to be incomplete; and to install different types of lighting fixtures. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 Mr. Grady then answered questions from the Commissioners. He clarified for them that the wall next to the railroad track was not on property owned by the rail line; however, if people walked along the bottom of the wall they would be on railroad property. Mr. Galante clarified that area would continue to serve as emergency vehicle access to nearby condominiums and would not be considered a sidewalk. The applicant and staff confirmed they had reached an agreement about the species and spacing of trees along State Street and that was reflected in the recommended condition requiring a tree maintenance plan. Mr. Grady and Kevin Russell, WRG Design, 5415 SW Westgate, Portland, Oregon 97221, explained that the project team planned to avoid installations of improvements in the railroad right of way by combining two catch basins into one on Gramor property. Mr. Grady confirmed the garage spaces would probably be numbered and the garage levels would be color -coded. He confirmed the net area of the garage was 84,000 square feet. The Commissioners and staff then discussed how to deal with differences between the exhibits in the record and the applicant's slide presentation. Mr. Grady provided a hard copy of the slide presentation (Exhibit E-63). Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manger, explained that the draft findings would identify which slides and plans contained accurate and current information to be incorporated into the final plans. Ms. Ostly and Ms. Morales confirmed that architectural plans were refined every time they were worked with, and they observed the applicant's project was very complex. Mr. Pishvaie confirmed that the applicant's materials showed the height of Building C had been increased from 51 to 55 feet. The Commissioners posed questions related to First Street details. Mr. Galante explained that the design for the First Street right of way was not before the Development Review Commission and had not been previously submitted to the Commission because that was a type of development that was exempt from Development Review Commission review. He said that information related to the street design had been provided to the Commissioners in order to enhance their overall understanding of the street and site projects. He related that the wall was part of the street design. He said the reason the site drawings showed street elements was to convey the intention that features on all four corners were to complement each other. Mr. Grady clarified for Ms. Morales where awnings were to be attached by a metal bracket (Elevation A-301 in Exhibit E-15). He explained that the applicant's perspective slides were a representational tool that was intended to take the place of a model, which did not typically have the level of detail and accuracy of drawings. He noted that some changes had been made to drawings after the perspective illustrations showed they were necessary. He stated that the operative drawings were to be the elevations and the set of plans submitted to the City. Mr. Galante confirmed the sidewalk at the Pottery Place was to be concrete and not brick, and a transition was to be designed between that area and nearby bricked areas. Mr. Galante clarified that the applicant was to manage and maintain the City -owned parking structure. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 Staff confirmed that references to Exhibits E-62 (Clarifications and Changes) and E-63 (perspective drawings), should be added to recommended Condition C(3), but not a reference to Exhibit E-64. Mr. Powers indicated he generally agreed with the landscape plan. However, he suggested that the liriodendron tree - which he said tended to attract aphids - be replaced by a cork tree. He also cautioned that the Harlequin Glory Bower was a high maintenance tree. Ms. Mayer Reed explained that tree was to be located in a raised planter so it would not impact the pedestrian way. Mr. Grady confirmed for Mr. Powers that plants growing in a series of pots on the garage roof would cascade over the wall and soften the upper building wall. The applicant's representatives clarified that 19 trees were to be preserved along A Avenue and there were 7 trees on the site that were to be removed. They confirmed an arborist had assessed the condition of the trees. Ms. Binkley indicated she was concerned that the scale of Building B at the corner of State Street and A Avenue was larger then pedestrian scale. She suggested the roof be brought down or larger dormers or a story and a half window be designed there. She agreed the clerestory windows the applicant had requested would improve the appearance of that elevation. The project team explained that because they had also been concerned about the scale of the building they had examined many different types of designs, including dormers and roof changes and had unanimously agreed that their currently proposed design was the best. They explained Building B was to serve as a significant feature of the development and deserved a significant design. They said they had examined its relationship to pedestrians and adjoining structures. They noted the retailer in that building would want high ceilings. They pointed out they had enhanced the design from a pedestrian perspective by raising the height of the windows underneath the canopy. Ms. Binkley compared the proposed design to the "freeway scale" of the Woodburn Factory Outlet buildings. Ms. Binkley then addressed the design of the parking garage. She indicated she was concerned that garage lighting would be too visible from outside the building (just as the lighting in the Smart Park garages in Portland was too visible to the surrounding area). She suggested that railings or a trellis (similar to that on the Portland International Airport garage) would help diffuse the light. The project team agreed that the garage should be well lit inside, but no light should shine to the outside. They explained that Ms. Mayer Reed, who had helped design the Portland airport garage project, believed that a trellis could be added to the site's garage. They also clarified for Ms. Binkley that parking lot construction required a specific size concrete spandrel instead of railings, but that it could be overlaid with some type of element. Ms. Binkley indicated she would have preferred to see more specificity of details in the plans. The project team explained the next phase of the project would be to refine the trellis and other details. Ms. Binkley cautioned them to move in the direction of greater depth and details and not to allow the design to flatten. She asked if the applicant intended to install upper story signs as large as 16 square foot in area. Mr. Lee answered they were contemplating signage of 9 square feet in area. He clarified they City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 would not be square signs, and the largest sign would serve the restaurant at the top of Building E. The team suggested a condition that limited the signage to 12 square feet and one observed that a 3' x 4' sign that was 15 to 18 feet in the air would not seem large. They asked for a condition that outlined a sign program so they would not have to reapply in the future for piecemeal approval of slight changes. They confirmed for Ms. Binkley that all window glass was to be clear, and not tinted. They also confirmed that although not all windows would be operable, the ones over flowerboxes and on First Street would be operable. Ms. Binkley asked if the garage parapet wall needed to be as tall as six feet. She was also concerned the large garage walls would be visible from Millennium Park. She suggested that a trellis be installed to cover the portions of the walls that were not covered by planter boxes. The team explained the parapet wall would screen mechanical units from view and would also prevent someone from jumping over the top of the parking garage onto the roof of another building. They then clarified for her that they would use split faced, smooth and center scored CMU to create a wall pattern on the back of the garage, they would install pots and plantings at its entries, and there was insufficient space for landscaping on some walls of the garage unless they carved out space that would otherwise be used for parking. Mr. Cain explained that two levels of the garage were to serve the public, one level would serve office daytime uses, and the remaining level would serve retail and restaurant uses. Ms. Binkley then addressed the bridges in the plan. She asked if the team had considered arching them or making them less abrupt looking. The project team explained they had considered necessary clearances and had added ironwork detailing to soften the view toward the parking garage. The project team explained for Ms. Binkley that a parking ID marker of 11.5 -foot height with a stone base and a wrought iron "P" was to mark the parking garage and it would complement other street furniture along First Street. They indicated they felt it should be 11.5 feet high, but they would accept a compromise height limit range of 7 to 9.5 feet. Mr. Galante clarified that the project team had discussed the installation of plantings, benches and other features against the wall within the railroad right of way at one time; however, it had eventually become clear to the team that the negotiations would not be successful. They explained that the Millennium Park retaining wall had been set back from the railroad right of way property line in order to accommodate landscaping and trees. The project team clarified that a trellis shown on the NE elevation of the Manzana building would be supported by tie rods and not by piers. They explained that the drain box design illustrated for Buildings C, D and F had been included in the drawings to show their intent. They confirmed that they had increased the size of lights on the Block 136 commercial building to a more substantial size, as the Development Review Commission had suggested. They anticipated a style of garage fixture that would wash the walls, but hide the source of the light. Ms. Binkley cautioned that if the roof of Building F was extended it should be designed so that the ends could not be seen from the pedestrian way. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 Proponents Ann Meneakis, Chair, Evergreen Neighborhood Association, P. O. Box 581, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified that the Association supported the Gramor Development project. She reported the applicant had spent a lot of time discussing the project with neighborhood residents and the plan reflected their suggestions. She complimented the skill of the applicant's architects and landscaping consultant. She acknowledged a parking garage was necessary to provide parking for Millennium Park. She urged the applicant to plan to cover up unsightly parts of the garage with vegetation. She thanked the City for suggesting the condition for a second traffic count on Evergreen Road in order to re-evaluate the need for a traffic -calming device. She thanked Gramor Development for offering to pay up to $8,000 for the device. She clarified that the neighborhood supported the traffic consultants' recommendation for two alternating curb extensions with landscape materials, and not an outright blockage of traffic flow. She said that traffic should be allowed to flow both directions. She recalled the traffic consultants had advised that any device that slowed traffic would help discourage drivers from cutting through the neighborhood. She asked the City to provide additional funds for the device if $8,000 was not sufficient to build it. She said that the neighborhood supported the application as long it was subject to the condition related to traffic counts and a condition to cover the garage walls with vegetation Jim Bolland, Chair, First Addition Neighborhood Association, 804 5t" Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, reported that representatives from his Assocation and the Evergreen Neighborhood Association had been meeting with the applicant since the spring of 1999 after the Council had approved the concept plans for the Block 136 and 138 developments. He explained that there had not been a large attendance at the public meetings because both he and Ms. Meneakis had been regularly reporting to their associations. He said the applicant had addressed neighborhood concerns as the project planning progressed and his Association supported the application. He commended the Gramor team for that. He said that although the neighborhood was not pleased to see the size of the garage grow over time, they recognized the plan reflected the need for the City to provide parking for Millennium Park. He commented for the record that he hoped the City would not require a parking garage for every downtown block that was redeveloped, because that was not necessary. He recalled the neighborhood residents wanted to see more retail, less office space and more restaurants. He said comments at public meetings had revealed that residents liked the design of Block 136, but it felt a little too massive to them. He complemented the developer for the design, the use of materials and for breaking up the roof forms and mass of the buildings on Block 138. Opponents None. Neither for nor Against None. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 13 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 No one requested that the record be held open for submission of additional evidence. The applicant waived their right to an additional seven days to submit a final written argument. Chair Ostly closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Mr. Fagelman indicated he desired to see a decorative facing, such as stucco, on the south side of the garage that would make it look more attractive from the street than the proposed concrete wall. Ms. Binkley suggested it be covered with ornamental trelliswork carrying evergreen plant material. She advised that stucco piers would not match nearby walls. The Commissioners generally agreed that ornamental trellises should cover the open bays screening the spanrules and the openings above and below the spanrules on the south elevation of the parking garage. Several Commissioners commented that they did not believe the Development Review Commission had the authority to require the parking spaces to be numbered, as Mr. Fagelman has suggested. After Mr. Powell advised the Commissioners that the applicant was to be allowed to comment on any additional conditions that were not in Staff report prior the DRC vote, the Commissioners decided to craft all the changes to conditions and then ask the applicant to comment on them before the vote. Chair Ostly announced a five-minute break in the proceedings and then reconvened the hearing. Ms. Morales agreed that two signs per building would be appropriate for the scale of the development. She suggested that each sign be limited to 12 square feet in area. She said the appropriate location for a sign would depend on the building. Mr. Tierney agreed that two signs per building was appropriate and would not create a cluttered look due to the size of the building. Ms. Binkley also agreed and indicated she could accept any sign form that had been illustrated in Staff report. The Commissioners generally agreed to limit the number of second story signs to two signs per building, and each sign was to be limited to 12 square feet in area. The commissioners considered the proposed height of the markers and were generally in agreement with Ms. Morales and Ms. Ostly, who commented that the range of 7 to 9.5 feet seemed reasonable, particularly because the top portion was to be of decorative ironwork. The Commissioners discussed the recommended conditions in Section G. that were related to traffic counts and reports and compared them to the applicant's suggested conditions in Exhibit F-26. They noted the applicant had suggested that the requirement in Condition G(3) for a monthly occupancy report be removed. They clarified that the occupancy percentage specified in Section G was to be the percentage of occupancy of the entire project. Mr. Tierney indicated that he found the applicant's suggested language for Condition G(1) and G(2) to be acceptable. Ms. Ostly, Ms. Morales, and Mr. Tierney observed that City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 14 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 the requirment for monthly reports would generate a lot of work for the applicant. Mr. Powers suggested that requirment be eliminated and the applicant be required to notify staff when occupancy reached the threshold percentage. Mr. Tierney agreed that 50% occupancy should trigger the applicant's obligation to notify staff and 100% occupancy should trigger the requirement for a second traffic study. Ms. Ostly observed staff - proposed language in Condition G(2) - "allowing for routine vacancy" - addressed the fact that there was typically some level of vacancy in a development. The Commissioners generally agreed to accept the applicant's suggested changes in Conditions G(1) and G(2) and to strike the word "monthly" in Condition G(3), so that the applicant was to be required to notify staff when occupancy reached 50% and 100%. (Exhibit F-26, Option 2). The Commissioners then discussed the applicant's request for allowable upgrades to the storefronts. Ms. Morales was concerned about the impact of higher doors on spatial relationships within the storefront. She also cautioned that if changes in window material were allowed the result could be an anodized aluminum frame next to a wood frame. Ms. Binkley indicated that the higher door could make the storefront more decorative. Ms. Ostly indicated she could allow a door upgrade that would help to demarcate individual stores if it was required to be "compatible and complementary" to the storefront design. Ms. Binkley suggested any change should be made for an entire building. Mr. Tierney pointed out the language "approval from the Planning Department" should read "Planning" staff. The Commissioners generally agreed that suggested upgrade Items 5 and 6 should not be allowed upgrades. Ms. Binkley then addressed the front octagon fagade of Building B. She indicted she desired to craft a condition that would result in a softening of the front entry. Ms. Morales agreed that should be considered. Mr. Tierney recalled the project team had testified they had accomplished a design exercise that had led them to their proposed design. He suggested the Development Review Commission ask the team to show them the alternatives they had considered. Ms. Binkley asked the legal staff if the Commission was allowed to approve most of the application, but reserve a decision on Building B design. Mr. Powell advised the Commissioners to continue the hearing for the purpose of addressing the design of Building B, and then to vote on the application in its entirety. Staff clarified that if the applicant provided more information about the design of Building B by the following Friday, they would mail it to the Commissioners that day and be ready for a Monday hearing. Ms. Binkley clarified that the applicant should present alternative proposals for reducing the scale of the octagonal side of the building. The Commissioners indicated general agreement to consider the remainder of the issues and then continue the hearing for testimony about the design of Building B. Ms. Stadnik observed the wall along the railroad right of way looked very cold. Mr. Galante suggested pocket plantings of Boston ivy to cover large areas of the wall and perhaps installing a low maintenance feature on the wall. He clarified that whatever was put on the wall should not be a feature that would draw pedestrians up to the wall and into the railroad right of way. Ms. Binkley suggested the project team come back to the Development Review Commission with suggestions for decorating the wall. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 15 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 Mr. Fagelman recalled the Evergreen Neighborhood Association had been concerned their Association would have to pay any additional cost over $8,000 for traffic calming device. Mr. Galante announced that either LORA or the City would pay the difference. Chair Ostly then invited the applicant to comment on the Commissioners' contemplated changes to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Lee suggested that a condition for screening the south side of the garage with some kind of material be included in recommended Condition C(1)(g). Mr. Galante related that Ms. Mayer Reed, who had left the hearing, had explained to him that the plan placed a double row of trees in front of the garage and other plants on top of the garage that would grow downward and cover the garage. She had observed that the strong red brick columns and the elevator and stair tower would create interest for the building and the concrete portions would not be as visible. She had stressed that the development was not supposed to look like a shopping center, but to appear to be separate and distinct buildings, including a garage building. She believed that when the deciduous trees along the wall matured, they would screen it. Mr. Galante observed that the elevation that showed the corner of the parking structure was visible from State Street was a fairly small view from a vehicle in the middle of the roadway. He said the view from the sidewalk would be buffered by stepped landscaping. He clarified for Mr. Fagelman that in the view of the garage from the motor court the stair tower would be directly ahead and the elevator would provide a strong vertical element. He related the project team was working with the Arts Commission to determine where to place art that was required by a regulation that 1% of the cost of a public structure was to be spent on art. He reported that the Arts Commission had rejected his suggestion that the garage feature Arts and Crafts period wrought iron grates. The Commissioners then considered whether garage lighting would be visible from Millennium Park. The project team related they had examined photographs of parking structures in the Northwest and California and disliked "Chia Pet" parking garages that were completely obscured by vegetation except for some dark voids. Mr. Lee also explained that the team had considered what airflow through the garage was necessary for the operation of the mechanical equipment. The team assured Mr. Fagelman that there were many elements of the project that would screen the garage from the street and the garage was to be of high-grade architectural concrete. Mr. Cain also stressed that the applicant had reached the limit of funds that could be spent on the garage. Mr. Powell cautioned that the applicant was to have opportunity to comment on proposed conditions of approval, but this was not the time to introduce new evidence. Mr. Lee said the applicant could live with Condition F(1), if it applied a limit of 12 square feet per sign and two signs per building. He also indicated that the applicant would agree to be limited to a maximum height range of 7 to 9.5 feet for each of the three ID markers. The team agreed to a condition to report when the project reached 50% and 95% occupancy, and to include Conditions G(1) and G(2) as modified by the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 16 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 applicant. Mr. Lee recalled the Commissioners had generally agreed to the applicant's list of allowable upgrades, except for Items 5 and 6. He said the applicant found that acceptable. Sidney Hunt, Sienna Architecture, 411 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, then discussed the design for Building B. He recalled the team had held lengthy discussions about its features and had considered as many as 30 different versions of the street elevation. He said the view the Commissioners had chosen to look at was not a representative view because it was the perspective from a 10 -foot height and showed more of the roof than most people would actually see. He also stressed the interior space was to include useable mezzanine space for the use of the tenant, and changes to the design would impact the leaseability of that space. He said the team would not be opposed to eliminating every other dormer, or all dormers, if it made sense and helped to simplify the roof shape, but there were good reasons for the actually physical height of the eave line and the clerestory. He said the designers had also found that when they lowered the roof height of Building B it did not relate well to Building C. He summarized that the designers would be amenable to making changes that simplified the upper roof shape to minimize the impact of the building from the corner of State Street and A Avenue, but to lower the roof by four or five feet would begin to impact the usefulness of the interior space. Ms. Binkley opined that to simply remove dormers would not address the issue that an unbroken height up to the eaves did not create a pedestrian quality at that street corner. She noted the plans for the corner of A Avenue and First Street did show a wonderful pedestrian quality. Mr. Hunt explained the applicant felt the corner of State Street and A Avenue was a 100% commercial corner and related more to vehicles than to pedestrians, while other portions of the site served the pedestrian aspects of the project. The architects pointed out that Building B was located where the scale of the street transitioned toward the scale of Building C and that it was on the lowest point of the site and required a design that would lift the corner up. Ms. Binkley clarified that she was not suggesting that the overall height on that corner be reduced, but she was concerned that the vertical height of the building wall felt imposing from the street. The architects observed the building had been pulled back from the street. Mr. Binkley clarified for them that she could support removal of the dormers and that it would not help to arch the window higher. The architects asked her to consider the scale of the building from farther down the street. The project team pointed out that the structure complemented the strength of brick street materials. They pointed out that the frontage features of the commercial building on Block 136 were within the same plane, but the features on Building B were pulled back. Ms. Binkley suggested the architects consider use of some other type of material on the structure that would help to break up the building height. Mr. Galante addressed the basalt wall. He said the team could design shadow -creating voids in the wall along the railroad right of way, but they would prefer to wait for a time when they could work something other kinds of improvements out with the rail line. Ms. Ostly and Ms. Morales observed the wall was very visible and certainly a place for City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 17 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 features, such as public art. Ms. Stadnik observed the wall was very austere, in contrast with the rest of the project where there was a lot of brick, greenery, and rock. Mr. Lee asked why the Commissioners wanted to hide a gorgeous basalt wall. Mr. Galante suggested that plant pots could be hung over the wall from the top with four to five foot long ornamental steel hangers. He explained that the Gramor firm had originally proposed a concrete wall, but LORA had contributed between $150,000 and $180,000 to face it with basalt and install granite caps and a steel railing. Ms. Ostly, Ms. Morales and Ms. Binkley indicated they liked his suggestion of pot hangers. Mr. Lee recalled that Mr. Galante had agreed that LORA or the City would pay any additional amount over the $8,000 limit to be borne by the applicant for the traffic - calming device. He noted that Building B design and the garage wall were the remaining issues to be resolved. Ms. Ostly clarified for Mr. Cain that the Development Review Commission could not approve everything except the design of Building B and the garage wall that evening, as he had requested. He stressed that the applicant did not desire to lower the height of Building B or its second band on top; however, he agreed that they could consider some changes in the design that might make it more pedestrian friendly. He said he did not believe the applicant could rework the design of the parking garage. Ms. Binkley recalled the applicant had testified that if they observed at a later stage that lights shined out of the garage, they would do something about them. She suggested a condition that they would address that situation if it occurred. Ms. Ostly observed a consensus that the applicant was to address garage lighting if it could be seen outside the garage. She noted the only remaining issue to be resolved was the design of the octagonal side of Building B. The Commissioners clarified for staff that they intended to limit projecting signs to 12 square feet in area on each side of the sign. Ms. Binkley moved to continue LU 01-0076 to March 4, 2002, for the limited purpose of hearing additional testimony related to the design of the octagon side of Building B and ways to lower it to pedestrian scale. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Binkley, Ms. Morales, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Powers, Ms. Stadnik, Mr. Fagelman and voting yes. There were no votes against. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Above ground oil tanks Mr. Pishvaie advised that although above ground oil tanks were prohibited by the Fire Code, recent technology made them fairly safe to have them above ground. He explained that to allow them above ground raised the issues of setbacks, appearance, and screening. He said the Planning staff was working on new regulations for the tanks City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 18 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002 and desired to schedule a work session to present them to the Development Review Commission at a time just prior to the next public hearing. The Commissioners agreed to that schedule. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Ms. Ostly adjourned the meeting at 11:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Senior Secretary L:\pc\dre\minutes\02-27-02.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 19 of 19 Minutes of February 27, 2002