Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2006-01-04r�rr KU 1". 1 01 lov ED City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes i' January 4, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of January 4, 2006 to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Tierney were Vice Chair Sheila Ostly, Nan Binkley, Bob Needham, Krytsyna Stadnik and Halliday Meisburger. Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support III. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of November 7, 2005. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. IV. A.PPROVAI, OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 05-0045, a request by Pollock Investments Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU —05-0064 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Commissioners Meisburger and Needham abstained. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 05-0046, a request by Renaissance Ventures, LLC, for approval of the following: • A Development Review Permit to construct a 12,412 square -foot, 2 -story office building (including 4,450 square feet in the basement area), • Removal of 13 trees to accommodate the development. The property is located at 16865 Boones Ferry Road; Tax Lot 8800 of Tax Map 21E 07DC. The staff coordinator was Debra Andreades, Associate .Planner. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and 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 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Currunission Page 1 of 4 Minutes of January 4, 2006 business relationships with the project or the applicant. All of the commissioners present related they were familiar with general area of the site and often drove by it. Chair Tierney reported he had visited the site. None of them reported a bias or conflict of interest. They reported their business or occupations as follows; Binkley (architect); Ostly (real estate appraiser); Stadnik (civil engineer); Meisburger (architect); Needham (lawyer) and Chair Tierney (utilities construction business). No one present challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application.. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated December 23, 2005). She showed slides, a vicinity map and an aerial photograph. She advised the site was in the West Lake Grove Design District, and subject to design district and OC/R.2-5 zoning regulations, and it was also located where it would serve as a gateway to the City. She advised the zoning allowed office commercial use. She advised the basement area was factored into the parking requirement calculation, but not FAR. She advised the design district called for shared parking, and, after the parking were applied, the parking requirement was 62 shared spaces for the building on the site and the Renaissance office building to the east. She pointed out the applicant had provided a concept plan showing shared access and parking. She reported the applicant proposed to save a mature evergreen tree grove on the site. She reported the project met the FAR requirement and the setback met the 25 -foot requirement on the west side, but not on the north side of the site. She said staff found the proposal generally met the applicable standards, and staff recommended approval of the application subject to conditions that called for some modifications of building design details and the landscape plan. She pointed out areas where they found that planting should be denser (on the west side); a short wall in front of the south facade should be eliminated; the brickwork should not be as high on several elevations; windows should be more elongated; eves should be extended slightly; gutters should be a color that matched the roof; and small changes needed to be made to the cornice and second floor windows. She said the sign on the east fagade should be modified and moved. During the questioning period, she explained staff believed the proposed sign was too large and dominated the streetscape and pedestrian environment at the corner and should be reduced to 24 square feet and moved slightly west, parallel to Boones Ferry Road. She said the proposed space for changeable copy was not appropriate for a non -retail use and should not be part of the sign, and it would be more compatible with the style of the building if it were lit from the ground. She confirmed the HVAC equipment was not on the roof, but it was to be somewhere outside. She explained staff believed that the brickwork should be lowered in places particularly at a corner - to balance the weight of the features on the building. The building seemed to look too flat in places. She explained the notation "Hazard Tree to remain" indicated staff believed that a tree the applicant's arborist had called a "Hazard Tree" might be pruned and saved. Applicant Ken Sandblast, Planning Resources, Inc., 7160 SW Fir Loop Ste 2+01, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, said the applicant's team had worked closely with staff and had no issue with the condition requiring minor modifications of the landscape plan. He said the computer-generated graphics provided by the applicant were accurate and based on City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 4 Minutes of January 4, 2006 surveys and other real data. He said the proposal reflected shared access and parking that had been discussed when the adjacent building was approved. Luring the questioning period, he confirmed the recommended condition regarding the sign was acceptable. Ed Buren, Myers Group Architects, Portland, Oreeon, asked the Commissioners to allow the applicant to work with staff to resolve design issues. However, during the questioning period the Commissioners asked him to address the issues raised by staff. He said the applicant wanted an opportunity to come back to the Commission with a counter proposal that addressed those issues. He clarified the HVAC equipment would he screened and was to be located on the west side (the side facing the residences). He recalled staff wanted to see a deeper (24 -inch) roof overhang, but that would affect the perspective looking up at the building. He acknowledged that the two-dimensional images provided by the applicant did not show that very well. He said the applicant would consider changes to the proportions of building details, but they believed they were well proportioned. He explained that some distinctions between details were to create interest, and some that were not the same from drawing to drawing had been changed during the design process. He indicated the design intended to convey a mansion -like residential style. Ms. Binkley observed the applicant had not submitted detailed drawings showing real depth dimensions so the Commissioners would understand how far features would project out, and the design looked very flat. Commissioners Binkley and Needham explained they could not tell what the building would really look like, so they could not evaluate the design, and they, too, worried it would look too flat. Mr. Buren indicated he wanted direction from the Commissioners. Commissioner Meisburger observed the acoustical engineer's report assumed the HVAC equipment would be located on the roof. Mr. Buren explained the short front monument wall was no longer proposed, and the pile of boulders subsequently shown in its place would be replaced by landscaping (as staff recommended). Ms. Ostly wondered how the basement windows would look from Boones Ferry Road. Rob Matthews, Myers Group Architects, clarified the HVAC equipment would be located in the basement, but the condensing unit would be in the roof on the west side of the building. Other testimony The Commissioners recalled the applicant had asked for direction. They asked the applicant to show a revised sign and sign location. They wanted to see what would replace the pile of boulders on the Boones perry Road side of the site, and a revised landscape plan showing changes to west side planting. They wanted detailed information about the location, size and buffering of the HVAC equipment. Mr. Needham said he saw no traffic problems and the Lighting seemed appropriate. Ms. Ostly observed the applicant had done a good job of fitting the building on the site and protecting the tree grove, but the Commissioners needed more building details to evaluate it. The Commissioners indicated they wanted to see drawings showing the depth of the roof overhang and the projections. They wanted more detail showing the design of the windows. They worried the building would look too flat. Commissioners Binkley and Meisburger discussed the height of the brickwork and Ms. Binkley indicated that if other details were strong enough it could be ok. She wanted to know where exterior building City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 4 Minutes of January 4, 2006 and landscape light fixtures would be located. The Commissioners observed the trim sizes seemed to change in different elevations. Mr. Needham wanted to see the site from the intersection of Washington Court and Boones Ferry Road. The applicant then requested that the hearing be continued to February 2006. Mr. Boone recommended the Commission hold the hearing open for seven more days to receive additional testimony due to the nature of the information the applicant would likely submit. Ms. Ostly moved to continue LU 05-0046 to February 6, 2006. The applicant was to provide additional information to staff by January= 20, 2005. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS City Council decision related to appeal of DRC decision Mr. Pishvaie and the Commissioners discussed the City Council decision related to a recent appeal of several conditions of approval of a Pilkington Road subdivision. The Council had removed two conditions, because they did not feel there was adequate evidence in the record, or the City might not have the authority under PD standards to sustain the Commission imposed conditions related to a reduction in project density of lots and specific house design elements. Mr. Pishvaie reported that staff was discussing changes in the process that might offer more substantiation for such conditions in future applicants. VXI. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 8;40 pm. Respectfully submitted, �� aAb Janice Bader Senior Secretary C. ldr6minutes\01-04-Q6.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 4 Minutes of January 4, 2006