Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2000-05-15_e i.AKF i._ OREGON I. CALL TO ORDER CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 15, 2000 Chair Julie Morales called the Development Review Commission meeting of Monday, May 15, 2000 to order at 7:05 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Morales, Vice Chair Nan Binkley and Commissioners Douglas Kiersey, Sheila Ostly, Bruce Miller, Dave Powers and Douglas Cushing*. Staff present were Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician; Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Mark Schoening, City Engineer; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 00-0029, Findings, Conclusions and Order Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 00-0029-1371, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Miller, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Powers voting yes. Ms. Binkley abstained and Mr. Cushing was not present. There were no votes against. LU 00-0037, FindinEs Conclusions and Order Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 00-0037-1372, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Miller, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Powers voting yes. Ms. Binkley abstained and Mr. Cushing was not present. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 LU 00-0001, Findings, Conclusions and Order Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 00-0001--1370, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Mr. Miller, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Powers voting yes. Ms. Binkley abstained and Mr. Cushing was not present. There were no votes against. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 00-0012, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny the tree removal application by Phillip and Zona Ruhl to remove one 23.5 inch Douglas Fir tree from their side yard. The site is located at: 4351 Cobb Way, Tax Lot 11100 of Tax Map 21E 171313. The staff coordinator is Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician. Chair Morales opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked the commissioners to report any ex parte conflicts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. All commissioners present reported they had either visited the site or were familiar with the neighborhood. Ms. Ostly related that a falling broadleaf maple tree had recently damaged her home. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised the commissioners that if they were to hear the appeal they should listen objectively to the evidence that was presented at the hearing and make a decision based on the evidence. Ms. Ostly agreed to abstain from voting on the appeal at the conclusion of the hearing if she did not feel that she could make her decision based on the evidence presented. No one challenged any commissioner's right to hear the appeal. Sandy Ingalls, Planning Technician, presented the staff report (see Planning Division Staff Report dated May 5, 2000). She corrected the File number indicated on the report cover from LU 99-0012 to LU 00-0012. She added page 4 of Exhibit 12 to the record. She noted that the appellants had provided exhibits, including copies of repair invoices, to show the extent of damage to the house from falling limbs and the impact of roots on the house foundation. She said staff found the 40- to 50 -year-old, 23.5 -inch diameter Douglas fir tree was a healthy tree that included some dead wood, but did not appear to be a hazard. She advised that the application had been reviewed under the City's Emergency Tree Cutting Ordinance. She noted the applicants' arborist's report had not concluded that the tree should be removed. She reported that the tree was healthy, well cared for, and was not displacing soil. She related that 20% of the root system had been pruned 4-5 years ago and the arborist's report had concluded there was a severe potential for root failure. She recommended the denial be upheld and the appellants be encouraged to prune dead wood from the tree to reduce potential fire hazard and further damage from falling dead limbs and to allow more light and air to reach their roof to reduce moisture problems. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, clarified for Ms. Morales that the appellants bore the burden of proving that the criteria in the Ordinance had been met, and if they failed to do so, the City would not be at fault if the tree eventually caused problems. He advised the appellants were entitled to test the decision before the DRC, the City Council, and eventually before a court of law. Applicant Zona Ruhl, 4351 Cobb Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, indicated she disagreed with the staff finding that the tree was not hazardous. She pointed out that Morton Tree Service had rated the hazard potential of the tree at "10" on a scale from "1" to "12" (see Exhibit 11). She clarified that although the house was five feet from the tree, the eave of the roof was only 26.5" from the tree trunk. She related that her yard included eight other trees, including one flowering maple and Douglas fir trees. She said an informal survey of her neighborhood showed it contained over 108 trees, and the loss of one tree would not significantly impact the neighborhood. She noted the staff report acknowledged there would be cases where a tree posed an unacceptable risk to persons or property. She said it had been costly to repair the foundation and rain drain in an area where a tree root had grown into it, and the roof, after a tree limb fell on it. She explained that as she and her husband aged - and as their income was reduced - it would become harder for them to repair damage caused by the tree. She said they desired to deal with the tree to reduce the need for future repairs. She opined that the tree should have been removed at the time her house was built because it was located too close to the structure. She explained she endeavored to maintain and prune all trees in her yard. She said the tree was in the center of the access to her and her neighbor's rear yards and could hinder emergency fire services. She noted a City brochure requested that homeowners outside the City limits remove trees and shrubs close to houses to reduce fire hazard. She held that a tree should not be considered more important than a home and the tree should be removed. She said its roots were lifting the soil around the house foundation. She provided photographs of the damage to the house. She noted her neighbor supported the application, and he had also experienced roof damage due to the tree. She indicated she had discussed the proposal with all of her neighbors and they all supported the application. She said she appreciated the value of trees; however, the City's Tree Ordinance was very restrictive and homeowners should be allowed to manage trees on their property. She pointed out that Farmer's Insurance Company recommended that homeowners create a safety zone around their house by keeping large trees and brush at least 30 feet back from the structure. She said the tree was located in a five-foot wide area between two houses. (See photographs in Exhibits 2 and 3 of the staff report.) The commissioners reviewed the photographic evidence. Ms. Ruhl clarified for Mr. Kiersey that the house had been constructed in 1968 and she had resided there since 1976. She related that in the past the City had permitted her family to remove two other trees that had been damaging their driveway and a fence. Proponents City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 Mark Henry, 4341 Cobb Way, Lake Oswego, 97035, testified that he lived in the adjacent residence. He pointed out the tree was centrally located between the two houses. He said he had been told that the tree had been a Christmas tree that was subsequently planted there by the person who built his house. He predicted that the tree would destroy his garage and the Ruhl's bedroom as it grew larger. He said he had been a member of Friends of Trees and had personally planted hundreds of trees, but it made sense to remove this tree before it did further damage. Opponents None. Neither For Nor Against None. Ms. Morales closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Mr. Powers advised the decision should be a tree -specific and site-specific one. He recalled testimony that the tree posed a fire hazard. He noted a large portion of the canopy of the tree was over the roof of the house and its roots were growing into the foundation drains and lifting up the ground around the house. He pointed out the area for root growth was very limited and the house foundations confined the roots. He recalled that a major root had already been removed from the tree and had weakened it. He advised there was an increased potential for the tree to become diseased and to rot. He also advised that the combination of moisture and dropped evergreen needles created an acid that impacted roof shingles and sheathing. He noted that one of the most important anchor roots was already gone. He said he favored removal of the tree. Ms. Kiersey asked if the hazards that had been described were sufficient to warrant removal of the tree. Mr. Powers advised that whether or not the hazard was an immediate one, it had impacted the property owners' and the neighbor's home and foundation and would continue to impact the structures in the future. Mr. Kiersey recalled a previous decision wherein the DRC had found that removal of the tree would not have a negative impact on the character, aesthetics, property values or property uses of the neighborhood. He indicated he believed the Ruhl's application was very similar to the previous application, in that it would not significantly impact the neighborhood and would eliminate a hazardous condition. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 Mr. Boone advised that the application was to be reviewed under the older Type I Tree Cutting process and no determination of a hazardous condition was necessary. He advised that Emergency Tree Ordinance criteria required that alternatives to removal had been considered and no reasonable alternative existed that would allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Ms. Morales commented that the DRC would never approve a plan that provided that such a large caliper tree was to be so close to a newly constructed structure. Ms. Binkley worried that the roots were continuing to grow and causing damage in places that were not yet evident to the homeowners. She said it was not reasonable to expect owners to rebuild their houses in order to protect the tree. Mr. Miller worried that the presence of dirt next to the foundation would create a "wicking action" and pull moisture into the siding and cause its deterioration. Mr. Boone advised that if the commissioners found that situation would not permit reasonable use of the property they could find the "reasonable use" criterion had been met. He advised the commissioners to determine if the evidence showed whether or not a reasonable alternative to removal existed. Mr. Miller noted the tree impacted the framing, as well as the siding. Mr. Powers added that in addition to moisture, the situation provided an opportunity for carpenter ants and termites. Mr. Powers moved to approve LU 00-0012 and allow the applicants to remove the tree after they had considered all reasonable alternatives to doing so and had found none. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Miller, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Powers voting yes. Mr. Cushing was not present. Ms. Morales announced that the final determination and order for LU - 00 -0012 would be voted on at the June 5, 2000 meeting. LU 00-0007, an application by Gramor Oregon, Inc. to redevelop Block 136. The request consists of the following items: • A lot line adjustment affecting Tax Lots 8400, 8500 & 8600 and a portion of the existing alley. • Approval of Development Review permits for a 41 -lot townhouse residential planned development and a 16,844 square foot, two-story retail/office commercial building. • Approval to remove approximately 50 trees. The site is composed of Tax Lots 8400-9100 of Tax Map 21E 3DD. The staff coordinator is Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager. Ms. Morales opening 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 present indicated they were familiar with the site. Ms. Morales related that she had served as liaison from the East End City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 Development District and had attended a public hearing regarding the project approximately six months prior. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, presented the Planning Division Staff Report of May 5, 2000 and related memorandums (see staff memorandums dated May 9, 2000 and May 15, 2000). He advised the application was unusually complete and the applicant had been very responsive to all issues as they were identified. He explained the applicant proposed a lot line adjustment that impacted several tax lots and a portion of the alleyway through the center of Block 136; approval of a 41 -lot townhouse subdivision; approval for an approximately 17,000 square foot commercial building; and approval of removal of approximately 50 trees. He related that the applicant desired approval of several exceptions to City standards and regulations: Downtown Development Standard exceptions: 1. Composition roofing was proposed for the townhouses instead of other material listed in the Code. 2. The applicants could not physically meet the requirement for storefront along the ground floor that abutted the pedestrian way due to the topography of Second Street. 3. The upper story of the commercial building was proposed to be masonry instead of the allowed brick or lap siding. Access Standard exceptions: 4. Building 2 fronted on a private road, and not on a public street, as required by the Standard. 5. Lot width for townhouses was proposed at between 17 and 23 feet, instead of the 25 -foot width requirement for the EC Zone. Mr. Pishvaie explained that 17 -foot widths were allowed in R-0, R-3, R-5 and DD Zones. He recalled that at the time of adoption of the standard it had not been anticipated that an EC Zone could include townhouses. Zoning Ordinance setback exceptions: 6. Lot 30 was set back approximately 13 feet at the southwest corner of the project; however, a 25 foot setback was required in an EC Zone where the site abutted an R- 7.5 Zone. 7. The Commercial phase of the mixed-use plan included 8.27% landscaping instead of the required 15% landscaped area. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that the staff report included the applicant's discussion of all of the exceptions they were requesting and staff findings supported all exceptions. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 Mr. Pishvaie then addressed the transportation and traffic impacts on Blocks 136, 137 and 138. He pointed out the staff report included a detailed traffic report that had concluded that development of Block 136 would not create an impact and the only traffic -related improvement required for that block was installation of a signal at the intersection of Second Street and A Avenue, which the City planned to provide (see pages 15 and 16 of the staff report). He noted the applicant would be required to provide a traffic -calming device at the intersection of Evergreen and Fourth Streets to control traffic into and out of the residential neighborhood south and west of the block. He said the applicant's traffic consultant had recommended a traffic diverter device be installed prior to occupancy; however, the staff recommended that it to be installed prior to any construction traffic. Mr. Pishvaie recommended approval of the project subject to the bolded conditions recommended in the May 9, 2000 Memorandum and the revised conditions recommended in the May 15, 2000 Memorandum, corrected as follows: May 9, 2000 Memorandum Page 4: Condition D.(3.) should refer to Exhibit 45 instead of Exhibit 44. Page 7: Condition G.(1.)and G.(1.)(ii.) should refer to Exhibit 46 instead of Exhibit 45. He recommended that Condition (G.)(1.)(iv.) be revised to read: "No signage, except a single window sign, shall be allowed at the retail level on the west elevation of the commercial building." He clarified that was the only sign that was to be allowed on any level. He explained that the applicants planned to construct the development in two phases: Townhouse Buildings 1 and 2 were to be constructed first, then Buildings 3, 4 and 5 were to be constructed. He explained that recommended Condition F.(1.) would allow the applicants to receive a Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase before they had installed sidewalks on Evergreen and Third Streets, which would prevent damage to new sidewalks from construction activity. He explained that recommended Condition D.(4.)(o.) would require the applicants to install on site utility vaults underground wherever possible, or otherwise fully screen them from public view. He explained that recommended Condition G.(1.)(iii.) allowed the applicant to use three additional colors: maroon, dark blue and silver. He pointed out that the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce supported the development (see Exhibit 59). Mr. Kiersey asked whether the City could require more parking for the project. Mr. Pishvaie contrasted the Parking Standard applied to multifamily development, which was a factor of the size of the units, plus an additional 25% parking for visitors (see Exhibit 45), with the townhouse requirement of one space per lot, including garage spaces. He noted most of the townhouses featured double garages. He explained that because there was not enough space to provide an adequate parking pad in front of each unit all residents were to park inside the garage. He noted the applicant proposed slightly more than one space per unit; on -street parking was available along Second, Third and Evergreen Streets (see also, Exhibit 7); and the applicant also planned a four -space parking bay inside the project. He compared the applicant's plan to plans in other areas City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 that featured 20 -foot wide "skinny" streets that did not allow on street parking. He advised that the applicants had met the Parking Standard and he did not believe the City could require additional parking. He added that the applicants had originally planned to include angled parking on Second Street, but that could not be accomplished due to inadequate right-of-way there. Mr. Boone advised that the City did not have authority to impose a requirement for more parking spaces than the minimum required for a permitted use. Ms. Binkley asked for clarification of density requirements for residential uses within EC Zone. Mr. Pishvaie explained that although there were no minimum or maximum density requirements to be applied to the site, the development was regulated by a Floor Area Ratio requirement of 3.8 and Open Space, Landscaping, Drainage, Parking and other standards. He said the project could have been allowed to include more units as long as it met all applicable standards. He also clarified for Ms. Binkley that the townhouse project plan provided 22% open space where 20% was required, and the applicant's were seeking an exception only for the percentage of open space in the commercial project. He said the applicant was compensating for reduced open space in the commercial phase by landscaping the west side of the alleyway (including a portion of the public right-of-way). He said if that area was included in the calculation of open space for the unified site plan the landscaped areas would be almost 19.75% of the site (see Exhibit 47). Mr. Pishvaie clarified for Ms. Binkley that FARs of the townhouses ranged between 1.58 and 2.25 and none of them reached the zone's maximum of 3.0. He also reasoned that because the pedestrian pathway ran through the center of the site it was logical to include it in landscape coverage calculations. Mr. Boone related that he had reviewed LOC 07.23.105 and verified that the minimum parking requirement was .75 parking spaces and there was no provision that would allow the City to require more parking spaces in addition to than the minimum requirement. Applicant Barry Cain, President, Gramor Oreton, Inc., 9895 SE Sunnyside Road, Ste P, Clackamas, OR 97015, related the applicant had worked with the staff, Robert Galante, Director of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency; the adjacent neighborhoods and the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce. Matt Grady, Gramor Oreton, Inc., 9895 SE Sunnyside Road, Ste P, Clackamas, OR 97015, stated he was the project engineer. He introduced the project team and the areas each was responsible for: Team member Responsibility City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 Ted Argo Argo Architects 9370 SW Greenburg Road, #321 Overall site plan Tigard, OR 97223 Townhouse project Michael Lee Sienna Architects 411 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR, 97204 Commercial building Chris Freshley Landscape Architect 1020 SW Taylor, #355 Portland, OR, 97205 Landscape plan Mr. Argo explained the townhouse elevations were stepped in order to address the steep slope and minimize the use of retaining walls. He explained that there was only one through street and the alleyway had been designed to also serve as a pedestrian pathway of textured pavers that started at the pergola at Evergreen Street and passed park like landscaping. *Mr. Cushing entered the meeting at 8:30 PM. He reported he was familiar with the site and had read the staff report. Mr. Argo said the community's CC&Rs would prohibit outside parking. He noted there were to be 29 20 -foot wide units and 12 17 -foot wide units, and the wider units each featured a two -car garage. He explained that the applicant sought an exception to the 25 -foot setback requirement at the corner of Third and Evergreen Streets and he clarified that the project would not be closer than a diagonal distance of 97 feet to the street corner there. He pointed out areas where corner "sitting walls" were planned along Evergreen Street and at the pergola. He said the interior streets were well -landscaped "semipublic" streets and adequately provided for utility easements and service and fire access. He acknowledged that the City staff had adequately related the applicants' reasons for requesting an exception to the lot width standard. He pointed out the 17 - foot wide units featured bedrooms on the upper floor, living space on the middle floor, and a garage and guest bedroom/home office on the lower floor. He explained that the end units would not feature dormers due to height limitations. He presented the materials to be used. He said the applicants had met Code criteria by using natural or natural -looking materials and subtle coordinated colors. He said the textured roof had a limited lifetime warranty and would provide continuity with the commercial building. He said the brickwork exceeded EC Zone standards because it wrapped around the units. He said lap siding and shingles would also be used and stone would accent the monuments and walls along the public ways. He said the mailbox structure would be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 constructed in the same basalt material as that used in Millennium Park. He said the front doors would be painted one of five different colors and would provide variety to the appearance of the project. Mr. Lee explained that parking for the commercial building was to be in a below -grade portion of the structure that would include 19 spaces accessed from Second Street and additional parking would be available next to the bank parking lot. He described the building's features, including basalt planting walls, cascading steps, bench seating and a "park space" within the alleyway. He said the main level of the building would include retail uses that fronted along Second and A Avenues. He said the applicant had designed a "village" through the use of gabled roofs, window treatments, canopies, and brick detailing. He advised that the extensive use of brick would add to the longevity of the building. He explained that the grade of the site did not allow the storefront to be designed at grade. Mr. Freshly presented the landscape design. He testified the applicant intended to ensure the project was compatible with the neighborhood by providing heavy residential -type landscaping. He proposed 39 street trees along the streets, with smaller ornamental trees at corners and a tiered planting pattern that would create a pedestrian -friendly atmosphere at the corners. He said the walkway from A Avenue to Evergreen Street would feature benches, art, overhead tree canopies, steps down to a lower level of maples, upsized evergreen trees, an arbor and a mid -block pedestrian plaza. He proposed that 50 trees be removed, including 31 trees that were 10 -inches caliper or greater. He specified that a Hawthorne tree along Second Street and a 36 -inch caliper elm tree along Third Street would be retained. He said the applicant proposed to plant 204 trees, including the 39 street trees, 2 -3 -inch caliper deciduous trees and 6 -14 -foot conifer trees (in a 4 to 1 mitigation ratio). Ms. Morales announced a 10 -minute break in the meeting and then reconvened the hearing at 8:55 PM. Mr. Cain clarified for Ms. Binkley that the applicants were proposing 41 units instead of a larger number because that density was appropriate for a quality townhouse development and did not require a larger parking structure. Mr. Grady explained why the applicant sought several exceptions: the request for an exception for the storefront on Second Street was based on the grade of the area; use of masonry on the second floor was proposed because many people believed that was a desirable looking feature; the request for a variance to the setback on the corner of Evergreen and Third Streets was for the purpose of buffering other residential dwellings; and the setback reduction to 13.5 feet and the use was very complementary to the R-7.5 uses across the street. He said the corners along Evergreen Street were to be improved as a wider pedestrian plaza and extra landscaping, with sitting walls, a bump out and other exceptional features served to differentiate the project from an ordinary row house development. He also noted the materials to be used and the use of masonry around the entire building, City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 including the garage, was not typical. He said the layout of narrower lots and no public street frontage created an urban way for bicycles and pedestrians, as well as automobiles. Ms. Binkley recalled that a typical urban design, such as those she had observed at Riverplace and in Boston, Massachusetts and developments in Florida, would include a larger courtyard and a public area that served as a central gathering space and could be viewed from many units. She said she did not believe the proposed narrow wandering street would serve that purpose and the project reflected a "suburban" plan, without the amount of open space that would be expected in such a plan. Ms. Ostly agreed with Ms. Binkley and asked how the skinny street would serve the office uses. Mr. Argo explained the project was a mix of urban and suburban planning, and reflected what the applicant understood the neighbors and the community desired to see. He noted the project was one-quarter as dense as Riverplace. He pointed out that a major urban park was nearby that would serve the project residents. He also noted the historical layout for a row house development was linear. Mr. Boone advised the criteria for Downtown development provided that the development was to reflect a "village" character and although the overall plan was to reflect adequate public space, delegation of public space for each unit was not specified. He advised the Commissioners to determine whether the development reflected "village" character, and not whether it was "suburban" or "urban." Mr. Cushing observed the unbroken wall along the Second and Third Street sides of the development created a massive look. Mr. Argo explained there was significant relief in the fagade and good landscaping there. Mr. Cain confirmed for Mr. Miller that the project also reflected what the applicant understood potential purchasers wanted, including a less -dense development with a mix of one- and two-story units, and there had been significant interest in the proposed units. He clarified that although there was a strong market for "flats" in Lake Oswego, the applicant understood interested groups in the community would not universally accept such a development. Mr. Boone advised that the criteria for determining exceptions to the standards did not include price, and the commissioners should focus on whether or not the applicant had demonstrated that the physical characteristics of the site made compliance impractical or that the exception would create a design that complemented the surrounding area or was exceptional in quality and created a positive relationship to its surroundings. Ms. Binkley commented that the project would be differentiated from other blocks of Downtown because it would appear to be the "townhouse block." She indicated she desired to see more variety included in the plan. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 Mr. Argo indicated that he did not consider the project as a "transition" development because there was nothing to transition to, except, perhaps the remodeled newspaper building across the street. He noted the development was surrounded by older apartments, a commercial building with a huge yard, Key Bank and the Wizer building. Mr. Cushing asked about the applicant's treatment of the "ugly wall" on the Key Bank side. Mr. Argo answered the applicants planned heavy landscaping near the wall in order to obscure it. He indicated the applicant had not been successful in arranging to discuss the wall with a representative of the bank. Ms. Binkley noted the entries of all of the units were similar. Mr. Argo explained that the entrances had been designed with arched brick entries to make them more appealing to purchasers. He also explained that the variety of overhangs reflected differing interior floor plans, and the wing walls were latticed and would support vegetation. He added that the decks were partially cantilevered to soften the appearance. He clarified for Mr. Cushing that a wall was to be constructed to approximately six feet above the mid-level floor. Mr. Argo explained for Ms. Binkley that the applicant had not planned porches because of issues related to the fire Code and because prospective buyers assumed that a unit that did not feature brick would be of less value than one that featured brick, even if the non -bricked unit had a front porch. Mr. Cain added that some units would be used as offices, and porches would not be appropriate there. Mr. Argo clarified for Ms. Binkley that an earlier plan that showed a meandering pathway, pergola and arbor and wider units had not accommodated the connection between Evergreen Street and the site. He said the applicant believed that residents would prefer a view of a private landscaped area, rather than a public use area. Mr. Grady recalled the applicant had considered the challenge of enforcing CC&Rs regarding noise if the area included a Jacuzzi that was used in the evening. Mr. Argo opined that some potential buyers would not desire to see everything that was happening in their front yards. Mr. Argo explained the applicants desired to use composition roofing instead of the allowed roofing (including wood, tile or slate) because composition roofing was best for the articulation of the roofs, was easier to clean and less costly. Mr. Binkley indicated she favored brick; however, she observed there were no openings in the brick that could help provide more light to the interior of the units and reduce the mass of the project. Mr. Argo explained that at the ends of the buildings and between buildings 3 and 4 the applicant did not believe that additional windows looking toward public spaces was appropriate. He said that landscaping would soften the brick facing. Ms. Ostly opined that the deep, dark enclosed brick design of the doorways would create a safety concern, particularly for single female residents entering there at night. She also opined the design isolated residents and weakened the sense of community for residents. She opined that successful projects drew residents out to the front and created a sense of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 community and shared space and provided rear areas that served as private space. Mr. Argo indicated he believed that residents would be more reluctant to go downstairs to sit out in front of their unit and would tend to utilize the small deck off their living room. Mr. Argo acknowledged that decorative entry lighting could be designed so that all entries were always lit. He also clarified that the random use of shingles and other materials reflected artistic license and provided variety to the design, although it increased the applicant's cost. He said the varied rooflines had also been designed to avoid a monolithic roofline, but he indicated the applicants would design a less -visible roof, if the DRC desired that. He explained all units featured dormers with large windows that would provide interior light that would be attractive to potential residents. Ms. Binkley listed elements of the design that she favored, including awnings, streetscapes, window patterns, and the brickwork. Mr. Weed related the applicants had designed the roof of the commercial building to include gables and peaks in order to break it up. He explained the applicant had considered using stucco or lap siding on portions of the upper level; however, they used brick all around in order give the structure a pleasant and permanent feeling. He explained for Ms. Binkley that one course of brick had been raised around the windows by approximately 1 — 2 inches in order to add an interesting detail to the building. He noted brick around the parapet would be raised approximately 6 — 8 inches. He said the proposed curved custom-made metal awnings were similar to awnings the applicant had used on another project; however, the exact design had not been selected. He said the clock would be white or off-white slate with black lettering and its purpose was to distinguish the building from others. He noted it was backlit and the clock works would be accessed from the building's interior. He explained the Redondo brick was 8 x 8 inch scored brick. Ms. Binkley observed that the clock tower feature emphasized the structure's horizontal lines and seemed "top heavy." She asked why the pitches roof did not include one more bay in the direction of the clock area. Mr. Weed explained he had considered that, but he preferred the two flat bay for aesthetic reasons. He explained that steel Victorian brackets on the back of the building were intended to match the features on the front of the building and would be substantial enough to seem like they were holding up a portion of the upper floor. He explained the sidewalk along A Avenue was 15 to 21 feet wide, included 4 x 4 foot tree wells; and could accommodate outdoor seating. He clarified for Mr. Cushing that the floor plan also indicated where the canopy covered a portion of the sidewalk. He clarified for Mr. Miller than the storefront lighting included ornamental brass finished wall mounted sconces, 16 x 8 inches wide, between every window bay along Second and A Streets. He said goose necked lamps would light signage at the corners. He pointed out locations where parking and street lamps were planned. He said the applicants planned to match lighting styles for all lamps. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 13 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 Mr. Powers advised the proposed giant sequoia tree would grow very large and its shallow root system and could impact the site. Mr. Freshly confirmed the applicants would reconsider use of that plant. Mr. Freshly explained the landscaped areas in front of the homes were intended to create a residential character and buffer the buildings from the street. He said the applicants believed the open green space with cherry trees (as contrasted with an asphalted area) was appropriate for the public area and would serve as a garden. Proponents Robert Galante, Director, Lake Osweiw Redevelopment Agency (LORA), appeared in support of the project. He recalled the Agency had been working on plans for the area for several years, since they had assisted Gene Wizer with assembling property in the area of Block 136 and had relocated the fire station on Block 138 to another site. He noted that Mr. Wizer (and subsequently Gramor Oregon Inc.) and LORA had negotiated a development agreement that included a provision that the City would construct a signal at the corner of Second and A Avenues and update the signal at First and A Streets. He noted that Millennium Park was completed and both Gramor and LORA were anxious to proceed with the development of this block and then proceed with the remainder of the downtown area. He read the definition of "Village Character" from the Downtown Development Standards. He related that all issues that had been raised by the Commissioners that evening had been resolved as the project was planned. He acknowledged that there were many ways the site could be designed. He held that the proposed design of the site would enhance the downtown area. He advised that Millennium Park served as open space for the downtown area. He noted the community approved of the layout of the 15 row houses along Fourth Street, across from City Hall, that had been staged in an unbroken linear row. He pointed out the applicant planned a row of eleven row houses along Third Street; nine row houses along Second Street; and a row of seven and a row of five row houses along Evergreen Street. He acknowledged the existing Fourth Street row house development was less dense what the applicants' proposed. He recalled that development had reduced its cost by modifying its original plan to use brick. Ann Meneakis, Chair, Evergreen Neighborhood Association, 333 Ninth Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified her Association supported the project. She testified the Association had been concerned with the aesthetic and architectural continuity between Block 136 and the residential neighborhood and the impact of traffic generated by the development on the neighborhood. She related that staff and the applicants had worked with the residents to modify the design to the benefit of the neighborhood. She explained that since construction of "flats" would have meant the construction of a four- story building, the neighborhood supported the plan for townhouses. She indicated the residents favored the applicants' efforts to provide aesthetic diversity in design. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 14 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 She explained residents approved of the traffic mitigation device the applicant planned to install (see pages 16 and 17 of the staff report). She said the residents also appreciated the fact that the applicants had modified their plan so that residents' view of the project was of doorsteps, and not automobiles. Sarah Fix, 295 Third Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, testified she resided 1.5 blocks from the development. She indicated her concern that 50 trees were to be removed from the site. She presented a photograph of a Chestnut tree on the site (Exhibit 65) that she proposed be saved. She said it was approximately 70 years old and was large enough that tree that she could see it from the Albertsons parking lot. She noted the plan showed the tree was located where a sidewalk was proposed. She acknowledged that she understood that saving the tree would mean the project would need to eliminate one townhouse. She held that it would cost less to save the tree than to cut it down. She related that she had heard that mature trees added approximately $8,000 to the value of a property. She noted the tree would fit the applicant's plan to provide a gathering area and provide an appropriate transition to the neighborhood. She disagreed that Key Bank was part of the transition area between the development and the neighborhood. She said neighborhood residents were proud of their gardens and cottage style homes. She asked that this tree and other older trees on the site be kept in order to mitigate the "sterile" appearance of the project. She related that someone had told her the tree was actually a bush, due to its large number of trunks. She suggested it could be pruned back and saved. She clarified she was in favor of the project. The Commissioners looked for the tree on the plan. Mr. Argo explained the tree was located in the public right-of-way. He said he understood it consisted of a tree stump that had suckered and was currently flowering. He questioned whether sufficient sight distance could be provided for drivers if the tree was to remain because of its proximity to the driveway. He advised that if the sidewalk was located exactly at the curb, the tree might be accommodated. Jim Bolland, Chair, First Addition Neighborhood Association, 804 Fifth Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, recalled that the Association had been concerned about traffic and quality of life impacts when the original concept plan for 88 homes had been approved by LORA in 1999. He related the Association had discussed the project with the staff, applicants, the Downtown Business Association and the Chamber of Commerce and had addressed many issues. He noted the resulting proposal provided for traffic mitigation, a density reduction, and quality townhouses. He stated the Association supported the current proposal. None. Opponents Neither For Nor Against City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 15 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 None. Rohnttal Mr. Grady recalled the Chestnut tree posed sight distance problems in the area of the driveway. D. Halstead, PO Box 1182, Tualatin, OR, 97062, stated the tree was a 30 -year-old Horse Chestnut tree that was 30 years, four months and three days old. He recalled that on January 12, 1979 he had been pruning other trees in the area and the City had requested he also cut the Chestnut tree, as it had tipped up out of the ground. He explained that the current wad of multiple water shoots and suckers had grown out of the dead stump since 1979. He predicted that the tree would break during an ice storm or break apart within eight or nine years as its many trunks grew apart from each other. He advised if a trunk was cut, the area around the cut would begin to rot. He acknowledged, however, that the tree could last another 20 or 30 years. Mr. Pishvaie said the tree was located at the SW corner of the project (see Exhibit 4). Mr. Freshly advised a survey showed the tree's center was approximately one foot within the public right-of-way and a foot from the edge of the driveway. He advised against planting another Horse Chestnut tree in its place, due to its production of chestnuts. Mr. Grady concluded the applicant's rebuttal by reminding the Commission that the proposal reflected the interests of many different people. No one requested the record be held open for submission of additional testimony or evidence. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Ms. Morales closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Mr. Cushing moved to continue LU 00-0007 to June 5, 2000. Mr. Powers seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly, Mr. Miller and Mr. Powers voting yes. There were not votes against. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Morales adjourned the meeting at 11:00 PM. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 16 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000 Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\05-15-00.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 17 of 17 Minutes of May 15, 2000