Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2002-12-02I. CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes December 2, 2002 Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of Monday, December 2, 2002 to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers ofCity Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present included Chair Tierney, Vice Chair Sheila Ostly and Commissioners Nan Binkley, Julie Morales* and Gary Fagelman. Commissioner Krytsyna Stadnik was excused. Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Ostly moved for approval of the mutes of October 7, 2002. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Morales, Mr. Tierney and Mr. Fagelman voting yes. Ms. Morales abstained from the vote and Ms. Stadnik was not present. There were no votes against. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of the Minutes of October 21, 2002. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Morales, Mr. Tierney and Mr. Fagelman voting yes. Ms. Binkley abstained from the vote and Ms. Stadnik was not present. There were no votes against. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 02-0030, A request by Lake Oswego School District to convert an existing athletic field to a softball facility at Lakeridge High School. Paul Espe, Associate Planner, reported that the applicant had identified a different location for the drinking fountain than they had previously proposed. He also advised that the applicant desired to slightly change the irrigation system plan and that modification could be worked out between the staff and the applicant. He clarified that the irrigation system was not discussed in the Findings. He pointed out the proposed location of the drinking fountain. The Commissioners observed the location was not City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 convenient to the field and there was not pathway to serve it. Chair Tierney invited the applicant to discuss the placement of the fountain. Dorothy Cofield, 4248 Galewood Street, Lake Oswego, 97035, attorney for the Lake Oswego School District, explained the applicant desired to modify the irrigation plan so that everything within the fence and all new plant material outside of the fence would be irrigated, but not the grassy portion (Exhibit E-8, Landscaping plan). She explained this was a conservation measure. She pointed out she had drafted and submitted new language to staff that day that proposed that field areas outside of the fence did not need to be irrigated, except for all new landscape materials, trees and shrubs shown on Exhibit E-8. She questioned why the Findings included a statement that the applicant might need permanent restroom facilities at the time of subsequent applications. Mr. Espe recalled the Commissioners had decided to require temporary facilities on the site after they had observed a need for permanent restrooms. Chair Tierney observed that language would provide an indication to the applicant and future Commissioners that permanent facilities should be considered. Upon hearing no opposition, he announced the language would remain in the Findings. Steve Sherrill, Director of Facility Improvement Projects, Lake Oswego School District, 5926 SE Iris Court, Milwaukie, Oregon, 97267, explained that the applicant proposed to move the location of the drinking fountain uphill about five feet of elevation from field level to a location where it could be aligned with a sewer line. He indicated that it could be accessed by walking up the embankment or handicapped access could be provided to it from the parking lot. He described how the applicant intended to protect it from vandalism by placing it upon a large concrete pedestal. He said the fountain would serve a larger area than just the softball field. Ms. Morales and Ms. Binkley indicated the fountain should be located further down the hill and in a more convenient location for players and observers. Chair Tierney observed a consensus that the Commissioners did not intend to modify draft findings related to the drinking fountain. Mr. Espe suggested that the findings should specifically refer to the original landscape plan and that the language in Condition E could be made simpler and clearer if it said, "Field areas outside of the fence do not need to be irrigated." Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 02-0030-1490, Findings, Conclusions and Order, with an amended Condition E that specified "Field areas outside of the fence do not need to be irrigated." Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Morales, Mr. Tierney and Mr. Fagelman voting yes. Ms. Stadnik was not present. There were no votes against. Mr. Boone advised that because no parry other than the applicant had testified at the previous hearing, no one else needed to be included in the discussion of the changed condition. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 02-0012, a request by Mountain West Investment Corp. for approval of the following: City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 • Conditional Use and Development Review Permits in order to construct a 68 - unit special use housing development for assisted living residents. • The proposal also includes 3,400 square feet of ground floor retail space on B Avenue, • A small public park on B Avenue on the west side of the alley, • A plaza at the corner of 2nd Street and B Avenue, and 31 off-street parking spaces along the alley. • 15 trees are proposed to be removed. The property is located at the NW corner of 2nd Street and B Avenue, Tax Lots 02000, 02100, 02200 of Tax Map 21E 03DD. Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedures and time limits. He recalled that the hearing was to be limited to the design of the building, because the Commission had previously resolved other issues. Mr. Boone recalled that issues related to Conditional Use had been resolved and he advised that pertinent testimony would be that which addressed the building design. Chair Tierney then asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationship with the project or the applicant. None of the Commissioners anticipated any potential conflict of interest. No one in the audience challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, presented the staff report. He pointed out that the complete set of staff reports included those dated June 7, August 9, August 30, and November 22, 2002. He advised out that the latest report contained the entire set of staff -recommended conditions. He reported that the applicant had responded to design issues raised by the Commission and the neighbors by revising the plans and describing the changes in detail in Exhibit F-19, Supplemental Land Use Application dated November 7, 2002. He observed the applicant had responded to concerns that the entrance appeared to be "top-heavy" by removing the porch over the entrance. He reported they had reduced the structure's height at different points by various amounts, which resulted in an overall height reduction. He noted the tallest section had been reduced from 49.5 feet to 48.5 feet. He reported that the building had been reduced in size by over 2,000 square feet and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) had been reduced from 1.4 to 1.35, which was still well below the EC Zone's allowable FAR of 3.0. He noted that the building had been moved farther back from 2nd Street providing more room for landscaping, which now comprised 36.2% of the site. He related that the applicant had increased the density of the development from 66 to 68 units by changing some two-bedroom units to one -bedroom units. He advised the 44 proposed parking spaces still met the parking requirement of 38 spaces. He reported that the staff recommended approval of the project subject to conditions listed in the November 22, 2002, staff report. He corrected "racks" to "rakes" in recommended Condition A(1)(b)(viii) and "fending" to "fencing" in recommended Condition A(1)(b)(viii). During questioning by the Commissioners he explained that the design City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 changes primarily affected 2nd Street, where the building had been pulled back two to eleven feet (compare Exhibit E-31 with E-34). Applicant Ed Sullivan, 222 SW Columbia, Ste 1900, Portland, Oregon, 97201, attorney for the applicant, recalled the purpose ofthe continuance was to consider design issues and not the proposed use. He observed the design changes stepped back and articulated the building from the street perspective. He reported that the applicant had consulted Jim Swan, an appraiser, who had confirmed for them that the project would not be economically viable either if one floor was removed (leaving 52 units) or half a floor was removed (leaving 61 units.) He argued that even though the Commission could not factor economics into their decision, they should consider the fact that the development would provide needed housing and reasonable accommodations for elderly and disabled persons. Greg Winteroud and Tom Armstrong, 310 SW 4th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, project planners, presented Exhibits F-22 and F-23 and referred to the applicant's supplemental narrative in Exhibit F-19 and a "bird's eye view" illustration in Exhibit E-37. Mr. Winteroud reported that the applicant team had addressed concerns related to the height, massing and the design of the entryway of the development. The design team pointed out that the current design shifted the building back along 2nd Street, broke it into three primary massing units, and reduced its size. They noted there was more room for landscaping and a special maple tree along the street. They pointed out that a wrought iron and stone fence along the north portion of 2nd Street helped reduce the impact of the facade on the street. They explained that the structure was 11 feet below the zone's height limit and averaged building height was approximately 40 feet, with a high point of 48.5 feet and a low point of 24 feet. They said the mansard roof and roof gables made the building appear to be lower. They pointed out the entryway had been redesigned and stepped back, with featured only a gable roof over the portico. They explained the applicant had not increased the amount of retail space along B Avenue because of marketing concerns. They observed that B Avenue did not have the same level of retail presence as other parts of Downtown. They said the proposal complied with all applicable standards and the design changes responded to concerns the applicant had heard expressed by the Commission and the neighbors. They explained that they could not reduce project density, because it would not be economically viable, especially considering the cost of three required elevators. During questioning by the Commissioners, Mr. Winteroud clarified that no changes had been proposed for the B Avenue fagade since the September 4, 2002, hearing. Greg Elmore, Mountain West Investment Corporation, 245 SE Commercial Street, Salem, Oregon, 97301, designer of the facility, clarified for the Commissioners that the entryway would feature the same stone and roofing material as the rest of the building. He said the driveway width was 15 feet and four independent columns with overlapping overhangs created the portico. He clarified that the design of the lobby windows had not been changed, but the second floor windows had been changed after the deck and City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 doors on that level had been removed. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that the applicant had removed alley landscaping strips and reduced unit and hallway areas in order to be able to pull the building back 8 to 10 feet from the street. Ms. Morales cautioned the designer to ensure the Code would allow an exit route through the dining room area. Mr. Elmore pointed out for Mr. Tierney that the updated landscape plan in Exhibit E-38 showed a 6- foot high cedar fence along the north property line. He explained that there would be a garden for residents inside the fence and a garden serving an apartment complex was on the other side of the fence. None. Proponents Opponents James Bolland, 804 5th Street, Lake Oswego, 97034, President, First Addition Neighborhood Association, discussed the applicant's narrative in Exhibit F-19. He questioned whether the City desired to set a new standard of design for Downtown that would include a 300 -foot -long, four-story building that would not fit on a downtown Portland block. He disagreed with the applicant's statement that the Block 136 and Block 138 developments should not be considered comparable projects. He recalled that the Downtown urbanization plan called for a mix of office, retail and housing along B Avenue. He held that the height changes shown in the current application were not sufficient to mitigate the appearance of massiveness. He reasoned that if the project supported the redevelopment goal of a retail presence along B Avenue, the nearby neighborhoods and businesses would not be opposed to it. He recalled some Commissioners had previously suggested that the pocket park planned along B Avenue might be relocated to make room for other uses along the street. He said the proposal did not fit a concept of urban core design that made the core more compatible with other uses by reducing the scale, density and intensity of core uses toward the edges of the core. He noted that the applicant had responded to neighborhood requests for a smaller building by only reducing the building size by 2,000 square feet. He contended that another design could have been found that would work better in that location. He asked the Commission to deny the application. Norma Peterson, 890 F Avenue, Lake Oswego, 97034, Lake Oswego, 97034, anticipated that few senior citizens currently living in FAN would be able to afford to live in the facility. She questioned the applicant's justification of the project on the basis that the facility would provide affordable housing. Michael O'Brien, 980 C Avenue, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that he did not believe the proposal showed sufficient parking for the use and he held there was never enough parking planned for assisted living facilities. Mr. Boone recalled the Commission had heard testimony related to parking at the previous hearing and staff had reported that the application met the Parking Standard for 68 units. He advised the Commissioners that City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 new testimony related to parking should be focused on any new issues generated by the increase in the number of units from 66 to 68. Paul Graham, 462nd Street, Lake Oswego, 97304, a member of the Downtown Business Association, reminded the Commissioners that Downtown design standards called for new development to maximize the amount of commercial frontage and storefronts along B Avenue. He recalled the applicant had responded to a Commission suggestion to relocate the pocket park to make room for residential units by explaining that configuration would require additional elevators, separate security and 24-hour staffing, and residents there would be isolated from residents in the rest of the facility. He stressed the importance of continuous retail storefronts along B Avenue. He observed the proposal inserted a gap in retail along B Avenue. He suggested the gap should be filled with retail uses that would invite pedestrians to continue to stroll up the street. Staff clarified for the Commissioners that the parking standard required approximately 3.33 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of additional retail use. Ron Peterson, 47 Eagle Crest Drive, Lake Oswego, 97035, pointed out the correct spelling of the street was "2nd Street." Rebuttal Mr. Sullivan emphasized that the project would benefit Lake Oswego seniors and he advised the Commission to consider state law pertaining to needed housing and the federal Fair Housing and Americans with Disabilities Acts that related to reasonable accommodations. He advised that the application met Conditional Use standards and the remaining design issues should be decided using clear and objective limited land use standards. He recalled that the applicant had addressed retail presence along B Avenue and had been willing to consider other alternatives. Mr. Winteroud and Mr. Armstrong responded to testimony related to design issues. Mr. Winteroud recalled Mr. Bolland's position that a transition from the Downtown core to residential neighborhoods was to be achieved by reductions in intensity of uses, heights and bulk. He observed the proposed use would be part of a transition from retail use to assisted living use to an apartment complex. He pointed out the proposed height of the site dropped to two -stories where the site abutted a two-story apartment building. He observed the applicant's project would show Lake Oswego style, but the exiting apartment building had a flat roof, which was out of character for the City. He pointed out the proposed project was well below the 51- foot height limit and the FAR limit applicable to the site and the applicant planned to exceed the landscaping requirement. He indicated that the applicant found Mr. Bolland's request for a "smaller building" was not a criterion to be addressed, but a request to substitute someone's idea of what a smaller building was with the dimensional standards in the Code. He explained that it would not be feasible for the applicant to construct a smaller project. Mr. Armstrong observed that the project met the Parking Standard and he pointed out that the applicant had submitted a survey of peak use parking at six similar existing City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 facilities in the area that showed the project would be served by more than adequate parking (parking survey in Exhibit F-11). He recalled that the applicant had considered designs that would bridge to the other side of the alleyway and found they were not functional. He observed that the applicant did not need the area of the pocket park to meet landscaping and open space requirements. He pointed out that the applicant was offering to convey that land to the City (Exhibit F19), and the City would be free to redevelop it as they wished - perhaps in conjunction with future development of the property next door. No one requested that the hearing be kept open to allow additional evidence or testimony to be submitted for the record. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney then opened deliberations. Deliherations Ms. Binkley commented that although the applicant had redesigned the entry and pulled back and articulated the fagade, the structure still appeared to be too massive to be adjacent to a residential neighborhood. She observed development on the applicant's site would set a design precedent in the area. She said that the mansard -style roof did not disguise the fact that the structure included three and four-story sections. Ms. Morales indicated that she would have preferred to see a model and illustrations that would demonstrate how the building related to the topography and nearby buildings. She asked the City to require a model in future applications for substantial sized development that could set design precedents. She noted that the additional landscaping between the street and building helped to mitigate the mass. She indicated that the revised design was an improvement over the original plan, but the building was still too long and massive, even if it met applicable height requirements. Ms. Ostly observed the height of the structure was under the allowable height limit. She recalled that the Downtown plan called for a continuous retail fagade along B Avenue, but she questioned why the applicant should be required to construct another building at the location of the proposed pocket park. She commented that the presence of a park might help to draw pedestrians to the area. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners to determine whether the submitted plan met applicable criteria, and not whether or not the applicant was going to give the area where a pocket park was shown to the City. He further advised that if they found the pocket park was not necessary to meet the criteria, they could eliminate it as a condition of approval. Chair Tierne y observed the application attempted to address conflicting standards and he noted that staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Boone clarified for the Commissioners that Conditional Use standards provided that the proposed use was to have functional characteristics that could be made reasonably compatible with other uses in the vicinity. The Commissioners examined existing development around the site and along B Avenue. They observed an office building, an City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 apartment building and a one-story building bordered the site and the nearby Fire Station was a fairly tall building. Ms. Ostly commented that existing old one- and two- story houses being used for commercial purposes would eventually be replaced. She observed a parking issue in the vicinity. She said that although she did not typically favor mansard -style roofs, that style roof helped mitigate the mass of the proposed structure. She noted the applicant had revised their plan to allow additional landscaping and to position the building further back from the street. She anticipated the proposed development would eventually appear to fit within the surrounding area after the vicinity of the site was redeveloped. Ms. Binkley anticipated that the development would continue to present an abrupt change in mass along the street. Mr. Boone clarified for the Commissioners that whether the use provided an appropriate transition from commercial to residential was a Conditional Use consideration, but the issue of massing, overall proportionality and whether the development would be complementary to nearby structures was a design consideration. Ms. Morales confirmed that she was concerned about massing. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Ostly recalled the townhouses along Evergreen Street were quite tall and close to the street. However, Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales observed the applicant's development took up a much larger site and the townhouse buildings were separated. Chair Tierney observed the proposal met objective standards, including those that addressed height. He asked how the Commission could deny an application based on its height. He recalled that the applicant had listened to the Commissioners' comments at the previous hearing and revised the plan. He recalled testimony that the applicant proposed a plan that was feasible for them to operate. He anticipated that if their application was denied someone else would submit an application of similar size and scale. He suggested the Commission focus on whether the proposal provided an appropriate transition. He indicated he supported the application. When the Commissioners asked Mr. Boone to advise them how to proceed if there was no majority vote on the application, he suggested that the absent Commissioners could review the record and then participate in the vote. Ms. Ostly recalled the applicant had testified that they did not need the pocket park to meet landscaping requirements. Ms. Morales observed that because the park area was a small area of land and separated from the main building by the alley, it could not be designed to significantly affect massing. Ms. Morales and Ms. Binkley confirmed that the proposed type of use was not an issue for them. But Ms. Morales questioned whether the design fit the neighborhood. Mr. Boone advised that if the Commission found that the use was appropriate at the site, then the massing issue could be considered under design standards. He pointed out that the Downtown Redevelopment Design District had its own Building Siting and Massing standard (LOC 50.65.025) that called for development to create a village character by complying with requirements for complex massing, Lake Oswego style, pedestrian orientation, roof forms, number of stories, street corners, height limits, stepped back upper stories or design elements that would break up the mass of the building and create visual interest and variety, hidden City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 mechanical equipment, and a defined entryway. The Commissioners generally agreed their primary concern was whether the design showed complex massing. Ms. Binkley held that the skirted roof style did not help the design accomplish that. Ms. Morales advised that the applicant could take the same mass and break it into smaller -scale pieces that would provide a better transition into the neighborhood. However, Ms. Ostly noted that type of design could require additional elevators and access points and become a design the applicant would not find feasible to build. She also noted the shape of the lot limited design options. Ms. Binkley indicated there could be more design options available for a smaller -sized development there. Chair Tierney recalled the applicant had testified that the revised design was supposed to appear to be three buildings. Ms. Morales observed the site was on a larger block than other nearby blocks and she recalled the Ad Hoc Infill Development Task Force was attempting to determine how to lower the design of residential infill on the neighborhood side of the site. Ms. Ostly recalled that the Task Force had found that it was street facing scale, rather than height, that affected residents' perceptions of infill housing. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 02-0012, without a condition to require a pocket park. During the ensuing discussion staff confirmed that the application would meet the 30% landscaping requirement without the park area. Chair Tierney observed that approval would neither require nor preclude development of the area as a pocket park and the City could determine the best use of the area in the future. Mr. Tierney seconded the motion and it did not pass. Ms. Ostly and Mr. Tierney voted yes. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales noted against. Mr. Fagelman had recused himself from hearing the application and Ms. Stadnik was not present for the vote. Ms. Ostly moved to continue LU 02-0012 to December 16, 2002, in order to continue deliberations and allow Commissioners Stadnik and Fagelman to review the taped record of hearings they had not attended and participate in deliberations. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Morales and Chair Tierney voting yes. Mr. Fagelman had recused himself from hearing the application and Ms. Stadnik was not present. Chair Tierney announced a five-minute break in the proceedings and then reconvened the meeting. LU 02-0024, a request by Jon and Valerie Hoppman for approval of a design review permit to construct a one-story office building approximately 3,030 sq. ft. Seven trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the project. The property is located in NE corner of Pilkington and Lakeview, Tax Lot 1100 of Tax Map 21E 18 AC. Staff Coordinator is Debra Andreades, Associate Planner. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 *Ms. Morales left the meeting. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedures and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationship with the project or the applicant. Each Commissioner present declared that he or she had no conflict of interest related to the application. No one in the audience challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated November 22, 2002). She advised the zone allowed the 3,080 sq. ft. sized building the applicants proposed and the project would be compatible with the adjacent residential Ane, because it conformed to regulations related to Floor Area Ratio, setbacks and height limitations that had been established for commercial buildings abutting a residential zone. She reported that staff had found that the building design would not conflict with nearby structures and the project would provide a good transition from industrial to residential uses. She reported the proposed landscaping met the 15% Code requirement, but should be confirmed at the building permit stage of development. She said that the applicants proposed to remove seven trees, to retain 10 existing deciduous trees and to plant additional Douglas fir and Cypress trees. She reported the proposed 13 parking spaces, plus one handicapped space exceeded the parking requirement. She concluded that the application met the applicable criteria. She reported that staff recommended approval of the application subject to conditions recommended in the staff report. During questioning by the commissioners, she clarified that the applicants were not requesting approval of signage as a part of the application, but they anticipated that they would apply for a sign band at a later time. She also explained that staff recommended a condition to ensure that shrubs were planted in the northern portion of the site where the applicants proposed to plant only grass. She said that would add interest and provide screening for the residential zone. Applicant Jon Hoppman, 1458 Greentree Circle, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that he and his wife operated Lakeridge Homes and Remodeling, a small construction company. He anticipated that the development's proposed Craftsman -style design would enhance the surrounding area. He anticipated the building would be leased to a single tenant — a home theater company - for showroom use that would not generate a high level of traffic. He presented material that described the proposed exterior lighting fixtures. He said he planned to install a sign band on the Pilkington Road side of the building. He described the rooftop mechanical equipment. He clarified for the Commissioners that the building would feature cedar shake siding and clear windows. He said the applicants did not propose parking lot lighting, because the lot was very small and already well lit by a nearby streetlight and the applicants believed that adding more lighting would impact the neighbors. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 When Ms. Binkley asked if the requirement for an 8 -foot -wide sidewalk along Pilkington Road could be modified to avoid impacting two trees, staff advised that the Code allowed the sidewalk to be narrowed up to four feet to avoid trees. None. None. Proponents Opponents Neither for nor against Stephanie Harper, 5373 Lakeview Boulevard, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated that she resided just east of the site and was unclear about which trees near her property line were to be removed. She asked the Commission to ensure her residence was screened. Ms. Andreades advised that two trees were to be removed from that area and a Cypress tree was to be planted there. Rebuttal Mr. Hoppman reported that he planned to plant a Cypress tree that would grow 20 to 30 feet high. He pointed out two maples that were to be removed. He said the applicants planned to replant a total of 10 trees on the site. No one requested that the hearing be continued for submission of additional written evidence or testimony. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. The applicants waived their right to request additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney opened deliberations. Deliberations Ms. Ostly, Ms. Binkley and Mr. Fagelman observed the project seemed to fit the neighborhood and would improve it. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 02-0024, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Fagelman seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Tierney and Mr. Fagelman voting yes. Ms. Morales and Ms. Stadnik were not present. There were no votes against. Chair Tierney announced the vote on the written findings would be held on December 16, 2002. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Staff announced that a farewell party was to be held prior to the December 16, 2002, Commission meeting in honor of outgoing Commissioner Dave Powers. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002 VII. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Administrative Support III Ddre4ninutesAl2-02-02 draft.doe City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 12 Minutes of December 2, 2002