Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2003-01-22 (02) City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 8 Minutes of January 22, 2003 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes January 22, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of January 22, 2003 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 included Chair Tierney, Nan Binkley, Julie Morales, Krytsyna Stadnik and Gary Fagelman. Commissioner Sheila Ostly was not present. Staff present included Hamid Pishva ie, Development Review Manager; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER None. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 02 -0044, a request by Lake Oswego School District for approval of a 3,083 square foot classroom addition and site modifications to Forest Hills Elementary School located at 1133 Andrews Road (Tax Tot 03700 of Tax Map 21E 3DB). The staff coordinator is Paul Espe, Associate Planner. The hearing had been continued from December 16, 2002 and January 6, 2003. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing. The applicant requested that the hearing be continued to February 19, 2003, in order to allow them to address neighborhood concerns. Mr. Fagelman moved to continue LU 02 -0044 to February 19, 2003. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Binkley, Fagelman, Morales, Stadnik and Tierney voting yes. There were no votes against. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 8 Minutes of January 22, 2003 ============================================================== LU 02 -0048, a request by the Lake Oswego School District for approval of the following permits to remodel the existing Lake Oswego Junior High School: 1. Conditional Use and Development Review Permits. The proposal consists of an approximately 15,770 square-foot addition to the existing 104,699 square foot building. The modifications will consist of the following: a. A gymnasium addition to the existing athletics complex at the southwestern end of the school, with an approximate 594 seat bleacher area; b. A new classroom on the northeast wing. c. An addition to two existing classrooms to provide for science classrooms. d. Modifications to the existing site plan to enlarge the north parking lot to increase parking spaces from 49 to 100 vehicles. 2. Class 2 Variances: a. A 0’7” variance from the 30-foot maximum building height on a flat lot [LOC 50.08.035(2)] for the new gymnasium addition. b. A variance to reduce the number of bicycle parking spaces from the required 240 spaces to the existing 30 spaces [LOC 50.55.010, Appendix 50.55D, Table 7.4]. The property is located at 2500 Country Club Road (Tax Lots 300 and 3000 of Tax Map 21E4 and 4CB and Tax Lot 600 of Tax Map 21E 5). The staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. 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 ant icipated future business relationship with the project or the applicant. Commissioners Morales and Stadnik reported that their children attended the school. They and Commissioner Binkley reported that they and/or their children used the sports facilities on the site. Commissioner Fagelman reported that he was familiar with the site and Chair Tierney reported that he had visited the site. No biases or conflicts of interest were reported. The Commissioners reported their professions as follows: Ms. Bink ley and Ms. Morales are architects; Ms. Stadnik is an engineer; Mr. Fagelman is an appraiser; Mr. Tierney works in the utility construction field. No one in the audience challenged any Commissioner’s right to hear the application. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated January 22, 2003). She advised that the proposal met the underlying R-10 Zone’s setbacks and lot coverage requirements, but the gymnasium would be slightly higher than the zone’s height limit of 30 feet (fo r buildings on a flat lot). She said that a Conditional Use, such as a school, was permitted in a residential zone if it was found to be compatible with surrounding uses. She discussed variance criteria to be met in order to grant the request for a Class 2 Variance for an additional seven inches of height of the gym. She observed the proposed height was necessary to the function of a reasonably sized junior high school gym and the applicant had reduced the proposed height since their initial proposal. S he observed that the fact that the new gym was to be 200 feet from the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 8 Minutes of January 22, 2003 closest residence and the additional seven inches of height would not be discernible from Country Club Road or the site driveway would minimize impacts on the neighborhood. She recomme nded that the variance be granted with a provision that it could be raised to the next whole number during construction if the staff found that onsite conditions required a slight change in grade. She advised that the current proposal required the Commission to re-examine how the site met Conditional Use criteria related to the impacts of noise and traffic on the neighborhood and to determine that the use was reasonably compatible with surrounding uses. She observed there were other non-residential uses in the vicinity, including a church, high school, elementary school and Springbrook Park. She reasoned that the proposal would not generate additional noise, because the new gym was not intended to accommodate a significant increase in student population. She noted that mechanical equipment and trash collection areas were to be visually screened and located far from neighboring residences. She related that the 51 additional parking spaces would bring the site into compliance with the Code and she noted that traffic engineers had reported that the proposal would not significantly increase peak hour traffic. She explained that although the applicant’s parking lot lighting proposal for 30-foot high 400-watt luminares was similar to that approved for Lake Oswego High School, the junior high site parking was to be closer to residential uses. She recommended that lighting at the site be limited to 22- to 24-foot-high poles, with up to 250-watt luminares. Ms. Jacob reported that the proposal met Open Space and Landscaping standards. However, she reported that the staff recommended planting larger-sized plants at the west end of the proposed parking area in order to buffer the nearby residential properties, and they also recommended that the applicants plant the same species of street trees along Country Club Road that had been planted on the east side of the driveway. She calculated that the Bicycle Parking Standard of six spaces per classroom meant the site should feature 240 spaces, but she noted that the applicant had asked for a Class 2 Variance to allow them to initially install 30 spaces to reflect current usage and install additional spaces as the use level increased. She recommended that the full bicycle -parking requirement be deferred to such time as the use demanded more than 30 spaces. She advised that the Development Standards required a sidewalk between the main buildings and the public street that met Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards; however, the existing sidewalk exceeded the maximum slope allowed by ADA standards. She observed that condition could not be addressed without significant tree removal and grading that could result in retaining walls. She advised that the Uniform Building Code allowed exceptions to the standards due to terrain and unusual property characteristics and the intent of ADA requirements could be met by the proposed vehicle/pedestrian pick up zone next to the building entrance. She reported that staff had determined there should be an 8-foot wide sidewalk installed from the driveway entrance along the Country Club Road frontage that should meander in order to accommodate street trees. She noted that requirement was consistent with what had been required along the high school side of the street. She concluded that the application should be approved, except for the Class 2 Variance to bike parking requirements, and subject to conditions recommended in the staff report. During questioning by the Commissioners, she clarified that an area where drivers current ly City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 8 Minutes of January 22, 2003 parked that was under the area proposed for the new gym had not been considered in the parking calculation. Vaughn Lein. LSW Architects, 1953 NW Kearney, Portland, Oregon, 97210, presented Exhibit E-27. Mr. Lein pointed out the proposed locations of the new parking lot, gym, classrooms, main entrance and drop-off area and trash enclosure. He showed them where a turn-around was planned that would allow the development to meet the Fire Code. He related that the applicant had recently discovered a need for an emergency generator and he pointed to where it would be located. He said it would be screened and the applicant would submit unit details to the staff prior to construction. He showed samples of the proposed sandstone, charcoal and aluminum materials and colors to be used to make the expanded portion of the facility resemble the existing facility. He indicated that the applicant would re-design parking lot lighting. During questioning by the Commissioners he clarified the new parking area would be drained by directing water into a swale and that the sidewalk along Country Club Road would be eight feet wide and would continue towards Boone Ferry Road until it reached the west edge of the property. Ms. Binkley observed that the new gymnasium would feature a 30-foot tall, unbroken wall; the space would receive little natural light; and the gym doors did not have glass in them. The applicant explained that the District wanted to avoid the risk of broken skylights and windows and the resulting injuries; they wanted to make the space energy-efficient and dark enough for school presentations; and they wanted to build within their budget. He also recalled that the windows in the existing gym were painted over. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales observed tha t the proposed colors showed very little contrast and the walls did not show much texture. The Commissioners then voiced their concern that the proposal did not provide a clearly identifiable and lit route from the front parking lot to the back door of the gym at times when that was the only access to the gym. They also worried about safety at an existing outdoor basketball court. They recalled that drivers often used the court area for parking, even though the applicant had not counted it as a parking area. Mr. Lein explained that no special pathways were planned on the west side of the facility and pedestrians walked across an area that was planted in grass and used as a supplementary athletic field or practice area. He observed that schools typically dealt with security by locking exterior doors and requiring visitors to use the main entrance. When he was asked how new visitors could identify the entrance door, he pointed out that the roofline came down at the entrance and the doors featured glass inserts. Ms. Morales recalled high usage occasions when the parking lot was full and congested and the lawn areas and fields were all being used to their fullest extent. She observed a need for better signage to direct drivers where to park. She asked if the existing outdoor basketball area could be officially used for parking. She and Ms. Stadnik recalled that people already used it and the driveway area for turning around and parking and that created a safety risk. Staff explained that they and the Fire Marshal had examined and addressed the plan for the new parking lot and the Fire Marshal had determined the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 8 Minutes of January 22, 2003 requirement for the turn-around. They acknowledged that there could be an existing situation of drivers parking in the basketball area, and t hat could be a site management issue or a Fire Code issue. Mr. Pishvaie noted the District could post “No parking” signs along the driveway and basketball court. He said because the applicant did not consider or propose the court area for parking, the staff could not address it. He noted that the applicant had increased the amount of parking to 100 spaces and they would be required to apply for a variance from the Parking Standard to use the court area for parking, because those spaces would give them mo re than the maximum allowable number of parking spaces (125% of minimum spaces). Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners to determine whether the site was physically capable of accommodating the proposed use (including accessory uses) and to use the Parking Standard as a guide. Ms. Jacob advised the Parking Standard required 80 spaces and the applicant proposed 100 spaces. Staff explained that the Fire Marshal had not looked at the area of the basketball court, but if the Commission recommended that he review that area and if the Fire Marshal found the court area was within a fire lane, he could prohibit parking there. Mr. Boone confirmed for the Commissioners that although the site might feature some pre-existing nonconforming situations, if the applicant appropriately mitigated the impacts of the proposed development they had met the applicable standards. Mr. Tierney observed that the problem was that although the area of the basketball court had not been counted for parking, drivers would consider that location more convenient for parking than the new parking lot. He anticipated the applicant would see a need to closely monitor parking at the facility. Dr. Bill Korach, Superintendent of Schools, 352 Livingood, Lake Oswego, 97034, clarified for the Co mmissioners that the school entrance was typically not accessible in the evening and visitors had to walk around the building to access the gym. He said they could either walk around the east side on hard surfaces (but where there was no designated sidewa lk) or walk around the field side of the building where the District could not install a sidewalk without impacting grassy areas used for physical education programs and practice areas. He explained that the reason some Commissioners recalled that the area had not been lit during recent visits was because the current parking lot fixtures did not work consistently. He reported that new bond funding would allow the District to address that problem. Mr. Lein pointed out the location of wall lighting fixtures that he said would be fixed so they would provide light for pedestrian access. The Commissioners examined exhibits related to lighting. They continued to worry that there would not be adequate signage and lighting to help visitors find the gym door. Mr. Pishvaie confirmed for the Commission that they could find that through the Conditional Use process, the pedestrian pathway from the front parking lot to the new gym entrance needed to have lighting and signage to be compatible. He noted that altho ugh the applicant could install a 5-foot wide pathway along the west property line, they could also install signage to direct pedestrians to use the existing service drive to the east of the building. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 8 Minutes of January 22, 2003 Proponents None. Opponents None. Neither for no r against None. The applicant waived their right to request that the hearing be held open for additional written evidence or testimony and they waived their right to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Ms. Binkley indicated the gymnasium should feature windows to infuse daylight and that there should be wall treatment that would help reduce the mass of the building. She observed that the applicant had chosen wall colors that did not achieve sufficient contrast. She recalled that school buildings typically featured more windows and the proposed gym design appeared to be a big box with some translucent panels that were too small in relation to its size and did not provide enough daylight. Ms. Morales agreed that the proposed wall colors were too close and she observed the pilaster design did not provide sufficient texture and shadow. Ms. Stadnik and Ms. Binkley recalled that the existing gymnasium windows had been covered up so they would not be broken. The Commissioners discussed whether the proposed design was complementary to the existing building. Chair Tierney re-opened the public hearing to allow the applicant to present photographs of the existing site. Mr. Lein presented the photographs in Exhibit E-28. When the Commissioners recalled the applicant’s concern about budget considerations, Mr. Boone advised them that cost was not to be a decision-making factor. Mr. Lein confirmed for the Commissioners that the new high school gym did not feature windows. Ms. Morales recalled that batting practice was being held in the existing gym. The Commissioners discussed the potential impact of window location on the design and height of the gym roof. Ms. Binkley suggested more translucent panels on the south wall. Ms. Morales suggested that windows on the south side could reflect the caw wall locations on the north wall. Ms. Stadnik and Ms. Binkley observed the windows would have to be screened from the sun. Mr. Fagelman suggested the use of skylights. Ms. Binkley suggested a condition to require windows on the proposed building to be equal to and in proportion to what was on the existing gym. She noted that could be accomplished with windows or skylights. When Ms. Binkle y and Ms. Morales noticed that a Section 5 drawing and an elevation showed the caw wall at a different height, Mr. Lein clarified that it was actually to be located 3 or 4 feet higher City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 8 Minutes of January 22, 2003 than it was shown on the elevation. He also recalled that the applicant had decided to change their preliminary plan for high natural lighting, because it would require a costly framing system. He said that skylights would be the easiest change to make as long as they did not impact the roof diaphragm. He confirmed that the skylights could be shaded. The Commissioners then discussed their concern regarding insufficient contrast in color and materials. Ms. Morales advised that adequate texture would create shadow lines. Chair Tierney then observed that the public hearing had been closed. When the Commissioners discussed the route from parking to the gym door, Ms. Stadnik suggested a condition that “Pedestrian access from proposed and existing parking lots to the proposed gymnasium entrance shall be made visible with adequate lighting and signage per staff approval.” She pointed out there was a safety issue to be addressed. She pointed out that the route around the east side of the building was over hard surfaces. Mr. Boone advised that if the Commission specified a “walkway” it would be subject to Code standards of construction for walkways. Mr. Pishvaie suggested that the condition regarding adequate lighting and signage to the gym entrance could be Condition A(1)(b)(v), and a condition to require skylights could be Cond ition A(1)(b)(vi). Ms. Binkley explained for Mr. Boone that the condition to add skylights to the new gym addressed a compatibility issue, because there was day lighting in the existing gym. Chair Tierney observed that the applicant had nodded in agreement with her suggestion for skylights. Mr. Boone explained that he was not certain that condition addressed compatibility, but if the Commission believed it did then the applicant could chose to either appeal or remain subject to the condition. Ms. Morales suggested the Commission allow the applicant to decide what treatment would adequately break up the scale of the wall. She explained that the Commissioners were trying to find a way to gain more natural light in the new gym, because the existing building had been designed to infuse a lot of natural light. Staff suggested that the Commissioners could either craft a decision that provided that staff and the applicant were to work out solutions to address the Commissioners’ concerns and present the new drawings and colors with the findings, or continue the hearing. They observed that new windows could mean the applicant would need to request an increase in building height over the 31 feet the Commission was currently considering. Mr. Pishvaie suggested language to indicate that compatibility could be achieved by providing skylights, or windows that were proportional with the existing building, or details on pilasters that would project by a minimum of four inches, or the use of contrasting colors. The windows on the south wall could be required to either be similar to those on the north side of the proposed building or compatible with the existing gym. Ms. Morales then observed that a solution to the massing would involve both windows and contrasting colors. Ms. Binkley agreed. The Commissioners then discussed how site users would find the entrance to the gym. They wondered why it had been located at the northeast corner of the building and not on the south side, which seemed easier to get to. Ms. Morales observed that access to the gym from the parking area would be across the outdoor basketball court and she said that area should be well lit. Ms. Binkley suggested the sidewalk could be City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 8 Minutes of January 22, 2003 continued to the gym entrance. Ms. Morales observed that lighting was a safety issue. Mr. Boone advised there was no applicable standard for such a requirement, because it was a private, and not a public pathway. He noted that commercial buildings were not required to have lighted pathways through their sites. Chair Tierney commented that it was up to the applicant to show site users how to get to the entrance. Chair Tierney then asked applicant to comment on potential conditions discussed by the Commissioners. Mr. Lein stated that the applicant would work with staff to resolve lighting and signage issues and to find a solution to better break up the building wall. He said the applicant would look at ways to identify the entry to the gym. He explained that entrance had been located at the northeast corne r of the building to avoid the impact of traffic on the fields on the south side. Ms. Binkley moved for approval of LU 02-0048, subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Ms. Stadnik seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Tierney, Binkley, Morales, Stadnik and Fagelman voting yes. There were no votes against. Chair Tierney announced the vote on the findings was to be held on February 3, 2003. VI. GENERAL PLANNING Diamond Head Road decision The Commissioners examined their decis ion-making process in the case of an application to reconfigure three adjacent lots on Diamond Head Road. They had approved the application after hearing a staff recommendation to deny the application and the City Council had overturned the decision on appeal from opponents. Staff reported that the Council found that the applicant had failed to address the applicable criteria. They advised the Commissioners to base all of their decisions on the applicable standards and they suggested that the Commission hold a work session to discuss the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. Periodic Review Chair Tierney announced that the Planning Commission was to begin periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Senior Secretary L\drc \minutes \01-22-03_draft.doc