Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2006-07-17 (02)  City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes July 17, 2006   CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Tierney, were Vice Chair Sheila Ostly, *Nan Binkley, Bob Needham, Krytsyna Stadnik and Halliday Meisburger. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; David Powell, City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support III. MINUTES (None) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (None) PUBLIC HEARING LU 06-0019, a request by Steve Kaer for the following: A Development Review Permit to construct two, 2-story commercial buildings of 8,000 sq. ft. each, with possible residential use on the second floor. Removal of nine trees to accommodate the development. Location of site: Northwest corner of Boones Ferry and Madrona; (Tax Lots 1500, 1600, 1700, and 1800 of Tax Map 21E 07DD). Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. All of the commissioners present related they were familiar with general area of the site and none of them reported a bias or conflict of interest. They each reported their business or occupation as follows: Ostly (real estate appraiser); Meisburger (architect); Stadnik (civil engineer); Needham (lawyer); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any commissioner’s right to hear the application. *Ms. Binkley subsequently joined the meeting. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated July 7, 2006). She pointed out the surrounding zoning and advised that if and when the site was annexed to the City it would be zoned OC/R-2.5. She reported that the proposal met that zone’s standards related to square footage and height, and that the 45 proposed parking spaces would meet either the all-commercial use requirement of 44 spaces, or the mixed commercial/residential use requirement of 32 Spaces. She explained the site was also subject to West Lake Grove Design District standards. She said the proposed site plan helped carry out the Design District plan that properties along that side of Boones Ferry Road between Madrona Street and West Sunset Drive would share a rear access. She said staff recommended that the potential second-floor residential portions of the buildings have additional residential features, such as window boxes if there was residential use. She advised the site had enough frontage to be allowed a second monument sign but she recommended that the rear monument sign be moved closer to Boones Ferry Road and oriented so it was parallel to the road. She said staff recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. During the questioning period, staff explained a condition to relocate and reorient one sign would not only make it a more functional, typical and of better design, but it would also meet the Sign Code provision that it was to be parallel to the road and compatible with existing nearby signs. Ms. Binkley asked why the development should not be required to have more residential details, even if there was no residential use. She recalled a similar development downtown featured balconies and flower boxes. Ms. Andreades clarified that staff believed the proposed style and materials did reflect residential character, but the Code called for residential use to have a visual connection to the streetscape, and that was why staff asked for additional residential elements if there was residential use. Mr. Powell clarified that the Comprehensive Plan provided that the site would be brought into the City as mixed use (OC/R-2.5), which did not require a 25-foot setback from the residences on the west side. Chair Tierney asked how staff had addressed the fact that significant trees had been removed from the site prior to the request to annex it. Ms. Andreades pointed out that the applicant proposed much larger mitigation trees than normal (including numerous 15- to 20-foot high Douglas fir trees) and appropriately dense landscape. Ms. Stadnik observed that the application did not show sewer and storm drainage facilities extended into Madrona Street, which was a recommended condition of approval. Applicant Steve Kaer, Steve Kaer Development, 17110 Cedar Road, Lake Oswego, 97034, and David Bissett, David Bissett Architecture, 208 SW First Ave, Ste. 300 Portland, Oregon, 97204, pointed out the site would be heavily screened by clustered evergreens and buffered by a 15-foot wide perimeter setback. They said the trash enclosures would be placed where they were hard to see from the street. They said the story-and-a-half scale, dormers and staggered gables would offer residential feel and reduce the mass. They showed the materials and colors to be used, including samples of different kinds of pavers they might use. They discussed the conditions of approval staff had recommended. They explained they did not want to eliminate the covered trellis structure over part of the parking area because that would be used as covered parking for residents. They asked to be allowed to use cultured stone on the facade instead of more costly real stone. They submitted a new exhibit to show how they would attach additional railings and window boxes. They said the applicant could agree to install them, whether or not there was any residential use. They worried about potential hardship for the applicant if he complied with Condition C(1) to complete the procedure to allow widening of Boones Ferry Road past the site, but it was eventually voted down. They discussed signage and explained the applicant had erroneously believed the City preferred to have a sign in the rear. They also explained future tenants might want their individual names on the signs, not just the name of the project. They recalled staff had advised them they could not have both blade signs and monument signs. They asked the Commission to allow that so tenants could attract patrons. Andrew Reiter, WRG Design, Inc., 5415 SW Westgate Dr., Ste. 100, Portland, Oregon, 97221, discussed extending utilities along Madrona Street. He explained that the applicant had taken advantage of two existing sanitary sewer laterals, which directed storm drainage to a facility in Boones Ferry Road. He confirmed the applicant did not intend to extend them to Madrona Street. He reported that the applicant intended to coordinate the removal of one utility pole with PGE. He confirmed to Ms. Stadnik that the route of the flow was sloped from Madrona towards Boones Ferry Road. Mr. Kaer clarified that the applicant intended to deconstruct the existing house instead of demolishing it; and that he had negotiated an easement with one neighbor, and he had agreed to plant four to six buffering trees on another neighbor’s property. During the questioning period, Mr. Kaer confirmed the applicant would use imitation slate roofing material. He clarified he did not yet know if tenants would want the corner entries to be operable or inoperable French doors. Staff clarified they had assumed those would be entrances. Ms. Binkley commented that whether they operated or not, the corner entries should look like entrances. She noted the additional railings the applicant proposed on the building helped soften it. She said trellises also helped, but she agreed with staff that they made the eight-foot bays too tight. Ms. Andreades pointed out the parking aisle was also very narrow. The applicant agreed that the bay/trellis design could be slightly modified. Mr. Meisburger acknowledged that he had conflicting feelings about putting residential details on commercial buildings. When asked by the Chair, staff recalled that the Commission had previously clarified that the conditions of approval of Sunset Crossing did not allow “marquee” signs (i.e., large signs that featured nameplates to identify individual tenants) because the West Lake Grove Design District was a special design district. A solution had been worked out to allow individual tenant signs to be attached to the building that were compatible with the building design, materials and colors. Mr. Pishvaie observed that blade signs might be compatible with the features of the applicant’s project, and he thought that the applicant and staff could work together to find a design that may qualify for a variance. The Commissioners then discussed the issue of real vs. cultured stone. Mr. Meisburger could not recall ever seeing such a large application of stone veneer, and he thought it might be better, if real stone were not used, to apply some other kind of material instead of stone veneer. Ms. Ostly recalled seeing some faux stone applications that appeared to her to be real stone. But she questioned whether the Commission should attempt to fashion a condition to require use of the “best” faux stone. The applicant said he would use appropriate quality material for the high rent the tenants would pay, but he did not believe he could justify the cost of real stone. He stressed stone-like material would be an accent element and there would be many other kinds of materials on the buildings. Mr. Needham recalled that cultured stone looked terrible on a big wall. Ms. Binkley advised the quality of cultured stone had gotten better over time. The applicant clarified for Ms. Binkley that he had agreed to accommodate a proposed City monument, but he would not provide it, or design it. Ms. Binkley was concerned that the Douglas fir trees proposed in front (and some in the rear) were not sufficiently separated, and when they grew larger, they would have to be pruned to look like “lollypops,” and they would not provide adequate screening. Mr. Reiter confirmed they would have to be pruned back from the sidewalk. He suggested the applicant could plant a better species of tree for that location; or, plant the Douglas firs closer together, but remove some over time. Ms. Binkley was also concerned there would not be enough buffering of the front seating area from the road and road noise. She suggested the applicant could meander the sidewalk and install more landscaping there. The applicant explained it served mainly as a visual separation from the traffic. Mr. Needham observed that the front seating area had an important design-related function to visually tie the buildings together. Staff clarified the Engineering staff had asked for Condition C(1), and they advised that, although it had never happened, the City Charter provided that if anyone objected to the proposed street widening within 30 days of the notice, a vote had to be held, and the project could be voted down. They explained that Condition C(1) would ensure the applicant did not ask for the vote, and if the project were voted down, the applicant could ask the City for a modification of the condition. The applicant explained that they had agreed that it made sense to prepare for the street widening now, but they would not have agreed to make street improvements if they had known that there was a possibility the street would never be widened and the improvements would never be necessary. Chair Tierney observed the “objection period” was limited to 30 days. There was no other testimony, so he closed the public hearing. The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written arguments. Deliberations Ms. Ostly said she liked the site plan and the scale of the buildings. She said the design reflected residential character better than any other building on the street. Mr. Needham and Ms. Stadnik agreed it was a good design for the area. Mr. Meisburger appreciated the fact the project was broken up into two pieces instead of being one large structure. He said if the front entry’s landscaping was intended to screen parking it should accomplish that now as well as sometime in the future. Mr. Needham observed it was the under story that accomplished the screening, and the Douglas fir trees served to replace those that had been removed and to create a sense of place and space. Ms. Ostly anticipated some of them would be lost over time. She recalled the applicant suggested there might be a better species of tree for that space. Chair Tierney noted the conditions could be modified to allow the applicant to select some other evergreen tree, and the critical factor was the size of the mitigation trees. Mr. Pishvaie related that staff had worked with landscape architect, Andrew Hill, who had confirmed that the proposed variety and sizes of trees would work, even though the space was tight. He confirmed that the purpose of the trees was primarily to recreate the wooded character the site used to have, and not to screen the parking. He said staff believed the tree spacing would work because the site featured more space for trees between the retaining wall and the sidewalk than other locations in the City where trees thrived in less space. He advised that Douglas fir trees could be professionally and appropriately pruned so they retained a sizeable canopy. Ms. Andreades reported that the applicant had changed the type of tree to be planted on the west side of the lot to (more columnar) Hogan Cedar because staff had been concerned Douglas fir trees would be too close to the building. She noted a stand of four Douglas firs in the middle of the parking lot looked like a “centerpiece” from the perspective of the street, so they should remain, but it could be appropriate to have Cedar Trees in the seating area. Chair Tierney then said that because the landscape architect had submitted plans that had been well vetted by staff and the owner proposed a plan he believed he could maintain, he could support the proposed landscape plan. Chair Tierney then recalled that the Commissioners had indicated they might be able to accept cultured stone if it were of acceptable quality, but they had not been provided with an example of how it would look. He suggested they approve the application with a condition that the applicant was to bring back an exhibit of the material he proposed for the Commission to approve. Mr. Needham worried that cultured stone might make the entire project look “cheap.” Ms. Binkley advised the way it was applied and how it looked at corners, edges, arches and next to windows was important, too. The Commissioners indicated they wanted to examine and approve an actual example of the material to be used. Mr. Needham and Ms. Stadnik indicated that if would be safer to require natural stone in such a visible location. Ms. Binkley reasoned that because there was a “real” brick project down the street, the stone should also be real. Ms. Ostly suggested the Commission approve the project on the condition they could approve the material to be used later. She recalled that some types of cultured stone looked good, even on a two-story wall. She also advised that natural stonework could look bad if it were not applied correctly. Ms. Binkley wanted to see an exhibit showing how it would look where it met the windows as well as an example of the cultured stone material. Mr. Needham said that request could be justified on the basis that the applicant had not presented such examples yet. Chair Tierney observed a consensus to approve the application with a condition that required real stone unless the applicant brought examples and the exhibit of cultured stone application that the Commissioners could accept. The Commissioners then considered whether the design was “residential.” Ms. Ostly said it was hard to imagine residential use in that location. She said she liked a “cleaner” look, without the railed balconies, which she felt were unnecessary and excessive. Mr. Meisburger agreed that was too much decoration. He questioned why the Code called for the English Cottage look on buildings of such large scale. He observed that the windows were very small. He said he would prefer that a non-residential building not look so residential. Ms. Binkley said she did not have an opinion either way about that. Chair Tierney observed the recommended condition was that if the buildings were used for residential purposes, they were to feature additional residential design elements. Chair Tierney observed that the Commissioners generally supported keeping the parking area trellises. Ms. Binkley suggested the applicant work with staff to widen the bays. Chair Tierney observed he would have to work with them to get final approval of the building plans. Commissioners Needham, Binkley and Meisburger agreed the applicant should not use pavers that were brick or the same as the stonework, and they should be large-scale cobblestone. Chair Tierney observed the applicant could apply for a minor variance in the future to correct the signs. The Commissioners considered the design of the corner entrance at Madrona/Boones Ferry Road. Ms. Binkley observed it had no lintel and suggested it should feature heavy timbers. Mr. Meisburger agreed. When Ms. Stadnik asked staff to clarify whether they still recommended Condition B(6)(b), to extend the public facilities in Madrona Street, they said it had been recommended by the Engineering staff, who had explained that the City would reimburse the applicant for the cost of the sewer extension because it would implement the City’s Master Plan, but would not directly benefit the applicant (see page 11 of the staff report). They clarified the Engineering staff had not suggested the City reimburse the applicant for extending the storm water line. They explained staff could not recommend that the condition be deleted and, because no one had posed the question staff before the hearing, and there was no representative from the Engineering Division present to discuss the matter. Chair Tierney then invited the applicant to comment on changes to conditions. The applicant indicated he could agree to them, and he anticipated he would return with an example of stone material. Ms. Binkley clarified for staff that although the Commissioners had referred to a picture labeled “charcoal cobblestone,” they left it up to the applicant to select the best color to complement the building, but it should be cobblestone-type material, and not brick. She also observed a consensus not to change the proposed types of trees. Commissioner Needham moved to approve LU 06-0019, subject to the conditions recommended by staff and modified during deliberations. Ms. Stadnik seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Chair Tierney announced that the final vote would be held on August 7, 2006. He announced a five-minute break in the meeting and thereafter reconvened it. ================================================================ LU 06-0041, a request by Persimmon Construction, LLC, for approval of the following: A 5-lot Planned Development A Development Review Permit to construct five townhouses A property line adjustment between Tax Lots 8900 and 8800 Removal of seven trees to accommodate the development Site location: 690 1st Street; (Tax Lot 8900 of Tax Map 21E 03 DA). Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. The only declarations were that all of the commissioners present related they were familiar with general area of the site and they each declared their business or occupation as follows: Binkley (architect); Ostly (real estate appraiser); Meisburger (architect); Stadnik (civil engineer); Needham (lawyer); and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). No one present challenged any commissioner’s right to hear the application. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated July 7, 2006). She reported the proposed project now met the 40% lot coverage standard and the applicant was no longer asking for an exception. She explained the result of the requested lot line adjustment was that minimum allowable density of the site was five lots, instead of six lots. She advised the FAR and lot coverage were allowed to be averaged in a Planned Development. She reported the open space requirement, 28-foot height limit, the FAR and the 40% lot coverage requirement were met, and the setback was 10 feet on all sides. She pointed out the arborist’s report showed that the Western Red Cedar tree in front and the large Sequoia tree in back were to be preserved. She reported that staff found the design to be complementary in appearance to other structures of good design in the vicinity, except for some detached pillars at the entry that the applicant had proposed to replace attached trellises that had previously taken the lot coverage over the limit. She explained the proposed detached pillars were allowed to be inside the setback, however, they were too massive and not complementary. She pointed out staff had added language to the recommended conditions of approval to require an alternative to the pillars and to require more landscaping material. During the questioning period, she clarified the proposed area of open space was 22.9%. She agreed that a condition requiring another street tree could be removed so that tree would not conflict with the Sequoia tree. She clarified that although the R-6 zone allowed porches in setbacks, the R-0 zone did not. When Ms. Binkley asked if trellises could be excluded from lot coverage if they were separated from the building by brackets, staff advised that if the trellises were attached to the building, and over 30 inches above the grade, they would be counted in lot coverage calculations, but the detached columns were considered “portals” under the fence provisions of the Code. Applicant Brian Lessler, Persimmon Construction, LLC., P.O. Box 543, Gresham, Oregon, 97030, and architect, Ed Bruin, Myhre Group, explained the applicant wanted some kind of design feature that would identify the location of the entrance to passers-by. They had originally proposed trellises that they felt related well to the scale of the building. But, after they found out the trellises would be counted in lot coverage, they proposed a detached, “entry portal,” which was allowed in the fence provisions of the Code. However, because that feature was limited to eight feet high, they felt it was too low to seem welcoming to pedestrians. So, they submitted an exhibit showing a third alternative structure that people could walk under that enhanced the entryway. During the questioning period, they clarified the third alternative was not, technically, a “trellis,” but a few crossbeams overhead that would also provide a place for the address. They clarified they had not yet considered whether to grow anything on it. They anticipated there would not be light fixtures on it. They said they preferred the original trellis design, but they could agree to any of the three options for the entry. They clarified the originally proposed trellis was ten feet high. They confirmed there were to be gutters on the building, and they had not yet designed the downspouts. Mr. Lessler asked that recommended Condition F(4)(b) be modified to allow a filtered fill system the arborist had recommended at one driveway. Mr. Needham recalled the Commissioners had seemed to find that acceptable at the previous hearing. When Ms. Binkley suggested the additional street tree staff had first asked for, but subsequently agreed could be removed might be required in another location, Ms. Andreades saw challenges related to conflicts with other trees and ADA compliance and she suggested the location where staff had suggested the tree should be required to be filled with additional shrubs and ground cover. The applicant indicated they could agree to that. There was no other testimony. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing. The applicant waived their right to request additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Deliberations Mr. Needham indicated that he could accept the applicant’s most recent solution to the problem of an entry portal design that met the Code, but the previous proposal for stone columns added too much stone to the building. Mr. Meisburger agreed the stone columns were too heavy, and he said he liked the open look of a trellis and he advised that layering of architectural details at the entrance was important. Ms. Binkley recalled the columns had not helped reduce the project’s scale and perceived mass. However, she said the most recent design for the entry helped step it down to the sidewalk. She also commented that she would have preferred that the low front wall not feature a railing on top. Chair Tierney recalled the Commissioners had addressed the wall at the previous hearing and the currently proposed wall seemed to be the right scale. Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 06-0041, subject to the staff-recommended conditions, modified to specify that Option C would be the design for the entry and to extend the landscaping along First Street. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would be held on August 7, 2006. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Election of Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Needham nominated Bill Tierney to serve another term as Chair of the Development Review Commission. Ms. Ostly seconded the nomination and Chair Tierney was re-elected by unanimous vote. Mr. Needham nominated Sheila Ostly to serve another term as Vice Chair of the Development Review Commission. Mr. Meisburger seconded the nomination and Ms. Ostly was re-elected by unanimous vote. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 10:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Administrative Support III L\drc\minutes\07-17-06.doc