Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2003-02-03 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of February 3, 2003 to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Ha ll at 380 “A” Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present included Chair Tierney, Vice Chair Nan Binkley, Julie Morales, Bill Tierney, Sheila Ostly and Krytsyna Stadnik. Commissioner Gary Fagelman was excused. Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORD ER LU 02 -0048, a request by Lake Oswego School District to remodel Lake Oswego Junior High School. Ms. Morales moved for approval of LU 02-0048 -1496, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Binkley, Morales, Stadnik and Chair Tierney voting yes. Ms. Ostly abstained from the vote and Mr. Fagelman was not present. There were no votes against. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 02 -0013, a request by Renaissance Development, Inc. for the approval of a development permit to construct a two -story, 7,732 square foot commercial office building, with an additional 1,258 square feet of office use in the basement. Twenty- seven parking spaces are proposed. Two trees are required to be removed. The property is located at 16771 Boones Ferry Road, Tax Lot 08900 of Tax Map 21E 7DC. Staff coordinator was Liz Jacob, Associate Planner. The hearing had been continued from October 21, 2002; November 4, 2002 and December 16, 2002. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the 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 relationship with the project o r the applicant. None of the Commissioners anticipated a conflict of interest. No one in the audience challenged any Commissioner’s right to hear the application. Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated October 11, 2002). She reported the applicant had submitted revised drawings since the previous hearing. She pointed out the building design had been changed to orient the main entry directly toward the street, the building was to be all brick, and the roof and building planes had been articulated. She said that the new design met Building Design and West Lake Grove Design District standards. She pointed out the site plan now met the setback requirement along the north property line where the site abutted residential use s. She reported that staff did not understand the reason for a depression between the building and the sidewalk along the north and west elevations. She said that although the applicants had asked for a meandering walkway in order to meet Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements, staff calculations showed it was not necessary, and the sidewalk could be moved closer to the building and farther away from the roots of two large Douglas fir trees. She noted that change could also eliminate the depressed area. She pointed out that the new materials submitted by the applicants included an arborist’s report. She said staff’s major concern was that the applicants had not demonstrated that they could achieve the required number of parking spaces required for the gross floor area of the building. She said they needed nine more spaces than they could provide onsite. She explained the “gross floor area” included the entire basement area as well as the upper stories. She recalled the applicants had only co unted the lunchroom and a workroom in the basement in their parking requirement calculations, but not the storage areas. She advised that both the Parking Standard and the West Lake Grove Design District standard allowed off-street parking, but the applic ants had not demonstrated they had a legal agreement with an adjacent property owner that would provide the nine additional parking spaces. She advised that if the additional spaces were to come from the property to the west that owner would need to get a n approved change of use to ensure his property could meet its own parking requirement. She said another alternative for the applicants would be to reduce the currently proposed 8’ 6” ceiling height of the basement so that it was less than six feet and co nsidered “crawl space” instead of basement. She said staff recommended that the application be denied until it met the Parking Standard. During questioning by the Commissioners, she clarified that the 26 proposed onsite parking spaces would meet the pa rking requirement for a maximum of 8,647 square feet of gross floor area, and that on a sloped site 50% of the lower level floor’s ceiling had to be below 6 feet. She also clarified that the owner of the site to the west would have to demonstrate his site could accommodate 17 parking spaces to serve the existing building there, plus 9 spaces for the applicants’ use. She related that the other property owner had applied for a change of use, but had not yet submitted an adequate information showing how much parking could be accommodated onsite. Mr. Boone City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 clarified that the applicants’ site could use parking space on any property within 500 feet and the host site would not exceed the maximum number of allowable spaces as long as each space was part of the min imum requirement for its site. Ms. Jacob recalled a previous application for a building that had basement storage where the Commission had found that the basement area had to be counted in the gross floor area calculation. She confirmed for Ms. Morales that although the applicants had not submitted information showing they could use parking modifiers, that standard allowed an applicant to reduce the parking requirement by as much as 10% by demonstrating there were at least 100 homes within 1,000 feet of the property boundary. She pointed out the area of the depression on Exhibits E-32 and E-33. She clarified the two Douglas fir trees were located on the north (back) side of the property. Ms. Jacob and Mr. Boone advised that the standards called for buildings that were within 30 feet of a public street to have a public entrance directly from the street and that off street parking was to be designed and landscaped to buffer and screen adjoining residential properties. They advised that the West Lake Grove Design District plan provided a concept plan to serve as a guideline for development and called for developers to plan shared access and driveways. Ms. Jacob reported that staff had found that the current site plan would provide connectivity to the prope rties to the west and north. Applicant Randal Sebastian, Renaissance Development, Inc., 1672 SW Willamette Falls Drive, West Linn, Oregon, 97068, explained that there was to be 7,721 sq. ft. of building above ground and he held that the Code did not require basements to provide parking. He said that only 915 sq. ft. of the basement area was to be used as a lunchroom and the rest was for storage. He said the applicants were not proposing to finish the rest of the basement, and if they ever did they had an agreement with an adjacent property owner to use spaces on that property. Ken Sandblast, Planning Resources, Inc., 8755 SW Citizens Drive, Ste 206, Wilsonville, Oregon, 97070, pointed out the applicants had reoriented the building so the entrance fa ced the street. He then addressed the staff-recommended conditions of approval found in the January 31, 2002, staff memorandum. He referred to recommended conditions on page seven. He asked that the meaning of the phrase “contemplated by the owner” be clarified. He explained the depressed area next to the building addressed was designed to handle drainage and to limit the height of the building foundation wall. He said the applicants would be willing to eliminate the depression on the north side if they were allowed to work with their arborist to design a gravel pathway or concrete sidewalk with expansion joints that would avoid tree roots. He said they were willing to remove the depression on half of the west side and leave a six-inch depression along the south half of that elevation that would make the building appear correctly oriented from the perspective of the parking lot. He then referred to recommended conditions on page eight of the staff report. He clarified that the applicants would agree to revise the design of mullions. He pointed out the applicant had provided a materials’ board and examples of pedestrian furniture and the bike rack. He then addressed recommended conditions on page nine of the staff report. He City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 explained that PGE did not want their transformer painted black and they did not want the area of the transformer landscaped in a manner that would block access to it. He asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that new shrubs that were required to be planted in the area that was to eventually serve as a connection between parcels would have to be removed at a future date. He then referred to recommended conditions on page eleven of the staff report. He asked for clarification about whether the applicants would need additional permits. Ms. Jacob advised them that they would need to submit an application for tree removal and show that they had received Commission approval at that time. Mr. Sandblast explained the applicants would sign a reciprocal private access easement agree ment with the neighbor at the time Mr. Miller’s parcel was approved for development. He asked that the language “for the benefit of the territory destined to be shared” be modified so it would not be too broadly interpreted. He said that language should specifically refer to Tax Lot 8800 to the west and Tax Lot 7600 to the north. When he referred to the recommended conditions on page twelve of the staff report he asked for clarification of the meaning of Section (d)(ii). Mr. Boone explained that was a co ndition that was typically included in conditions of approval that referred to public infrastructure, and he confirmed that the applicants could use material that was substantially similar in function to what was identified in that section. Mr. Sandblast then addressed recommended conditions of approval that related to parking. He explained that that the applicants had counted the portion of the basement that would be occupied in the parking calculation, but not the storage area. He pointed out that the zone limited the applicants’ building to 8,000 square feet and the applicants proposed smaller building. He said that if the applicants decided to use the storage space for some other use they would apply for a building permit. He noted the applicants ha d reduced the number of proposed onsite spaces to 26 and reduced the floor space of the building. He explained that the applicants had met with Mr. Miller and devised a plan for shared parking, but they did not want to commit the neighbor to a specific site design for his property before he proposed his own plan. He said the applicants did not actually need the shared spaces now because basement use was not generating a need for the additional spaces. He presented a document that he said showed the parties had agreed to accomplish cross-easement access and shared parking when the neighbor developed his own site plan (Exhibit F-9). During questioning by the Commissioners, staff clarified that the Code applied a building size cap of 8,000 square feet tha t was based on stories, and the basement was not considered a “story.” Each story was limited to 5,000 square feet and the building was limited to two stories. Mr. Boone then read the definition of floor area. He contrasted the Site Development section definition of “Floor Area” with the Parking Standard, which defined “Gross Floor Area” in a manner which did not refer to “stories” and would include the basement area in the parking calculation: “the area included within the surrounding exterior walls o f a building.” He said the parking requirement was calculated as 3.33 spaces per 1,000 sq ft of gross floor area. He confirmed for the Commissioners that staff’s position was that the basement surround was “exterior walls.” He explained that the Parking Standard was intended to apply to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 primary use (i.e., office use) and any incidental uses (such as lunchroom use). He observed that those uses might be moved around inside the building. Mr. Sandblast clarified that the applicants understood that they had to provide parking for the lunchroom area, but they did not agree they had to provide parking for the unfinished storage area until a future time when they decided to improve it. He stressed they had provided parking for the space they proposed to improve and occupy now, and they had shown they could get additional shared spaces from the adjacent property when it was developed. Mr. Sebastian clarified for the Commissioners that the unimproved area would feature concrete walls and floor, it would not be heated or lit, and it was not habitable space. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that Wall Section #7 in Exhibit E-37 showed the portion of the basement that was to be finished. Mr. Sandblast provided a written copy of his notes (Exhibit F-11). Staff clarified for Ms. Binkley that it would be up to the applicant and Mr. Miller to decide whether to share a monument sign at the shared driveway, but the Code would allow them to each have their own sign (Exhibit E-30). Mr. Sebastian explained that the shared driveway plan saved the tree grove. Ms. Jacob clarified that commercial properties were not required to provide the same level of landscaped buffering between properties as was required to buffer residential uses. Ms. Ostly indicated she wanted to be sure that Mr. Miller understood that he was giving up his right to use the nine shared parking spaces and she asked if the parking document was binding. Mr. Sandblast assured her that the applicants and the neighbor had drafted a site plan that showed how park ing would be appropriately allocated for each owner’s site. Mr. Boone advised that the shared parking document was basically an agreement to agree. Ms. Binkley asked if the Design District provided parking modifiers that could be applied in cases of sha red parking. Mr. Boone observed that the West Lake Grove Design District plan assumed that property owners would work together and that there were some properties in the District that were in need of parking space and some that could only be used for park ing. Mr. Pishvaie related the history of the District plan as it had evolved from a residential zone. He noted that all parties involved in the planning process acknowledged the necessity of cooperation amongst property owners. He observed that Mr. Miller would need to provide 17 parking spaces for the 5,000 square foot building on his site plus nine additional spaces there to share with the applicants. He advised that if the applicants were not able to arrange for the shared spaces they could not have as large a building as they proposed. Ms. Morales asked if the proposed depression along the building would conform to plumbing regulations and she also wanted to know how deep it was. Pat Sisul, Sisul Engineering, 375 Portland Avenue, Gladstone, Oregon, 97027, explained the applicants were required to use a specific kind of piping close to the building. He explained the site sloped upward from the parking lot until it rose above the first floor elevation. He stated that the deepest part of the depres sion was near the Douglas fir trees on the north side of the site where it was 24” deep, and from there it became shallower going each direction. He said the applicants were willing to eliminate the depression on the north and half of the west side of the building but to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 accomplish that would require an increase in the height of the foundation wall and a six- inch depression along part of the building. He asked for flexibility to serpentine the sidewalk to avoid tree roots after the location of the roots was more exactly determined. He advised that the tree closest to the building was at an elevation that was two feet above the floor elevation. He anticipated the applicants could ramp up the sidewalk to the rear entrance. He confirmed no major swale was planned on the site. He explained that the applicants had initially planned a compacted gravel sidewalk to save tree roots, but their arborist had advised them that was not necessary as long as they used certain concrete sidewalk construction techniques tha t would avoid impacting tree roots. He confirmed the applicants would install perforated piping to drain the area along the west side of the building. Mr. Sandblast pointed out the applicants had submitted material to show they had considered alternative plans. Mr. Sebastian confirmed for Ms. Binkley that the applicants had reduced the size of the building from what they originally proposed. Bill Cox, 0299 SW California Street, Portland, Oregon, 97209, the applicants’ attorney, submitted a copy of a Planning Division staff report found in Lake Oswego File No. DR 1682, Modified 5/98. He said an assumption that the applicant would violate the law and improve the rest of the basement was not the basis for a sound decision. He pointed out staff was currently relying on one precedent case (the Dischinger case), because they could no longer rely on other cases they had cited in the original staff report. He held the remaining case did not provide a precedent, because that applicant had eventually withdrawn that application. He noted staff had introduced the term “crawl space” (under six feet high and not habitable) for the first time that evening, and they now used the term “crawl space” instead of “unoccupied space.” He said he had found no reference to “crawl space” in his research of past cases. He concluded that there were no precedent cases where unfinished basements were required to be included in the parking requirement calculation. He advised that the Code indicated that the parking requirement was to apply to all development that generated a parking need. He noted that part of the basement would be unhabitable space. He held his clients had met the applicable standards, they did not need the shared parking spaces, and if they decided to improve the remainder of the basement they would re-apply to be allowed to use it and arrange for the necessary additional shared parking spaces. He said the Venture Properties Building basement had not been finished when that development was first approved and the owners had subsequently arranged for additional parking spaces and applied for approval to use the basement after they had finished it. He indicated that some staff-recommended conditions needed to be clarified. Mr. Sebastian stressed that the applicants had provided parking for all basement space that would be occupied, which equaled 915 square feet. Ms. Morales confirmed that staff report reflected her recollection of Commission discussions in past hearings. When Chair Tierney observed the shared parking agreement specified eight and not nine shared spaces, Mr. Sebastian said the applicants would arrange for all nine spaces. He clarified that the parties had drawn a working layout of the neighbor’s site that showed Mr. Miller could provide nine spaces to share City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 with the applicants’ site if the spaces were needed to serve the additional basement area (Exhibit 40). Proponents Timothy Breedlove, 1281 Tinsel Court, Lake Oswego, 97034, stated he was a District resident and would also be a partner in the project, but he was not the applicant. He observed the site was located at the “gateway” to the City. He observed the lots in the District were configured in an unusual manner, and some lots would never be allowed to be used for anything other tha n parking. He pointed out that although the West Lake Grove Design District had been adopted in 1998 only one project had been approved under the new plan. He said the applicants had addressed the issues and attempted to adhere to the design standards. He held that it was preferable to allow individual property owners to develop their lots than for the City to use public bond funds to entice a large developer to integrate all the parcels into one project. He said the proposed project would improve the area and would be a great addition to the City. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners that because shared parking spaces were necessary to meet the minimum parking requirement, owners of sites that accommodated shared parking spaces could sell the spaces to a neighbor and not be penalized for exceeding the maximum allowable parking of 125% of minimum requirement. Mr. Pishvaie observed the shared parking document indicated the agreement was contingent upon acceptance by both the Commission and Mr. Miller. Mr. Boone advised the Commissioners to determine if there was sufficient parking on site or if the applicants could satisfy the parking requirement by some other means. Opponents None. Neither for nor against None. No one requested that the record be held open for submission of additional written testimony or evidence. The applicant waived their right to request additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations The Commissioners first discussed the building design. Ms. Binkley observed that the revised design was an improvement over the originally proposed design, because it was not as “boxy” and had a better entry, but she was not sure it set a good design precedent for the District. She observed that the parking area was too close to the street and the site resembled office sites along Kruse Way. She indicated that a better example of City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 appropriate site development was the Avery Building - another brick building further north on Boones Ferry Road - that was significantly smaller than the applicants’ building and featured parking at the back of the building. She acknowledged that the applicants had the additional issue of shared parking to address. She anticipated that if the site changed ownership the new owner might decide to occupy more of the basement. Ms. Morales observed the redesigned entry; larger windows and canopy improved the street elevation and the roofline was at a better scale. Ms. Jacob clarified that the staff-recommended condition regarding mullions was intended to ensure that all windows showed similar design details. The Commissioners then discussed the parking requirement. Ms. Morales observed that the Code definition of “Gross Floor Area” listed exclusions but did not exclude the basement. Ms. Morales and Ms. Ostly saw no provisions related to basement storage areas or parking modifiers for shared parking upon which the Commission could base a decision to reduce the parking requirement. Staff clarified for Chair Tierney that the current Design District standards were not in place during other cases they had cited that related parking to basement use. Mr. Pishvaie explained that because the City could not predict at what future time the neighbor, Mr. Miller, would have completed an application for development of his own parcel, staff suggested a condition that allowed the applicants to either proceed with their proposal after they and Mr. Miller reached an agreement to give the applicants the right to use nine parking spaces on the Miller site or to wait until after Mr. Miller had received land use approval and a building permit for the nine spaces. He reported that the applicants had just informed him they favored the second alternative. He clarified that the neighbor would not have to completely develop his site plan, but he would only have to gain approval to construct at least nine spaces to share with the applicants. He said the off-site parking was to be ready for use before the City issued the applicants a building permit. He noted that in the precedent case, Dr. Dischinger’s site had been surrounded by fully developed properties that provided opportunities for additional parking for his site. He clarified the additio nal parking spaces could be on the Miller property or on any other property within 500 feet of the site. He suggested the following condition: “Prior to issuance of building permit the applicants/owners shall demonstrate that the Parking Standard is satisfied for the gross square footage of the office building, including basement. The Parking Standard shall be satisfied by one of the following alternatives: Option A. Secure additional off-street parking spaces within 500 feet of the property line: a. Submit evidence that the applicants have the necessary ownership/easement rights to site the required parking on the other property and to develop the parking spaces contemporaneously with the proposed development so that the parking spaces will be available fo r use at completion of construction of the proposed development. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 b. At the time of request for a building permit the proposed site for the additional parking has secured all necessary land use approvals and construction permits for the construction of the req uired parking spaces. Option B. Eliminate the basement area as habitable space so that it no longer qualifies as habitable space under the Building Code definition.” Mr. Pishvaie also recommended language that “Prior to issuance of final building inspection approval the applicants/owners shall complete the construction of the offsite parking spaces required by Condition A(1)(a), above, if that is the alternative selected by the applicants to meet the parking requirement.“ The Commissioners then discussed the recommended conditions related to connecting sidewalks, the driveway and the pathway. They generally agreed that the language that provided the applicants were to coordinate their sidewalk with a plan for a sidewalk being “contemplated” by the neighbor should be changed to indicate that the applicants’ plan was to allow for coordination with the sidewalk on the adjacent lot. After staff advised them not to delete a standard City requirement to construct access to the City Engineer’s specifications, they generally agreed to language to provide that the driveway was to comply with City details for a commercial driveway. They agreed to staff suggestion to include the City staff as well as the arborist in a decision to relocate the pathway from the north in a manner that would protect trees (Exhibit E-28). The pathway was to be either asphalt or concrete. Staff had explained that an ADA compliant sidewalk could be configured to run directly from the rear door and did not have to meander. They agreed to modify the recommended conditions to provide for the applicants to eliminate the depression along the north wall of the building and reduce the one along the west wall. They agreed to modify the conditions to provide that the PGE transformer was to be painted a dark color that was acceptable to PGE and the City staff. After staff recalled the City typically required landscaped buffers, the Commissioners agreed to retain the condition that called for planting of additional screening shrubs along the north property line (and across the future connecting way), and they agreed to modify a condition to landscape the transformer to provide that it was to be landscaped as much as feasible and acceptable to PGE. The Commissioners retained the provision that the applicants were to apply for a tree removal permit after they heard that was a standard condition included in development approvals. The Commissioners then examined the following staff-recommended condition of approval: “Reciprocal non-revocable access easements for the benefit of Tax Lot 7600 and Tax Lot 8800 to share the parking lot isles and driveway as illustrated in the West Lake Grove Design District Traffic Circulation and Parking Plan shall be granted upon adjacent parcels receiving final land use approvals in accordance with West Lake Grove Design District Standards.” They anticipated there might be more than two parcels that needed to use that access. Mr. Boone advised that only properties that complied with the West Lake Grove Design Dist rict standards and had worked out an arrangement with the owner of the property that provided the access would be allowed to use the access. Staff advised that this condition related to shared access and not shared parking City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 and that the Design District map required the access on the applicants’ property. The Commissioners then agreed to the following language: “Reciprocal non- revocable access easements for the benefit of the territory destined to share the parking lot isles and driveway as illustrated in the West Lake Grove Design District Traffic Circulation and Parking Lot Plan shall be granted upon parcels receiving final land use approvals for development in accordance with West Lake Grove Design District standards.” Chair Tierney then invited the applicants to respond to the Commission discussion of conditions of approval. Mr. Sandblast confirmed that the sidewalk discussion reflected the applicants’ intention to coordinate with their neighbor. Mr. Cox asked for language to indicate the access easement was to be a “non-exclusive, reciprocal, non-revocable access easement.” When he addressed shared parking he initially asked that the language “Prior to issuance of the building permit” be changed to “Prior to issuance of the occupancy permit,” but he subsequently indicated the applicants would accept staff’s language after staff clarified that the applicants could assure the City that parking would be available prior to issuance of the building permit and then have the parking constructed before final building inspection. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 02-0013, subject to conditions recommended by staff and modified during the hearing. Ms. Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Morales, Ms. Stadnik and Chair Tierney voting yes. Ms. Binkley voted against. Mr. Fagelman was not present. Chair Tierney announced the vote on the findings, conclusions and order was to be held on February 19, 2003. He announced a five-minute break in the meeting and then reconvened the meeting. ============================================================== LU 02 -0050, a request by Lake Oswego School District for approval of the following permits to remodel the Waluga Junior High School and Bryant Elementary School. 1. Conditional Use and Development Review Permits. The proposal consists of the following development: a. An approximately 14,732 square-foot gymnasium with a 628-seat bleacher area. b. Two additional classrooms and two storage rooms. c. An enclosed corridor addition at the south classroom wing. d. A new site plan which reconfigures the existing parking areas and site circulation to increase parking area from 111 parking spaces to 130 parking spaces. 2. Class 2 Variances: a. A variance from the 28-foot maximum building height on a flat lot [LOC 50.08.035(1) ] for the gymnasium increasing the height from 28 feet to 32 feet, 6 inches. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 b. A variance from LOC 50.45.010(7)(a) requiring the location of buildings within 30 feet of a public street to allow the new additions to be located 207 feet, 10 inches. c. A variance to LOC 50.55.010(2)(a-j) Appendix 50.55D to provide only 13% of the number of bicycle parking spaces required by the Code. d. A variance to LOC 50.08.030(A) to reduce the front setback to a range of 15 feet, 11 inches – 18 feet, 5 inches along the majority of the Jean Road frontage. The 15-foot, 11 inch setback is designed to ensure the survival of the existing oak trees in the parking area. 3. A request to remove 18 trees. The site is located at Waluga Junior High School and Bryant Ele mentary School, 4700 and 4750 Jean Road, Tax Map 21E 18 Tax Lot 100. The staff coordinator is Paul Espe, Associate Planner. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the procedure and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any e x 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 a conflict of interest. No one in the audience challenged any Commissioner’s right to hear the application. Paul Espe, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated January 24, 2003). He reported that the applicants had requested a variance to the front yard setback that would allow them to expand center parking islands to protect the roots of five large oak trees. He noted they had modified the angle of parking spaces from 60 degrees to 45 degrees and would lose two spaces (modified parking lot plan in Exhibits E-37 and E- 38.). He reported the existing building was nonconforming, because the building entrance was more than 30 feet from the public street; however, the pick up and drop off area reflected the intent of the Code. He said the request for a variance to height from residential zone requirements could be justified, because it was necessary to the functional and operational requirements of a school gym. He said staff agreed that the amount of required bicycle parking exceeded that necessary for current use, but because there was no hardship -based reason to warrant approval of the variance staff recommended that the applicant be required to install 21 spaces initially and then install the rest of the required spaces as they were needed. He then discussed the requirements of the Conditional Use standards. He recommended that the applicant be limited to 175- to 250-watt high-pressure sodium lights on 18 to 20-foot poles instead of the 400- watt metal halide lamps on 32-foot tall poles they proposed. He explained the recommended lighting would have less impact on the neighborhood. He pointed out that Exhibits E-22 and E-23 showed the brick and CMU materials the applicant proposed for the exterior of the gym. He noted the applicant proposed windows only on the north elevation, but staff felt the building design should feature more windows and that the brick veneer and column details should be carried around the building. He advised that the two schools were currently nonconforming in regard to parking. He stated that they had a current total of 111 spaces and the applicants proposed to increase City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 parking to 128 spaces, but that did not meet the parking requirement of 162 spaces. He advised that the proposal enhanced site circulation and the parking requirement would be met for the proposed addition, but not for the entire site. He added language to staff recommended Condition C(2) - which required a minimum of 21 bicycle racks – so that condition also required additional racks to be installed as they were needed until the full Code requirement was met. During questioning by the Commissioners, staff explained that they had agreed to hand -watering of trees in another application where there were only a few street trees to be watered, but that they did not believe hand-watering was practical on the applicant’s site where there were many shrubs to be maintained. Applicant Vaughn Lein, LSW Architects, 19523 NW Kearney Street, Portland, Oregon, 97209, reported the applicants had recently modified their proposal. He explained the new parking was intended to improve traffic flow and safety at the schools. He pointed out the locations of bus and vehicle loading and drop off areas at both schools and where modification of the parking plan was necessary to save oak trees. He showed slides and photographs of the proposed development and clarified that all of the changes proposed for Bryant Elementary School were internal changes and at Waluga Junior High School the applicant planned to enclose an existing canopy in order to weatherize a new corridor and install new classrooms, a storage area (to house an emergency generator), a new gym and restrooms (Exhibits E-40 through E-55). He reported the applicants had consulted with the Fire Marshal regarding appropriate access to the back of the site. He described the colors and materials to be used He said the applicants would work with staff to resolve any questions related to landscaping maintenance. During questioning by the Commissioners, he clarified the area around the new gym was to be landscaped as shown in Exhibit E-9. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Lein then discussed in detail the proposed colors and textures of exterior walls and pilasters to be used in various locations. He explained the applicant had selected the colors to make the newer portion of the building match the existing building and to visually reduce the height of the walls. Ms. Binkley and Mr. Morales indicated they felt the applicant should reverse the direction of the change from darker to lighter hues and use more contrasting colors. Ms. Binkley indicated she preferred to see more windows where there was only lighter colored masonry. Mr. Lein explained that there were no more windows proposed for structural reasons. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales observed that the applicants’ illustrations did not adequately relay what the colors would actually look like on the walls. Mr. Lein said that the applicant would consider changing the colors and submitting them for staff approval. Mr. Lein pointed out for Ms. Binkley the location of three skylights in a hallway at the location of the new classrooms. Proponents None. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 13 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 Opponents None. Neither for nor against None. No one requested that the record be held open for submission of additional written evidence of testimony. The applicants waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney then closed the public hearing and opened deliberations. Deliberations Ms. Binkley said she could not approve the current proposal without modifications. She observed it was a prominent building that would be visible from every side and it looked like a “big box” that needed changes that would help it fit on the site and complement the existing structure. She anticipated that the proposed colors and materials on the exterior walls would make the building look “unfinished.” Ms. Morales saw a need for the applicant to present colored representations that were a closer reflection of the colors that were to be used and she indicated she found the proposed development did not complement the existing building. She said she wanted to see a better drawing illustrating the design of screening around the mechanical equipment. Staff pointed out that staff-recommended conditions of appro val called for appropriate screening with materials and/or colors that matched the nearest visible building surface. Mr. Tierney observed that the applicant had improved the design, addressed the staff’s concerns and provided a color board. He indicated he favored approval of the application. Ms. Ostly asked if the orange brick on the color board was a reasonable representation of what the brick would actually look like and what texture or textures of block were to be used. The Commissioners allowed the applicant to clarify colors and materials. Jeremy Rear, LSW Architects, 19623 NW Kearney Street, Portland, Oregon, 97029, pointed out the brick veneer proposed for around the perimeter of the gymnasium and the lobby area would match the brick on the exis ting building. He explained the relationships between the colors on the color board and the materials. Ms. Stadnik and Mr. Tierney observed that bollards were used to separate traffic at the elementary school from traffic around the junior high school. Ms. Morales commented that it should be mandatory for larger developments to provide a model for Commission’s review. Ms. Ostly indicated she found the condition regarding parking lot lighting was reasonable. Ms. Morales moved for approval of LU 02-0050 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, and with additional language to require additional bike City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 14 of 14 Minutes of February 3, 2003 racks to be installed as needed. Discussion followed. Mr. Tierney invited the applicant to comment on the changed condition. Mr. Lein indicated that the applicants would agree to the condition. Mr. Tierney seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Stadnik and Chair Tierney voting yes. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales voted against. Mr. Fagelman was not present. Chair Tierney announced the vote on the findings, conclusions and order was to be held on February 19, 2003. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Requirement for a model Mr. Pishvaie asked the Commissioners to specify when an applicant should be required to provide a model. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales said a model should be required for a “prominent” development and where elevations should show shadows and appropriate textures and colors. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 11:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Senior Secretary L\drc \minutes \02-03-03_draft.doc