Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1999-05-17 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 17, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The Development Review Commission meeting of May 17, 1999 was called to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A"Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon,by Chair Douglas P. Cushing at 7:02 PM. II. ROLL CALL Commission members present included Chair Cushing, William Horning,Nan Binkley, Bruce Miller, Douglas Kiersey, and Sheila Ostly. Vice Chair Julie Morales was excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Benn, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kiersey moved for approval of the Minutes of April 19. 1999. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion, and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Horning, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Morales was excused. IV. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order LU 99-0024. a request by Kampe Associates, Inc. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 99-0024-131 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Kiersey seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Horning, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Morales was absent. There were no votes against. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 99-0014. a request by Richard Spaccarelli to expand an existing restaurant (Riccardo's Ristorante) by approximately 970 square feet. The site is located at 16035 and 16045 Boones Ferry Road, Tax Lot 1800 of Tax Map 21E 8CB. Staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Continued from the April 19, 1999, DRC meeting. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Horning, Mr. Miller, Mr. Kiersey, and Ms. Ostly indicated they had visited the site. Chair Cushing asked if any City of Lake Oswego Page 1 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Mr. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, recalled the hearing had been continued to allow the applicant to provide a revised parking lot design and additional details regarding the building design (particularly the trellis in front of the building and the retaining wall at the south property line). He related the applicant had provided sufficient information and it was included in the staff memorandum. He clarified that the applicant had proposed better access to the six parking spaces along the west property line via a centrally located two-way access. He related the applicant intended those six spaces were to be used by his employees only, but they would also be accessible by the general public. He clarified the trellis would be constructed of 4" x 4"posts with 2" x 4" cross members. He said the two closest parking spaces to Boones Ferry Road had been replaced with landscaping. He said the area on the south side of the building would be gently graded and retaining walls were no longer planned there. He said the concrete ramp previously proposed along the south side of the building had been replaced with landscaping. He concluded that staff believed the applicant had addressed the concerns of commissioners and staff. He noted the recommended conditions of approval had been modified in the light of the applicant's new information. He recommended approval of the project subject to conditions listed in the May 13, 1999, staff memorandum. Mr. Pishvaie clarified for Mr. Kiersey that because of the configuration of the site and landscaping requirements additional parking could not be included on the site; however, the applicant was presenting an improved circulation plan. Mr. Kiersey asked if 7 or 8 parking spaces could be planned for the area of the bocce courts. Chair Cushing observed the applicant's plan for 17% landscaping was close enough to the minimum required that it could not be reduced to allow additional parking spaces. Mr. Kiersey asked if the outdoor seating area could be used to meet the landscape requirement. Mr. Pishvaie advised that staff could not support that designation because the area was paved; however, he noted the Commission had authority to make its own interpretation. Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney, advised the commissioners to determine whether or not the proposed parking met the City Code. He clarified the Code did not provide that the Commission could increase the number of parking spaces based upon the popularity of a restaurant. He also advised the Commission might have discretionary authority to designate the outdoor eating area as a landscaped area. Ms. Binkley asked if the proposed turning radius was sufficient and whether a vehicle had enough room to back out of Spaces #37 or#40 and turn around to exit the lot while another incoming driver was waiting for that space. Mr. Pishvaie noted the access was a two-way aisle and drivers could back out towards the north before heading out of the lot. Ms. Binkley asked if angled parking had been discussed, with the bocce courts located in a middle island. Mr. Pishvaie stated he had not seen such a plan from the applicant. Mr. Pishvaie clarified for Ms. Binkley that artwork or paintings in the building niches could be considered a sign to be regulated under the Sign Ordinance if it was more than general graphics and conveyed what happed inside the restaurant. He recalled that the City of Lake Oswego Page 2 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 artwork at Nature's development had not been considered signage. He clarified for Mr. Miller that a divider line and arrows would mark the access lanes. He agreed that the accessway could be further defined by the use of colored markings. Applicant Richard Spaccarelli. 5375 SW Dawn. Lake Oswego. 97035. related he and his consultants had discussed different parking configurations, including a plan for angled parking, and use of the bocce court space for parking. He stated that they could not create a plan that would allow sufficient landscaping to meet the landscaping requirement while creating additional parking spaces and improving the traffic flow at the site. He pointed out that some of the spaces to be used by employees were the most challenging to exit from; however, he noted employees typically reported to the restaurant before the first patrons came, so the spaces would not be available to the customers. He also pointed out the aisle width had been increased to 24' from the required 20' width. Mr. Spaccarelli pointed out the arched reveals and additional landscaping he proposed on the west elevation would provide a nicer, more Italian appearance at the site. He clarified for Chair Cushing that there would be a ground level planting area in front of the structure. He presented his signage plan and noted that a sign was still planned over the arched entrance; however, it had been reduced in size to conform to City sign regulations. He noted a smaller sign band was also proposed for the other side of the building. He said the new lights would be similar to the existing courtyard lights. He testified that Italian cypress trees would be planted along the streets, and he acknowledged that although the City's approved tree list included cypress, it did not specify Italian cypress. Mr. Kiersey asked the applicant if he was satisfied that there would be sufficient parking available for his restaurant. Mr. Spaccarelli answered that the layout was an improvement over what he currently had. He reiterated that he had considered various parking configurations, but had not found an acceptable plan that would increase the number of spaces at the site. He clarified for Ms. Ostly that a sign on the restaurant's front door directed patrons to the parking spaces he shared with the nearby travel agency. She asked if another location for the sign could be found that patrons would see before they had parked at the garden business next door. Mr. Pishvaie advised the applicant could install directional signs on the site to direct drivers to the travel agency spaces. He agreed the staff could work with the applicant to determine how signs could be placed on the site. Mr. Spaccarelli suggested that a"Right turn only" sign be allowed at his parking lot exit. The commissioners commented that he could accomplish that unilaterally. He noted the signband on the east elevation could include an arrow indicating "Parking in the rear." He acknowledged that his agreement with the travel agency did not specify that his employees could park there. He stated the onsite parking spaces would be striped, and directional arrows would be painted. He clarified he did not plan to install curbs at the spaces adjacent to the driveway. Proponents City of Lake Oswego Page 3 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 None. Opponents Mr. Darryl Eddy. 15955 SW Boones Ferry Road. Lake Oswego. 97035. testified he owned the Lake Grove Garden Center which abutted the site on its east side. He testified that the applicant did not have adequate parking for its current operations. He noted the applicant was proposing to increase seating capacity by 31% and would not add additional parking spaces. He noted that although the applicant had a shared parking arrangement with the travel agency nearby, his patrons parked in Mr. Eddy's lot, especially in the daytime. He stressed that his business suffered when patrons of the restaurant routinely parked in the 14 spaces in front of his business. Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal Mr. Spaccarelli related that his staff had been monitoring the usage of the spaces at the adjacent business for the previous several weeks to ensure patrons did not park in Mr. Eddy's lot. He said he had not observed any lunch hour patrons parking there, and when a customer parked there, he asked them to move their car. He opined that if he had chosen not to expand his building he could still have increased interior seating at the restaurant through remodeling. He said the expansion of the building was to provide customer comfort and a more pleasant atmosphere. He said that approximately 12 of the 20 additional seats would be in the wine bar, where patrons could wait for a table. He said the proposed addition was a small one, and half of it was to enlarge the kitchen area. He clarified there would be 450' to 500 square feet of space added to the restaurant. He recalled that the summer season was always the busiest one for his business, and the inside was often empty during his peak season, as people preferred to sit outside. He said that although he did not need a bigger restaurant, he desired to create a new façade on the building and improve the property. He said it would present a better appearance to the community. He commented that people needed to be more neighborly. Mr. Spaccarelli clarified for Mr. Kiersey that his lot currently could accommodate 32 or 33 parked vehicles. No one requested the hearing be held open to allow submission of additional written testimony. Chair Cushing closed the public hearing. The applicant waived his right to an additional seven days in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Cushing opened deliberations. Deliberation Ms. Ostly noted the applicant's revised plans were easier to understand. Ms. Binkley agreed and commented that she liked the building design and the landscaping was what City of Lake Oswego Page 4 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 the commissioners had indicated they wanted. She agreed with Chair Cushing that the plan looked less busy. She said that although the Commission was not empowered to contest the number of spaces, site circulation remained a major issue. She said she would have preferred a plan where traffic could circulate around an island in a continuing movement to find parking spaces. She disagreed with Mr. Kiersey that it could be accomplished while retaining the required 15% landscaped area. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 99-0014, subject to the conditions in the staff report and an added condition that a wheel stop be installed for Spaces #25-28 in the compact parking area. Hearing no second, Mr. Cushing asked if there was an alternative motion. Mr. Kiersey moved for denial, pending a more efficient parking circulation plan. Mr. Boone advised the commissioners to either vote to approve or deny the application. Mr. Kiersey moved for denial of the application. The motion failed for lack of a second. Ms. Binkley explained the commissioners liked the project, the building and the additions; however, they did not believe the parking configuration was sufficient. Mr. Horning stated the problem was that if the outdoor dining area was not to be included in the parking requirement calculation, why was it not to be counted as landscaped area. He said if it was counted as landscaped area, and included in the 15%minimum landscaping requirement, then there would be less outside area necessary to be landscaped to meet the 15% requirement. He opined that if the outdoor seating was restaurant space, it should have some parking requirement assigned to it. He also commented that to consider walled-in landscaping as part of the City's minimum landscaping requirement might not be considered good City policy. Chair Cushing noted the bocce area included some significant trees similar to the kinds of trees the community wanted to protect. He wondered if removal of the trees would provide enough space for additional parking. Ms. Binkley suggested the application approval be conditioned upon the creation of an island in the parking area, with the parking configuration to be worked out with the staff so the landscaping requirement was met. She suggested that angled parking be designed, with one-directional traffic around an island in the center of the parking area. Mr. Pishvaie explained that for angled parking the standard aisle width varied from 12' to 25.5', depending on the angle of the spaces. He said that the narrowest lane was for 45-degree angled parking spaces, and the widest aisle was for 75-degree angles. He said a single-loading configuration would require a total of 30 feet of width. He noted the applicant had explained the delay in approval of the application meant the development was to be postponed past the restaurant's current busy season. He suggested the Commission ask the applicant to request an additional continuance to prepare several parking options for Commission consideration. City of Lake Oswego Page 5 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 Mr. Spaccarelli stated that although he did not bring them, he and the architect had considered all possible parking configurations for the site. He said that none of the layouts they had considered increased the parking available at the site, and none of the layouts was a solution they felt was worth presenting to the Commission. He said some of the designs would have required variances and did not improve circulation at the site. He explained that to install angled parking on one side would create problems for delivery vehicles. He said the best alternative design they had considered netted the same amount of parking as the proposed design and eliminated the nice feature of the bocce park. He said he would rather not extend the process for another month simply to show the Commission what he had considered that did not work. Ms. Binkley asked if the Commission could condition approval upon the inclusion of an island in the plan. Mr. Boone advised the Commission could chose to deny the application based upon insufficient site circulation. He cited LOS 7.020 (c.)(ii.) of the Offstreet Parking Standards that required that"the design shall ensure that the parking of any vehicles shall not interfere with the parking or maneuvering of any other vehicle." He advised that if the applicant's design did not work due to the rear parking spaces, that would mean the spaces could not be counted, and without those spaces it would need to be determined if there were other alternative parking spaces available within 500 feet. He recalled testimony that was not the case at all times during the day. He said that could be mean the applicant could not meet the parking requirement because of the problem with circulation at the site. Chair Cushing noted the aisleways met the City's minimum requirements. Mr. Horning noted the development was required to provide 35 parking spaces and the proposed plan was for 40 spaces. He noted that if all the spaces the commissioners were troubled about were eliminated and vehicles parked in the aisle, there would still be 40 spaces. He summarized that the applicant's plan exceeded the minimum number of required spaces, and the maneuverability issue could be solved by eliminating some spaces, according to the Code. Mr. Kiersey stressed that he believed a better lot configuration could be accomplished than the one that had been presented. Mr. Kiersey moved for denial of LU 99-0014, because the parking configuration that had been presented did not provide for appropriate maneuverability. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it failed with Ms. Binkley, Mr. Horning, and Mr. Kiersey voting yes. Mr. Cushing, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voted against. Ms. Morales was absent. Mr. Pishvaie estimated that 32 parking spaces could be designed in a one-way loop going all the way to the north property line and wrapping around a central island and exiting in front of the retail stores. He noted that 33 spaces could be designed if the north-going aisle was double-loaded; however, that configuration would reduce the amount of open space and eliminate the bocce court area. He noted a landscaped strip would be within the loop system. He estimated that this type of design would allow 30 to 33 spaces at the site, depending upon how large the central island was. He advised the amount of landscaping would also have to be considered. City of Lake Oswego Page 6 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 Chair Cushing explained for the applicant that some of the commissioners did not believe the spaces at the dead end at the rear of the site worked, even though the number of spaces met the Code. Mr. Spaccarelli suggested that the four spaces at the back of the site be eliminated. Ms. Binkley voiced her concern that would not solve the general circulation problem. The applicant stated there had not been a problem with vehicles backing out because there was 34 feet of room for a vehicle to back out. Mr. Kiersey observed that drivers would not be able to back straight and then turn to exit if the parking lot was full. The applicant disagreed and pointed out how vehicles had two car lengths between the rows of parking spaces to use in backing out. He said the lot featured larger dimensions than a typical parking lot. He stated the current problem at the back of the parking area was that it was not paved and was not well delineated. Mr. Kiersey opined that the applicant should be able to create a better configuration because of the abundant wasted space between the existing 34' wide parking aisles. He suggested a looped design could provide a better parking flow. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Pishvaie if more effective signage at the Lake Grove Garden Center would discourage people from parking there. Mr. Pishvaie noted that people sometimes ignored signs, and he recalled the applicant had testified that his staff asked patrons where they had parked, and requested they move vehicles that were parked next door. Mr. Spaccarelli opined that a"circulation problem" assumed there would be a high potential for accidents in the lot; however, he recalled only 1 or 2 "fender benders" happening in 20 years. He acknowledged the commissioners saw reconfiguration as an opportunity to make more spaces but the designs he had considered had not provided any net increase in parking space. He opined that installation of landscaping in the middle of the lot would not increase the beauty of the site. He said that even when the lot was full drivers could turn around on it because of the 34 feet between aisles. He said that with a one-way aisle configuration, delivery trucks would have to back in from Boones Ferry Road, which would create a roadway hazard. He clarified for Mr. Kiersey that semi trucks were able to turn around on the existing site, but some of the configurations he had reviewed did not provide room enough for them to turn around, even in plans that eliminated the bocce court. He said his application met the standards and exceeded some of them and he was not asking for a variance, and he believed his was a good proposal as it had been presented. He confirmed for Ms. Binkley that he had also considered a configuration where the spaces had been turned 90 degrees in the compact lot, and after he and the commissioners discussed that configuration he agreed it would be possible to use that plan. He said the travel agency had agreed that his patrons could use their parking spaces after the agency closed at 5:30 PM, so his day shift employees would not be allowed to use the agency's spaces and his evening shift employees reported for work before the agency closed for the day. Mr. Eddy referred to the plat map (Exhibit 1). He recalled that property immediately behind the site had been offered to him to purchase several years ago. He suggested that City of Lake Oswego Page 7 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 the applicant consider leasing or acquiring the back half of that 200-foot deep lot for the bocce court, which he said would free a 75' x 100x area for parking. Chair Cushing asked Mr. Boone if the Commission could approve the application with the condition that parking spaces #25-28 and#35-40 be required to be north/south oriented spaces instead of east/west aligned spaces. Mr. Boone advised that would be a finding that the current design did not provide maneuverability in some areas, and it needed to be determined whether the reorientation suggestion constituted a redesign of (substantially changed) the application. Mr. Boone and Chair Cushing recalled the applicant had testified he would not have a problem with that type of change. Mr. Boone suggested the opponents be given the opportunity to comment on whether they believed that substantially changed the application before any Commission decision was made. Chair Cushing described the potential solution to the parking circulation problem for Mr. Eddy. He explained the possible solution was to realign 10 spaces between the retail stores building and the bocce court so that they ran north/south, and vehicles would not be backing toward one another, and one aisleway was to be provided for entering and exiting the area. He estimated the new plan would neither add nor remove spaces from the lot. Mr. Eddy restated his objection was that the total number of spaces was inadequate. Ms. Binkley moved for approval of LU 99-0014, subject to the conditions recommended by the staff with added condition A.(2.)(c.)(iii.) to take Spaces #25-28 and #35-40 and reconfigure them on an east/west access without losing any spaces and providing landscape planters at the entrance to the subparking lot at its east end. Mr. Horning seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Horning, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Morales was absent. There were no votes against. DR 16-98. a request by Mentrum Architecture to construct a 16,000 s.foffice building with an underground parking garage. The site is located at 595 Second Street, Tax Lot(s) 1500 of Tax Map 21E 3DD. The staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. Continued from the May 3, 1999, DRC meeting. Chair Cushing opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. He asked Commission members to report any ex parte contacts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Mr. Horning recused himself from hearing the application. Mr. Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller indicated they had visited the site. Chair Cushing asked if any person in attendance desired to challenge any Commissioner's right to hear the application. No one presented such a challenge. Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager, recalled the issue at the May 3, 1999, hearing had been the mass and scale of the parking structure along C Avenue. He City of Lake Oswego Page 8 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 observed the proposed structure tapered to a 10-foot height along the alleyway. He recalled a suggestion had been made at the previous hearing that a 9-foot-wide notch be removed from the parking structure at its northeast corner to provide space for additional landscaping to soften the streetscape. He recalled the commissioners had requested that a plan be provided showing the change and the applicant had provided revised plans. He noted the new plans showed 11 feet of spacing between the face of the parking structure and the sidewalk and revised elevations showed the modification made to the northeast corner of the building. He also noted the applicant had provided a colored rendering of the landscape plan. Mr. Pishvaie related that two small groves of cedar trees were proposed on the east and west ends of the new landscaped island. He said the applicant had made changes in the type of plant material at the northwest corner of the site and would plant a grove of three 8' to 10' high cedar trees, instead of one tree there. He said that the vine maples previously proposed for the plaza area had been replaced by 2"-caliper Japanese snowball trees, and the landscaped island at the northeast corner would include a 6' wide by 2' high planter. He said staff believed that the applicant's improvements helped to reduce the mass of the parking structure at the northeast corner of the property and would provide a better view from the street. He advised the changes resulted in the loss of two spaces in the parking structure. He recalled the applicant had previously proposed 41 spaces,but was now proposing the 39 spaces the Code required. He recommended approval of the project as modified by the applicant, subject to conditions recommended in the May 13, 1999, staff memorandum. Mr. Pishvaie clarified for the commissioners that the building's transformer had been relocated to the northeast corner to make it less conspicuous and that it would be concealed by landscaping along C Avenue. He explained the staff recommendation that the bicycle rack be "sturdy"meant that it should look like a permanent feature, and he suggested it be a metal rack. He noted that the language in recommended condition C.(1.) could be changed to clarify that the 8,000 square foot cap on medical uses in the building was based on calculations for required parking for that use under the current Code; however, future changes in the Code could change the cap. Applicant Ed Sullivan, 222 SW Columbia, Portland, 97201, testified he represented DED Enterprises LLC, the property owners. He related that one of the owners, Dr. Naveen Sachdev, was present in the audience, and the applicant, Bayard Mentrum, was also present to answer questions regarding the design. He related that he had read the staff report and the City's files, and had listened to the audiotapes of the previous proceedings. He said the first issue to be discussed was the design of the development. Mr. Sullivan noted that the applicant had presented several design alternatives to the neighborhood association before the application was filed and the application included the design that had appeared to generate the least amount of opposition. He said the applicant had endeavored to make the development as compatible as possible with the City of Lake Oswego Page 9 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 surrounding neighborhood, and had decided to hide the parking underground instead of building a separate parking structure. He noted the parking structure had been set back 11 feet from the sidewalk and the building setback met or exceeded the 25' setback requirement. He said the application conformed to all other zoning and building regulations and the applicant had presented a building that was lower than the allowed height limit and included more landscaping than was required. Mr. Sullivan recalled the second and third issues brought out at the previous hearing were the mass of the project and parking. He acknowledged that the Commision had to be satisfied that the applicant's alternative design accomplished the purposes of the urban design plan and the Comprehensive Plan in order to grant a waiver under LODS 23.605 to the 25' setback to the residential zone that was across C Street from the parking area. He said the proposed building was within the required envelope, with the exception of the area of the setback. He said the applicant had been responsive to the City plans because the applicant had made the setback of the building's supporting wall 10' from the property line and had designed it to range from 3' to 10' high. He summarized that the originally proposed mass of the building had been reduced; setbacks had been increased; the plaza had been made more friendly to the neighborhood; and the amount of landscaping had been increased in the development in response to concerns by the neighborhood and the DRC. He said the garage had been set back at least 3' from the sidewalk to allow landscaping at the 6'-high brick wall and the setback became 11' from the sidewalk at the northeast corner where the wall was 10' high. He also noted the transformer had been relocated to the northeast corner of the parking structure at the alley and would be buffered by landscaping. He said the highest corner of the wall would be offset by terracing of the corner to provide a softer edge and break down the scale. He said the plaza was proposed to be at grade level to the west and would feature a 2' high planter. He said the proposed gables and facade steps, all of the design changes and the proposed covered parking were intended to reduce the mass. He explained that use of the 25' setback area to hide the parking fit the design and helped to reduce the mass of the structure. He related that the staff had advised him that there was no design plan applicable to area. He said the Comprehensive Plan did not provide approval criteria in a design review case. He held that the applicants had accommodated the Commercial Land Use Policies in their proposal. He read the fifth paragraph of page 5 of the staff report where the policies were discussed. Mr. Sullivan reminded the Commissioners that the site was within a commercial zone and adjacent to a residential zone and said the applicants had recognized the transition by lowering the building height, screening the parking from view, including trees and shrubs, providing a landscaped plaza instead of an open air parking lot, and using the Lake Oswego architectural style. He noted that parking on the north side of the development that was close to the residential area was to be buried within the setback area. He said the applicants had also attempted to reduce the feeling of mass by providing dense landscaping and trees to replace those their arborist believed should be removed. He explained that the features of ironwork, craftsman tiles and brick detailing provided continuity with the neighborhood and a pedestrian-friendly feeling. City of Lake Oswego Page 10 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 Mr. Sullivan addressed the issue of parking. He stressed the relationship between the design and the parking. He acknowledged some commissioners had misgivings about the number of parking spaces proposed, but the applicant had conformed to the parking requirements. He related the applicant had considered building a separate parking structure, and the size of the site, the setbacks and other elements of the building had made it a challenge to accommodate parking at the site. He said the proposed parking spaces and aisles were all within the Code. He said the applicant had created a design that allowed for 18" diameter columns and 8"thick walls in the parking area. He said parking stalls located next to a wall were to be reserved for building staff, who would use them regularly and become accustomed to parking there. He said the 3' aisleway to access the mechanical room and the exit stairway met the Code. Mr. Sullivan noted the Commision had observed the aisles were narrow and some of the spaces were a "tight squeeze". He clarified the narrower spaces would be reserved for employees and tenants of the building. He said the applicants had to remove two parking spaces to accommodate the transformer, the mechanical room, and the stairway to the upper floors. He said the applicant had met Code requirements for parking and the proposed development met the standards of the Code. He said he hoped the changes the applicant had made since the previous meeting had satisfied Commission and others' concerns. He related the applicant had spent additional time and money attempting to address those concerns. He said they did not desire a denial or an appeals process and they were willing to spend more time working with the Commission and city staff to make the evelopment work for both the applicant and the City. Bayard Mentrum, 503 NW Irving, #210A, Portland. 97201, confirmed for Chair Cushing that the grillwork at the north end of the easterly driveway access would allow natural light to enter the structure. He explained for Ms. Binkley that the 24"high planter was intended to break up the mass of the wall, and did not reduce the size of the grill. He clarified the planters were deep enough to accommodate deep-rooted plants. He noted the switch vault was to be buried so it was flush with the sidewalk. Proponents None. Opponents Chair Cushing noted that the DRC had received a letter from Cynthia Blanchard. 606 Fourth Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 in opposition to the application. (See Exhibit 27). Jim Bolland, 801 Fifth Street, Lake Oswego. 97034, appeared on behalf of the First Addition Neighborhood Association. He clarified that although he had testified neither for nor against at the previous hearing, he was appearing against the proposal at the current hearing. He reported for the record that the applicant's representatives had presented a modernistic-looking building design at a neighborhood association meeting, City of Lake Oswego Page 11 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 but that after the residents had responded that the design did not represent the East End Design District Guidelines the representatives had presented a second set of drawings. He related that he and Bari Thompson, an architect and First Addition Neighborhood Association board member, were uncomfortable with the applicant's plans. He recalled Mr. Thompson had testified at the May 3, 1999, hearing. He recalled that after the neighborhood meeting with the applicant, Mr. Thompson had met with Tom Coffee, Mr. Pishvaie and Elizabeth Jacob, of the City staff, and he had learned that the City had rejected both sets of the applicant's drawings that had been shown to the neighborhood association. He learned the staff was working with the applicant on a third set of drawings the residents had not seen. He recalled that a subsequent meeting was held that included City staff, neighborhood residents and the applicant. Mr. Bolland testified he would have preferred the staff had recommended a building with less square footage instead of the notch in the building that meant the elimination of two parking spaces. He observed the configuration of the garage created maneuverability problems and the aisle was 20' wide at the south end. He noted the first staff report reported that four spaces were so tight they would have to be employee-only parking. He held that the parking issues had not been addressed. He observed that if parking was inconvenient in the garage, drivers would not park there, and would park on the street and into the neighborhood. He pointed out the addendum to the staff report had not addressed the residents' suggestion of a condition for a"Right Turn Only" sign for drivers exiting the parking garage, nor their concern that finished wall thickness and columns would reduce the number of parking spaces below that which was required. He said it was unclear whether the design had been engineered correctly, and how many employees would work in the building. Mr. Bolland stressed that the development abutted a residential zone. He read into the record the policies and goals for the Downtown Commercial District. He indicated that he did not believe the additional trees planned for the development were sufficient to overcome the fact that it was still a very large development for a 12,000 square foot lot next to a residential zone. He clarified for Chair Cushing that there were no apartments next to the project, but that C Avenue included duplexes and row homes within the EC Zone. He said the proposal was not a compatible use with the residential area across the street from it. He clarified for Chair Cushing that a smaller, less massive development would be a more compatible use. Neither for nor Against None. Rebuttal Mr. Sullivan related that several meetings had been held that included FAN, the City staff and the applicant's representatives. He said the applicant believed after those meetings that their proposal was close to what the neighborhood would approve of He stressed the applicants had addressed the parking issue, the columns and walls met Code City of Lake Oswego Page 12 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 requirements, and the spaces nearest the wall were to be limited to staff use. He said the applicants were not opposed to a"Right Turn Only" sign at the parking exit. He said the applicant did not know how many employees would work in the building, but he advised that the number of parking spaces was required to be based on the square footage of the uses. He noted the applicant met that requirement. He recalled the reading of the listing of goals and policies from the Comprehensive Plan. He said that several policies that had not been framed in mandatory terms had been met by the applicant anyway. He cited ORS 197.195 (1.) that indicated that the Code was to specify which Plan policies applied. He said the use was allowed in the zone and the issue was how the use fit the area. He said the applicant had designed underground parking so it would not be obtrusive, and that was the only part of the development that encroached on the 25' setback. He held that made the development a better and more compatible neighbor and that was what the Code intended for the use of the waiver. He said the applicant was prepared to continue work with the City. Mr. Mentrum clarified for Chair Cushing that a structural engineer had verified that the 18" diameter of the columns and the 8"thick basement walls were adequate for the structure. He also observed that drivers would rather park under cover to avoid the rain. No one requested the hearing be held open an additional seven days to allow for additional written evidence of testimony. The applicant waived their right to hold the hearing open for submittal of a final written argument. Deliberation Ms. Binkley commented that underground parking was superior to more visible ongrade parking. She opined the building was the maximum that could be built on the site in relation to surrounding uses. She predicted that because of the zoning in the area there would be similar developments planned there. She indicated she liked the detailing, dormers and other design elements. Chair Cushing noted the difficulty of designing in areas along zone boundaries. Ms. Binkley noted the residential car facility just down the street was of a similar size. She predicted the entire zone would develop at that scale. She commented she liked the landscaping in front of the building and she was pleased the transformer had been relocated. Mr. Kiersey acknowledged that the parking met the Code. Ms. Binkley noted the downtown standards required the building to be at least two stories. Mr. Pishvaie advised the maximum allowed height for building was 68 feet. He also advised the Floor Area Ratio could be 3.0. Ms. Binkley observed that it was conceivable for a developer to have added another layer of parking at the site. She said that overall the design was very good. Ms. Binkley moved for approval of DR 16-98, subject to the conditions in the staff report, and with the added condition A.(4.)(e.)(iii.) that a "Right Turn Only" sign be installed at the garage exit. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. City of Lake Oswego Page 13 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999 Cushing, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Ms. Morales was absent and Mr. Horning had recused himself. There were no votes against. VI. GENERAL PLANNING None. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Douglas P. Cushing adjourned the meeting at 9:50 PM. Respectfully submitted. Janice Benn Senior Secretary L:Adre\minutes\05-17-99.doc City of Lake Oswego Page 14 of 144 Development Review Commission Minutes of May 17, 1999