Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2003-09-29 4,t�ov t A1CL 0s iv44 1 teG 11.1 City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes September 29, 2003 oe.c.o$ I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of September 29, 2003 to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A"Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present included Chair Tierney, Vice Chair Sheila Ostly,Nan Binkley*, Julie Morales*, Krytsyna Stadnik, Gary Fagelman and Andrew Hill. Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Fagelman moved to approve the Minutes of August 18, 2003. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Stadnik, Mr. Fagelman and Mr. Hill voting yes. There were no votes against. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales were not present for the vote. *Ms. Morales joined the meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER AP 03-04 FLU 03-00231, an appeal by Robert and Virginia Dames of the Community Development Director's decision approving the establishment of a Resource Conservation (RC) Protection Area (PA) on the site (LU 03-0023). The applicants are: Tracey Richards and Bruce Davis. The property is located at 2220 Prestwick Road (Tax Lot 5300 of Tax Map 21E 08 AC). The staff coordinator is Debra Andreades. The hearing was continued from the September 15, 2003, DRC meeting. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedures and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. None of the Commissioners present reported an anticipated business interest or reported a conflict of interest. No one in the audience challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 Chair Tierney observed that the hearing had been continued in order to receive written information, which had been submitted. He advised the applicant had a right to request that the record be held open for seven more days to submit a final written argument. The applicants waived their right to hold the record open for an additional seven days in order to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney then opened deliberations. Deliberations Ms. Ostly related that she had walked the site and observed the elements of the tree grove. She said that the RC PA had been appropriately delineated, because it allowed a solid grove that connected with contiguous resources. Mr. Hill agreed with Ms. Ostly. He observed that the RC PA area included a trail. He recalled testimony about issues that related to the location of the pool that could not serve as a basis for a DRC decision. Chair Tierney observed that the DRC's responsibility under the Code was to designate the Protection Area within the RC District. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, confirmed for the Commissioners that the DRC could deny the appeal and affirm the decision as stated in the Community Development Director's decision if they believed the decision reflected their own position on LU 03-0023. Ms. Ostly moved to deny the appeal and affirm the decision as stated in the Community Development Director's decision on LU 03-0023. Mr. Fagelman seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Morales, Ms. Stadnik, Mr. Fagelman and Mr. Hill voting yes. There were no votes against. Ms. Binkley was not present. Chair Tierney announced the vote on the findings and order was to take place on October 6, 2003. After the staff observed the decision on the appeal had taken less time than previously allocated, Chair Tierne y adjourned the meeting and announced the meeting would convene and continue with the agenda later that evening at 7 p.m. Chair Tierney reconvened the Development Review Commission meeting of September 29, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. *Ms. Binkley joined the meeting. LU 03-0016, a request by Sisters of Holy Names of Jesus and Mary for approval of the following: 1. Modification of ODPS 2-95/SD 8-96 and ODPS 2-95/SD 8-96(Mod. 8-97). 2. Development Review approval of Phases 1-B, 2 and 3 of Sub-area 2 of Mary's Woods ODPS. 3. Approval of two Class 2 Variances 4. The removal of four trees along the south side of Holy Names Drive City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 The site is located at 17410 Holy Names Drive, Tax Lots 300, 401, 402 of Tax Map 21E 14. The staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. The hearing was continued from the September 3, 2003 DRC meeting. Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedures and time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. None of the commissioners reported 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 August 22, 2003. She reported that the applicant was requesting modification of the ODPS that would extend the phasing schedule, eliminate a small Open Space Area, relocate some uses and incorporate the area of the Archive Building use into the allowance for commercial/retail usage. She observed that the applicant was also requesting variances related to building height and accessway design. She said they sought development approval of Phases 1-B, 2 and 3 of Sub-area H of the ODPS that included five one-to-three-story office/retail use buildings, the Archive Building, and four connected buildings for Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) housing. Ms. Jacob explained the requested extension of the phasing schedule from completion in 2005 to completion in 2010 reflected the low current market demand for office and retail space. She reported that all public improvements were to have been completed as a condition of the original ODPS approval, but water and sanitary sewer lines needed to be further extended. She explained the applicant wanted to eliminate Open Space Area `B," which was a 7,000 sq. ft. area that had been designated as a wetland until it was found during construction of Phase 1 that it had been created by water accumulating around a clogged culvert. She advised that elimination of this open space would not affect the overall open space requirement for the ODPS. She explained that the applicant's original plan was a conceptual plan that showed locations for commercial and residential uses in order to determine how many housing units and how much commercial space would fit on the site (Exhibits E-7 and E-8). She related that they believed the current proposal provided a more pedestrian-friendly environment than the original plan. She recalled the original ODPS approval was for 40 to 100 residential use houses and 120,000 square feet of office campus use. She said the applicant was currently proposing 83 housing units, 60,200 sq. ft. of office campus use, plus the 13,000 sq. ft. Archive Building (a building which was not in the original ODPS approval). She advised that although the applicant had submitted a letter indicating they desired to keep their development rights to use the entire 120,000 sq. ft. of commercial use allocation, a staff analysis showed there was not enough area available to accommodate the additional square footage, landscaping and parking. She said the applicant also requested to be allowed to enlarge two commercial buildings if a tenant required a larger space. She recalled that staff and the applicant had considered removing some of the commercial buildings in order to create more open space for the residential use, but then they agreed that residents would be better served by leaving the commercial buildings in their previously approved locations and eliminating one of the through streets to create more open space. She reported staff finding that the proposed redistribution of residential and commercial uses was consistent with the intent of the ODPS to provide a campus setting and incorporate a commercial element as required by the zone and Comprehensive Plan policies. Ms. Jacob then discussed the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 applicant's request to include the Archive Building in the allowable area (120,000 sq. ft.) of commercial/office use. She explained that they believed that there was no longer as much need for the previously proposed 35,000 sq. ft. medical office and daycare uses. She reported staff found peak hour traffic for the Archive Building use would be much less than that generated by office use. She concluded that the requirements for modification of an ODPS could be met by the applicant's proposal. Ms. Jacob advised that the applicant was not requesting any special reductions in setbacks that could be allowed in a Planned Development (PD). She clarified that the PD overlay established the height of buildings as measured from the finished grade —not from the existing grade. She advised that specific standards for residential care housing and congregate housing were not applicable to an ODPS, and that ODPS approval effectively froze the project for future changes. She reported that staff had deleted one condition to extend a water line after the Engineering staff had found that runoff from the street could be handled by an existing drainage swale. When she discussed building design, she advised that the ODPS approval required the building designs to reflect the architectural style of the Provincial House and the buildings in Phase 1-A. She pointed to material samples and indicated that the Archive Building and CCRC housing would feature stucco exterior similar to that on the Provincial House and the Archive Building would have the same type of tile roof. She advised that the ODPS approval provided that the convent was to be the tallest structure on the site and central to the entire development. When she discussed the requested variances, Ms. Jacob first addressed the 20-foot variance to the allowable height of a tower in the commercial development. She related that the applicant believed they needed the tower to draw the attention of people walking or driving along Highway 43. She said staff had applied the criteria for a variance and found that two nearby towers that were above the zone's limit of 45 feet had been approved on the basis that clock and bell towers were common on campuses. She reported staff had concluded that to require the tower to meet the zone's height limit would be an unnecessary hardship on this campus; that the downslope from the highway and the presence of other buildings would minimize the perceived height of the tower from Highway 43; and that a lower tower would be out of proportion to the size of the building and the surrounding area. She explained that the applicant was seeking a second variance that would allow them to split the public accessway from Highway 43 through the easterly portion of the loop formed by Holy Names Drive into a component for pedestrians and a component for bicyclists. She noted that part of the route would be over the existing five- foot wide sidewalk and the bike component would be over the street. She explained the applicant and staff agreed that this configuration would be safer for elderly pedestrians and it would be safe for bikers because of the low speed limit on the roadway (Exhibit E-31). She said the other portions of the accessway would consist of a 15-foot wide easement with an eight-foot wide pathway. She suggested that the applicant and staff be directed to work together to plan the specific route around trees and over a drop off. She pointed out a revised recommended condition of approval to require the entire pathway to be planned at this stage, but allowing its construction at a future time after the Archive Building was constructed and when the other buildings were constructed. She advised that the applicant would also need a public easement for the entire accessway route. She reported the applicant wanted to remove four trees along Holy Names Drive to accommodate street access and a connection between buildings. She said staff was concerned about a potential impact to RC District trees of a proposed sidewalk along City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 the east side of the connector road between Holy Names Drive and Marylhurst University campus. She anticipated that the applicant's arborist would describe how he believed that could be accomplished without impacting the resource buffer. She advised that some of the proposed signage did not meet Code requirements and needed to be modified. Ms. Jacob entered new drawings for a covered walkway into the record as Exhibit F-16. She observed these were alternative designs for a covered walkway between Building F and the Durocher Building that would either completely cover or roof the walkway. She said the applicant wanted flexibility as to when and how much of the cover to construct, based on need and funding. She pointed out that Drawing A 6b showed how the applicant proposed to enlarge Buildings M and N at some future time in order to accommodate a tenant. Ms. Jacob pointed out other recent revisions to the staff-recommended conditions of approval were to delete the recommended condition regarding a water line; add a new condition to require an additional drainage plan; and a condition to more specifically address the changes the applicant was requesting for the covered walkway. During questioning by the commissioners, Ms. Jacob confirmed that the applicant's proposal was complementary to the Marylhurst University Master Plan along the highway frontage, and that the applicant was required to irrigate the landscaping and to submit a final landscaping plan. When the commissioners asked whom the commercial component was intended to draw and serve, Mr. Pishvaie recalled that the Planning Commission had discussed the size of the commercial component, but had ultimately approved it with the understanding that patrons would come from both inside and outside of the project. He advised the use was not an issue for the DRC. He recalled that although the number of residential units had been reduced since 1995, the commercial component had remained the same size. He anticipated a time when the applicant might want to use the entire commercial area allocation to respond to market changes. He advised that such a request would be heard by the DRC and he anticipated such an expansion would be a challenge to accomplish, because it would require other significant changes to the ODPS. Mr. Boone advised that the ODPS established the allowed uses on the site. He observed the site included a split Cl/OC Zone. Under the CI Zone, businesses that focused on patrons who were employed in the zone were permitted. The OC Zone listed allowed commercial uses. Applicant Steve Poland, Akrom Moisan Associated Architects, 6720 SW Macadam, Portland, Oregon, 97219, introduced the applicant's design team of George Signory, Akrom Moisan; Linda Barnes, Robertson Merryman Barnes Architects (designers of the Archive Building); Joyce Jackson, landscape designer, Mitchell Nelson Group; Jodie Bienerth, Alpha Engineering, Inc. (not present); Sister Mary Braling, of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary; Don Hynes, the owner's representative; and Jack Orchard, attorney for the Sisters of Holy Names. He recalled the Sisters had asked the team to design a project that balanced stewardship and economic purpose, that presented a small European village atmosphere, and that focused on the pedestrian. He explained the team had reduced the sizes of parking lots and located some parking underground. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 George Signory,Akrom Moisan Associated Architects, 6720 SW Macadam, Portland, Oregon, 97219,presented slides showing the proposed design. He explained the design team had studied European villages and found certain characteristics that they included in the project design, including window boxes, outdoor spaces that felt like "rooms," and "wall-like" landscaping between the village and the surrounding countryside. He confirmed the applicant planned to construct the Archive Building and improve the adjacent graveled parking lot first. He said the proposed tower and a stone sign on Highway 43 would identify the campus. He confirmed the applicant intended the commercial component to serve the project and the nearby neighborhood, and they did not want it to be a standard, highway-orientated commercial development. He said the commercial component would not be highly visible from the highway. He confirmed it would be the last piece of the project to be constructed at some unknown future time when market conditions changed. He said the CCRC housing would be the second phase of the project. In that phase a roadway would be extended to serve as an emergency access, as required in the ODPS approval. He indicated the applicant could agree to a suggested condition to relocate it. He said the applicant planned to complete all landscaping and make drainage changes associated with the CCRC housing phase in that phase. They would also install the soft path that was partially routed through the RP buffer, landscape an area they had contracted with the university to buffer, and install a sidewalk to connect the university to the project and help minimize highway traffic. He explained that the last phase of the project would be the commercial area. He clarified that the applicant proposed to time relocation of the highway drainage swale with this phase and that utility and surface improvements would be completed with the phase of construction they were to serve in order to match the applicant's costs and revenue. Mr. Signory then referred to Exhibit E-14 and pointed to a covered roadway attached to CCRC Building F (the existing Durocher building). He recalled that staff had suggested a lower cover, but the applicant wanted it to be high enough to accommodate a moving van. He said the Sisters believed it would provide a protected connection that would encourage visits between residents of different buildings, but they wanted to be able to decide how much and when to construct it, based on need and available funding. He pointed out that the exhibits showed how Buildings M and N might be expanded to add area and parking for an additional 2,700 sq. ft. of retail/commercial tenant space. He said the design of the expansion would reflect the character of the main building and would not significantly affect the appearance of the project from the highway. He referred to the landscape plan and pointed out the existing buffer was 50 feet deep at the front of the property (a condition of the first phase) and it was to be supplemented with additional plantings between the buildings and the highway. He anticipated that when the buffer matured it would effectively obscure the site from the highway. He requested that the commissioners modify the staff-recommended conditions of approval to approve the final landscaping plan at an earlier stage so that it would not be necessary for the applicant to modify a landscaping contract in order to obtain final City approval of the project. He indicated the applicant would agree to provide signage that would conform to the Sign Code. He asked that the applicant not be required to relocate the Highway 43 drainage swale until development of the office/commercial construction phase of the project. He explained that construction would not disturb the existing swale until that phase of work. He pointed out that the application explained the rationale for the height of the proposed tower. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 During questioning by the commissioners, Mr. Signory confirmed that the applicant had addressed most staff concerns in their latest plans, however, the issue of timing of relocation of the swale was still an issue. He said construction of a curb during the commercial phase of the project would necessitate the relocation and require landscape changes. He observed that it was logical to pair expense with income. Staff anticipated that relocation of the swale would require installation of under-street piping and that should be addressed in the current stage of construction. They advised that any part of the swale that was disturbed was to be compensated for, and that the Highway 43 swale was only for runoff from Highway 43 and any private drainage from the residential component was to be addressed in a private system. They advised such a plan needed to be worked out with the Engineering staff and they said they were confident that could be accomplished. When the commissioners asked about materials and colors, Mr. Signory presented an example of the type and color of stucco to be used on the Archive Building, Convent and CCRC buildings. He asked for flexibility to use synthetic stucco. He said the windows were to be bronze color, the CCRC roofs were to be composition singles in a color similar to that of the existing concrete tiles and there would be wood detailing on rails and flower boxes. He said the office/retail buildings would have concrete tile roofs and the exteriors would be a blend of brick that would provide a deeper range of color than the brickwork used on the new bus shelter. Their colonnades and base materials were to feature cast stone accents. He asked for flexibility to determine whether the blend of brick colors should be similar to or a little different that that seen on the Marylhurst University campus. He confirmed that all five frontage buildings would be brick and four in back of them would be stucco. Linda Barnes,Robertson Merryman Barnes Architects, 1231 NW Hoyt, Portland, Oregon, 97209, referred to Archive Building (Building P) elevations in Exhibit E-17. She stated that the building would feature slightly lighter color stucco and a tile roof. She said the building would step up toward taller buildings and would feature a large plaza and private research areas. She said the tower would identify the building. Mr. Poland clarified that the paving would be scored concrete. Ms. Binkley stressed that the design of the first building of the first phase (the Archives Building) was very important, but the drawings did not adequately show its dimensions and design details. Ms. Morales agreed with Ms. Binkley. Ms. Binkley suggested the applicant should return to the DRC with more specific illustrations of building details. She also questioned why the large central space had been designed with parking and a green island area instead of as a plaza. Mr. Poland explained the drawings the design team had submitted showed the dimensions and massing of the buildings and showed that the buildings would not overshadow Provincial House. He said that because European cities featured both large and small spaces, the team included this large space in the project. He explained the Sisters anticipated that area would periodically be closed to vehicle traffic for special events, such as an art fair. He pointed out the central green area that featured a formal row of trees also featured terraces that could be used as outdoor seating there during mild weather. He said the sidewalks in that area were at least 12 feet wide and the K and L Buildings would provide additional covered pedestrian area. He held that the team had included a significant amount of pedestrian area and minimized the amount of vehicle area in that central zone, and it satisfied the need for both parking and a City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 village square. Commissioners Binkley and Morales asked for more specific building details that would show how deep recesses were and the level of trim, and other architectural elements that would help the commissioners compare the new buildings to the old ones. Ms. Binkley observed the covered bridges appeared to be very flat and the cupolas appeared to be too high. She observed that it was hard to tell the scale of the buildings from the illustrations, because there were no people depicted in them. She indicated she appreciated the way the applicant had connected housing and landscaping and the position of the Archive Building. She indicated that she was concerned that the buildings were too far apart and the plan would discourage pedestrians from walking across the parking lot to visit other buildings. She observed the problem with strip malls was the long walk along the stores and the fact that parking was a primary feature there. She acknowledged that European cities did not have to accommodate as much required parking. She concluded the central parking and green area was not a good experience for a pedestrian, because it was too wide and parking took up too much of it. Mr. Poland stated that the main tower was the only component of the buildings that was over 45 feet. He cited LOC 50.22.015 that allowed general exceptions to the height limit for belfries, domes or similar projections. Ms. Binkley and Ms. Morales then found a reference that indicated the cupola was to be 10 feet lower than the main tower. He explained that the proposed number of parking spaces was a compromise between what the applicant's consultants recommended (four spaces per 1,000 sq ft) and the minimum required by the City. He said they had endeavored to ensure that parking was not a frontal piece in the development, and they had changed the ODPS configuration of two double-loaded parking aisles. He pointed out that pedestrians could cross the central square by walking around it or by crossing it via a central sidewalk and stopping in the central green space refuge. He held the design addressed the issue of parking as an impediment to pedestrians. Ms. Morales explained the type of details the DRC normally examined, such as the type of lighting on the buildings, downspouts, trim colors, electrical meters and mechanical equipment. She recalled the DRC often saw wall sections and sometimes models. Mr. Poland referred the commissioners to material descriptions in the application. He explained the applicant did not want to have a lot of lighting on buildings, and they had provided specifics of site lighting and sign lighting. He said the application materials showed roofs that were arranged to create wells that would hide all of the mechanical equipment. He said the application documents showed the trash enclosures and materials used on them. He said the applicant had provided working drawings to show the intent of the design. He offered to provide permanent drawings for the DRC to review at a future time. He asked them to approve the overall design the applicant had presented at the hearing. Ms. Morales cautioned him that any future changes from what was approved during the current review would have to be reviewed in the future. Ms. Binkley asked staff to advise the commissioners about how the DRC could approve the master plan and the general configuration, but keep the right to review the building design details later. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that the application included some details and material descriptions in Exhibits E-21-3 (Buildings M and N) and Exhibit E-40-6 (the Archive Building). He observed that the DRC had seen the same level of detail when they approved the first phase of the project, but in more recent applications they had asked for more detail. He advised that the commissioners could approve the project phasing plan and configuration on the condition that City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 additional building details were to be submitted for review in either a modification of the approval or in a separate land use application. Chair Tierney and Ms. Binkley reasoned that since the phases were to be accomplished over a number of years, it was reasonable to expect that some things would need to be changed after approval and the DRC would hear those requests in the future. Mr. Pishvaie asked the commissioners to identify the elements they were inclined to approve during the current hearing and the issues they desired to see addressed in a future review. He suggested that the DRC could grant conditional approval that would provide the applicant with a degree of certainly as to which components were being approved and what building details would need to be reviewed in the future. Mr. Boone advised that public notice of the next review should be the same as the notice for the current review, even though the process would not qualify as a new hearing. It would ensure that persons who might want to appeal the decision would be notified about the opportunity to see the detailed plans. The commissioners asked Mr. Poland to comment on the proposed conditions to add more evergreen tree and for a late-stage staff review of the density of the landscaping plan. He explained the landscaping was to be different in different part of the site and would feature mature Douglas fir trees in the natural backdrop to the project and more formal gardens and privacy screening in the residential area. He said the canopies of the deciduous tress were to be high enough to allow a pleasant internal vista for residents. Joyce Jackson, landscape designer, Mitchell Nelson Group, 2116 NW Wilson Street, Portland, Oregon, said the applicant intended to use deciduous trees in the parking lot to allow the sun to shine through in the winter. The internal evergreen screening was to be broadleaf evergreen shrubs and some medium sized conifers around the parking area that would not obscure views of pedestrians and views from residential unit windows. She advised that the most appropriate place for larger evergreen trees was in the wilderness area. Ms. Jacob clarified staff was not suggesting any specific locations for additional evergreens, other than around the trash enclosures, but that they wanted the applicant to provide some level of perpetual greenery besides the proposed hedges. She also clarified staff desired to have more specific plant spacing information for all plants so they could determine what the density of the vegetation would be at maturity when the applicant and staff discussed each area's landscaping needs. Mr. Hill explained that he could tell from the landscape plan that the applicant planned an appropriate mix of evergreen and deciduous vegetation that was appropriate for a European village and that created soft spaces and tree alleys. He said the proposed plants would provide variety and interest. He observed the plan showed the trash enclosures would be screened. He said the proposed low evergreen material around the parking areas and the internal deciduous trees would appropriately screen the streets and parking area, but provide good views that would be safer without dense evergreen trees. He said the larger evergreen trees were more appropriate around the perimeter of the project. He anticipated that people driving by on the highway would see the campus pop out at them through the natural Douglas fir tree forest. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 When Ms. Binkley asked what was to be in the tower, Mr. Poland answered that it was primarily a symbolic element that might hold some mechanical equipment. The design team said that the applicant's project would be similar to the historic Lake Forest Market Square outside of Chicago. Proponents Jack Caldwell, 2775 Holy Names Place, Marylhurst, Oregon, 97034, stated he resided in Mary's Woods. He reported that residents there were concerned that the City had not yet approved a better sign for Mary's Woods at Highway 43. He related that most residents looked forward to having a small shopping mall nearby so they would not have to drive to shopping and services. He asked the DRC to approve the sign and the Archive Building. He said he thought the rest of the plan was a good one and he recalled seeing commercial squares in Italy that were similar to the one proposed by the applicant. He asked residents of Mary's Woods in the audience to identify themselves with a show of hands. Carol Thomas, 17480 Holy Names Drive, #412, Marylhurst, Oregon, 97034, stated she was a contented resident of Mary's Woods and a volunteer for the Marketing Committee. She said the sign for Mary's Woods that was currently installed was an embarrassment to the residents and it was not visible enough to visitors who sometimes turned into Marylhurst University instead of Mary's Woods. She asked if the proposed entry sign could be installed as soon as possible. Staff clarified that the bottom sign illustrated on that page had been excluded from the application and the top sign was what they were currently proposing on Highway 43. They explained that although the applicant had discussed Sign Code requirements with staff, they had never applied for a sign permit, which staff could review and grant even before the project was constructed. Ms. Morales asked the applicant to describe the type of stone to be used on the stone wall on page 85 of the staff report. Mr. Poland explained it would be real Oregon basalt. Opponents None. Neither for nor against None. Rebuttal None. No one requested that the record be held open for submission of additional written testimony or evidence. Chair Tierney then closed the public hearing. Mr. Poland related that the applicants would prefer to leave the meeting with as much certainty as the DRC could offer, and then they would come back at a later time with additional building details. He said they had found they City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 could work with staff to resolve issues and they intended to resolve all issues before a building permit was issued. He asked the DRC to approve the overall site layout, the building layout, the density of use, the character of the buildings, the landscape plan and as many other elements as possible. He added that the applicant might even consider waiving the 120-day rule. The applicant then waived their right to request additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Chair Tierney then announced a five-minute break in the hearing and then reconvened the meeting and opened deliberations. Deliberations Staff confirmed for the commissioners that their findings would allow a covered walkway at the option of the owner and that the fmdings did not support expansion of Buildings M and N without another modification request review. They also clarified that when they advised the applicant that some of the proposed signage did not meet Code requirements, the applicant had submitted additional material that was not included in the hearing document package. They further clarified that the proposed sign for the Highway 43 entrance to Holy Names Drive met the Code. Chair Tierney clarified that the DRC would not approve any signs that did not comply with the Code. When the commissioners discussed the request for a variance for the main tower, Ms. Binkley indicated she believed that the proposed height was appropriate for a campus site, and it needed to be a highly visible element of the project. She also indicated that she thought the tower on the Archive Building was too small and not sufficiently visible and the cupolas were so high that they visually competed with the main tower. She opined that the scale of the proposed bridges did not resemble Italian bridges and they seemed to visually compete with the housing units. Chair Tierney observed a consensus to approve the tower height variance. The commissioners generally agreed to an extension of the phasing schedule for another five years because they saw it as an economic necessity. They indicated that they would agree to eliminate Open Space E, because it had been found that it no longer contained a wetland. They indicated that they would agree to relocation of commercial and residential land uses as laid out by the applicant and they acknowledged that the proportionality of each of those components might need to be changed over time. They indicated they would agree to incorporate the area of the Archive Building into the allocation for commercial use, because the resulting total space would be less than the ODPS approval allowed. When they considered the recommended condition to revise street design between Buildings F and G staff confirmed that would not affect the locations of the buildings. They indicated that the reason for separating the pedestrian and bicycle portions of the accessway had been adequately explained. Mr. Hill observed that removal of four trees along the south side of Holy Names Drive would likely be necessary to accommodate driveways. During their discussion, the commissioners generally indicated they could agree to the proposed size of buildings, but that there were insufficient building design details provided by the applicant to show how designs would look like. Mr. Pishvaie pointed out that the recommended condition of approval A(2)(c)(ii) asked for additional design details for certain components of certain buildings. However, he said he heard the commissioners saying they wanted to see more City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 design details for all of the buildings, including "building sections" and "wall sections." He suggested a new Condition "(d)" that would replace (c)(ii) and require the applicant to submit those details for a review by the DRC prior to issuance of a building permit, whenever that was to take place. The consensus was to follow Mr. Pishvaie's recommendation. Mr. Boone advised that public notice of the future review would be the same as it was for the modification of the ODPS. Mr. Pishvaie suggested that recommended Condition(c) be changed to require the applicant to submit a final site plan that complied with the plans that were approved during the current review. He said staff would prepare and email a complete set of findings to the applicant and the commissioners. When the DRC considered the recommended condition to provide additional evergreens, Mr. Hill advised them that the landscape plan showed an appropriate mix of evergreens and deciduous trees and that would provide a safer environment on the site. He observed the recommended condition that the trash enclosures to be screened. He said the proposed landscape plan would reflect the character of the project. He explained that the proposed deciduous trees would feature a high enough canopy to allow good views for residents and the lower evergreens near the parking areas would screen cars while allowing safe views for pedestrians walking there. He pointed out there was a significant amount of evergreen material in the tree grove. Chair Tierney observed a consensus to delete the recommended condition for additional evergreens. The commissioners then considered recommended Condition A(2)(e)(vii) to revise the final landscape plan to specify plant spacing for all plants and another recommended Condition A(2)(e)(x), to allow the staff to require additional plants if the final landscape installation showed areas of vegetation that were too thin. Mr. Pishvaie suggested that that latter condition could be eliminated,because the staff could evaluate the landscape plan after it showed plant spacing. When the commissioners considered when the drainage swale should be relocated, staff suggested that the DRC keep recommended Condition E(1). Mr. Pishvaie explained that staff would include a finding that if the City Engineer found the swale was impacted in an earlier phase of construction, he would determine what amount of improvement was to be provided. Mr. Fagelman recalled reading about problems - such as mold— found in certain kinds of stucco applications. Chair Tierney invited the applicant to respond. Mr. Poland clarified that the applicant would not use a system of applying foam insulation behind a thin acrylic stucco finish, because it exhibited condensation problems and the applicant's insurer would not let them use it. He said they would use a system featuring standard cement tissue stucco with an acrylic finish coat that was not known to have a mold problem. Chair Tierney then invited the public to comment on the use of stucco. There was no response. He then observed that the decision the commissioners were about to make that evening would not allow expansion of Buildings M and N. The commissioners clarified that if they approved the Archive Building they were not approving the proposed materials for that building and those materials would be reviewed in a later review. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003 Chair Tierney then asked the applicant to comment on the commissioners' discussion of revised conditions of approval. Mr. Poland asked for clarification as to which elements of detail that had not been provided in the applicant's presentation were to be provided in the future. The commissioners explained they did not want the project to resemble a "Courtyard Inn," and that recommended Condition A(2)(c)(ii) was to become Condition A(2)(d) to require the applicant to submit additional design details on elements such as balcony railings, towers, cupolas, pedestrian bridge openings, windows, glass type, material used on the buildings, column, cornice and fascia details, retaining walls, stairs, and building and wall sections on all buildings and details of the east sides of Buildings M and N. They clarified that details for wood railings should describe the size and type of wood. When Mr. Poland related that the owner's representative was asking the DRC to list all of the conditions to be changed, Mr. Boone advised the comment period was an opportunity for the applicant to comment on all of the proposed conditions, but a"laundry list" of conditions was not necessary that evening. Chair Tierney directed staff to prepare a list and send it to the commissioners so they could examine it to ensure it reflected what had been discussed and determined at the hearing. He then summarized that they had agreed to remove the condition for additional evergreens and to remove the condition for a final landscape review after final landscape installation was approved by the applicant's landscape architect. He observed the most significant change was to require the applicant to come back for a review of building design details on a building-by-building basis. He commented that during his service on the DRC that body had never approved a design proposal with as sparse details as were provided with this application. He again invited the applicant to comment and Mr. Poland indicated that they had no additional comment. Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 03-0016 subject to the conditions in the staff report, modified as discussed during deliberations. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Ostly, Ms. Binkley, Ms. Morales, Ms. Stadnik, Mr. Fagelman, Mr. Hill and Chair Tierney voting yes. There were no votes against. Chair Tierney announced the final vote on the findings and order was to take place on October 20, 2003. He directed staff to prepare written revised findings for the applicant and the commissioners to examine. V. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Bryant Road Planned Development The Commissioners agreed to re-open the hearing of an application for a Planned Development on Bryant Road after staff reported that the applicant proposed to submit a revised plan that would meet the required side yard setback for all lots without reducing the number of lots from nine lots to eight lots, as the DRC had anticipated in their decision. VI. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Senior Secretary L\dre\minutes\09-29-03 draft.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 13 of 13 Minutes of September 29, 2003