Approved Minutes - 2003-12-01 cit LAKE US
-------„\\
City of Lake Oswego
riii Development Review Commission Minutes
December 1, 2003
ORk C30$
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of December
1, 2003 to order at 6:30 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, Gary Fagelman and Andrew Hill. Commissioner Krytsyna Stadnik was
excused.
Staff present included Hamid Pishva ie, Development Review Manager; Elizabeth
Jacob, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Jean Hall,
Administrative Support III.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Ostly moved to approve the Minutes of October 6. 2003. Ms. Binkley seconded
the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly, Binkley, Morales, Hill, Fagelman
and Chair Tierney voting yes. Ms. Stadnik was not present. There were no votes
against.
Mr. Hill moved to approve the Minutes of October 20. 2003. Ms.Morales seconded
the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly, Binkley, Morales, Hill, Fagelman
and Chair Tierney voting yes. Ms. Stadnik was not present. There were no votes
against.
IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
LU 03-0015, a request by Ethel Schaubel
Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 03-0015-1511 Findings, Conclusions and Order.
Mr. Fagelman seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly,
Fagelman and chair Tierney voting yes. Ms. Morales votes against. Ms. Binkley and
Mr. Hill abstained from the vote. Ms. Stadnik was not present.
City of Lake Oswego Page 1 of 11
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003
LU 03-0045, a request by John Pinson
Ms.Binkley moved to approve LU 03-0045-1522,Findings, Conclusions and
Order. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly,
Binkley, Morales, and Chair Tierney voting yes. Commissioners Hill and Fagelman
abstained from the vote. Ms. Stadnik was not present. There were no votes against.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
LU 03-0044, a request by Welkin Engineering for approval of the following:
1. A two-parcel minor partition of a 1.51-acre site, with access from Egan Way, parcel
1 will be approximately 21,142 square feet and Parcel 2 will be approximately
44,218 square feet.
2. Approval to remove approximately 63 trees to accommodate development.
The site is located at Egan Way, Tax Lot 100 of Tax Map 21E 04CC. The staff
coordinator is Debra Andreades, Associate Planner.
Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and
time limit. 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.
[BREAK IN RECORDING]
Opponents
Barry Cadish, 2064 Wembley Place,Lake Oswego, 97034.
Charley Rowlans, 2032 Wembley Place, Lake Oswego, 97034.
Mr. Fagelman moved to approve LU 03-0044 subject to the conditions
recommended by staff. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passedwith
Commissioners Ostly, Binkley and Fagelman voting yes. Ms. Morales and Chair
Tierney voted against. Mr. Hill abstained from the vote. Ms. Stadnik was not present.
Chair Tierney then announced the final vote would take place on December 15, 2003.
LU 03-0036, a request by Centerpointe Shops, LLC, for approval of the following:
• Modification to an approved Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS), to
modify the approved land use for the site from a restaurant to retail use.
• Approval of a Design review Permit to construct three one-story retail buildings.
City of Lake Oswego Page 2 of 11
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003
• Approval of a Class 2 variance to the height restriction for structures placed closer
than 60 feet to the property line of a lot which carries a residential zone designation.
• Approval to remove six trees to accommodate the project.
The property is located at 8 Centerpointe Drive, Tax Lot 1101 of Tax Map 21E 05. The
staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Associate Planner. This project was tentatively
denied on November 3, 2003. The Commission has agreed to re-open the public
hearing in order to continue its deliberation on the Development Review, Variance and
Tree Removal Permit as originally requested. No additional public testimony will be
allowed at this hearing, because the record had already been closed and the Commission
had received testimony from the citizens on the Development Review, Variance and
Tree Removal issues at it's hearing on November 3, 2003.
Deliberation
Ms. Binkley stated that the back wall of the proposed building along Kruse Oaks Blvd.
was too long at close to 170 feet.
Mr. Fagelman stated he would have though the neighborhood facing Kruse Oaks Blvd.
would want the glass to face the road!
Mr. Hill said the neighborhood does not want to see storage showing through the
windows.
Ms. Morales said it was necessary to break the scale of back wall of the buildings. The
neighborhood had a lot of concern that this would look like what they saw at a nearby
shopping site where you can see boxes in the window from the street. A window might
not necessarily solve the problem of the long wall. There is another way to design the
project so the buildings had more fronts and more pedestrian accessibility on all sides.
Mr. Fagelman asked why couldn't the applicant stagger the buildings?
Ms. Morales said we as the Commission cannot design the site, but we need to consider
the transition to the neighborhood. She recalled the Commissioners had earlier leant
toward denial due to the building design issues.
Ms. Binkley said the problem is the building is located on a major corner, and it is not a
corner building because it has its back onto it. The back looks like a wall and it is 20
feet in the air off of Kruse Way where it starts. As a gateway leaving the City, it is not
appropriate. It needs to lighten up, be welcoming from all sides, need to be more
pedestrian accessible! We could find that the retail use is ok here, but the buildings
can't have their back onto the streets.
Mr. Tierney said both buildings A and B?
Ms. Binkley said yes.
City of Lake Oswego Page 3 of 11
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003
Mr. Hill asked if the back of the buildings is the problem and the front and sides are ok?
Ms. Binkley responded no. The Chili's Restaurant is friendlier and more accessible and
a nicer image in some ways than the current project. It is partially due to the materials;
the blockiness of it, the height, and the way the applicant has dealt with the storefronts
is very sharp. It does not necessarily need to be like Westlake Shopping Village, but
that project is very accessible, visually melts into the neighborhood and has a better
scale.
Ms. Morales said maybe the architect can look at the way where the common wall is
between possible tenant spaces — if it is two sided you may not have windows with
storage — and maybe that can be a condition that boxes cannot be stored up against the
windows.
Mr. Fagelman observed that boxes condition is commonly used by landlords.
Ms. Binkley noted that at Petco, where windows are blocked by storage, a blank wall is
created on State Street.
Mr. Tierney observed a consensus that the building design needed improvement.
Ms. Morales asked if the Commission needed to draft conditions or make findings for
denial?
Mr. Boone responded that the applicant would like to have an opportunity to present
more drawings and a continuance may be more appropriate.
Mr. Fagelman agreed that is the best way to go.
Mr. Tierney concurred. He invited the applicant to comment on the issues as discussed
by the Commission.
Mr. Boone suggested that the applicant should deal with the use issue first and then
...there was a staff recommended condition of approval that the uses be limited to
specialty retail/service that promote the policies of Goal 9 Policy 20 of the
Comprehensive Plan, along with a review process for determining similar uses to those
that are listed in the attachments. The applicant should comment on use and
Commission's decision on use and then address design issues.
Mr. Joe Angel confirmed and explained what the landscaping plan would look like at
maturity. He pointed out that many trees were mature existing trees and some of them
would be transplanted from the parking lot to the back of the building; therefore, some
of the landscaping would be mature trees to start with.
City of Lake Oswego Page 4 of 11
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003
Ms. Dana Krewcheck, Land Use Counsel for Centerpointe LLC, stated that the
applicants testified that the list of excluded uses proposed by staff was acceptable and
similar use determination analogy they made is also acceptable. She continued they
desire an opportunity to come back later to address design issues, and asked the
Commission to continue the hearing. They also asked the Commission for guidance as
to how to design the project. They reminded the Commission that they shared a
driveway that goes into Chili's, so there are limitations to how the buildings can be
oriented.
Ms. Katy Durand said they originally designed the project with windows in the back,
but that wasn't acceptable to the neighborhood, so we want to hear from the
Commission what would be an acceptable building design on Kruse Oaks.
DESIGN ISSUE COMMENTS BY THE COMMISSION
Ms. Morales started by saying that the overall design should take into consideration the
viewpoint of drivers going west looking up at the corner. Then look at how the project
transitions to the neighborhood. The neighborhood input was based on direct window
viewing issue (really the back of the building). Maybe openings, pedestrian walkways,
shorter walls, or something that reads that there are many sides to the buildings rather
than just a front that faces the parking lot and a back that faces the neighborhood
achieves that. In other words, the design needs to take a 3 dimensional approach.
Ms. Morales suggested that the applicant might break down the scale of the building, so
that the building is not a straight box. The original plan for this site was a more square
building pad as a restaurant use. That seemed to be more pleasing, because it balanced
with Chili's.
Ms. Binkley observed that the overhangs contribute to the boxiness. They just project
from the building and there is nothing down at the level of pedestrian scale that helps
cull that line to the building. It is very tall. To break up the 175 foot long building into
a couple of components would help. It is a harsh building and its character is not much
different from the US Bank building across the street. This project has to be special and
it has to have some character that none of the other buildings have. But it has to relate
to them. She acknowledged that was a difficult challenge.
Ms. Ostly discussed the bulk of the buildings, the length of the wall, the height of the
wall and the fact that its concrete block is oppressive for an orientation to a residential
neighborhood, and it does not welcome people into the project. She observed that there
should be some way to put people through— open up a passageway, install a little
garden walkway, somehow break up the length of that wall. Maybe visually with a
recess and sitting area and trees, so it is not just a solid wall that alienates people.
Maybe a little garden courtyard in there, then tie the corner element to that, or find some
way to make it more inviting and interesting.
City of Lake Oswego Page 5 of 11
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003
Mr. Fagelman said as a leasing person be understood what the applicant was trying to
do. You see this a lot in the south, but there buildings are generally staggered
somewhat to avoid having a lot of glass facing the residential area. They would stagger
the bays so it would not look like a giant monolithic wall. That might work on Building
A at least. It might even help the leasability of it. It would be nice if Building B could
have some glass or something to make it more friendly facing Centerpointe Drive and
Kruse Way. Landlords can deal with the issue of storage against windows, but make it
a more friendly use.
Ms. Hill noted that there's are a great rendering on the coversheet. It might help when
you come into Kruse Way and the Lake Oswego sign is on the right hand side there, if
the applicant took a shot from that Lake Oswego sign looking over at the proposed
buildings and showed the landscape and the side of that building. And showed some
kind of image that will show the landscape and the building together, because this
perspective doesn't show that. And then another perspective coming out of the City
along Kruse Way and looking right toward the signs on the corner and along the
backside of the building. That would help a lot with the visual image of the project. He
noted that incense cedar is one of the most compact screening evergreen trees one can
get and that is what is shown along the back of the buildings. The windows on the
south end of Building A — square windows in the top— something like that along the top
of the building might help break it up. He suggested that a better perspectives from the
angles he described would help a lot, because the proposed plant pallet shows the
applicant plans to use 85% evergreen material of all sizes. The perspective shown
doesn't really represent what the project would actually look like.
Mr. Tierney asked what the date of the next hearing would be?
Mr. Pishvaie responded the next hearing date available is January 21, 2004.
Chair Tierney moved to reconsider the DRC's previous decision to approve the
modifications to the Centerpointe ODPS and to continue the hearing to January
21, 2004. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly,
Binkley, Morales, Hill and Fagelman and Chair Tierney voting yes. Ms. Stadnik was
not present. There were no votes against.
LU 03-0016, a request by Sister of the 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 Subarea 2 of Mary's
Woods ODPS.
3. Two Class 2 Variances
4. The removal of four trees along the south side of Holy Names Drive.
The property 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. This project
City of Lake Oswego Page 6 of 11
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003
was tentatively approved on September 29, 2003. The DRC has agreed to re-open the
public hearing in order to receive additional information on the building design issue
only.
Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and
time limit. 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.
Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner,presented the staff report (dated September 19,
2003) and the Staff Report Addendum (dated November 21, 2003). She recalled the
commissioners had agreed to reopen the hearing to hear additional information related
to design issues. She pointed out the applicant had submitted additional exhibits and
staff had revised the recommended conditions of approval.
Applicant
Steve Poland, Ankrom Moisan, 6720 SW Macadam, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon,
97219, reported that the applicant had examined the conditions recommended by staff
and did not object to them. He explained that the design team would discuss additional
building details and show owners' options for a connection between buildings. He
pointed out that Exhibit E45-3 illustrated how the applicant planned to satisfy the
condition for fire access.
Nancy Merryman,Robertson Merryman Barnes Architects, Inc., 1231 NW Hoyt,
#403, Portland, Oregon, 97203, presented the details of the Archive Building (Exhibits
E51 —E55). She showed examples of the colors and materials to be used. She noted
that the three-foot-high rooftop mechanical units would be out of view, because they
were screened by walls, roofs and trees. She pointed out the bike parking area. She
explained that the design team had found that the proposed tower dimensions of 8' 8"
wide and 34' tall were the most appropriate proportions for a landmark within the
project. She said there would be a light in the tower and uplighting around it, but most
of the building would feature down lighting (Exhibit E35).
George Signori,Ankrom Moisan, 6720 SW Macadam, Suite 100,Portland,
Oregon., 97219, presented the details of the cupola and connector bridge (E48) in the
Office Campus area. He showed samples of the brick and other materials to be used on
the Office Campus buildings. He pointed out the illustration ofthe details of the trash
enclosure in Exhibit E50-2. He pointed out the tower details in Exhibit E50-3 and
clarified that the recess in the tower wall was six inches deep. He pointed out the wall
section in Exhibit E50-4 showed metal cornices over stonework. He then discussed the
details of the CCRC buildings in Exhibits E48 and E49. He pointed out the drawings
illustrated a typical section that was repeated throughout all four CCRC buildings. He
showed samples of the materials to be used. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that relief was
to be achieved mainly through recesses in the stucco over the windows and the window
City of Lake Oswego Page 7 of 11
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003
dividers were spacers projecting from the glass on both sides. He also explained that
residents preferred easily operable casement windows. He anticipated the residents
would be responsible for maintaining the flower boxes. He explained for Ms. Binkley
that the design of the crossing was spare and simple so it would not compete with the
other more detailed buildings, (Exhibit E 49-3).
Proponents
None.
Opponents
None.
Neither for nor Against
None.
The applicant waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written
argument. Chair Tierney closed the public hearing and opened deliberations.
Deliberations
Ms. Binkley observed that the brick detailing on the bridge connection would
complement the brick seen on other brick buildings in the area, and the window boxes
and balconies helped make the design more interesting. However, she found the design
was still too stark. Ms. Morales agreed. She and Ms. Binkley advised that the thin
stucco walls showed no depth and aesthetically cheapened the surrounding buildings.
They pointed out that the windows on the tower were not recessed, but at surface level.
They suggested a shadow line might make the walls look thicker. They suggested a
condition that the windows were to be recessed at least six inches. Chair Tierney
invited the applicant to comment on the new condition. Mr. Poland stated that the
applicant did not object to the new condition.
Ms. Binkley moved to approve LU 03-0036 with an additional condition to recess
windows in the bridge. Mr. Fagelman seconded the motion and it passed with
Commissioner Ostly, Binkley, Morales, Hill and Fagelman and Chair Tierney voting
yes. Ms. Stadnik was not present. There were no votes against. Chair Tierney
announced the final vote would take place on December 15, 2003.
LU 03-0009, a request by Avamere Lake Oswego, LLC, for approval of a modification
of LU 00-0071, a 56-unit Alzheimer's Senior Care Facility, as follows:
City of Lake Oswego Page 8 of 11
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003
• Modification of Condition of Approval F(4), which required the project to begin
construction within two years of the date of approval. The applicant requests a
three-year extension of the original approval.
• Reconfiguration of the access points, on-site circulation, parking and changes to the
building design.
• Reconfiguration of the floor plan to allow provision for skilled nursing services,
reducing the project density from 56 to 51 units.
• Removal of 160 trees. The original approval authorized removal of 170 trees.
The property is located at 4550 Carman Drive, Tax Lots 5000, 5090 of Tax Map 21E
08BB. The staff coordinator is Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner. The hearing was
continued from November 3, 2003.
Chair Tierney opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and
time limits. He asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site
visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated
future business relationships with the project or the applicant. None of the
commissioners present reported a conflict of interest. No one present challenged any
commissioner's right to hear the application.
Elizabeth Jacob, Associate Planner,presented the staff report(dated November 21,
2003). She reported that the applicant sought a modification of a previous approval.
She advised that although the site had been rezoned in 2000 specifically for senior care
housing that included a skilled nursing component; however, the code provisions related
to residential care had subsequently been changed. She pointed out the matrix on page
6 of the staff report showed differences between what was previously approved and
what was currently proposed. She summarized that the square footage had not changed
significantly, the building would be several feet lower and the roof pitch steeper, access
points had changed, the parking had been reduced by five spaces, the roof was to be
slate-look shingles instead of slate, and the tower roof was to be copper-painted material
instead of copper. She advised that staff had found that Special Use Housing and
Residential Care Housing requirements had been satisfied. She recommended that the
cupola should be required to be of proportionally complimentary scale to the building
and tower. She said the current landscape plan did not show sufficient mitigation of
removed trees, which were to be mitigated on one-for one basis. She said staff also
recommended additional landscaping along the retaining wall and along the sidewalk
along Carman Drive. She observed that the parking layout showed that vehicles could
park right up against the sidewalk. She advised that although the Code required a
seven-foot wide sidewalk along Carman Drive, the applicant wanted to narrow it to five
feet in an area between the two driveways in order to avoid some trees. She pointed out
that Exhibit El 9 showed the entry sign was part of a retaining wall. She recommended
approval of the application subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. During
questioning by the commissioners, she explained the recommended condition to revise
the cupola size stemmed from staff observation that the overhang was too great.
City of Lake Oswego Page 9 of 11
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003
Applicant
Doug Campbell, Campbell Planning Development Services, 1881 SW Naito
Parkway, Portland, Oregon, 97201, testified on behalf of Avamere Lake Oswego,
LLC. He announced the applicant's architect was now Dan Edwards, LRS, 1121 SW
Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon, 97205. Mr. Campbell explained the need for
modification was due to changes in the market that called for a mixed facility that
included a nursing care component. He said the current proposal stayed within the
originally approved building footprint. He said the applicant asked for an extension of
time to complete the project because they needed additional time to obtain financing
and permits. He said that although the project would now feature a 20-unit skilled
nursing component and 31 Alzheimer's units, the total number of units and square
footage had been reduced. He said the front entrance and access had been changed. He
explained there was to be more front landscaping and a main entrance on the north side
and the service and employee access were to be on the south (lower) side. He added
that the new plan improved protection of existing trees and saved more trees by
relocating the detention pond.
[BREAK IN RECORDING]
Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 03-0009, subject to the conditions recommended
by staff, amended to clarify that the cupola size or its eave overhang was to be
revised to a proportional complimentary scale to the building and adjacent tower.
Ms.Morales seconded the motion and it passed with Commissioners Ostly, Binkley,
Morales, Hill and Fagelman and Chair Tierney voting yes. Ms. Stadnik was not
present. There were no votes against. Chair Tierney then announced the final vote was
to be held on December 15, 2003.
LU 03-0039, a request by J.J. Buley, for approval of the following:
• A 3-parcel minor land partition. Parcel 1 will be approximately 20,400 square feet;
parcel 2 will be approximately 15,080 square feet; and Parcel 3 will be
approximately 21,000 square feet.
• A 5-foot Class 1 Variance to the required 25-foot front yard setback on each parcel,
for a total of three variances.
• Approval to remove approximately 95 t5rees to accommodate development
The property is located at Green Bluff Drive, south of Glenmorrie Drive (Tax Lot 700
of Tax Map 21E 14BC). The staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Associate Planner.
Continued to January 21, 2004.
LU 03-0043, a request by Kornerstone Construction for approval of the following:
City of Lake Oswego Page 10 of 1 1
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003
1. A 4-lot detached single family residential Planned Development
2. Approval to remove approximately 11 trees to accommodate the project.
The property is located at 6003 Washington Court, Tax Lot 11'200 of Tax Map 21E
07CD. The staff coordinator is Paul Espe, Associate Planner.
Continued to December 15, 2003.
VI. GENERAL PLANNING
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business for the DRC, Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at
10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jean Hall
Senior Secretary
L:/dre/minutes/12-01-03 draft.doc
City of Lake Oswego Page 11 of 11
Development Review Commission Minutes of December 1,2003