Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2014-11-03Approved CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Development Review Commission Minutes Monday, November 3, 2014 Vice -Chair Brent Ahrend called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 380 A Avenue. Members present: Vice -Chair Brent Ahrend, Gregg Creighton, Ann Johnson, Kelly Melendez, David Poulson and Paden Prichard. Staff present: Hamid Pishvaie, Assistant Planning Director; Johanna Hastay, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Assistant City Attorney; and Cate Schneider, City Recorder. MINUTES Ms. Melendez moved to approve the Minutes of May 5, 2014. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 4:0:2. Mr. Creighton and Mr. Prichard abstained Mr. Poulson moved to approve the Minutes of May 19, 2014. Ms. Melendez seconded the motion and it passed 4:0:2. Mr. Creighton and Mr. Prichard abstained Mr. Poulson moved to approve the Minutes of August 4, 2014. Ms. Melendez seconded the motion and it passed 4:0:2. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Prichard abstained. FINDINGS LU 13-0020: A request by Brian and Linda Kitchen for approval of a modification of an approved Development Review Permit (LU 99-0012) to construct a new single family dwelling. The applicants also are requesting approval to remove 11 trees. Location of Property: 211 Furnace Street (Tax Lot 101 of Tax Map 21 E11 BC). Ms. Melendez moved to approve LU 13-0020-1858 Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. PUBLIC HEARING LU 14-0047: A request by George Passadore for approval for a modification of an approved Development Review Permit (DR 14-76) in order to complete an exterior remodel of an existing apartment complex. Location of Property: 12375 Mt. Jefferson Terrace (Tax Lot 2901 of Tax Map 21 E05BA). Mr. Ahrend opened the public hearing. Mr. Boone outlined the applicable criteria and procedure. Each of the Commissioners related her/his business/employment. Ms. Melendez and Mr. Ahrend each reported making a site visit. Staff Report Ms. Hastay had provided the October 24, 2014 staff report. She reported that the applicant proposed to update the outdated facades of the buildings in the Ridge at Mountain Park apartment complex by changing the existing industrial gray colors and materials to a mix of siding materials and colors and, where feasible, adding small new entryway expansions or gabled roof elements. The Mountain Park Architectural Committee had approved the design pending the City's approval. Staff found the application was in compliance with the dimensional standards in place for the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of November 3, 2014 Page 1 of 4 Mountain Park PUD. She advised that the two development standards that were applicable to the proposed changes related to Building Design and Drainage. Staff found the proposed modifications were complementary to the overall design and surrounding development with a condition of approval clarifying that orientation of slats in the entryway railings was to be horizontal. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. Questions of staff During the questioning period Ms. Hastay clarified that some of the free-standing carports had at least one side wall. Those walls would be updated to horizontal lap siding. She confirmed she had noticed that there were more gable roofs shown in the elevations than were shown on the site plan and the applicant could discuss it. She detailed texture/color changes related to fagade articulation changes. Staff discussed that the amount of net new impervious area draining from roofs was well under the Engineering Department's 6,060 -square foot threshold to requiring a stormwater quality treatment facility. They noted the related condition of approval mentioned in the staff report that one option could be a stormwater quality manhole. Staff clarified that the decks that were proposed to be removed were being removed so the buildings did not present a hotel -like appearance. They were not required for fire egress and the residents still had balcony area on the other side. Staff confirmed the hearing notice indicated where people could view the related information. Applicant Steven Routen, Steven Routen Architects, LLC, 75200 Clatskanie Valley Dr., Clatskanie, Oregon, represented the applicant. He indicated he had been asked to update the buildings' skin, which was uniform and unattractive and had suffered from years of deferred maintenance; deal with water intrusion issues; and create an appropriate focus for the buildings. He proposed to change the focus to the front elevation entrances. He referred to the Color and Materials slide and discussed the details that created a lodge -like look. He explained the orientation of the entry railing slats was supposed to be in contrast with the vertical slats used on the connecting egress balcony railings. He explained how he had tried to create interest in the building skin and break up the massing using colors and strong trim details. He had consulted the City's Plans Examiner and they agreed the Oregon Structural Specialty Code called for two separate means of egress from the third floor but egress balconies were not required on the second floor. There would still be private balconies on the other side of the building. Mr. Routen discussed that the heavily treed landscaping would be left much as it was now, except that the applicant would remove some birch trees that shadowed the entrances. Ms. Hastay clarified tree removal was not proposed in this application. The applicant could apply for an invasive tree removal permit after approval. Mr. Routen said no additional hardscaping was proposed and they were not adding impervious area as the new roofs over the entrances were all over existing sidewalks. The architect discussed his criteria for the type of entry structure. He noted that if an important tree would have to be removed to construct the new entry they would drop the entry. If a tree was too close to a carport he did not put one in that location for fire safety reasons. If an entry was tucked behind a series of trees where no one would ever experience the design he chose not to put one in that location. An example of that was that there were no entrances on Building 1. In locations where he felt it was important to break up a long roofline and he could not go all the way to grade due to carports he designed dormers to call attention the entrances. He clarified that the Site Plan identified each of those conditions/locations/types and it was possible that he had not accurately drawn every elevation as represented on the Site Plan. However, the Site Plan was what governed what they would actually be building. Something would be done to all of the buildings except for Buildings 1, 2 and 9. Ms. Hastay asked him to clarify what the roof element for the dormer would look like. He referred to Exhibit E-5. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of November 3, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Routen clarified that the freestanding carports featured a back storage wall. He would make it less obvious by using painted lap siding. Because the site was concealed from offsite view by the tree canopy he had paid a lot of attention to detailing of gables, roofscapes, and chimneys that people could see from off site. He detailed the sizes, spacing and neutral tone of the railings and that the new garage doors would be steel with an interesting vertical pattern, painted a neutral color. Questions of Applicant Mr. Routen was asked to detail which railings would have vertical slats and which would have horizontal slats. He explained he designed horizontal slats at the entryways to make them more unique and used vertical rails for the bridges/balconies. He noticed that he had not detailed them correctly on some elevations. He clarified that the site plan showed that some buildings were getting entryways; others were getting dormers; and three buildings (1, 2 and 9) were not getting either one. He was asked to discuss specific buildings and detail where and why he would use a full entrance structure or a roof form/dormer. He and the Commissioners discussed the type, finish and overlap of siding and depth of overhang in different areas. He clarified the colors of specific locations and features when asked about them; and clarified that all the color changes were made at inside, not outside, corners. He clarified the applicant was not proposing to add any windows to the project. He clarified the proposal met the requirements for emergency egress because of the window sizes and because the required second exit on a third floor was the emergency egress balcony. They were not required to have that kind of balcony on the second story so they eliminated it. Public Testimony None. Deliberations The applicant waived their right to hold the record open for a final written argument. Vice -Chair Ahrend opened deliberations. Mr. Ahrend remarked on the confusion related to the documents not being consistent. Ms. Hastay advised that the Commission could refer to the recommended conditions of approval which said the Site Plan was the controlling document and required that the building elevations had to substantially comply with the Site Plan. She noted Mr. Routen had clarified that he would have horizontal slats only in the new entryways - which were from the gable roof form all the way down — and he would have vertical slats in the balconies. Mr. Ahrend questioned whether there was actually a need for the condition related to treating stormwater runoff. Mr. Boone advised Drainage standards were not really land use standards and the Commission's role was to determine whether the code requirement was met that called for the City Engineer to review the matter and include recommendations in the conditions of approval. He suggested the Commission could refer this back to the City Engineer for re-evaluation. If she determined the condition was not appropriate because the amount of runoff was not great the Commission could drop the condition when they voted on the findings. Ms. Melendez discussed that she found the red/rust trim detail a little jarring, but otherwise the applicant had done a great job updating the site. Mr. Prichard expressed concerns about egress from bedrooms that were so far off the ground even though they met the Code. Mr. Boone advised the Building official would review that during the building permitting phase. Ms. Johnson moved to approve LU 14-0047 subject to the staff recommended conditions. Mr. Creighton seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. The final vote on the findings was scheduled on November 17, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of November 3, 2014 Page 3 of 4 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR The Commissioners generally agreed to postpone elections until after the four soon -to -be -open positions were refilled. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS Staff discussed the organization and timing of an upcoming hearing packet. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business Vice -Chair Ahrend adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Reynolds /s/ Janice Reynolds Administrative Support City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes of November 3, 2014 Page 4 of 4