Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2006-02-22I. CALL TO ORDER City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes February 22, 2006 Chair Bill Tierney called the Development Review Commission meeting of February 22, 2006, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. IL ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Chair Tierney, were Vice Chair Sheila Ostly, *Nan Binkley, Bob Needham, Krytsyna Stadnik and Halliday Meisburger. Staff present included Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager; Debra Andreades, Associate Planner; Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner; Paul Espe, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support III. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (None) IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER *Commissioner Binkley joined the meeting. LU 05-0046, a request by Renaissance Ventures, LLC. The staff reported that the applicant had submitted a testimony sheet, Chair Tierney observed the hearing was closed, so no additional testimony could be heard. Ms. Ostly moved to approve LU 05-0045-1599, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Ms. Binkley abstained. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 05-0082, a request by Oswego Pioneer Cemetery for approval of the following; ■ A Conditional Use Permit to move an existing 1,200 sq. ft. structure to the site for use as a caretaker's residence. ■ A Development Review Permit to site the structure on the cemetery property. ■ Construction of a 13 -space parking lot. The property is located at 17401 Stafford Road, Tax Lot 3100 of Tax Map 21 E 16AD. The staff coordinator is Debra Andreades, Associate Planner. The hearing had been continued from the February 9, 2006 DRC meeting. 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), City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of ] 4 Minutes of February 22, 2006 biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. the Commissioners each related their business or occupations: Needham (lawyer), Binkley (architect), Ostly (real estate appraiser), Meisburger (architect), Stadnik (civil engineer), and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business). Ms. Binkley and Ms. Stadnik had not been present at the previous hearing. Mr. Boone advised they could ask questions, but they could not participate in deliberations or a vote until they had reviewed the record of the previous meeting. Ms. Binkley and Chair Tierney reported they had each made a site visit, and the Chair also reported he had looked at the house that was proposed to be moved to the site in order to evaluate how it might fit the site. Debra Andreades, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She pointed out exhibits that had been received since the previous hearing: letters in support of the application; a recommendation letter from the Historic Resources Advisory Board, that supported the application, but suggested additional conditions of approval; Exhibit F4, in which the applicant discussed the number of burials per year and the number of cars per burial; and a revised site plan that proposed only seven parking spaces and additional landscaping. During the questioning period, she confirmed the house and attached garage were a total of 1,200 sq. ft. in area. Apelican Rick Meyer, 3222 SE Milwaukie Ave, #5, Portland, Oregon, 97202, testified for the Oswego Pioneer Cemetery. He said the applicant agreed the (circa 1892) cemetery was an important cultural and historic resource to be maintained and preserved. He said the applicant needed the house to house a caretaker and securely store tools, equipment and records. He said the house itself was about 60 years old and in excellent. condition. He said the applicant had met with the Palisades Neighborhood Association and the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB). He said the revised plan reflected the recommendations and showed a reduced parking area and increased landscaping around the parking area and along the front of the house. He asked for approval of the Conditional Use Permit. During the questioning period, he said the applicant had not yet determined how many persons would live in the house. He clarified the house included 800 sq. ft. of living area, plus an approximately 4014 sq. ft. garage. Ms. Binkley observed a lack of private space for the occupant to use for personal activities, such as a backyard barbeque. Mr. Meyer anticipated that a caretaker would understand that his job was to maintain the cemetery and ensure that private activities did not adversely impact it. He noted there was a 6 -foot wide grass strip between the rear of the house and the parking lot, but there was no fencing. He explained the applicant proposed a 40 -foot setback from Stafford Road even after they found a standard setback would apply, because the house would fit better in that location and it was a more appropriate distance from the road. He said the garage would be accessed by the same access as the parking area; the front entry of the house would be accessed by a walkway from the rear; and the applicant anticipated no signage, because they expected visitors to arrange an appointment ahead of their visit. He clarified the access to the parking area would be 18 feet wide, paved, and wide enough for two-way traffic. Chair Tierney observed the permit was for a residential use and signage would be inconsistent with that. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 Proponents Jerry Instenes, 324 Laurel Street, testified that he was a retired Lake Oswego police officer; he had served as caretaker of Oswego Pioneer Cemetery since the late 1980s, and his business card was posted on the site. He recounted how the applicant had lost thousands of dollars worth of equipment because they had no secure and alarmed place to store them. He said the site currently did not enjoy consistent water service and there was no electricity. He said an active support group paid the bills. Ile urged the DRC to approve the permit John Olson, 6114 W. A Street, West Linn, 97068, testified he volunteered at the cemetery and had friends buried there. He stressed security and maintenance were important, and he asked the DRC to approve the permit. Donna Scales, 1825 SW Greentree Rd, testified that she lived within three blocks of the site. She opined there should be a caretaker presence on the site to prevent vandalism. She said the house would add to the City's stock of affordable housing. Brenda Hart 179 North Shore Rd., testified she wanted to see a caretaker on the site to secure it. Steven Bilow, 1770 Greentree Rd testified that he was a Palisades Neighborhood resident, and served as President of the South Metro Jewish Congregation. He related his congregation chose Oswego Pioneer Cemetery for a burial site because it was well maintained and featured a section for Jewish burials. He said the presence of a caretaker would help prevent vandalism at the cemetery and offer security for adjacent properties, including the golf course and high school. He noted the applicant wanted to preserve a house that might otherwise be destroyed. Kristin Gustaff 5935 NE Alameda St Portland Oregon, 97213, stated that her parents were donating the house. She said approval would allow a caretaker to live on the site to address the problem of high school parties; it would save one more historic house in the City; and it would honor those buried there who built the community. opponents Niel Farmer, 622 Clara Ct., disagreed with testimony a caretaker's presence would reduce vandalism because he saw it as an inviting challenge to high school pranksters; the caretaker could not be vigilant 24 hours a day; and the position would experience turnover. He worried a future cemetery board might not honor its commitments. He said it was not necessary for a caretaker to live on site. Neither for nor Azainst Paul Ostroff, 17766Treetop Lane Chair of the Palisades Nei hhorhood Association, testified his Association was not opposed to the application, but wanted assurance that the house would fit the neighborhood and the historical character of the cemetery. He said they endorsed the HRAB recommendation. He reported the applicant City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of ] 4 Minutes of February 22, 2006 and the Association's executive committee had met the previous week and the applicant had agreed to reduce the parking area; that the house was only to be occupied by a caretaker of Oswego Pioneer Cemetery; and that existing roadways and easements were to be limited solely and exclusively to access to the structure and the burial area. He reported that the applicant had not agreed to provide financial statements and post a bond to ensure the project would be properly completed in accordance with terms of the permit and adequately maintained on an ongoing basis. He said the Association could agree to seven parking spaces. Rebuttal Mr. Meyer anticipated each caretaker would be as vigilant and capable as the current caretaker, and his/her presence would improve security. However, they could not be on duty at all times. He said the Oswego Pioneer Cemetery board was very responsible and would ensure the facility was completed and maintained, but it was up to them to decide to release financial information. He said the applicant had met all the applicable criteria. Ms. Andreades confirmed the HRAB recommendations had been incorporated into the staff recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Boone observed staff had determined that a "caretaker" was an ancillary use to the cemetery, and he observed that he/she might by someone who lived in the house and agreed to keep an eye on the cemetery, but was not employed by the applicant, or a security service employee. Chair Tierney opined that the occupant of the house should have some kind of "caretaker" relationship with the applicant. Commissioner Needham suggested a related condition calling for an agreement between the applicant and the caretaker so the house was not used solely for the purpose of producing rental income. Chair Tierney invited the applicant to comment on conditions of approval. Mr. Instenes indicated a caretaker might fulfill those duties in exchange for rent. He listed the minimum duties as answering the telephone, answering questions, and being on the site for the majority of the day. He said the person would probably not be responsible for mowing equipment or heavy duties, but would arrange for services or volunteers to help with the maintenance work. He assured the DRC the house would not be rented out as just a residence and the applicant was accumulating adequate funds so that in a few years the interest alone would support the cemetery. Mr. Boone asked if any one else wanted to testify to the issue of what constituted a "caretaker" Loeta Moore McElwee, 647 Sunny Hill Drive, said she opposed the application. She asked where the maintenance equipment was to be stored. Mr. Boone advised that was beyond the scope of the question to be addressed. Mr. Meyer clarified for Mr. Needham that the applicant could agree to a condition restricting storage of vehicles, boats or trailers outside of the house. Mr. Ostroff clarified that his Association was not asking for an employee -employer relationship between the caretaker and the Oswego Pioneer Cemetery, and they would accept a condition that stipulated that the residence not be occupied as a rental; the person who occupied it was to have a contractual obligation to the cemetery to provide regular caretaking services; and that individual's principal purpose for occupying the residence was to provide those services. Mr. Boone addressed the issue of whether to require a bond. He advised that the DRC could rely on ordinances related to abandoned property and nuisance to help ensure the project maintained its compatibility with the neighborhood. He said the City typically required a bond as a means of enforcing compliance with the conditions of approval of a City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 subdivision, and the permit was also subject to revocation. He clarified that there was no City ordinance that required a house to be occupied. The Commissioners generally agreed there should be a contract between the two parties and the contract had to specify the minimum duties of the caretaker. Chair Tierney suggested the caretaker was to be "actively involved in the operation and maintenance of the cemetery." Mr. Meyer indicated the applicant could agree to that. He waived the applicant's right to hold the record open for a final written argument. Ms. Andreades observed the revised site plan showed an 18 -foot, two-way driveway. She said that was acceptable to staff because the direction of traffic in the parking lot was entering one way and exiting the other, and the caretaker would be the only one just coming in. However, the Commissioners noted that it was such a wide driveway that drivers might get the impression they could easily enter, and they would not realize that they were driving into a bottleneck. They considered requiring a sign that said "No Entry — Private Residence." Ms. Andreades related that the Engineering staff did not think vehicle conflicts would happen often enough to present a major problem. Deliberations Chair Tierney noted that the staff report found the proposed use was similar to Institutional, or Open Space use. Ms. Ostly said that was reasonable. The Commissioners considered the question of Conditional Use. Ms. Ostly commented that the small scale of the house seemed compatible with the neighborhood, and it did not look like an institutional facility, especially after the parking was reduced. Mr. Needham pointed out the DRC had the HRAB recommendations, and the applicant had provided a landscape plan, and reduced the parking. He suggested conditions related to conditions of occupancy, and placement of the house to allow the kind of service necessary to the site. Chair Tierney advised the applicable criteria did not allow the DRC to consider the position of the house. He agreed there should be a condition regarding the applicant's relationship to the caretaker, and a condition that landscaping be used to establish some privacy for the residence. Ms. Ostly observed the landscaping was fairly dense behind the house. Chair Tierney opined that the occupants should have some area they could use for private outdoor use. The Commissioners considered shifting, or double -loading parking spaces in order to accomplish that, but they agreed not to change parking when they acknowledged this was not a normal house, and the caretaker/occupant had obligations to the cemetery that an ordinary renter would not. They then considered the issue of adequate maintenance. Chair Tierney recalled the City Code could help ensure the house was kept up enough to be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Needham said he did not believe a bond was necessary because the site was very visible, and people would complain if it were not kept up. He recalled the applicant was willing to agree to a ban on storage of boats, trailers and campers outside the structure, and he wanted to add that condition. Ms. Ostly moved to annrove LU 05-0082, subject to the conditions recommended by staff in their February 21, 2006 Memorandum, and two additional conditions: ■ The applicant was to specify the relationship of the caretaker to the Oswego Pioneer Cemetery. • Outdoor storage of large boats and vehicles on the site was not allowed. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 Mr. Meisburger seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. Chair Tierney announced the final vote would take place on March 6, 2006. He then announced a ten-minute recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. LU 05-0065, a request by Oswego Investors, LLC, for approval of the following: ■ A Development Permit to construct a 34 -unit condominium project; ■ A class I variance to increase the combined height of a fence on top of a retaining wall to greater than eight feet; ■ A 4 -foot Class I variance to increase the height of an entry "portal" located within. ten feet of a property line abutting a public street from eight feet to 12 feet; ■ Removal of 12 trees to accommodate the development. Location of Property: 555 Second Street (Tax Lot 1400 of Tax Map 2 IE 3DD). The staff coordinator was Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner. 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. Ms. Binkley (architect), Mr. Meisburger (architect) and Chair Tierney (utilities inspection business) reported they had visited the site. Mr. Needham (lawyer) reported he had driven by the site to observe the uses and structures on adjacent properties. Ms. Ostly (real estate appraiser) and Ms. Stadnik (civil engineer) reported they were familiar with the general area of the site. No one present challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Jessica Sarver, Associate Planner, presented the staff report dated January 6 and February 10, 2006. She provided an exhibit that contained the Landscape Plan for Stafford Commons (a project directly across the street on the corner of 2nd StreetlB Avenue). She explained the applicants were requesting an exception that would allow them to reduce the amount of landscaping, a variance to the height of the entry portal to the courtyard on 2'd Street, and a variance to the allowable height of the combined fence/retaining wall. They would also remove 12 trees. She advised the site was in the EC Zone and the structure was limited to 60 -feet height, but there were no setback requirements. She pointed out the surrounding structures. She advised Downtown Redevelopment. Design District standards applied to the site and required it to show Village character and be in Lake Oswego style. A total of 40% of the site was to be in Open Space (20%) and Landscaping (20%), but the Code allowed an exception to that percentage if the project met the purpose of the Urban Design Plan. She said the Design District capped multistory structures at three stories, or four stories if the fourth story was within a gabled or hipped roof and it also specified allowable exterior materials. She pointed out the building was shaped to accommodate courtyards in front and back. She noted the building was set back ten feet from the front, but the landscape wall was on the property line. She reported that the applicant had revised the plan after the January staff report saw a problem with massing and scale. The changes included reduction of the height of the side yard retaining wall; removing pilasters from fencing; adding stairs to break up the scale of the wall; landscaping on an adjacent property to the south to break up the wall; and changing the proposed material used in recessed areas to help break up City of take Oswego Development Review Commission Wage 6 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 the elevations. She said staff found the changes improved the overall perception of height and scale of the building. Ms. Sarver discussed the requested exception. She explained the applicant proposed 22.5% combined Open Space/Landscaping, and staff found that acceptable because it met the intent of the Urban Design Plan, which was to create opportunities for high density housing, to provide greater intensity of use of the retail core, and cultural and recreational facilities. They found that the proposed amount of landscaping achieved the objective to provide screening and buffering between adjacent properties, to provide landscaping that softened the appearance of the building, and to provide scale and color. She recommended approval of the exception. She addressed the variance requests. She said staff found that allowing a 12.5 -foot high front entry portal to the entry courtyard off 2nd Street instead of limiting it to eight feet would not hinder safe access or be detrimental to nearby property. She noted the portal would be separated from the street by an 8 -foot. wide sidewalk and landscaped curb extension. She noted the fences atop the retaining walls would be open metal, and would not present a solid barrier. She recommended approval of the application subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. During the questioning period, Ms. Sarver explained there would be parallel parking along the site but angled parking across the street because the neighborhood did not want angled parking on both sides, and there was insufficient right -of way for angled parking on both sides. She advised a fourth story was allowed if it were stepped back, or incorporated into a gabled or hipped roof. She said the applicant proposed to set it back 14 to 18 feet from the front and rear elevations, and fi to 19 feet from the side elevations. She and Mr. Pishvaie advised that the Open. Space Standard allowed an exception on the site, the open space and landscaping requirements could be combined, and the Open Space did not have to be in a separate tract. Ms. Sarver said staff considered all public areas of the site to be open space, and that included the courtyards and the entry to the building, but not the parking area. She noted in a nearby condominium development each unit had its own fenced backyard that was considered part of the open space/landscaping requirement. Mr. Boone advised that open space was defined as land that was to remain in a natural or landscaped condition for the purpose of providing a scenic, aesthetic appearance. Ms. Sarver clarified that townhouses across the street ranged 38 ft. to 41 ft. high as measured to the highest ridge, the applicant's project front gables were about 41 feet high, and the rear maximum overall height was 53 feet. She confirmed they were to make street improvements along the frontage that included an 8 -foot wide sidewalk and curb, and they would likely have to replace the existing paved alleyway after they installed utilities in it. Applicant Drew Prell, Oswego Investors, LLC. PO Box 1989, Lake Oswego, 97035, related that he and his partner, Jim Morton, were also building the Stafford Commons commercial/townhouse project across the street. He said they had involved the neighborhood association. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 Joseph Schaefer, Land Use Planner, 1211 SW Fifth Ave., Ste. 1600, Portland, Oregon 97204, testified the applicants planned to make a full street improvement along 7 Street, between their two projects, from B Avenue to the north property boundary. He said the property across the street had dedicated five feet for angled parking. He related that he had submitted an initialed Letter of Intent from the neighbor to the south to allow landscaping on their property. He said the alleyway would be repaved after underground utilities were installed in it. Mike Carl, Vallaster & Corl Architects, 711 SW Alder St., Penthouse Suite, Portland, OR 97205, said the design was in the Lake Oswego style and the building was broken into public, semi-public and private spaces. He pointed out the proposed front gate (which required a variance), the semi -private front courtyard, the private space elevator, and the private courtyard facing the alleyway for residents' use. He said there would be 51 spaces in the parking area below the structure. He pointed out the building corners were designed to reduce the perceived mass and add interest and the top floor was incorporated into the roof. He displayed the exterior materials and showed how the decks would be lit. During the questioning period, Chair Tierney referred to the exhibit showing the portal and observed that it was a "gate," and that meant the semi -private front courtyard space would be behind a locked door. Mr. Schaefer said it was an amenity for persons waiting to gain entrance to the building. lie said a planting strip separated the building from the sidewalk in order to make it seem more residential. Mr. Boone advised "open space" was landscaped, aesthetic amenities. Mr. Schaefer confirmed the rear of the building was right on the alley. The Commissioners observed there was only a 2.5 -foot wide landscaped strip separating the large front windows from the sidewalk. The applicant explained that was appropriate in an urban setting, the area would not be as busy as other downtown locations, the windows were large in order to allow natural light into the units, and the residents could close their curtains. They confirmed the interior finished floor level there was one foot higher than the sidewalk. Mr. Needham anticipated that foot traffic in the area would increase over time and he suggested the planting strip was too narrow to accommodate dense, screening landscaping. Mr. Schaefer pointed out where exterior lights would be located for Ms. Binkley, and he described how the wall materials would project out from the windows and the design of the low landscape wall for Mr. Meisburger. When invited by the Chair, he addressed the recommended conditions of approval and asked for more flexibility in. Condition B to allow the applicant to proceed with preliminary work, including demolition, tree removal, and infrastructure installation, before the final architectural details were approved by the Building Division. Staff explained their experience with previous projects was that could create problems and they preferred to wait for final construction plans. However, they could agree to a condition that allowed the Demolition Permit to be issued earlier. The applicants explained it would be difficult to demolish the existing structure without having a permit to remove the trees. The staff explained tree removal required a Verification Permit, which was issued at the same time as the Building Permit to avoid a situation where the trees were removed first, and then the project was canceled or modified. Chair Tierney suggested staff and applicant work together to resolve the "early permits" issue. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 Proponent Lisa Shaw Ryan, 745 4th Street, Vice Chair of the First Addition Neighborhood Association, testified that the applicants had worked with the Association to address their concerns and the Association had subsequently voted not to object to the project. There was no other public testimony. No one requested that the record be held open for additional testimony. The applicant waived their right to additional time to submit a final written argument. Deliberations Mr. Needham observed the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed plan - with the requested reduction in open space/landscaping - accomplished the purpose of the exceptions provision that it accomplished the purpose of the Urban Design Plan in a manner that was equal to or superior in design to a project designed pursuant to the standards. He noted they had not shown alternative plans that could have shown more, smaller units, or a higher structure featuring larger units. He noted the current design invited pedestrians outside on the sidewalk to look in, eye -to -eye, with residents inside the large windows. He said he believed additional screening landscaping was appropriate there and perhaps the building could be moved farther back from the sidewalk to accommodate a wider planting strip. Ms. Binkley recalled successful townhouse design in Portland's Pearl District featured more buffering along the street edge by manipulating height, depth, or both. She noted that the depth of the streetscape between the proposed building and the building across the street was affected by the fact they both had parking in front and by the proximity of street trees to the street. She anticipated that when residents closed the curtains covering the large windows the front elevation would look like a more massive wall. She noted that FAN required front porches on nearby residences, and she suggested the applicant could change the plan by stepping back the ground floor to accommodate front porches. She wondered why the sides showed more buffer area than the front elevation. She advised the massing and proximity to the street of the proposed design was too "tight" for a Lake Oswego urban area. Mr. Meisburger said even though the applicant's proposed to use beautiful materials and details, the scale and overall mass of the building was a problem. He noted the front elevation wall was almost 70 feet long and looked "harsh," and the low wall across it presented a visual barrier. Ms. Binkley suggested the gate area be modified to create a more welcoming entrance to the buiding. She suggested it be located further back so part of the courtyard landscaping could spill out into the public realm and improve the look of the front elevation. Ms. Ostly observed the design was very complex and she deferred to the expertise of the architect Commissioners. Chair Tierney and Ms. Binkley agreed with Mr. Needham's comment that the applicants had not demonstrated there should be an exception to the open space/landscaping standards. Mr. Needham also saw a design issue in the lack of relief in details. Chair Tierney asked staff to discuss the Open Space/Landscaping Standards. Ms. Sarver advised that condominiums were considered to be multifamily development. The applicable standards required 20% open space, in addition to 20% andscaping, for a total area of 40% of the site. She said that was such a large percentage that exceptions were commonly requested and granted in the downtown urban setting. Mr. Needham agreed City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 with Chair Tierney that it would be better if the front plane were set back to accommodate more landscaping. He noted the applicants had not demonstrated their plan met the exceptions provision, and they had simply included a statement in the application that their plan met the goal of Urban Design Plan. He acknowledged that 40% open space/landscaping area was a lot, but he said he was not convinced the current proposal was the best, or met the exceptions provision goal, especially when people could stand on the sidewalk, 2.5 feet from the windows, and be eye -to -eye with residents inside. Ms. Binkley anticipated it would be a challenge to grow healthy, screening plants in that narrow, hot spot. Mr. Pishvaie noted the development across the street had also been subject to the 40% open space/landscaping requirement and had been approved with a 16% reduction under the exception provision. He recalled staff had also been concerned about what plants would grow in the narrow strip. Mr. Needham noted the applicant was proposing a 17.5% reduction. He also noted the development across the street had commercial use on the ground floor, but the subject building would have residential use on the ground floor. Ms. Binkley also saw a difference in public landscaping and amenities on the property across the street, and she noted that building was also broken up more frequently. Mr. Schaefer then indicated the applicant had changed their mind about waiving their right to additional time, and he asked for a continuance. He said the exception was justified by the fact the design was appropriate and it would be a high quality project. Staff suggested the Commissioners provide some direction to the applicant. Mr. Needham wanted them to show the exception was warranted resulting in a better design. He also wanted to know why the development across the street featured more front landscaping and was more articulated, even though it featured commercial use on the ground floor. He and Ms. Binkley indicated the front landscape strip offered too little separation between persons inside and outside the building. She commented that the nice materials that were proposed for the building did not make up for the very long, wall-like front elevation along the street. Ms. Ustly moved to continue LU 05-0065 to March 20 2006. Mr. Needham seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. LU 05-0068, a request by LQ 138, LLC. for approval to modify the Lake View Village (LVV) Sign Program approved under an earlier Development Review Permit (LU 01- 0076). The proposed modifications will amend Condition 2(f)(1) that limits each building to two (2) projecting blade signs (six square feet per side) on the second story, to allow for either two projecting signs, or one projecting sign and one fascia sign per building on that level. Location: SW corner of State and A Street (Block 138) Tax Lot 7300 of Tax Map 21E 313D. The staff coordinator is Paul Espe, Associate Planner. 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. The Commissioners each declared their occupation or business and they all indicated they were familiar with the site. Chair Tierney declared that he had a business relationship with Parsons, but was not biased. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 Paul Espe Associate Planner presented the staff report. He showed exhibits showing examples of what could be allowed on the second story under the existing sign program. He stressed the existing sign program was an integral part of building design and had been approved after a DRC design review. He explained the DRC was hearing the application because staff had denied the applicant's request for a sign permit during a ministerial review. He said that although the applicant was focusing on a second story fascia sign on Building B (at the corner of State Street/A Avenue) for the Bank of Oswego, approval of the application would allow second story fascia, or cornice signs on the second stories of all of the buildings. The applicant wanted the ability to install such signs for large-scale tenants. He said the sign program should not be considered separately from the building design. He said staff decision had been based on compatibility with the building and other buildings. He said staff recommended that the sign permit application be denied because there was no clear transition between the first and second story in design and signage, and the proposed fascia sign was too aggressive and had an overly busy retail appearance on the second story that was incompatible with the building's core design theme of storefront retail on the first story, and a more benign office use on the second story. He said it would create an architecturally incompatible, over dominant retail, or storefront appearance on the second story that detracted from pedestrian scale and made the building look taller. He said staff found the current sign program was more appropriate because it featured smaller signs. Applicant _Matt Grady, and Barry Cain, Gramor, 19767 SW 72"d Ave., Ste. 100, Tualatin, Oregon, 97062, explained the applicant found retail -type second story tenants, like a restaurant and bank, that needed larger, more readable second story signage. They submitted materials showing surrounding architecture and upper story signage in the vicinity of the development. They asked for a change from the program that allowed two upper story projecting signs, limited to 6 -square feet per sign, that would be about 2' x 3' with fairly small lettering, to either two projecting signs, or one fascia and one projecting sign per building that could be as large as 16 sq. ft. (4' x 4', or 2' x 8' depending on the format). They said the fascia sign would take up 60% of the sign band area, which they held was appropriate for the second story. While staff found they would took overly busy, the applicants explained they would make a building look more interesting and complement it. They argued that the existing sign program specifications related to allowable colors and materials would help tie the signs to the building design. Staff had found the larger signs would affect pedestrian orientation, but the applicants said the signs would be so far above a pedestrian the pedestrian experience would not be diminished. When they showed photographs of upper story signs on surrounding developments, Mr. Boone advised those had been approved under the Sign Code, and the applicant should focus on how they related to the building design, which was the scope of the DRC review. He said the DRC was not authorized to consider the Sign Code and issue permits (that was up to the staff), and they should consider how the proposed signage was compatible with building design. City of fake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 A. . rn „ .,..,. •.,..,_ , Seattle, Michael Lee, Architect, 1420 SW S Ave,, Ste 240 40 SeaWashington, 98101,t,. explained the second floor uses in the development had changed. He said all the buildings would have signage that integrated well with the architecture. He noted the upper floor signage for A Street Station had been a DRC granted exception. He said the existing 6 -square foot upper signs had 3 -inch letters that were hard to read from different distances. He showed graphic illustrations to demonstrate how 16 square foot signs could be read from different distances. He said the applicant wanted to install a sign for the Five Spice Restaurant that would complement the northwest timber feel of the building and hand down as an architectural detail. During the questioning period, staff clarified that the applicant was asking for two upper story signs per building that would be either two projecting signs up to 16 square feet per sign (possible dimensions of 2' x 8', or 4' x 4'), and that would be more than double the size the applicant was currently allowed, or one projecting sign of 16 square feet and one fascia sign up to 60% of the sign band area. Ms. Binkley noted that would allow a fascia sign above Sur La Table. Staff recommended against approval of any fascia sign on the second floor. Mr. Grady confirmed the Five Spice Restaurant currently had a projecting sign. Staff explained the Manana Restaurant had its own sign, but it was a one-story building and all first floor uses were allowed to have their own signs. However, they noted the Code did not allow signs on the second floor and they asked the Commissioners to consider what an eight - story Kruse Way office buiding would look like if all the tenants were allowed to have their own fascia signs. There was no additional public testimony. The applicant waived their right to request additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Deliberations Ms. Binkley questioned whether a 2' x 8' blade sign was desirable scale as it would be a lot taller than the currently approved sign size. Chair Tierney recalled the Windermere sign had been permitted as an exception for that specific sign, but the applicant wanted to change the development's entire sign program. Ms. Ostly opined that the sign for Building E was attractive, it fit the building, and it added detail. The Commissioners examined the applicant's examples of signage on Sheets 5 and 6. Ms. Binkley observed the buildings shown there were larger and of different designs than the development's buildings. She suggested the applicant's upper level signs would seem to fit better if they reflected the upper floor architecture. Mr. Meisburger agreed and added that a blade sign did not look appropriate on a narrow strip of clapboard next to a window. He said the applicant should look for a better way to address a sign on a gable. Mr. Espe reported, for the record, that they were talking about the sign on Building B not being architecturally compatible. The Commissioners considered whether to review and approved each specific sign, or allow the general change in the sign program. They noted they did not know how that would look on other buildings. Ms. Binkley recalled that general approval would mean the applicant could place a fascia sign right over the Sur La Table sign. Chair Tierney said he would not have a problem with that because the buildings were commercial buildings and that use required appropriate, attractive and properly scaled commercial signs. Mr. Meisburger did not want to see a "one size fits all" solution. He opined the square sign shown for Building B was more appropriate in that location than a more vertical sign. Mr. Needham said commercial signs should be visible from useful distances, and from the most likely vantage points along the street. He said he did not like the square signs, but he would defer to the other Commissioners about that, and he City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 thought the second story signs looked good in one location, but not in another. He suggested the symmetry of sign placement was important and perhaps that could be reviewed at staff level. They could make that kind of judgment call if the DRC approved the application. Ms. Stadnik said there were too many different angles and architectural features to approve the more general change. The placement of a sign should be unique to each building. Mr. Pishvaie advised sign permit application were decided by staff, but could be appealed to the DRC. He reminded them that the sign program was an important component of the previous design review and approval, and allowing signage for second story tenants had been an exception because the Commissioners agreed it was necessary. He noted that was why the DRC had agreed to allow some 12 -foot tall pyramid signs in the courtyard at street level to identify second story tenants that the applicant now was not using. Instead they were asking for second story signs on every building.. He also recalled the DRC had agreed to allow two projecting signs on the upper floor, rather than only one allowed by the Code, because they anticipated some tenants would want signage. IIe advised that even if the DRC approved the program change, the staff might still find an individual sign was not compatible. Ms. Ostly said the 2' x 3' signs currently allowed were too small and they looked "tacked on" and they were not easily read. Ms. Binkley said the 2' x 8' sign the applicants showed was too large, as it was almost three times the size of what was currently allowed. She agreed a 2' x 6' size might work, and noted that was 12 sq. ft. She said the sign should relate well to the architecture of the upper floor. In the example the applicant had provided she noted the wrought iron sign did not fit the architecture. She said it was hard to imagine how the proposed fascia sign would look on the brick octagon without seeing an example, Chair Tierney asked if all of the upper story signs should be addressed as exceptions. He noted the bank and upper story restaurant depended on visible, commercial signage. Mr. Needham said he found the fascia sign shown on Building E worked, but not the one shown on Building B. Ms. Binkley noted that the artwork on the signs would also make a difference in how they seemed to fit. Mr. Boone confirmed for Ms. Ostly that the DRC could decide to approve two specific signs, rather than the overall program change. She said each sign had to be considered in context with its buiding. Mr. Espe then reported that the applicant had announced they could agree to a condition thatthere were to be no fascia signs on the buildings, except for Building E, and they wanted larger projecting signs that would allow them to have signs that were 2' x 8', or 2' x 6', or 4' x 4'. Mr. Espe said staff was discussing a limit of 12 sq. ft. with them. However, Chair Tierney observed Mr. Cain still wanted a 16 sq. ft. limit. Mr. Needham said he thought a 12 sq. ft. limit was better in terms of scale. He referred to the applicant's examples and noted that one sign shown should not be as big as the window it was near, and it should be of smaller scale than the sign on the lower story. That made more visual sense. He confirmed that he wanted the sign to relate to the building design. Ms. Ostly said 2' x 6' dimensions were in better proportion to the building and not as overwhelming as 2' x 8' dimensions. Ms. Binkley said there should not be wrought iron on a sign if there were no other wrought iron on the upper story. Mr. Meisburger referred to one of the applicant's examples and noted the blade sign attached to the clapboard did not look compatible. He said on the basis of the examples he saw, he would deny the application so it would not apply universally. He said the applicant had not shown him a solution that he could accept. Ms. Binkley concurred. She said the applicant should propose a smaller size limit. Mr. Pishvaie advised that although the example showed City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 13 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006 wrought iron, that was only one type of material that could be used. Staff considered whether the material proposed for each sign was compatible against the building. He said if the Commissioners approved the application, they were approving the concept of the second story projecting sign, and the material was to be reviewed by staff. He suggested they focus on the limit to square footage, rather than specific dimensions of signs, but they could place the limit at 12 sq. ft., and also specify no dimension was to be longer than six feet if they did not like the 2' x 8' sign the applicant showed. Then the applicant would still have dimensional options. Chair Tierney then observed a consensus to accept the modification of the sign program with an additional condition that the fascia sign was only allowed on Building E, and an additional condition that blade signs were to be limited to 12 sq ft with no dimensions could be greater than 6 feet. Chair Tierney asked the applicant to respond to the discussion of new conditions. Mr. Grady said 12 sq. ft. was still too small and if the Commissioners did not want to allow 16 sq. ft., that applicant proposed 14 sq. ft. limit. He said they would create examples of such signs for the Commissioners to examine. He said the applicant would agree to the condition related to the fascia sign. He asked for a continuance. Chair Tierney moved to continue LU 05-0068 to March 6, 2006. IVIS. Stadnik seconded the motion and it passed 6:0. LU 05-0078, a request by First Cascade Corp. for approval of a Development Review Permit to construct the following: 1. A 6,457 square foot, one-story concrete block building for warehouse and office uses and a 16 -space parking lot. 2. Removal of approximately 21 trees to construct the site improvements. Location: 18551 65h avenue, (Tax Lot 200 of Tax map 21 W 13 DD). The staff coordinator is Paul Espe, Associate Planner. Staff reported that the applicant had requested that the application be continued to March 6 2006. The Commissioners agreed to that by unanimous vote. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS (None) VII. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 6adw tenioanice Bader r Secretary Udr0m i nutes102-22-06.doe City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 14 of 14 Minutes of February 22, 2006