Loading...
Approved Minutes - 2000-06-05OREGON CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER June 5, 2000 Chair Julie Morales called the Development Review Commission meeting of Monday, June 5, 2000 to order at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Members present were Chair Morales, Vice Chair Nan Binkley and Commissioners Douglas Kiersey, Sheila Ostly, Bruce Miller and Douglas Cushing. Commissioner Dave Powers was excused. Staff present were Tom Coffee, Assistant City Manager; Morgan Tracy, Associate Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Janice Bader, Senior Secretary. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Cushing moved for approval of the Minutes of May 1. 2000, corrected to show that Ms. Binkley had been excused from the meeting. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Powers was not present. There were no votes against. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER LU 00-0012, Findings, Conclusions and Order Ms. Ostly moved for approval of LU 00-0012-1375, Findings, Conclusions and Order. Ms. Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Powers was not present. There were no votes against. V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 00-0007, an application by Gramor Oregon, Inc. to redevelop Block 136. The request consists of the following items: City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 • A lot line adjustment affecting Tax lots 8400, 8500 & 8600 and a portion of the existing alley. • Approval of Development Review permits for a 41 -lot townhouse residential planned development, and a 16,844 square foot, two-story retail/office commercial building. • Approval to remove approximately 50 trees. The site is composed of Tax Lots 8400-9100 of Tax Map 21E 3DD. TheContinued from the May 15, 2000, DRC meeting. The staff coordinator is Hamid Pishvaie, Development Review Manager. Ms. Morales opened the public hearing and explained the procedures and time limits to be followed. She asked the commissioners to report any ex parte conflicts, site visits, biases or conflicts of interest. Ms. Ostly and Mr. Kiersey reported they had not revisited the site since the first hearing. Mr. Cushing, Ms. Morales and Mr. Miller reported they had driven around the site since the previous hearing. Ms. Morales pointed out that the City's newsletter had erroneously reported that the DRC had tentatively approved the application. No one present challenged any commissioner's right to hear the application. Ms. Morales recalled that the Commission had begun deliberations at the close of the previous hearing. Deliberations Ms. Binkley observed that a large amount of community time and effort had been invested in the project ad that the project would establish a precedent for future development downtown. She urged the commissioners to ensure the project reflected the intent of the Downtown Development Standards. She noted the project's commercial building did not feature the required wood and glass materials on the second story and that those materials would have made the story appear less heavy and flat over the brick ground floor. She opined the applicant had not mitigated the heavy look by making some other adjustment. She recalled that the heavy second story overhang on the rear of the building was to be supported by metal brackets that had not been illustrated in any drawings. She opined that the structure appeared to be a flat roofed building that had some awkward pitched roofs added to it. She said the proposed clock feature was too large for the structure and made it appear unbalanced. She referred to sketches in Appendix A LODS 23 that showed examples of "village" character, as well as the Avery Building on Boones Ferry Road, and opined those buildings more adequately reflected "village" character than the applicant's proposal. She explained that she did not object to the proposed density of the townhouse project because she was aware of other development of equal or greater density that appropriately reflected "village" character. However, she believed the proposed units did not offer the variety to be expected in a complex of 41 units on more than an acre of land. She asked why all the doors and unit plans were the same and why there was no gathering space for residents. She held that the plan offered a "monolithic" feeling. She questioned what features in the applicant's plan reflected "Lake Oswego" and made the project exceptional and different from other townhouses in other suburbs. She acknowledged that the project was important to the City and the Commission was entrusted with ensuring that developments met high standards and reflected the village character. She stressed the City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 plan should include more variety and the commercial building's roof design should be more cohesive with the lower portion of the structure. She reiterated that the development would set the precedent for future developments in the City. She commented that it would have been helpful if the applicant had provided a model of the project for the Commissioners to view. Ms. Ostly indicated her disappointment that the large amount of time, effort and money that had been invested in the project had not produced something more than a standard row house design. She agreed that the pitched roofs on the commercial building appeared to be out of scale and did not fit the building. She acknowledged that the design was a compromise that reflected multiple interests, but she questioned whether the design was appropriate for the site. She observed the project included a mix of features that did not work well together and insufficient density to support the kinds of uses and hopes the City wanted. She opined that such a small portion of the project was for commercial use that the design would not significantly influence other development downtown and the project represented a repetition of what already existed there. Mr. Cushing acknowledge that since two nearby blocks were yet to be developed, it was unclear how the project would fit its surrounding area. He recognized the challenge of reviewing plans for only one of the three blocks. Mr. Kiersey acknowledged the applicant's and the community's efforts in designing the project. He indicated, however, that he believed the plan was too dense for the downtown area and the interior should have featured a more substantial courtyard, instead of a glorified alleyway. He recalled testimony that the applicant's parking plan satisfied the Code, but he believed the proposed parking was insufficient for the project and he predicted the development would generate additional parking along neighborhood streets (as indicated in the applicant's parking plan). He suggested that the parking requirements of the Code should be changed. He clarified for Ms. Binkley that he did not object to the number of units planned (41), but he felt the way they were configured did not leave adequate room for pedestrian activities or internal vehicular activity. Ms. Binkley suggested that the number of townhouses be reduced so that the interior space could include a small common park with a roadway around it that would accommodate parking. Ms. Morales recalled that neighborhood associations had testified they did not desire to see a tall project on the site. Ms. Ostly estimated that five or six row houses would have to be eliminated in order to expand the central common area. Ms. Binkley suggested high density could be achieved by varying the height of the townhouses from taller structures on the corners to lower structures in the middle of the project. Ms. Ostly advised against a plan that could require expensive elevators from small buildings. Mr. Cushing observed the maximum allowed height for portions of the project that were adjacent to the residential neighborhood was 35 feet, and the townhouses ranged between 34 and 38 feet in height. Mr. Miller suggested that the townhouse units could be made more attractive if an individual look was designed for each unit so that it could be distinguished from the other City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 units. He also indicated he would have preferred to see more spacious units and he worried about the impact of traffic generated by residents' home-based businesses. Mr. Cushing opined that taller buildings would be necessary in order to create a larger interior common open space area. He indicated that he did not consider parking to be a major issue; however, he believed it would be better if the project provided more parking spaces. He suggested that the project be required to feature more wood and design details. Mr. Tracy clarified for Ms. Binkley that the Downtown Design Standards allowed variation in exceptional circumstances, so the applicant was not required to apply for variances. Mr. Coffey advised the Commissioners of their options regarding the proposal, including asking the applicant to present a modified proposal; denying the application; imposing conditions on the project; or approving the plan as it had been presented. The Commissioners discussed the plan for the commercial building. Ms. Ostly ad Mr. Miller indicated they did not favor the design and height of the roofs on the commercial structure. Ms. Binkley explained that because no fascia detail had been presented on the applicant's drawings, she could not determine how the roofs were to attach to the building. Ms. Morales agreed the drawings lacked sufficient detail, especially regarding the brickwork to be installed around the windows. Mr. Kiersey agreed with Ms. Binkley that the Avery Building being constructed along Boones Ferry Road looked more appropriate that the applicant's proposed building. The Commissioners reviewed the project drawings in order to envision the actual appearance of the building, focusing special attention on the shadow lines of the brick detailing and the rear overhangs. Mr. Kiersey commented that he favored the use of brick on both levels of the building because he believed that if some other material were used on the second story the structure would resemble a Swiss chalet. Ms. Binkley opined the building should feature more design details so that it could be differentiated from a Kruse Way building. Mr. Kiersey observed that the roof structures seemed very arbitrary. Ms. Binkley indicated she favored the varied designs of awnings over each window bay along the front of the building (see Exhibit 25); however, she did not favor the design of the pitched roofs and the large and flat clock. Ms. Morales recalled testimony that the landscaped area had been reduced from the required 15% to 8.7 % because of the exceptional qualities of the design (see page 10 of 29 of the staff report). Mr. Cushing recalled the staff had calculated that landscaping in the public right-of-way contributed to the total landscaped area. Mr. Kiersey commented that he would almost prefer to see a flat roofed building with a small corner clock tower than the proposed design. Ms. Binkley advised that mechanical units that would most likely be placed upon the roof would need to be obscured from view. She agreed with Mr. Kiersey that a flat roof with an appropriate parapet might be more desirable than the current design. Ms. Ostly clarified that she did not favor a flat roof design. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 Ms. Morales itemized the Commissioners' areas of concern regarding the project plan: Commercial building 1. Second story materials 2. Roofs 3. Detailing, scale of details of the brick and clock 4. Landscaped area Townhouses 5. Scale and density issues (large mass of buildings and their relationship to each other, open space) 6. Entries and porches (repetitious entryways, deep recess at the front doors) 7. Repetition and no variety in the mass COMMERCIAL BUILDNIG DISCUSSION: 1. Second story materials Ms. Binkley held that the applicant should not be allowed to deviate from the materials requirement in the design standards because the applicant's plan was not exceptional enough. Ms. Ostly commented that if wood was to be used on the second story the roof should be a pitched roof style. Ms. Binkley advised that the design should include more details and the design of the roofs and the brick should present a more cohesive appearance. The Commissioners again reviewed the elevation drawings for the commercial building. 2. Roof design Ms. Binkley questioned how the roof connected to the building. She pointed out that the locations of HVAC accommodations had not been illustrated. She said she preferred that wood be used to cover the second story and the building should feature pitched roofs that were more cohesive with the building and displayed variation in the roof height (as shown in the examples in the appendix to the staff report). Ms. Ostly indicated that the plan did not deserve to be allowed to deviate from the Downtown Design Standards because the design did not reflect the spirit of the Standards and was not an outstanding example of design. She also indicated that the all -brick design contributed to the large scale and was not in keeping with "village" character. 3. Detailing Ms. Binkley stated that any successful design that featured wood on the second story would also need to feature details that better integrated the roofs with the building. She opined that a design that featured a flat roof might have bee appropriate, but she City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 understood that the pitched roof had been included in order to conform to the Standards. Ms. Morales pointed out details that she believed helped reduce the building's scale, including canopies, window mullions, window headers, a variety of window sizes, and a variety of awnings. She recalled an abundance of clock towers could be observed in the Portland area. Mr. Kiersey indicated he would have preferred operational windows. Mr. Cushing commented that he could agree to the use of brick on the second floor if more design details and heightened contrasts were shown. He noted that the basalt base on the ground floor would provide an interesting contrast to the brick. He noted that one illustration of the clock elevation showed a more appropriate scale than other elevations showing that feature. The Commissioners reviewed the materials board and generally agreed that the basalt tile would provide contrast with the brick. Ms. Binkley clarified that she did not advocate a single pitched roof over the entire building. Mr. Cushing advised the guidelines specified "gabled or hip -roof forms" for roofs. Ms. Ostly commented that because the drawings that had been presented were so different it was a challenge to envision how the building would actually look and she would have preferred to see a model of the project. Ms. Morales said she desired to see better illustrations of the design details. Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, advised that flat roofed buildings were only allowed pursuant to exceptions. Ms. Morales recalled that there had been no consensus that the building should be flat -roofed. 4. Landscaping The Commissioners discussed whether they were comfortable with the planned percentage of landscaping. Ms. Morales urged the commissioners to consider the landscaping question when they discussed the open space and density related to the townhouses. Summary of commercial building discussion: Ms. Morales acknowledged a consensus that the Commissioners desired to see the brick detailing illustrated to scale. She also noted that the Commissioners seemed to favor pitched roofs and could most likely agree to the use of brick on the second story as long as there was sufficient detailing to provide an appropriate transition to the roofline. TOWNHOUSES 5. Scale/density Ms. Morales observed that the townhouse project presented an unvaried view of similar rooflines and proportions when it was viewed from the uphill side. Ms. Binkley advised that, in spite of the numerous trees to be planted at the site, the landscaping was insufficient. Mr. Kiersey observed the units were very close to the sidewalk, which exacerbated the project's feeling of massiveness. He contrasted the proposed units with City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 the existing Fourth Street townhouse development, and he noted the latter development units were set well back from the sidewalk and featured front yards and a picket fence. He summarized that the planned townhouses were too close to the sidewalk, and appeared to be too large and too uniform. Ms. Morales acknowledged that the project had originally been planned to include over 80 townhouse units; however, she recalled successful dense row house developments in other jurisdictions typically featured pedestrian friendly amenities. Ms. Binkley recalled that although a typical urban walkup unit was close to the street, the entry was raised one-half floor from the street. She opined the proposed plan did not offer sufficient variety to accomplish a "village" character. Ms. Morales acknowledged the applicant had included a variety of materials and windows in the design, but she noted the shapes of the units were similar to each other and the massing did not change from unit to unit. Mr. Cushing recalled a row house project where each unit was similar, except for the paint colors. He felt that the difference in colors had provided sufficient variety to the project. Ms. Binkley advised that row house developments typically featured a change of materials or roofline every seven units. She also noted that the use of brick at the street level did not allow the applicant to introduce color changes. Mr. Kiersey observed that the buildings along Second and Third streets were too long, too high and too close to the sidewalk; however, he approved of the configuration of the units along Evergreen Street. He said he would prefer to see a design that would provide more views from the street into the interior landscaped area and present less of a "fortress" appearance. He suggested that might be accomplished by eliminating two or three units. Ms. Binkley commented that the monotonous appearance of the project was its worse feature. Ms. Morales advised that the corner and the alley entrance should be of a larger scale to match the scale of the buildings. Ms. Morales and Ms. Binkley acknowledged the applicant's design had sufficiently varied the windows and materials; however, they said they desired to see the same level of variety applied to the scale of the mass. Ms. Morales and Ms. Binkley questioned that the project was sufficiently exceptional to allow a deviation from the Standards that would allow the applicant to use composition roofing materials. Ms. Ostly observed that composition roofing was very functional and economical. Ms. Morales acknowledged that the proposed grade of composition roofing would be appropriate fro the site. Mr. Kiersey agreed that composition roofing was reasonable considering the pitch of the roofs. Ms. Ostly observed that the design of the entryways was not inviting and did not reflect a village sense of close community. Mr. Miller suggested more variety in the style of doors and extent of the recess of the entryways. Ms. Binkley pointed out there was no place to accommodate informal discussions between neighbors, except perhaps from the small decks. Mr. Boone advised the Commission could proceed with the current hearing toward a vote on the application or ask the applicant if they desired to seek a continuance in order to submit alternative drawings. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 7 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 Matt Grady and Barry Cain, Gramor Oregon, Inc., 9895 SE Sunnyside Road, Ste P, Clackamas, OR 97015. The Commissioners asked Mr. Cain whether the applicant was willing to waive the 120 - day time limit. He observed that a redesign of the project or an appeal to the City Council would push construction forward into winter or into the next year. He said he was disappointed and he believed that the design of the applicant's project was more appealing than other recently approved developments in the City, including the townhouse development adjacent to Safeway. He explained that the cost per square foot of the proposed units would be double that of the units at the Safeway location. He asked what the Commissioners had favored in the previously approved plan that they did not see in the applicant's plan. He explained that he did not understand what the applicant could do to make their proposal work for the Commissioners. He asked for examples of row houses that reflected the individuality the Commissioners desired to see. He noted row house style meant the units were consistent in character and he cited the row houses in Portland's Pearl District as a good example of that character. He opined the row houses would look trite if they each reflected a different character. He explained the applicant had spent six months working with the Chamber of Commerce, the neighbors and staff to design the project and he was reluctant to start over. Michael Lee, Sienna Architects, 411 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, asked for more specific suggestions regarding the commercial portion of the project. He indicated he had not heard a consensus in the Commissioners' comments. Ms. Morales recalled the Commissioners had listed items to be addressed. Mr. Lee indicated that if the applicant was to redesign the building they would need sufficient additional time to discuss the modified design with the neighbors and staff. He explained the applicant felt uncertain that they would be able to meet all of the Commissioners' expectations. The applicant agreed to waive the 120 -day time limit after the Commissioners further clarified the issues. The Commissioners and the applicant reviewed the following issues: • Commercial building — second story materials. Ms. Morales clarified that the Commission could agree to the use of brick on the second story if the design included more details that would provide additional definition and contrast to the structure. She recalled the applicant's testimony that the brick detailing only projected 1.5" from the building and she explained that the Commission needed a better picture of the detailing. • Commercial building — roofs. Ms. Morales explained that the Commissioners desired to see a better transition from the building wall to the roof, whether or not the second story was wood or brick. Ms. Binkley commented that the current design made the building appear to be top-heavy. Ms. Morales suggested that if a model of the structure were presented it would help the Commission members to envision the completed building. She clarified that the Commissioners were looking for a "village" character, with rooflines that conformed to the design standards. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 8 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 Commercial building — detailing. Clock and scale of brick detailing. Ms. Morales noted the Commissioners favored the scale of the clock as it was illustrated in the perspective drawing and not the scale of the clock as it was illustrated in the elevation drawing. She recalled that the commissioners liked the articulation of the awnings, the breakup of the windows, and the scale that was shown with those elements. She requested that the applicant provide more definition of the building's details. She clarified that their concern was how the design would transition from the building to the roof. She also clarified that the Commissioners favored the materials and colors that had been presented by the applicant. Commercial building — landscaping. Ms. Morales explained that the Commissioners were concerned there was not sufficient open space provided for the townhouses, and the question of whether or not the percentage of landscaping was appropriate was secondary of the issue of the density of the townhouses. She clarified that the Commissioners did not believe that landscaping of the alleyway right-of-way sufficiently mitigated the reduced percentage of landscaping of the project. Townhouses — density and detailing. Ms. Morales acknowledged that the project was originally proposed to include over 80 units. She explained the Commission were concerned with the currently proposed one, fortress -like walls and the reception of the design. She noted that from a distance the units walls appeared to be one massive wall and the Commissioners desired to see a reduction in the mass. Ms. Binkley opined that increased density would be acceptable if there was more variety and open space included in the plan. Ms. Ostly and Mr. Kiersey clarified they believed the project should continue to include townhouses. Ms. Binkley asked for more variation in the massing. Ms. Morales recalled that the Commissioners favored the planned openings on Evergreen Street and desired to see them along Second and Third Streets also. Ms. Ostly advised that might eliminate one or two units. Townhouse — entryways. The Commissioners explained the proposed entries were too repetitive and did not sufficiently reflect an open, friendly, "village" character. They focused on the recessed entries and the proximity of the doors to the sidewalk. They explained that they desired to see entrances that were more individual and inviting. Mr. Grandy explained that although the applicant had decided not to use wood on the second story of the commercial building after discussions with the neighbors and staff they would agree to use wood if the Commission required it. Ms. Morales clarified that the Commissioners desired to see a more detailed transition to the roof, and they could agree to the use of brick on the second story if the resulting roof design did not look so top- heavy. After the applicant asked if the proposed roof was too high, Ms. Binkley pointed out there was a lot of space on the brick wall above the windows that did not feature any City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 9 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 details; the way the roof met the brick wall needed to be transitioned; and the roof was in many pieces. Mr. Grady explained that the roof design featuring multiple pieces was intended to provide a "village" feeling to the building. He agreed that the applicant could design a more cohesive roofline. Ms. Binkley clarified that the variety of roofs was appropriate; however, the currently proposed roof pieces looked like they were simply laid atop the building. Mr. Grady asked if the clock was too large.. Ms. Binkley explained that the clock was sized appropriately in the perspective drawing, but she noted the scale of the clock in the elevation drawing was different than that in the perspective. Mr. Freshly recalled the Code's landscaping requirement applied to the townhouse portion of the project, but did not apply to the commercial building. Ms. Morales recalled testimony that the exceptional design of the alleyway was intended to offset the reduced percentage of landscaping. Mr. Freshly calculated that after the area of alleyway landscaping was included in the calculated percentage of landscaping the total project featured almost 19% landscaped area. Mr. Grady related that the City currently owned the alleyway; however, it was to be vacated in the future and would belong to the project. Mr. Freshly, however, clarified that the upper portion of the alleyway that the applicant was improving would not be vacated. Ms. Morales explained that the issue of the percentage of landscaping was a lower priority issue that was tied to the Commissioners' desire to see more open space for the townhouses. Mr. Grady stressed that a reduction in the number of townhouse units would impact the economics of the project. He recalled the City Council had been reluctant to allow the applicant to reduce the number of units to the number they were currently proposing. He observed that nearby Millennium Park would benefit the residents. He pointed out the applicant's project created value for the City. Ms. Morales explained that the Commissioners were concerned about the large scale and mass of the long wall-like elevation along Second and Third Street; however, they felt the opening and alleyway connection in the building along Evergreen Street, together with the walkway and stepped back landscaping there, was very desirable. She acknowledged that the applicants had stepped the units down the grade; however, she also recalled the Commissioners did not favor the repetition of the roofline as the units moved down the hill. She requested more variation in the design. Ms. Binkley noted the rhythm of the design was the same all the way downhill, and even though the units varied in width, each had the same number of windows, and the same size of doorway. Ms. Morales also pointed out the column of window glass in each unit was the same. The applicant asked if the Commissioners desired to see the units cut up. Ms Morales and Ms. Binkley answered no, they believed variety could be accomplished by doing something different with the roofs, such as stepping them back, and by providing more variety at the garage elevation. Ms. Morales indicated that although the Commissioners favored the split in the building along Evergreen Street, they were not suggesting a similar split would be the only solution to the repetition and massing along the other streets. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 10 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 Ms. Morales clarified for the applicant that the Commissioners desired to see the entryways opened up, so that it did not seem like there was a little brick tunnel for every entry. Ms. Morales announced a five-minute break and reconvened the hearing at 9:00 PM. In response to the applicant's questions, the Commissioners clarified their concerns as follows: Ms. Binkley explained that the detailing of the brickwork and the roof design was not sufficiently exceptional to allow an exception to the guidelines requiring wood on the second story. She continued that the Commissioners were concerned about the massing of the upper floor; the "top-heavy" and arbitrary look of the roofs; and that the roof design did not work well with the rest of the building. She clarified that a successful resolution of the roof design would most likely not be to design one large pitched roof for the building. She said that although she appreciated the variety the applicant was attempting to include in the brick design, the actual detailing would not provide as much depth as the drawing depicted, and the Commissioners desired to see more depth there. Mr. Cushing moved to approve LU 00-0007. Ms. Ostly seconded the motion and it passed with Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing, Mr. Kiersey, Ms. Ostly and Mr. Miller voting yes. Mr. Powers was not present. There were no votes against. Mr. Cushing indicated he would not be able to be present at the July 3, 2000, meeting. Mr. Coffee calculated that a sufficient number of Commissioners would be present for the next hearing if Mr. Powers prepared for it by listening to the tape of the current hearing. Ms. Morales requested the staff to prepare a report that applied the Design Standards to the issues that had been discussed at the hearing. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS Avery Building Signage Mr. Tracy explained the signage at the site was legal because the Code allowed building identification and a lettering "WL Avery Building, ext. 2000" was a permanent fixture, engraved into the building material. He said the monument sign was for the benefit of the tenant of the building. Potential Tree -Cutting Ordinance modifications Mr. Tracy related the City Council was to discuss potential changes to the Tree - Cutting Ordinance on July 5, 2000. They were to discuss recommendations regarding how dead trees area reviewed; the mailed notice requirement; whether the Code should be more species specific; whether to eliminate a criterion that allowed tree removal for City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 11 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000 landscaping purposes; and whether the Commission was the appropriate body to review existing single family residential tree -cutting applications. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair Morales adjourned the meeting at 9:45 PM. Respectfully submitted, Janice Bader Senior Secretary 1:\dre\minutes\06-05-OO.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 12 of 12 Minutes of June 5, 2000